Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
"In his September 8 lecture to Congress, President Obama promised that “every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for.” How? By raising tax rates on “the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.” In other words, the President is proposing a $447 billion tax increase."
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
12 Comments:
Any opinions on the proposed $4,000 tax credit for hiring an unemployed person for at least six months? This would seem to defray the minimum wage employee wages 25 percent. Thus, maybe just lowering the minimum wage 25% would have the same effect, without the IRS paperwork.
Proponents of democracy would be happy with this because 72% of the public supports tax hikes for the rich. The right consists mostly of plutocrats. One dollar one vote, instead of one person one vote. On plutocracy Obama's idea isn't good, but on democracy it is.
Jon
Proponents of democracy would be happy with this because 72% of the public supports tax hikes for the rich.
Just remember, when you advocate silly ideas like this, that incentives matter. Keep repeating it to yourself. Incentives matter.
Gee jon what do YOU consider what rich is?
Name an amount...
I'm content to go with the definition in the poll I offered. 72% said they support raising taxes on those making more than $250K.
It's just interesting to me the outrage at the prospect of democracy. These people really hate democracy. They prefer plutocracy, which is precisely what we have now.
jon-
the whole brilliance of the american constitution lies in it's basis in the inalienable rights of the individual.
such was created precisely to head off the kind of tyranny of the majority you champion.
if 9 of 10 of us voted to take all your money and property and spend it on a keg party, would you feel like that was democracy working?
how is that any different from what you champion?
if 72% of americans favored slavery, would that make it OK?
there are things that a majority should not be permitted to do, else democracy is just another form of tyranny.
So you oppose democracy, morganvich? I presume you oppose our efforts to spread democracy as well. What should we have instead?
Because you're right that in theory on democracy 9 of 10 people could vote to take all my stuff. But there's no reason to think they would. Too many people would probably think that was unjust. However on plutocracy, which is what we have, when the majority oppose the war but the plutocrats prefer it that's what they do. So if democracy is so bad what do you suggest?
Phrases like "tyranny of the majority" are contrived to isolate people so that plutocrats can continue to rule. They fear the common man and don't want him to have a say.
"So you oppose democracy, morganvich? I presume you oppose our efforts to spread democracy as well. What should we have instead?" -- Jon
I oppose it, and so did the Founders. That is why we have a republic with a constitution. You really need to do more reading.
"... when the majority oppose the war but the plutocrats prefer it that's what they do." -- Jon
In fact, the majority supported the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as expressed by the vote of their freely elected representatives in Congress and every opinion poll taken at the time.
What if represenatives don't actually represent the public, but in fact represent corporate interest? Then the fact that they voted for war would not prove that the public supported the war.
In Iraq the public opposed the war at the time. Today in Afghanistan Americans want out now. The government doesn't care.
Heck, our government isn't concerned that Israel executed an unarmed American citizen by shooting him in the head. Turkey, which has stronger democratic institutions apparently, is at least objecting to the fact that Turkish citizens were murdered. Our government doesn't even protect their own citizens when special interests don't permit.
"So you oppose democracy, morganvich? I presume you oppose our efforts to spread democracy as well. What should we have instead?"
I can't answer for morganovich, but I oppose our efforts to spread democracy. Who are you to tell others what kind of political system they should have? You really like that idea of pushing people around, don't you.
As Che pointed out, we have, or should have a constitutional republic. Che is also right that you should read more. You don't seem to understand the value of the rich, or how people become rich. The fact that you gladly, maybe even eagerly make others rich, probably hasn't occured to you. Your only thought seems to be to take from them something they have earned, and is their property, because they don't deserve to keep it for some reason.
"Because you're right that in theory on democracy 9 of 10 people could vote to take all my stuff. But there's no reason to think they would."
Because they could, Jon. People do things because they can. You are asking for a form of tyranny that allows that.
"Too many people would probably think that was unjust."
Only 1 out of 10 would.
In fact 6 out of 10 could vote to take your stuff, or 51 out of 100. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
"However on plutocracy, which is what we have, when the majority oppose the war but the plutocrats prefer it that's what they do. So if democracy is so bad what do you suggest?"
I suggest a return to the small government constitutional republic we started with.
"Phrases like "tyranny of the majority" are contrived to isolate people so that plutocrats can continue to rule. They fear the common man and don't want him to have a say."
Tyranny of the majority is a real phenomenon, Jon. You really do need to read more.
I prefer tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority, which is what you are advocating.
"I prefer tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority, which is what you are advocating."
Actually I prefer no tyranny. I think everyone should do whatever they wish if they don't use force against others. I'm in favor of people being left alone to pursue their own interests without interference by government.
The Founders tried hard to provide a small, very limited constitutional republic, which I'm sure you know, makes it difficult for any part of government to grow stronger at the expense of other parts, and makes it very difficult for a majority interest to prevail. This protects minority interests as much as is possible.
A tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of one person.
Post a Comment
<< Home