Richest Americans are Democrats
I somehow missed this when it was published in 2011. The New American Gazette analyzed the political contributions of the richest Americans and concluded:
An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.
This is from a conservative magazine, so their spin is that Democrats are hypocrites for being against the rich. But from my perspective, this shows that Republicans are stupid for being so ridiculously pro-rich when it comes to tax policy when the richest don’t even vote Republican.
It’s also interesting to note the Republican contributors in the list:
Walton family
Koch family
Sheldon Adelson
Michael Dell
John Paulson
Adelson, Dell and Paulson are all Jewish, so despite anti-Semitic propaganda in the far-right blogosphere accusing all Jews of being worse than communists, we see that among the richest Republicans, the majority are Jewish when looked at from a “family” point of view.
* * *
It is my unproven belief that if one included all of the wives and children of billionaires, that group would be more Democratic than just the billionaires themselves, but there’s probably no way of determining that for certain.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
Paulson’s Dad was a goy.
Nicolai Yezhov
June 9, 2013 at 10:50 PM
A significant percentage of people that anti-Semites label as “Jews” are of dubitable Jewishness.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 9, 2013 at 10:58 PM
I’d be interested to know the amount of Jewish admixture in the Christian or non-Jewish population of either the US or Britain. Any idea of the prevalence of jumping the fence either coerced (Inquisition) or otherwise? Has this been studied to your knowledge? Jefferson had some they say. Koch is a sometimes Jewish name.
Curle
June 9, 2013 at 11:12 PM
This is from a conservative magazine, so their spin is that Democrats are hypocrites for being against the rich.
A 3:2 Democrat ratio is a strong advantage in electoral terms, but not that impressive as regards of influence. If the GOP has 40% of the uber wealthy then the GOP is competitive with the Democrats in terms of money and corporate support. Of course, these GOPers are Country Club Republicans (which is not the same thing as SWPLs, more like Yuppie/Preppy) who don’t care about the social cons. It’s the country club set that is the elite of the GOP, not the Evangelicals. This is why it’s important HBD continue making inroads with country club Republicans like Ross Douthat.
Paulson’s Dad was a goy.
Steve Ballmer is half Swiss and Larry Page is half Anglo American.
A significant percentage of people that anti-Semites label as “Jews” are of dubitable Jewishness.
Even non-antisemites like Charles Murray list partial Jews in lists of prominent Jews without clarifying part Jews are 5% of all white Americans and many foreign born part-Jews like Niels Bohr (half Dutch), Alexandre Grothendieck (half-German) and Gary Kasparov (half-Armenian).
The list of elite part-Jews will grow in coming years since a majority of Ivy Leaguers who identify as Jewish are halfies. And most of the fully Jewish college age students are prole Orthodox Jews who are unlikely to rise as far as secular Jews and part Jews.
The near future American elite will be trust funded Mischlinges, not mulattos.
The Undiscovered Jew
June 9, 2013 at 11:46 PM
The Mischlinge century approaches and I will be there to take advantage of our moment so I can transfer value and social status to myself!
The Undiscovered Jew
June 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Bohr was half-Danish.
nebbish
June 16, 2013 at 12:20 PM
How obtuse. The Democrats ARE pro-rich. Does HS really think the families of the richest 20 people in the U.S. are too stupid to vote in their own interest?
When Democrats talk about “making the wealthy pay their fair share” they aren’t talking about the 20 richest families. Quite the contrary, they are talking TO the proles ABOUT the middle class and their POLICY REFLECTS IT. High income taxes help keep the middle class people who actually work to make money from nipping at the truly rich who don’t.
Republicans don’t need to change their policy; they need to change their rhetoric. When some obscenely rich jackass like Buffet starts advocating higher income taxes on his secretary under the guise of wanting to personally pay more taxes, Republicans should oblige him with taxes that target at HIM rather than middle class wage serfs.
Mercy
Mercy Vetsel
June 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Mercy is absolutely correct about this. This is the one idea that counters all the rhetoric about “taxes for the rich.” Essentially, the tax table is not the tax code. The table determines at what percentage a certain income is taxed. The tax code defines what taxable income is. So many rich people are Democrats who advocate for higher income taxes because they know they won’t be paying those taxes. Their wealth is built on ownership of capital and other forms of existing assets, not on income or salaries they earn on a job. Therefore, they can afford higher income taxes.
You counter this by insisting on taxing the wealth of the rich above a certain threshold, including unrealized capital gains.
map
June 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM
The issues raised on the “far right” are often about policies advocated, not party affiliation. Jennifer Rubin and Pat Buchanan may both be republicans, for example, but there isn’t much overlap in the policies they promote. Buchanan opposes amnesty and Rubin advocates for it; Buchanan opposes foreign military entanglements and Rubin believes Iran is a grave threat to the United States + Israel.
Dave Pinsen
June 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM
First, be careful reading too much into who donates to whom. I made that mistake on my own blog a few months ago in a post praising Adelson. I’ve dug around the donor lists and found it a lot more difficult to understand than one might expect. Most donations are to causes rather than parties. Many donors give to BOTH parties. And quite a few have crossed party lines to support particular candidates or causes. In order to get a feel for what’s gong on you have to dig into the details.
Second, it’s deceptive to list the Waltons and Kochs as 2 people instead of the 6 they really are. And, In spite of being the largest single donor to the GOP last election, Adelson was a lifelong Democrat and claims he still is. He started donating to the GOP in the last few years after a personal falling out with politicians over unions. The issues that motivate him are anti-union, open borders and pro-Israel. That brings the percentage of billionaires who are Jewish and support the GOP to 25%. That’s in line with the percentage of billionaires who are Jewish. Though I would question basing an opinion of a group on what a half a dozen people do even if they are billionaires.
And, third, most people love those on their side and hate those on the other side. However, Jews and Christians are an anomaly on that score. Most Jews are Dem and most Christians are GOP. I think one of the reasons so many Jews are Dems is because so many Republicans are Christian. You’ve said as much on previous posts. On the other hand, Christians are overwhelmingly supportive of Jews in America as well as Israel in spite of many Jews being Dem — and not liking them. So when you mention “anti-semitism” it’s important to understand who’s really prejudiced against whom. Often, alleging “anti-semitism” is like Al Sharpton alleging “racism” in that it says a lot more about him than those he accuses.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 2:36 AM
Democrats had a large ethnic Catholic vote (Poles, Irish, Italians, etc.), and I’m pretty sure they are Christian. And the recent turn towards religious disdain in the Democratic party has occurred since wide-scale Jewish support for the Democratic party.
It could be argued that this disdain is fueled by the prominence that Jewish leaders have in the party, but I’m not about to make that argument. I’m more inclined that the rise of the baby boomers, with their enjoyment of casual sex, drugs, and other hedonistic pleasures, has caused this.
Half Canadian
June 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM
“Christians are overwhelmingly supportive of Jews in America as well as Israel in spite of many Jews being Dem”
The only reason evangelicals express support for Israel and Jews is because they see the State of Israel as a sign of the End Times & they believe once the temple mount is restored Jesus will return. At which point, of course, all Jews will finally believe in Jesus.
There is also a vein of distaste for Islam & Muslims which makes evangelicals side with Jews (if forced to choose between the two). And of course Muslims are getting in the way of the temple mount being restored.
Beneath that surface “support” you will find plenty of sentiment identifiable as antisemitism though it’s kept under wraps.
islandmommy
June 10, 2013 at 12:35 PM
@ islandmommy
What you’ve just stated is a canard Jews use to prop up and justify anti-Christian bigotry. It actually borders on conspiracy theory. I’m an atheist but I grew up in the Bible belt and am very familiar with evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc. They’re sincere but naive. If they knew how a lot of Jews really felt about them they wouldn’t be so supportive.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 3:28 PM
I would beg to disagree. I’ve spent a great deal of time with evangelicals and have attended more than a few so-called megachurches and any “support for Israel” revolves tightly around End Times prophecy. You are correct, jews don’t have much respect for christianity, with the sentiments increasingly caustic toward the orthodox and ultra-orthodox end of the spectrum, but that’s a separate issue.
islandmommy
June 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM
@ islandmommy
“Megachurches” are a relatively new phenomenon. As is the recent wave of “christian zionism”. I don’t know where it came from but it’s only been around a few years. It’s not traditional. It’s not mainstream. And a lot of denominations have denounced it as heresy. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t attend megachurches and aren’t “christian zionists”. If you think it’s representative then you’re mistaken.
destructure
June 11, 2013 at 1:56 AM
But from my perspective, this shows that Republicans are stupid for being so ridiculously pro-rich when it comes to tax policy when the richest don’t even vote Republican.
Would the Dem billionaires vote GOP if they changed their tax policies? Or would they simply lose the few billionaires who currently support them?
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 3:28 AM
the Koch family is not Jewish.
Zoink
June 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Ed Koch, Jewish. That founder of Samuel Adams isn’t. Alfred Rosenberg, not Jewish. The Rosenbergs who sold the H-bomb secrets were. Etc.
Nicolai Yezhov
June 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM
What americans think of as Jewish names are just a subset of central and eastern european names, mainly German and Russian. I believe Koch, Rubin, and Rosenberg are all German.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 8:36 PM
You’re right.
My Mom’s RC Mom initially thought my Dad was Jewish even though the name is Swiss German and famous among RCs.
Even worse it starts with “Ben”.
Nicolai Yezhov
June 11, 2013 at 7:28 PM
Oh I see, Michael Dell is.
Zoink
June 10, 2013 at 5:16 AM
Sheldon Adelson or the Waltonareis not really Republicans but just a supporter of ever cheaper labor. One of the reason that the Republican Party is irrelevant today is that too many Republican politicians have been chasing donations form open border, cheap labor advocates like Sheldon Adelson or the Waltons.
You are correct is that the Republicans are irrelevant because they have pursued policy that were beneficial to big donors like Adelson instead of doing what would be best for the middle class whites who are the most loyal Republican voters.
superdestroyer
June 10, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Lion. What do you think of Edward Snowden’s prole background? Community college, GED, military service? He sure doesn’t look it.
IHTG
June 10, 2013 at 8:12 AM
200k/year with that background? Wow.
Half Canadian
June 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM
He’s got weird facial hair.
Nicolai Yezhov
June 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM
which party has the higher number of poor folks?
bobo
June 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Degree is just as important as number.
de Broglie
June 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM
The core of the Republican Party consists of doctors, dentists, small business owners, corporate executives — and toothless redneck gun clingers and home-schooled fundamentalist Christians. Micro-analyzing the party loyalties of the 20 richest Americans is beside the point.
Mark Caplan
June 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Off topic, but I’m hoping Lion would write a post about this:
I ate at Aria in the W. Village on Saturday evening. Loud, dimly lit Italian restaurant where most people sit at a bar. Food was good, 1/2 of the clientele were Sex-in-the-City girls. I choked on the smugness in the air.
Anyway, I noticed on the bar wall a huge painting of Obama, staring in the distance with determination on his face. It just came across as completely creepy to me, having this huge painting of Obama on the wall, who is being similarly depicted like Stalin or Mao Zedong. I pointed it out to my girlfriend, who instantly had a slightly mesmerized look on her face. When I added “Our Lord and savior has returned, the Messiah”, she shot me a look like I just said the worst thing in the world.
Does anybody find the deification of Obama really creepy?
DdR
June 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Early 2009 I went on a date with a girl I had met online. The date was mostly forgettable, but I do recall one thing quite well. As we were leaving the coffee shop she mentioned, with a smile on her face and some light in her eyes that, “Mr. Obama is speaking tonight”. It came across as rather weird and creepy to me that this girl was very excited watch a presidential address on TV, and the fact that she said Mr. Obama as opposed to just the President or Obama.
Average Man
June 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM
My mom is like that too. She snuggles up in bed with her kindle to watch his speeches. Very, very weird.
islandmommy
June 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM
I noticed it too. It’s like that scene in Inception when everybody in the dream notices you’re an outsider and now see you as the enemy.
¡Heil Obama!
Clash1e
June 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM
I wonder sometimes if every white woman is secretly into black guys.
Nicolai Yezhov
June 10, 2013 at 4:28 PM
You should have checked the chair when she got up to see if it was . . . well you know. I went to an Obama rally once with a friend (for the tourist experience). We were surrounded by young women and they were reacting like teenyboppers at a Beatles concert . . . you know, the concerts where seat cushions were regularly soaked? Do the math.
Curle
June 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Warren Buffett’s advocacy of higher income taxes for the rich aligns quite nicely with his self interest.
Buffett’s story in this 21st century is not about income. It is about assets. Higher taxes on the income of ‘high earners’ shores up the government balance sheet and helps Buffett in several ways:
(1) relieves downward pressure on the stock market that comes from a govt. balance sheet deficit
(2) reduces the risk of inflation, which hurts Buffett’s assets
(3) reduces the risk of a ‘wealth’ tax, which has been applied in many countries and which Buffett has escaped so far.
Buffett’s advocacy of higher income taxes is a classic example of a guy reaching the top and training his cannons on the strivers below him. Buffett has geared his whole life around tax avoidance by avoiding creation of taxable gains, by retaining assets in holding companies and never selling these highly appreciated assets, decade upon decade. In the case of the BRK holding company, he has held for fifty-one years, at about 1,000,000% appreciation, without a sale.
I think it is likely that Buffett has paid less personal income tax than any of the 25 or so Americans after him on the Forbes list, and probably less taxes than high earners like Oprah who aren’t even in his league.
Dan
June 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Buffett is giving all his money away to charity, so by his actions he demonstrated he doesn’t NEED the money for himself or his heirs.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM
He’s donating something like 99%. That leaves a cool $500 million or so for heirs.
anon
June 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM
How nice of him to deny us that choice.
If Buffett wanted to pay more taxes, he could:
1) Make donations to the US Treasury. There is a process for this.
2) Be paid an actual salary, rather than stock options.
That he does neither of these supports the notion that he’s all talk.
Half Canadian
June 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM
He donated all his money to charity to demonstrate that he doesn’t need the personal wealth. What more demonstration does he need to do? There is no reason to conclude anything else but that he sincerely believes that people like him should pay more taxes.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Half Canadian: The fact that he is willing to make a sacrifice as part of a larger group effort but not futilely as an individual does not make him a hypocrite. Im willing to pay taxes along with everyone else but I would not pay them if taxes were totally voluntary and all I would be doing is supporting free riders. This is an area where group and individual interests and right wingers and libertarians are doomed to look like idiots whenever they open their mouths.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Half Canadian: The fact that he is willing to make a sacrifice as part of a larger group effort but not futilely as an individual does not make him a hypocrite. Im willing to pay taxes along with everyone else but I would not pay them if taxes were totally voluntary and all I would be doing is supporting free riders. This is a classic area where group and individual interests diverge and right wingers and libertarians are therefore doomed to look like idiots whenever they open their mouths and try to claim that individual choice is any kind of solution.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM
He donated all his money to charity to demonstrate that he doesn’t need the personal wealth. What more demonstration does he need to do? There is no reason to conclude anything else but that he sincerely believes that people like him should pay more taxes.
I’d like him to stop engaging in tax-avoidance behaviors. Take an honest salary, for instance.
Part of his wealth is based on the inheritance tax. He buys small-to-mid businesses from people who don’t/can’t pay the inheritance tax without selling their business (or taking out a sizable loan). People argue that the inheritance tax prevents the rich from getting richer, but do you see evidence of that?
Half Canadian
June 11, 2013 at 11:29 AM
As long as he’s not violating the law, he’s entitled as anyone else to minimize his federal taxes.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Buffett still wants more money for himself. Its a game for him and yes, he donates it to charity (a big deal it’s true and thanks sincerely for doing that Warren) but on his own terms. He competes fiercely to have to biggest pile in order to win his version of the game of life. His authorized biographer of ‘Snowball’ basically said so. Buffett was displeased with the characterization and disowned author Alice Schroeder even though he had spent 2000 hours with her in preparation for the book.
One of the best things I learned from that book was that part of Buffett’s seed money as a young boy came from selling his sister’s bicycle while she was away. Since this should be paid back with interest I believe she is owed ten billion dollars give or take.
Dan
June 10, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I agree that Buffetts kindly grandfather schtick is just that. He reminds me a lot of the Mom character on Futurama in that way. But, while I don’t know what your personal policy preferences are, your argument is almost always used to argue for policies that are even worse for non plutocrats than Buffett’s proposals are.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM
If Buffett is a bad guy, and all other billionaires are bad guys, then why not raise their taxes?
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM
I think they should pay higher taxes. I was just commenting that people like Dan who criticize Buffett’s plan as being too protective of wealthy people’s interests always seem to end up suggesting as alternatives plans that are even more protective of people like Buffett. It’s a faux populism that gets under my skin.
Also I don’t think Buffett is necessarily as bad guy I just think the act he puts on is ridiculous.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Lion, you should do a post on the recent NPR program “When Patents Attack Pt.2”. It detailed the patent troll company owned by ultra bobo Nathan Myhrvold. It’s got everything.
asdf
June 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM
If the wealthy were sincere on paying their fair share, and either party wanted to do something about income inequality, they would propose a wealth tax on estates valued over $5 million. Make it an annual 1 or 2%. This would shut them up pretty quickly. It would also do something about wealth inequality as the recent troubles have not been as much annual income generation being horribly skewed but more in actual wealth held.
SOBL1
June 10, 2013 at 11:43 AM
@ SOBL1
I’d like to see a Hall–Rabushka flat tax replace our current system. That would be several % higher than the wealthy currently pay. I strongly support your suggestion of a small annual wealth tax of 1-2% on top of it. But $5M is way too low. Maybe have 1% for those over $25M, 1.5% for those over $50M, 2% for those over $100M and 3% for those over $1B. The higher up you go the harder it should be to rest on your family’s laurels. It’s not about soaking the rich but paring back a little of that compound interest that turns $100M into $1B without lifting a finger. I don’t mind someone having $100M or even $1B. And I’m all for some people starting out a little ahead. But the current situation has created an elitist aristocracy. Some of one’s net worth should come because they earned it and not because their great grandfather earned it and their great grandmother screwed for it.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Thanks. I’m all for encouragin wealth creation and investment, but the current system is horrendous. I’m all for negotitions on my idea. I start at $5 mil and 2% because the revenue it generates is staggering (several hundred bil) and would get “them” to negotiate higher and play with the %. It becomes rich vs. sort of rich. The self serving Trump even proposed an idea like this because as he put it, many people int he $5-10 mil range would suddenly invest in businesses to drop below the threshold, which would put money back into the economy. Of course, Trump is the king of levering himself up and using his net worth, but it’s at least some honesty from a born rich guy. I’m being honest, if ever a candidate for Governor I would propose this.
Look at the charts, it’s not income as much as wealth disparities that need to be addressed. This idea also tackles the problem of the rich knowing how to hide wealth or channel it into lower taxed avenues (hedgies). I’d also change estate set up and laws at the same time to catch people trying to avoid it. I’d also add in a sales tax. Get the lumpenproles who dotn pay any incoem tax but buy $150 sneakers. This is my attack the Left Barbell voters strategy.
SOBL1
June 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Either merge capital income with earned income and apply our progressive code to total income, or just adopt a flat-tax. Neither will happen because the truly wealthy like Buffet make most of their money from capital, so they’ll keep their tax benefits.
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
June 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Those two proposals, treating capital gains like earned income and adopting a flat tax, would have two totally opposite results and I don’t understand why you lumped the two of them together as somehow equivalent.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM
@ reynald
aki said either/or. And they wouldn’t have opposite effects. Both would raise the tax rate on the wealthy relative to the middle class. Currently, the wealthy pay a lower overall tax rate. Which kind of shoots the hole in LotB’s theory that the wealthy want higher taxes. If the wealthy really wanted higher taxes they’d have higher taxes.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM
The Republicans don’t let the Democrats raise taxes for the richest rich.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 2:32 PM
The wealthy do not currently pay a lower rate even with our capital gains rate. We have a progressive system. Going from a progressive tax to a flat would lower rates on the wealthy.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM
“He donated all his money to charity to demonstrate that he doesn’t need the personal wealth. What more demonstration does he need to do?”
He could decide not to take deductions, or voluntarily over-pay [the office that handles this is in WV] if he wanted to pay higher taxes. He could even make direct payments to some government departments like schools. Revealed preference shows use Buffet doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. If he did, he would.
“There is no reason to conclude anything else but that he sincerely believes that people like him should pay more taxes.”
No. Just, no LOTB. You’re incredibly wrong.
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
June 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Is there anyone who voluntarily pays higher taxes? Why hold Buffett to a different standard than anyone else? He has more money than he needs as demonstrated by giving it away to charity, so he won’t be hurt if some of that charity money is redirected to the government.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM
The fact that he is willing to make a sacrifice as part of a larger group effort but not futilely as an individual does not make him a hypocrite. Is anyone stupid enough to think that we should just have all taxes be voluntary? Then why should tax rate increases be?
This is a classic area where group and individual interests diverge and the sheer idiocy of right wing/libertarian economic thought can’t help but reveal itself
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM
This is a classic area where group and individual interests diverge and the sheer idiocy of right wing/libertarian economic thought can’t help but reveal itself — reynald
On the contrary, this is where your socialist contradiction reveals itself. No one really wants higher taxes for himself. And no one would voluntarily join a group where his money is taken from him and redistributed to others. If they would then you’d have lots of communes in free market countries. There’s no law against having them. But do you see people lining up to join them? No. That’s why it can only be done by force — which you acknowledge. But if it’s done by force then who would it be controlling that force — the peasants or the aristocracy? So your preferred system would create the opposite of your preferred goal by increasing the power and influence the wealthy have over the poor. And do you think they’re going to use it to help the poor or to help themselves? We both know the answer to that.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM
People want to rise in the status hierarchy, and some people are smart enough to realize that if everyone’s taxes are raised equally then everyone’s place in the hierarchy is the same, so there’s no loss in status.
The richest of the rich understand this better than people earning just $100K who are more easily deluded into thinking that it’s the tax system that’s holding them back from having the lifestyle of their $110K-earning neighbor.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 3:12 PM
@ LotB
I realize doubling the tax rates on everyone conserves the status hierarchy. It also gives the wealthy more power via the government. So they actually come out ahead. Some may want to help the poor but it’s not really altruism. Altruism is when you take a personal sacrifice for the good of the team. Most wealthy aren’t doing that and would do everything they could to lower their own taxes. Of course, you can argue that everyone wants to lower their taxes but the difference is the hypocrisy. Trying to raise taxes while lowering one’s own isn’t altruism — it’s moral masturbation.
PS: Your comments only allow nesting 2 deep. Past that we can’t tell who you’re responding to unless you address the person.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM
“PS: Your comments only allow nesting 2 deep.”
I didn’t program WordPress. Overall, it’s a LOT better than TypePad.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Destructure: As someone who thinks of themselves as a populist I really don’t appreciate your faux populism that says that since the influence of the wealthy often have undue influence on the government (a valid point) that therefore we should abandon government in favor of markets where money rules above all else and there are not even any attempts to check the influence of the wealthy (an insane point). It’s a position that violates its own premises and is nonsensical.
Many of your points are simply inaccurate. People in free market democracies do voluntarily join communes, individually give their money away to those poorer than themselves, advocate to have their taxes raised so that they can collectively transfer money to those poorer than themselves, and move to jurisdictions in which their tax burden increases and their wealth is transferred to those poorer than themselves.
I will admit that these things are not that common since people are fundamentally selfish and that historically the great driver of change in these matters is the threat of revolution and the wealthy being forced to choose between losing some of their money to a softer form of capitalism or losing everything in a revolution.
But of course none of that is at all relevant to what I said because my whole point was that it is stupid to assume that individual and group interests are the same and that what is best for a group can be derived from every individual doing what he thinks is best for himself. So talking about how individuals trying to maximizes their own well being tends towards more libertarian/right wing economic outcomes and that therefore those outcomes are superior just shows you didn’t understand what I said.
Surely you agree that we are better of with some form of government. And surely you agree that taxes to fund that government must be collected by force otherwise there is a free rider problem whereby each rational individual will not themselves pay taxes. If you can understand that than you can understand the crux of what I am saying which is that there are situations where what is that outcomes that are best for the group cannot always be achieved by each individual in that group rationally pursuing their own interest.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM
@ reynald
that therefore we should abandon government in favor of markets where money rules above all else and there are not even any attempts to check the influence of the wealthy
The first part is a straw man. I never said we should abandon government.
The second part is also a straw man. I haven’t said we shouldn’t check the influence of the wealthy.
**
And surely you agree that taxes to fund that government must be collected by force otherwise there is a free rider problem whereby each rational individual will not themselves pay taxes.
Yes. But the role of government is to perform vital functions such national defense and courts not wealth redistribution. If it’s wrong for the individual to steal to steal then it should be wrong for the individual to elect a government to steal on his behalf.
destructure
June 12, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Roughly speaking, income tax penalizes value creation. Capital gains tax penalizes value transference. The problem is the former is much greater than the latter, and Buffet seems to encourage that.
I don’t agree with a wealth tax though. Your wealth is your own and the government should keep their hands off it. Even property tax is offensive to me. Sales tax is a good option.
smartandwise
June 10, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Charities are nothing but tax scams.
map
June 10, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
“This is a classic area where group and individual interests diverge and the sheer idiocy of right wing/libertarian economic thought can’t help but reveal itself” Free Market presumes egoism, charity presumes altruism. So a free market with charity is a squaring the circle.
oogenhand
June 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Charity has its place but you also need laws so that self interest can be channeled properly
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM
@ reynald
Oh yeah? And who decides when it’s “channeled properly”? You? See, that’s the thing — I DON’T LIKE HOW IT’S BEING CHANNELED RIGHT NOW!
What you want is to take others’ money and use it to impose your own self-righteous views and opinions on society.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM
The vast majority believe that the government needs to spend on military, police, roads, court system, schools.
For that matter there’s a vast majority behind Social Security and Medicare. Try to find a mainstream politician who’s against Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans argued that they were opposed to Obamacare because it would hurt Medicare.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Ideally a government of the people, by the people and for the people decides. Also much of what i mean by laws that channel self interest means really uncontroversial things like laws against murder and theft. But when it comes to things like financial market regulation you need values and goals (which like not wanting murder and theft are subjective) and then structuring regulation such that when people act in a self interested manner we get the outcomes we want.
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Ideally a government of the people, by the people and for the people decides. — reynald
Government derives it’s authority from the rights of the people. Therefore, the government should have no rights that the individual doesn’t have. The individual has the right to defend his life, liberty and property. Therefore, he can elect government to defend his life, liberty and property on his behalf. But the individual doesn’t have the right to take another person’s property. How, then, can one elect government to forcibly take the property of another? That’s not government by the people. That’s the road to serfdom.
destructure
June 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM
I don’t agree that governments should be limited that way. I think your first statement is ambiguous and it’s not clear that it implies the second. But I think that’s a pointless debate I’m curious what is it that you believe the government IS allowed to do?
reynald
June 10, 2013 at 8:32 PM
I think your first statement is ambiguous and it’s not clear that it implies the second. — reynald
Then let me rephrase it.
Government derives it’s authority from the consent of the governed. The governed can not grant their government any powers they do not themselves posses as individuals.
Do you agree with that? Because the only alternative is a government which does NOT derive it’s authority from the consent of the government. That’s a dictatorship..
destructure
June 12, 2013 at 10:57 PM
So how to make billionaires vote FOR less govt. spending, more border security?? How do Dems benefit if our gov goes BROKE? Are Dems clinically insane?
DC Handgun Info
June 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM