The Social Contract

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This week President Obama said the obvious: that wealthy Americans, many of whom pay remarkably little in taxes, should bear part of the cost of reducing the long-run budget deficit. And Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan responded with shrieks of “class warfare.”

It was, of course, nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich from bearing any of the burden of making our finances sustainable, who are waging class war.

As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.

So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?

To be fair, there is argument about the extent to which government policy was responsible for the spectacular disparity in income growth. What we know for sure, however, is that policy has consistently tilted to the advantage of the wealthy as opposed to the middle class.

Some of the most important aspects of that tilt involved such things as the sustained attack on organized labor and financial deregulation, which created huge fortunes even as it paved the way for economic disaster. For today, however, let’s focus just on taxes.

The budget office’s numbers show that the federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes, which itself runs counter to the rhetoric you hear from the usual suspects. But that burden has fallen much more, as a percentage of income, for the wealthy. Partly this reflects big cuts in top income tax rates, but, beyond that, there has been a major shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax — the main tax paid by most workers — has gone up.

And one consequence of the shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work is the creation of many situations in which — just as Warren Buffett and Mr. Obama say — people with multimillion-dollar incomes, who typically derive much of that income from capital gains and other sources that face low taxes, end up paying a lower overall tax rate than middle-class workers. And we’re not talking about a few exceptional cases.

According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, one-fourth of those with incomes of more than $1 million a year pay income and payroll tax of 12.6 percent of their income or less, putting their tax burden below that of many in the middle class.

Now, I know how the right will respond to these facts: with misleading statistics and dubious moral claims.

On one side, we have the claim that the rising share of taxes paid by the rich shows that their burden is rising, not falling. To point out the obvious, the rich are paying more taxes because they’re much richer than they used to be. When middle-class incomes barely grow while the incomes of the wealthiest rise by a factor of six, how could the tax share of the rich not go up, even if their tax rate is falling?

On the other side, we have the claim that the rich have the right to keep their money — which misses the point that all of us live in and benefit from being part of a larger society.

Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer who is now running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts, recently made some eloquent remarks to this effect that are, rightly, getting a lot of attention. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,”

, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the “social contract” that provides a decent, functioning society in which they can prosper.

Which brings us back to those cries of “class warfare.”

Republicans claim to be deeply worried by budget deficits. Indeed, Mr. Ryan has called the deficit an “existential threat” to America. Yet they are insisting that the wealthy — who presumably have as much of a stake as everyone else in the nation’s future — should not be called upon to play any role in warding off that existential threat.

Well, that amounts to a demand that a small number of very lucky people be exempted from the social contract that applies to everyone else. And that, in case you’re wondering, is what real class warfare looks like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/krugman-the-social-contract.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-TSC-092311-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Social Contract. Ha, now that's hilarious.

I have no obligation to you, just as you have no obligation to me.

Sorry, we can play this game all day long, but it's absurd to compare RISK to normal income/taxation.

You can't lump in capital gains with regular income taxes. It's not the same.

Why should the wealthy pay more in "payroll taxes" that fund BS programs like medicare, social security, and medicaid. Those are programs they will never touch in their lifetime, yet we want to raise the percentage? What a load of #######.

There are changes needed to the system, but the tax code for individuals is the last thing that needs to change right now.

As far as "corporate" taxes - those need to be LOWERED on most corporations. Because most of those EVIL corporations aren't the "Big" ones you're referring to when using that word.

[slim 1,525]

Shut the government down. We'll use facebook.

[Danno 1,228]

Social Contract?

I thought "contract" meant when two or more parties willingly enter an agreement?

Of course maybe you are using it in the context of:

"The Mob took out a contract on him and his people".

[xebec 195]

I agree that it is absolutely true that we should be focused, at this time in our nation's history, on the social contract. Problem with the above piece is that it's written by someone who has absolutley no clue what that contract is. This caught my attention:

"Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer who is now running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts, recently made some eloquent remarks to this effect that are, rightly, getting a lot of attention. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,” she declared, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the “social contract” that provides a decent, functioning society in which they can prosper."

Our social contract deliniates a limited federal government, confined in its size and the scope of its power by the constitution (see the 10th amendment...this will shed some light on the real problem here). Now the socialist and neo-marxists whine about the fact that Americans do what they do best....make money, and use that money for their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Of course real Americans resist the attempts of parasitic (appropriate in this case....notice "Elizabeth is attempting to lay claim to the fruits of other people's labor) liberals to guilt the nations entrepeneurs into surrendering their resources to the bottomless pits of unconstitutional social engineering schemes cooked up by opportunist politicians.

Edited September 23, 2011 by xebec

[Danno 1,228]

I agree that it is absolutely true that we should be focused, at this time in our nation's history, on the social contract. Problem with the above piece is that it's written by someone who has absolutley no clue what that contract is. This caught my attention:

"Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer who is now running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts, recently made some eloquent remarks to this effect that are, rightly, getting a lot of attention. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,” she declared, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the “social contract” that provides a decent, functioning society in which they can prosper."

Our social contract deliniates a limited federal government, confined in its size and the scope of its power by the constitution (see the 10th amendment...this will shed some light on the real problem here). Now the socialist and neo-marxists whine about the fact that Americans do what they do best....make money, and use that money for their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Of course real Americans resist the attempts of parasitic (appropriate in this case....notice "Elizabeth is attempting to lay claim to the fruits of other people's labor) liberals to guilt the nations entrepeneurs into surrendering their resources to the bottomless pits of unconstitutional social engineering schemes cooked up by opportunist politicians.

And the unfortunate thing is how often these "Schemes do more harm to society than they do good".... but just name one they back off of, instead it just needs "More investment".