The Oaks and the Maples

by: Adam L

Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:30:00 AM EST

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

I've written a lot about class warfare (as have many others), and how Governor Christie has put forth a class warfare agenda. Sadly, in this case, the sunlight represents very real things such as food, and it isn't just a metaphor, as many New Jerseyans are struggling to pay for food, housing, healthcare and other basic necessities. Tax cuts, in addition to being a horrible stimulator of the economy, don't help families when they have little to no income as is and need a job, help with their mortgage or affordable health care instead of pennies more in their paycheck (if they even have one). These pennies will of course go right to the credit card companies, the oil companies and other corporate entities, continuing the upward redistribution of wealth.

more below the fold

Adam L :: The Oaks and the Maples

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

Meanwhile, as Christie continues to cut taxes for the super rich and Congressmen like Scott Garrett push for more tax cuts for the top 5% (tax cuts that aren't being paid for, except maybe with cuts to "entitlements" like social security and Medicare), back in Washington, there are "deficit commissions" that talk about raising the retirement age, cutting benefits but no raising taxes on the rich or eliminating corporate tax loopholes. And today, an "alternative bipartisan" deficit cutting plan would cut income tax rates (especially on the rich) and impose a highly regressive sales tax to make up for it - on the backs of the lower to middle income families. It would also "strengthen" social security by eliminating all contributions for one year, and "slowly increase the wage limit".

Now, the social security limit has remained the same ($106,800) for 3 years - the first time in as long as I can remember. There is no talk of a donut hole to impose the tax on income over, say, $250,000. And, just like here in NJ, very little that would show that the "shared sacrifice" is actually shared by the very few who can actually afford to sacrifice a little and still be quite comfortable.

It must be good to be an oak.

**********

Hat tip to Rush for the most excellent song, lyrics and metaphor.

Tags: middle class, debt commission, deficit, Chris Christie, class warfare, Rush, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

The Oaks and the Maples | 4 comments

Could you please explain a few things to me... (0.00 / 0)

-When did Christie cut taxes for the rich?

-How exactly is wealth redistributed upward? Last time I checked the government isn't taking poor people's money and giving it to the rich.

Also, I must have missed it when Christie made any comments about class warfare. Your post reaks of class warfare though.

by: cwood123 @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 16:08:56 PM UTC

for starters (4.00 / 1)

I said I was writing about class warfare, and how Christie's agenda is one of class warfare. Perhaps reading what I wrote here and what I wrote in the past instead of talking about how my post reeks of class warfare would be helpful.

Which, by the way, it was supposed to do, since I am pointing out things that are obviously uncomfortable truths. You can check actual data about the wealth redistribution over the past 10 years, or the past 40 if you want to back that far. Look at wages, accumulated wealth, tax benefits over the past ten years - however you want to slice it, that is a fact supported by all available data.

So, back to your first 2 questions: Christie let an income tax on people earning over $400K expire, thereby cutting their taxes. At a time when there is a huge deficit - this alone costs close to $1 billion. Which is also shouldered by the increased fees on mass transit and cuts to the earned income tax credit - not to mention many other fee and cost increases and service cuts to lower and middle income families.

Some shared sacrifice.

And how wealth is redistributed upwards? Well, let's start with the data I refer to above, which you can find easily with a google search or 2. But I'll make it simple too - a tax cut for lower or middle class families goes to pay credit card bills, for gasoline, for food or other necessities - and who owns those companies?

On the other hand, a recent study came out (maybe by Bloomberg) indicating that the wealthy keep their tax cuts instead of "creating jobs" like free market proponents like to claim.

So tax cuts to the poor and middle class get spent on bills or for necessities and not saved - thereby being given to credit card companies or oil companies or insurance companies, etc. And tax cuts for the wealthy get pocketed instead of put back into the economy.

It's that simple that even a conservative can understand it.

****
I was out at a tax conference all day today, otherwise I would have replied earlier.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

by: Adam L @ Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 00:06:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

my response (0.00 / 0)

There is no denying it that in this country (and the majority of others around the world) the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But in my opinion (I'm not an economist) this has more to do with the global nature of business, the cheap labor around the world, internet and computing age, and ease of sending, shipping, and tracking ideas and products around the world that has shaped the world the last 20 or so years. (none of these trends are reversable)

I would argue that tax cuts may have helped a little but I just think people who are rich (self made) are rich because they are smart with their money and know how to use it to gain wealth. People who are poor and receive a lot of money (such as athletes, lottery winners, etc) the majority of the time find ways to lose it all.

As far as NJ and Christie are concerned, I believe the tax surcharge expired before he took office and then he vetoed the democrats bill to extend it for a year. I support Christie's decision because while I agree with you about how rich and poor people treat the money they keep through tax cuts differently, I believe that NJ needs to make itself more business friendly to attract private industry growth and jobs. NJ is competing with every state to keep and attract businesses and the high tax rates definitely don't help.

As far as federal taxes are concerned. I support Schumer's idea to only raise taxes on people making $1 million or more in income. I believe this will significantly effect less small business owner and would still provide the government with a majority of the tax revenue.

by: cwood123 @ Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 15:13:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fair enough..... (0.00 / 0)

although (and I am sure we will go round and around on this a few times), I think that people have some obligation to make sure that the government that takes care of them (at the higher income levels) and allows them to get to where they are wealth wise - and a lot of that is by chance and not by "hard work" is paid back to some degree.

It is a social contract that works both ways and an obligation, because if there is an increasing wealth disparity, that hurts everyone at all elvels.

I also support Schumer's idea, and dont; know that $250K or $400K or $700K is the "cutoff". But there does need to be a point where the "rich" start kicking in more. Probably a lot more but not nearly as much as they will.

I look forward to you being around here and talking/debating more!

welcome to Blue Jersey--

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

by: Adam L @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 05:09:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]