Fox News anchors, contributors falsely assert, repeatedly, that Obama's tax credit plan gives money to people who don't pay taxes
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: In recent days, Fox News anchors and contributors have falsely asserted, repeatedly, that people who don't pay taxes would be eligible for a $500 individual tax credit included in President-elect Barack Obama's proposed economic recovery plan, echoing an oft-repeated myth from the presidential campaign that Obama's proposed tax cuts would go to people who don't pay taxes. In fact, Obama has proposed a tax credit for working Americans, meaning they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.
In recent days, Fox News anchors and contributors have falsely asserted, repeatedly, that people who don't pay taxes would be eligible for a $500 individual tax credit included in President-elect Barack Obama's proposed economic recovery plan. In fact, Obama has proposed giving the tax credit to "working families," which means they pay Social Security and Medicare taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Additionally, The New York Times reported in a January 4 article that Obama's proposals "include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses."
Media Matters for America previously documented that on January 6, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith falsely claimed that Obama's proposed tax cuts would go to "people who don't pay taxes." Since then, Fox News Washington deputy managing editor Bill Sammon, Fox News anchors Megyn Kelly, Trace Gallagher, and Gretchen Carlson, and Fox News contributor Cheryl Casone have promulgated the falsehood, which echoes the often-repeated myth from the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama's proposed tax cuts would go to people who don't pay taxes.
In a January 8 speech, Obama stated that his proposed tax credit will go to working Americans, saying, "To get people spending again, 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut -- the first stage of a middle-class tax cut that I promised during the campaign and will include in our next budget." The January 4 Times article reported that Obama's proposals "include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses." The article later stated:
About half of that would go to workers under what Mr. Obama during his campaign called the Making Work Pay credit, worth up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. The Obama campaign estimated that about 150 million Americans making less than $200,000 would qualify, including those who make too little to pay federal income taxes but would receive a check that would offset Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
Indeed, the "Making Work Pay" tax credit Obama included in his economic proposal during the presidential race would provide a "tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family":
This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. The tax credit will also provide relief to self-employed small business owners who struggle to pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit offsets some of this selfemployment tax as well.
Additionally, consumers in the United States are required to pay federal excise taxes, including 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline. U.S. residents are also subject to state taxes, such as sales, income, and property taxes.
- Bill Sammon
During the January 9 edition of America's Newsroom, Sammon said of Obama's proposal: "[S]ome of it is giving $500 checks to people who don't pay taxes. That's obviously not a tax cut. That's a spending program. Republicans don't like that aspect of it. They think it's too much of a spending program."
- Megyn Kelly, Cheryl Casone
During the January 8 edition of America's Newsroom, Kelly falsely claimed of Obama's proposed tax credit: "They're not all tax cuts, however, because some people who don't pay taxes are going to get money." Kelly later said to Casone, "[L]et me ask you about these tax cuts. Are they really tax cuts, or are they -- or is it welfare for some people?" Casone responded: "Well you're talking about the low-income earners. There has been estimates that it could be about $500 for those low-income folks. So that has been floated out there already as these discussions are ongoing." When Kelly interjected, "[B]ut explain why that's controversial," Casone replied, "That is controversial because of many low-income earners do not pay taxes, as you mentioned, but they still will be getting checks in the mail -- that rebate."
- Trace Gallagher
During the January 8 edition of The Live Desk, while discussing Obama's proposal with Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Gallagher asked: "Are these really tax cuts, or are these -- is this actually just more welfare spending?" Gallagher added, "If you're giving people money who didn't pay into the tax system, that becomes a different ballgame altogether." Garrett responded: "It's a totally different ballgame, because what it is, is a redistribution of wealth."
- Gretchen Carlson
During the January 9 edition of Fox & Friends, after co-host Steve Doocy said of Obama's proposal, "[T]here's also the component where, you know, they're going to give $500 checks or $1,000 checks to couples," Carlson interjected: "And a handout to others who don't even pay taxes."
From the January 9 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BILL HEMMER (co-host): I just want to get to the second idea about the stimulus package. When these Democratic senators met yesterday on Capitol Hill, they came out of that Finance Committee meeting saying we don't like this idea about giving tax credits to companies. That's a nonstarter for us. So, now you're starting to see the wall of opposition, not just from Republicans but from significant Democrats, before you're even sworn in.
SAMMON: Well, that's -- you just hit on it. It's the wall of opposition from both sides on the issue of taxes. Because if you look at this, he's saying 300 billion of my stimulus package is going to be tax cuts. He uses the phrase "tax cuts." I don't think all of that really is a tax cut. I mean, some of it is giving $500 checks to people who don't pay taxes. That's obviously not a tax cut. That's a spending program. Republicans don't like that aspect of it. They think it's too much of a spending program.
From the January 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: I want to ask you quickly, Congressman, about the taxes with regard to this $1 trillion plan, because yesterday we did this story about how the IRS is going to give people breaks now, and yet, you're -- we're going to spend $1 trillion on this stimulus package. Who's going to pay for all of this?
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA): Well, that's exactly right. If you look at it, if it is a trillion-dollar spending package, and the president-elect said he is going to create 3 million jobs, that's about $330,000 per job. I don't think that's a good return --
DOOCY: Yeah.
CANTOR: -- on investment.
DOOCY: Yeah. Congressman, here's a newsflash to the Democrats who are going to be ushering this through Congress. Weren't they the same people who complained that George Bush was spending way too much money on stuff and how the Democrats are on the verge of calling for, one estimate is $1.3 trillion worth of stuff, and we don't even know for sure that it's going to work.
CANTOR: Absolutely right. And you know what? I actually met with the president-elect several days ago, and I told him the best thing you could do, I believe, to try and get a bill passed, is to post online everything that you are going to do and that you're going to spend the taxpayers' money on. Let the American people see this. We've got to see the details, and I think the worst thing that we could do, again is go borrow money from foreign investors, paying an inflated interest rate to pay for government waste, because, at the end, as you suggest, who's paying for this? You know, the -- our children and our grandchildren are going to pay for this.
DOOCY: Yeah. Plus, there's also the component where, you know, they're going to give $500 checks or $1,000 checks to couples and -- it was --
CARLSON: And a handout to others who don't even pay taxes.
DOOCY: And one of the congressmen, or rather, one of the senators from the Dakotas said, you know, we did that a year or two ago and that did nothing. That didn't help anything.
From the January 8 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
GALLAGHER: Congressman, now that you've heard the speech, your reaction?
GARRETT: Well, I realize that President Obama is in a really difficult situation. Look, he is inheriting from [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] -- they have given him a $1.2 trillion deficit that he's going into office with. So, obviously, they have left him truly a difficult situation. The question is: What do you do about? Parts of his speech were encouraging. The spending side, not so much.
GALLAGHER: Yeah. The spending side, the question is: Spending on what? I mean, we have these programs, these kind of outlying programs, Congressman, but we have no idea if the first stimulus for the banks and the automakers are going to work. How do we gauge if this is going to work?
GARRETT: That's a great question. How do you measure success in a situation like this? Take the job aspect of it. He wants to save or create 3 million new jobs. And I think he said 80 percent of them are private, 20 percent of those are going to be public. So that's 600,000 new federal --
GALLAGHER: Right.
GARRETT: -- make-work type jobs -- an absurd number. And how do you actually gauge whether you actually created a job?
On the other side of the equation, you have to look at the spending aspects. How much of that, of those things, actually create jobs? If you give somebody an unemployment check -- well, maybe we need to do that -- but does that create a job? If you give somebody $500, or $700, or $1,000, does that really create a job? Maybe it helps them out temporarily, but it's not -- it's certainly not long-term. And so, you really have to say, "What's the problem?" The problem is higher unemployment. What's the solution? New jobs, private-sector jobs, is really what we should be focusing on, not more public sector jobs.
GALLAGHER: And then it goes back to this whole thing: Are these really tax cuts, or are these -- is this actually just more welfare spending? If you're giving people money --
GARRETT: Oh, yeah.
GALLAGHER: -- who didn't pay into the tax system, that becomes a different ballgame altogether.
GARRETT: It's a totally different ballgame, because what it is, is a redistribution of wealth.
From the January 8 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Stu, let me -- let me ask you, though, is there a decent argument that this might actually work -- that it might actually create jobs and could actually get us out of this economic crisis?
STUART VARNEY (Fox News contributor): Well, there's a certain degree of money that's gonna hit the road running as of right now if there are immediate checks in the mail to very low-income earners. That money is stimulative, and it starts very, very soon. But it's not a very large portion of the trillion-dollar spending package.
There is a danger here, Megyn, that we follow the Japanese example. When their bubble burst in the 1980s and 1990s, they spent big time on infrastructure -- got nowhere. They had a 10-year recession, virtually. A lost decade. And there is some concern that America may follow exactly the same path. And by the way, Megyn, the number after a trillion is a quadrillion.
KELLY: I don't even want to hear that. Don't -- let's not even get there -- that's a thousand trillions. OK, Jenna Lee, let me ask you -- Cheryl mentions tax cuts. That's one of the sweeteners that Barack Obama has been using to sort of, you know, get people interested in this stimulus plan, saying, hey, look, there's $300 billion worth of tax cuts. They're not all tax cuts, however, because some people who don't pay taxes are gonna get money.
JENNA LEE (Fox Business Network anchor): Well, it's interesting, Megyn. We still don't know the details of that, of those type of tax cuts, or even the tax rebates that could be on the table, which would be money in the pockets of consumers. The devil is in the detail for this, and we still don't know a lot of details about this plan.
One of the things that Mr. Obama's going to say today is he's going to say, listen, a trillion dollars or so could be wiped from our economy over the year. That would be about $12,000 per -- for a person, family, household, which seems like a lot of money. But if you think about $1,000 coming back to you as a family, it comes to about $83 a month. Will that keep you in your home? We haven't heard a lot about the housing plan. And will that make you go out and shop and help boost the economy? Again, we really don't know these -- these details, and these are gonna be very fundamental, very important to whether or not this plan works.
KELLY: And maybe he'll spell some of those out.
CASONE: Megyn, I think about --
KELLY: But Cheryl, let me ask you about these tax cuts.
CASONE: Sure.
KELLY: Are they really tax cuts, or are they -- or is it welfare for some people?
CASONE: Well, you're talking about the low-income earners. There has been estimates that it could be about $500 for those low-income folks. So that actually has been floated out there already as these discussions are ongoing.
KELLY: And -- but explain why that's controversial.
CASONE: That is controversial because of many low-income earners do not pay taxes, as you mentioned, but they still will be getting checks in the mail -- that rebate. Now, remember, last time we had stimulus -- stimulus one earlier in '08, most of that money went into savings accounts. They did not go out and spend money. They put it into their savings account.
It is going to be a fun four years of wathcing how FOX will lie and make things up.
Are they actually trying to claim-- still- that rebate checks went to people who didn't pay taxes?
Technically, they only went to people who filed. Except for talk about a possible Earned Income Credit boost, what FOX is claiming is an impossibility. Only taxpayers get tax cuts. Even people who didn't earn enough to pay the minimum are still taxpayers, and were always subject to witholding.
It's funny how, in addition to the lie about the number of people who don't pay any taxes, they're saying $500 isn't enought to do anyone any good. I wonder if they said the same when Bush handed out his tax rebates.
They're the same ones who always rail against labor unions, equal pay and raising the minimum wage.
By equal pay you mean equal amongst the different groups that you racially blind/life choice blind/sed blind dems break them into?
Once again... the market determines pay, not a racist/homophobic/bigot in some white tower... people are paid what they are worth and what they can contribute to their company to their boss. Stop thinking how much you hate the man, and try to make the man some money, since it's his you are playing with, and you mightbe surprised how he repays you... in the case of John McCain's campaign, women (if you like to separate people into groups and analyze people that way) were paid 1.04 what the men were for eq. positions, while on Obama's campaign staff they were paid less... evil republicans...
Hey, I think you've got me wrong... I'm a white, middle class man with what I consider to be a decent salary. And I've know both minorites and females just a qualified, and in some case more productive (I can admit it!) than me who got paid less. "the market determines pay"?! Wrong - YOUR BOSS determines your pay. There is no "market." That's an abstraction. "People are paid what they are worth and what they can contribute to their company"?! You're joking right? Maybe that's the case for the guy working the line, but are you serious? I have no problem with MY salary, and in general I have no problem with MY company... But I've worked at places where MANY people are over or under paid, based on the criteria you laid out. You don't think there's cronyism? You don;t think there's still systematic pay discrimination? No, it still happens my friend. I've seen it, even WITHOUT having been the the victim of it myself. The "market" may help, you can always get another job, right? Oh... wait... no, sorry the "racist/homophobic/bigot[s] in [the] white tower" screwed up the economy, so for the moment those of us lucky enough to HAVE a job are basically stuck here. So no, I don't think it's asking too much that we at least be treated LEGALLY, if not FAIRLY as well.
There are also Democrats including John Kerry who have questioned this plan.
John Kerry didn't want the tax credit for companies that retain workers, he wanted the money to spend. Some Democrats don't like to see our money returned to us, they feel they can better spend it than we can.
Blow it out your ___ Tommy. I'm sick of your conservative bs about liberals and taxes. You know damn well the kind of investment needed to get the economy back on track is going to take more than a tax break. It's going to take the kind large scale action that, at this point, only government can muster.
Your trickle down nonsense has proven inadequate, your blind devotion to the concept of the rational actor in a free market has been shown false by the turmoil of our times.
You need to shut your yap for once and realize all that Dems think they know money better than you crap is for suckers.
$500 isn't enough to do anyone any significant good. People need to work and to work we need jobs, not measley $500 checks every 3 years... have you gone grocery shopping or bought a pair of shoes lately...
Wasn't there a group of democrat house members who held a press conference while holding up a muffler complaining about the amount of a rebate?
CANTOR: "Absolutely right. And you know what? I actually met with the president-elect several days ago, and I told him the best thing you could do, I believe, to try and get a bill passed, is to post online everything that you are going to do and that you're going to spend the taxpayers' money on. Let the American people see this. We've got to see the details, and I think the worst thing that we could do, again is go borrow money from foreign investors, paying an inflated interest rate to pay for government waste, because, at the end, as you suggest, who's paying for this? You know, the -- our children and our grandchildren are going to pay for this"
This is absolutely rich. There is nothing more endearing than a politician who is at first complicit and/or silent when his party's president spends us into oblivion, and now has this fiscally responsible pep talk for the opposition party's leader who is to succeed his guy. Give me a break.
I hope Obama told you, "Thanks for your advice, but no thanks - you have quite screwed things up enough!"
He's just trying to help, Tommy! Just like Garrett:
GARRETT: Well, I realize that President Obama is in a really difficult situation. ... Reid and Pelosi ...have given him a $1.2 trillion deficit that he's going into office with...
Damn you, Reid & Pelosi, for your imcompetent managing of our government ! You've got the people on Fox all concerned for Obama.
I know, and I just looked at Garrett's bio, he is beginning his fourth term, elected in 2002, and was on the House budget committee. So where has he been for six years while this deficit now has more numbers than a numerology textbook? Politicians make me throw up in my mouth, a lot.
It sounds pretty similar to people like John Bolton suddenly realizing that the President really doesn't have ultimate power.
The thing is Obama was elected, by a sizeable majority, a mandate if you will. His plans were out there, the people voted for them, they want something new and different. I understand political opposition and all that but for crying out loud let the man have a chance with what he wants to do. I am not for everything personally, but maybe I am wrong on those disagreements. We are in a mess and it's not getting better. At this unique juncture, every elected official should at least give Obama what the people voted for, our country and it's prosperity are at stake, unlike anytime in recent history.
The time to be some partisan politician quibbling over details should be for a later time. The president-elect should be at least given that consideration.
tommy,
Being elected President should not give Obama carte blanche to do anything.
The joke is pretending that printing checks out of thin air will help the economy. It only fuels inflation, increases the debt, and makes the eventual meltdown even a bigger mess.
I agree with you about Republicans and Bush starting all this, but I think that proposal to open the books is a good one.
AA.
Sorry, at this point in time I disagree. Obama was elected in a big way, the people knew what he wanted to do and voted overwhelmingly for it. We need the change, the people demanded the change, let him see if he can succeed or not.
As for Cantor's opening the books, I gave you my opinion on his shameless "too little too late" urging of Obama. Where was that proposal when Bush and his controlled Congress was spending like drunken sailors. In my opinion, Cantor doesn't give a damn about accountability or "open book" government, if he did he would have publicly said it before, he is just playing politics when he shouldn't be.
And AA, when Reagan was elected the Democratically controlled House gave him pretty much everything he wanted, he wanted the top marginal tax rate lowered by 10% for the next three years, he got a total of 25% I believe. So it's not unheard of that incoming presidents get an extended honeymoon to enact what they clearly won on.
Obama won, but it was not exactly a mandate. My point is that there needs to be some loyal opposition rather than a blank check
Democrats did not approve dropping the marginal tax rates because they felt like giving Reagan a honeymoon. Many of them fought it tooth and nail. If you remember correctly, the economy was in pretty sad shape back then too. History tells us that reducing taxes helps the economy. I don't doubt there will be something worked out by Obama and Congress, but I wouldn't hand a blank check to anyone.
History tells us that reducing taxes helps the economy
Yeah, that Bush tax plan has worked out real well for all of us, hasn't it? Or did you mean some other history?
You seem to be conflating the recession of 2001-2002 and the tax cuts back then with this latest recession. Many feel the Bush tax cuts back then helped shorten that recession.
The idea is to put dollars into the economy either by lowering the taxes people pay, thereby letting them have more disposable income and/or giving money away through "stimulus" plans.
The problem with the give-away is that it has to be paid back somewhere down the line. I'd rather let people keep the money they make. But when 50% of Americans already do not pay federal income taxes, you can not give them any more of a tax cut unless you further raid ss or add it to the deficit.
You seem to be confusing theory with results. Both the Bush tax cuts and the stimulus checks put forward the idea that simply putting money into the system will somehow produce results regardless of what happens to that money. But that simply isn't true. The money at the top of the economy did not go into increased jobs or wages, it went into investment schemes that produced nothing but an ultimately unsustainable bubble that inevetably burst. While some of the money at the bottom created short spikes in consumer sales, they did nothing for continued growth or maintenance. Wages and job creation have been stagnant for the past 8 years while inflation and consumer debt have continued to climb. We are living in the end result of that grim combination.
If an answer to the situation lies in government spending, it lies in smart and efficient government spending that will produce growth. That was the key to the New Deal and that is why it is so important to dismiss those who would call it an outright failure.
One simple example- Would southern states be able to entice foreign automakers to build plants there if they did not have the electricity and transportation systems in place that the New Deal brought them?
except clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.
I'm not arguing that raising taxes during economic prosperity cannot be done. But there were different economic conditions during that time.
Do you know of anyone who suggests raising taxes fueled the Clinton boom?
Ah a sly question. Who are you going to admit has a viable opinion on the matter?
And while you wait for a response tell me how the disparity in income, currently at levels unknown between now and the late twenties is healthy to our economy and population?
you said that "history tells us reducing taxes helps the economy". first, clinton raised them and the economy boomed. second, bush reduced them and the bush economy has been anemic at best. especially in total overall jobs produced. so history doesn't seem to tell us that. all the predictions were that the clinton tax increases would cause a recession or depression. didn't happen.
I think "The time to be some partisan politician quibbling over details should be for a later time" is an important phrase. If there's a genuine concern to be expressed, then it's not "partisan quibbling". I honestly didn't think he was advocating that Obama be allowed to do absolutely anything he wants, regardless of what anyone says about it.
The main reason I'm pointing this out is that it struck me as vaguely similar to the rationale for war after 9/11. At this unique time in the war on terror, etc. But objecting to the war was based on genuine concerns isn't "partisan quibbling", so I didn't think it was necessary to say "As long as there isn't a valid and important reason that his plan should be scrapped."
What I was referring to was Obama's economic plan in chief. Let his plan be enacted and given a chance. Thanks for the clarification, you're right.
Do we even know what the final plan is yet?
I believe it will most likely be modified and tweaked and changed due to market conditions, committees, etc. But in chief, it should be enacted. Look, much of the economic problem is also psychological. If people have confidence they will start to spend, you don't deny that do you?
I do agree up to a point and that point is a blank check will make matters worse. :-)
Thanks for the discussion. Have a good weekend.
You do the same AA....
Carte blanche? I don't think anybody's asking for that, but it might be nice if he could at least make dinner plans without Fox News and the AM Radio screechmonkey patrol declaring that by choosing Applebee's instead of Chili's he has shown his true commi/socialist/muslim roots and will destroy the country.
Short summary of all the "friendly opposition" to his economic plans:
"We don't know all the details yet but obviously this is going to be a disaster because it is something different than the crap that hasn't worked for most of the past decade and it doesn't further cut taxes to the wealthiest in America. And oh yeah, FDR was a failure and a communist and the entire economic meltdown is completely Barney Frank's fault."
As a right winger, I couldn't agree more.
Let him implement his agenda... I hope he is hte best president we have ever had. This is not sarcasm, I want the best for this country and every last person in it. People voted for the man, let him run the show.
On a realistic level, I don't think Government can effectively stimulate the economy without deep tax cuts. People don't invest rebates. Rebates are long term liek investments, erego one does not flwo into the other. A rebate is going to do 3 things 1) Pay off some credit card or other debt 2) be used to upgrade normal purchases (dinner at Red Lbster vs. Denny's) 3) be used to by consumer electronics/clothing/etc. which is onloy going to help our economy marginally.
NO Credibility.....AT ALL! Who cares what Republicans like or not....THEY LOST!
Fox News is a SHAM!
Seriously what they appear to want to say is that it will give a tax refund to people who may not have paid any INCOME tax. Why can't they just say it? Is it sloppy work or do they have "INCOME TAX on the brain" and everythign esle connects with that?
Second theory..... It just sounds so good to Republicans thay can't help themselves.
Downright insulting.
We had 6 years of complete Republican control, and two years of a Democratic Congress with battered wife syndrome that capitulated and gave Bush everything he wanted.
Oops, that was in reply to Col.
MMFA could further reinforce their argument by revealing just what happens to the Social Security and Medicare withholdings once the Bush Administration gets their hands on it: replace it with government IOU’s and send the money off to the general fund. From there, of course, our government puts it toward wonderful things like useless wars and bank bailouts.
This callous attitude from the right toward the lowest-level wage earners really says a lot about who it is their fighting for. To have so such a large portion of the population earn so little money that the government does not impose a federal withholding should be seen as an alarming economic indicator, but instead, it’s an opportunity for right-wing professional liars to berate, belittle, and pigeon hole the working poor. To lay the blame on them by implying that they don’t work hard, pay their share, pull their weight, or contribute, so they are the last people we should be helping.
Pete,
Correct me if I am wrong, but raiding SS did not start with Bush.
The flip side of your second comment proves the point many conservatives make. You chide the right wing for blaming the working poor. However the bottom 50% of all American wage earners only pay 2.99% of the federal income taxes collected. That means the top 50% pay 97.01%. The top 25% pay 86% and the top 10% pay 70% of federal taxes.
I know most in the bottom 50% do work hard, but I question half of Americans paying only 3% of Federal taxes is paying their share.
All your figures show is a disparity in income. Who controls that?
Who controls what?
Disparity in income.
I would say since each person is in charge of their own income, then the answer is me, or you, or everyone.
No, I'm not talking about individual income. I'm talking about disparity. Of course if an individual strives to succeed they can. But that doesn't mean everyone can do that. As far as a company goes, they control their expenditures, so they control how much all of their employees make. Collectively, the people who set the wages control what the collective working class earns. If they make it so that they make 20 million a year, and they pay their employees peanuts, that's going to affect the disparity no matter how many night classes an individual takes.
Brab,
I am in partial agreement with you. Why anyone would pay an executive millions is beyond me. But then again they play people who hit a baseball millions too.
Not everyone gets to the top of the heap economically speaking. However who is to say who can get there and who cannot?
CC Sabathia is making more money than GM, it is quite amazing.
I'm not talking at all about who can get to the top of the heap and who can't. Individuals are one thing, classes are another.
Nobody is tied inextricably to any class.
I'm not talking about individuals.
"Of course if an individual strives to succeed they can. But that doesn't mean everyone can do that."
Brab,
Classes cannot change, only the people in them. Here is a quick search/ cut and paste to prove this point.
Nevertheless, Treasury found that 85.8 per cent of taxpayers who were in the bottom quintile in 1979 and climbed to a higher quintile by 1988. Only 14.2 per cent remained stuck at the bottom; 14.7 per cent rose to the top quintile. In other words, a person in the bottom quintile in 1979 was more likely to be found in the top quintile than in the bottom quintile in 1988.
Those at the top have no place to go but down. Accordingly, more than half - 52.7 per cent - of the wealthiest 1 per cent in 1979 were gone by 1988. (Again, mobility is understated since deaths are not included.)
Not surprisingly, young workers percolate up at a faster clip than the elderly, most of whom do not work full-time. Census Bureau data show that 29.6 per cent of young adults (18-24 years of age) who were in the lowest quintile in 1987 moved to higher quintiles the following year. By contrast, those who drop to a lower quintile are like to be older retirees. As Representative Dick Armey put it, "As the poor get older they get richer, while as the rich get older, they retire."
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/nr_12.html
What does this have to do with disparity? Are you saying that there's no way for the classes to be closer together financially?
What "classes" are you talking about? You do know how fluid these classes that you speak of are, don't you? People move in and and out them all the time. As I said, nobody is tied to one or another, so what is your point?
The classes. Upper class, upper middle class, lower class, middle class, etc. Individuals move in and out of them, yes. I'm not talking about individuals.
Well individuals make up the classes, so you can't talk about one without the other. You are essentially saying that as a class, the working class has no control over their wages - yet the individual absolutely has control over their particular wage, so what again is your point about class in this context?
So you can't ever talk about the lower class, for example, because George Schmidtenhoffer got a promotion and a raise in Duluth, Minnesota. The class remains the same. Someone else will get the crappy job he previously had.
But as you have said repeatedly, in our free market system there are always going to be people who hold what you call a "crappy job". There is a need for such "crappy jobs". I don't see any honest job as "crappy", because it's disrespectful to those people who work and sweat and toil at those jobs everyday, proudly. I don't think you meant it in that way, however. But I respect work at all levels, even those that work "crappy jobs".
I've worked "crappy jobs". It has to do with conditions and pay, not some sense of integrity.
Yes, there will always be people who hold those jobs. I'm not saying anything about respect or disrespect.
AA, your mobility stats are dated. The recent study summarized in this pdf shows that upward mobility is not nearly what it once was. In fact, the statistics for black children are quite distressing:
"Almost half (45%) of black children whose parents were solidly middle income end up falling to the bottom of the income distribution, compared to only 16% of white children."
What, Craig ? RonaldReagan.com isn't where you go for the most reliable and current economic stats?
He should have gone to ronaldreagan.urk There's a great article about commies and taking them down.
"As far as a company goes, they control their expenditures, so they control how much all of their employees make"
True, but if the employee wants to make more money or isn't happy with the wage set, they can work elsewhere, they are certainly free to do that. This isn't indentured servitude.
"Collectively, the people who set the wages control what the collective working class earns"
The working class is not a monolithic group controlled by a select few who set wages for the "working class". As I said earlier, people are free to come and go in and out of any job market or opportunity they wish to pursue.
"True, but if the employee wants to make more money or isn't happy with the wage set, they can work elsewhere, they are certainly free to do that. This isn't indentured servitude."
Sure, but someone else will take the crappy job, then. It doesn't just go away. No matter how many individuals are able to find better employment, the other jobs are still there for someone else to fill. Remember, I'm not talking about individuals.
"The working class is not a monolithic group controlled by a select few who set wages for the "working class". As I said earlier, people are free to come and go in and out of any job market or opportunity they wish to pursue."
The employers, collectively, set wages. That's a large group, and I'm not saying that they all act the same way, but they do determine disparity. They control how much the employee makes, and it doesn't work the other way around.
Brab,
I would argue that employers, "individually" set wages. If they pay crap wages for a crap job, they will have high turnover as people will leave the job. If they pay great wages for a crap job, many will stay.... but complain just the same. :-)
It sort of depends on how many employers pay those wages, doesn't it? If the majority of businesses were to do it, then there's only so many better places, and better jobs, for someone to go to.
I say "collectively" because they don't all behave the same way. As a group, they have control over what people make.
Brab, I see the point you are trying to make. However you lose the argument when you have to create an imaginary world to make that point.
No, I don't. You cited the disparity in taxes being paid and wondered if the working class was paying their fair share. The fact that income is collectively determined outside of their control is important to your question.
So people have no control over the income they collect?
Individually, they do. Collectively, they do not.
Maybe it's semantics here, but I don't understand what you're driving at with the talk of class and your ignoring the individual. That is antiquated.
AA wondered if the lower 50% was paying their fair share. Half of workers don't control their incomes as a group. Therefore, since they make the money they're paid, as a group, they must be paying their fair share.
Nobody controls their income as a "group", what does that mean? If you employ somebody, yes, you control that wage. But controlling one's income has nothing to do with what "group" or "class" they are in. I am not lower class, nor am I upper class, and I control my income because I choose to accept the wage I am offered. But I don't control anyone elses income in my class, or any other class.
If you oversee a group of workers, and you insure that they make a certain amount of money, you do control their group or class. Again, some people may go elsewhere, but those jobs still remain, and will be filled. Think about that on a very large scale.
You don't control any class. What you control is the wage you choose to offer for the job you employ, whether it's one or a thousand.
"Collectively". Think of it on a very large scale, again.
I don't accept the very large scale because as a matter of relevance and reality, it isn't a monolithic group. We seem to be going in circles. What is the bottom line point you are trying to make?
I've explained it more than once. Why don't you go back and read through again, in the threaded form, and see AA's post that I originally replied to.
I have read it.
Do you really think it is that easy to pick up and find other employment? What role do you think supply and demand have on the labor market? Why do you think there is unemployment insurance, don't you think that is an admission that there are forces out there beyond an individuals control and has to do with a systemic problem of capitalism? What about over-production what role does that play in employment and setting living standards? Your world is quite different than the one I see.
I never said anything about the ease or difficulty of finding a job, for you to introduce that as some relevant point is off the mark.
Reality never seems to bear out your theories AA. Every time a Wal-Mart opens there is a huge crowd of applicants, far greater than the number of openings. Wal-Mart is rightfully known as a pretty terrible place to work in terms of wages, benefits and respect. And they do indeed have big tunrover problems because of that, but very little difficulty in churning employees. That is a problem of the job market, the employers have far more power than the employees.
Of course employers set wages, and people are free to accept those wages, or not. How would you prefer it be done?
I didn't say I prefer it any other way. I'm saying that employers determine disparity of income because they determine wages.
Employers do not detmerine wages the market determines wages on a macro level, of course on a micro level yes they do... but only to the extent the market allows it...
Disparity of income is a result of the difference in incomes. Employers don't control that, what they do control are the wages they choose to pay their employees.
So employers control wages, but not incomes?
They don't control the disparity as you say as if they are all in one room and decide the gaffe between them. They set a particular wage for the job they are hiring a particular person for.
"Collectively".
Oh God, Perry Mason is back at it again.
I'm allowed to make a point, and I'm allowed to defend it. Tommy's the one picking at my words.
Picking? I am trying to understand your point. If you feel you're being picked on, sorry.
I'm not complaining. It just seems like an odd criticism.
Collectively as in?
As in collectively. The collected actions of the entire group. What else does the word mean?
But it makes no sense. Collectively as in what? Give me a concrete example of what exactly you are referring too.
What determines wages? Is a wage some arbitrary figure picked out of thin air? Don't tell me skill and educational level either, because those are factors but then in this meltdown tell me how many skilled and educated workers are making minimum wages because their jobs have been downsized, moved to lower wage areas are just eliminated. Again, what determines wages???
Wages are determined by those paying that wage, as it relates to other comparable wages and jobs, as well as location, and all sorts of variables.
I really don't know what is unclear about that word. We're talking about 50% of workers, right? Let's say that for 2007, the top 50% was group A, and the bottom is group B. Let's say the same for 2008. Now, that 50%, for tax purposes, is the same. It doesn't change within the same year. Of course, some people will move from group B to group A, and vice-versa for the next year's taxes. But when talking about that group, collectively, for any particular year, they generally do not control what they make.
Individuals change classes. The classes stay the same, by and large.
See, I disagree about the word "control". We all control what we make, I know you keep saying you're talking about class, not individual, but in this case I don't see the relevance. People as individuals are in total control of their particular wage, people as in some broad term as class don't control anything in that respect, for the class does not operate as some single entity or monolithically.
They don't have to operate monolithically for the word "collectively" to apply. The relevance is that I'm talking about 50% of workers, not individuals.
Individually we control what we make. I agree. I never disagreed. If you think I said otherwise, please point out where.
I never said you disagreed about that, I just don't get the point you are making about class. 50% of workers are individuals. You seem to want to separate them for a discussion of how one controls the other, and it doesn't work that way, for the reasons I have explained - nobody is inextricably tied to any class, so any control one has over them is fluid at best, and nonexistant realistically speaking.
If everyone works as hard as they can, goes to school, does everything possible to be successful, will we still have janitors?
Yes, because there is a need for them. And based upon that need and the experience necessary to fill the job, and the demand, among many other variables, a wage will be offered. If it's not enough to attract an employee, it may be increased to attract a larger pool of those wishing to do it. If the supply of workers is too great for the demand, then the wage may decrease. I really don't know what you're driving at.
The point is that you're saying anyone can succeed. It doesn't mean everyone can succeed. You will always have a large group of people who do not control what they make.
I agree with you up until you say people cannot control what they make. Just because you don't "succeed" as you put it, doesn't mean they do not control what they make. People certainly have every opportunity to do that.
"Individually we control what we make. I agree. I never disagreed. If you think I said otherwise, please point out where."
If employers set wages, then they control the wages. Whether certain individuals make some more or some less based on their performance doesn't change that.
I've already told you that nobody is forced to accept or work at any wage, so there is no control. If you don't like the wage you are offered, or are working for, you have it within your total control to change it. You just said this above "Individually we control what we make. I agree". And now you say "If employers set wages, then they control the wages".
Which is it?
Individually you can excel, sure. Collectively, employers control what their collective employees make.
In case this continues to puzzle you, I'll go back and refer to AA's post, even though you say you've read it:"I know most in the bottom 50% do work hard, but I question half of Americans paying only 3% of Federal taxes is paying their share."
Remember I'm talking about disparity, and I'm talking about very large groups. 3% is an awfully low number. Even taking into account the different tax rates, the top half has to be making, on average, 20 or so times what the lower half makes (I haven't done a full actuarial table on this or anything, but if it's much less I'd be surprised). That's a tremendous disparity, and suggests to me that the cutoff between the halves is a fairly low number.
Also consider that 50% is always 50%. This is very important. If someone moves into the top half, then someone else takes that place in the bottom half, whether it's someone previously from the top half or a new worker because of an expanding market. They're in the same boat the previous person was in. That's probably a better way for you to understand this. The employers set the wages for jobs. If you want to say that people move here and there at their will, fine. It's a little simplistic and idealistic, but for our purposes here, whatever. The jobs are still there, they will be filled, and the pay for them is determined by employers. And if the collective of employers set an average of a low wage for these jobs, then it is not the fault of the people in those jobs that those jobs do not happen to pay more money. We will always have janitors. The problem is when the CEO makes 20 million and the janitor can barely scrape by. Whether it's Joe, Jack, or Jeremiah pushing that broom, it's the people in charge that determine the disparity between the pay of these jobs.
This is why individuals have nothing to do with my point, as I've said many times. People can shuffle around all they like, but the lower half's wages are generally going to be the result of the actions of people who set those wages. If we want the lower half to pay more money in taxes, the only way for that to happen is for employers to tighten the gap in wages just a little bit. Because it's all well and good that people can break through and make more money, but if someone breaks into the top half, then they are no longer in the bottom half of taxpayers anyway, and someone else is!
I know it's repetitive, but I hope this adequately clarifies my point for you. I always do my best to do so.
Here's a link to the 2006 Income Tax stats: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
As said earlier, the bottom 50% pay approximately 3% of the Federal Income Tax. As the chart shows, the bottom 50% earn approximately 11% of the income.
Conversely, the top 1% of workers earn 22% of the income and pay 40% of the income taxes.
I believe that's where the "fair share" argument originates, both at the bottom end of the spectrum and at the top end. The disprity between the percentages of income earned vs income tax paid. The factors that people want to include in determining what's "fair" vary depending on what argument you support.
Clearly, the sales tax and the payroll taxes affect the lower income people much more than the rich, which is a large reason why I agree that the progressive taxation on income tax is a good idea. I do believe that an honest look at these figures does undermine the argument that the rich are getting a free ride.
Of course, that won't prevent people from making that claim.
I'm not really claiming anyone's getting a free ride. I just don't want to hear complaints about people with low-paying jobs (whether they get out of them later or not) paying less taxes. I didn't check the links, so I appreciate that added perspective, though.
If AA wants to say that someone who makes a million-dollar salary pays half a million in taxes (or whatever) and therefore someone who makes 30K should pay 15K, then he can do that. That would be pretty silly, as we both seem to know.
To specifically address your point, I agree with it.
The goal should be to move more workers above the poverty line, move the median income upwards and things like that. That is more attainable in an expanding economy where better opportunities are being created, unlike our present situation.
Absolutely, and I'm sure it's true that the economy makes a difference.
Brabantio, this is probably a lot funnier from my perspective, looking from the outside of this discussion than where you are, but I think I can help out; you're dealing with a mindset that says that if everybody just got off their butts and pulled up the ol' bootstraps, 100% would be in the top 1% .
It's a really common ideology around a few neighborhoods I've lived in, especially popular with those who were born into, or dumb-lucked into the top percentiles, and those who think they're in the top, or will get there soon.
"if everybody just got off their butts and pulled up the ol' bootstraps, 100% would be in the top 1%"
Nobody is saying that at all Colonel, but thanks for piling up the straw.
Colonel did not say someone was saying it, he was citing the existence of a mindset.
Of course employers set wages, and people are free to accept those wages, or not. How would you prefer it be done?
That's easy. For employees to set wages! Or not work. That's what unions are all about.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but raiding SS did not start with Bush."
I didn't say that it did, but do the actions of predecessors justify continuing the practice?
No, it doesn't. But unless you are too wrapped up in BDS to mention past Presidents it sounds to me like you are placing the blame only on him.
I agree with the pundits who call SS "the biggest ponzi scheme in history".
I agree with the pundits... AA
That explains alot.
Glad to have helped. :-)
AA there you go again your figures don't even make sense or add up, but I get your class point that it is the wealthy that fuel society and make the world go-around, and it is the workers who are the anvil around societies neck for begging for things they don't deserve and don't pay for. Got it!
congreo,
Sorry the figures confuse you, but they do add up. see
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Part of your confusion I think is that you forget there is a difference between fueling society and fueling government and achieving income reditribution through taxes and give-aways.
Who decided they ought be workers? They must have slept in the day the awesome life sign up was held...
I must be forgetful b/c I just can't remember when I signed up for my awesome life, probably sometime in between busting my hump to pay for my own college, but it could have been earlier.. when I started up my paper route at the age of 9 to pay for my own clothes... gosh am I ever glad I luckily found my way into the middle class and don't have an anvil to place around societies neck.
"The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. "
Yeah, taxation is the problem here.
It's for the children. It's for the poor. It's for the working, middle class. Bull! It's for the VOTE. Paycheck envy has existed since the existence of the paycheck. Rather than say INCOME TAX, obfuscation rules--Spin. I would appreciate truth from a politician. Now Obama thinks we need to study Entitlements--so did G. Bush. Obama's proposed tax are larger than G. Bush's--before FNMA and FHMC. Gates is his Middle East guy as he was for GWB. Sounds like same-o, same-o. No record of accomplishments before and now emulating GWB!
At least Jesus turned water to wine before we made an icon of him.
It's really nice of this news network to provide [R] with a warm place that they can go and a medium they can use to share their concerns for this once great nation.
concerns for this once great nation
I think this country is still great Governor. Afterall we voted in record numbers for an African American President, which 25 years ago would have been unheard of . We have come along way despite Bush and the past 8 years.
You're absolutely right Casey, this is still a great nation. Those that say it "once" was only underestimate the people of this country, that is sad.
In fact, I think it was Victor some time ago who essentially said the same thing right on these boards as the Governor just did now.
Actually, here is the exact quote, not quite the same thing but.......
Posted by Governor
"When I hear Americans like Dick Morris asking stupid questions on the TV, I start to hate America"Posted Wednesday June 11, 2008 1:00:03 PM EDT
"When I hear Americans like Dick Morris asking stupid questions on the TV, I start to hate America" is not exactly the same thing as "It's really nice of this news network to provide [R] with a warm place that they can go and a medium they can use to share their concerns for this once great nation."? Come on, Tommy, those statements are IDENTICAL.
Regardless if you said it before Governor, why would you think this nation is not great? President Elect Obama would dispute this as would most Americans. We have issues but we are still a great and wonderful nation. Sad
PS: that was an AWESOME discussion thread. Many thanks for posting it. And I'm now 100% ok w/ you and your sidekick's thread derailing moniker you've given me.
You won't answer the question, why do you feel this nation is not great?
There is a basic flaw to your question. "Not great" is not synonymous with "bad," which is what you are trying to imply. This country has had great moments and terrible moments.
When ideologues and isolationists tried to keep us out of WWII because it was called a European problem were we great? When we warred within ourselves over slavery were we great? When we waged a war of genocide against the native peoples of this continent were we great?
Conversely, after WWII when we extended aid to friends and former enemies to help rebuild the world, were we great? When we threw off the oppressive chains of English colonialism were we great? When we harnessed the best minds of our nation and broke the bonds of our very planet were we great?
Honestly, at this exact moment in time America is not such a great nation. That is not to say that it isn't a good nation or that it is a bad or evil one in any sense. But we have fallen quite far from the heights we once sat at and we must strive to return to those heights. Go ahead and call me unAmerican for daring to take off the rose colored glasses but I think it does a far greater disservice to this country to sit back and do nothing to maintain and improve this country because you refuse to believe we are imperfect.
Thank you for your answer. You make great points, and I would never call anyone anti-American. God knows I was called Anti- American by many in 2003 when we invaded Iraq illegally.
I only wish Governor would have answered my question in an intelligent and respectful and thoughtful way that you have.
Good show!
Yes, is Baboon Show!
Ninty Nine dead Baboons.
Sitting in my Livingroom.
Where they came from I don't know.
Where they're going I don't care.
How's you mother.
How's your dad.
How's your uncle's new schnorkling device.
Get yerself a dead baboon!
Fragments of someone's remake of 99 Red Ballons.
Why would FOX News want to start using facts?
Has FOX News every used facts? I can't think of any time they have.
Did they use facts when they covered Caylee Anthony ? They seemed to spend hours on that story.
Conservative commentators have been quite clear about this issue. The plan offers tax credits to people who do not pay federal income taxes. Payin Social Security and Medicare is not the same thing as paying federal income taxes.
Communism killed 100 million people and all I got was this lousy Che t-shirt!
Exactly!!!! They are using the word "gives" in a concerted effort to create a belief that Obama's plan is a sneaky way to hand out a bunch of welfare checks to moochers who don't work for a living. Interesting abuse of language really and it is amazing that it isn't backfiring yet seeing as they are potentially calling huge masses of their base freeloaders.
And like $10/week is the end of the world. What is that like? A pack of cigarettes and a six pack? (Don't drink, don't smoke, so I don't know for sure). If $1200 per couple didn't work last year, how is $1000 going to make a difference this time?
"(Don't drink, don't smoke, so I don't know for sure)"
You have those lyrics completely wrong. It's "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Subtle innuendos follow, there must be something inside."
Yikes! Big points for the Adam Ant reference.
Depending on your local "sin" taxes on alcohol and the ridiculous cigarette tax that is probably likely to exist I think you can only have one or the other for $10 a week and have change left over to go to Taco Bell.
I get the feeling that despite having fairly opposed viewpoints on a lot of other things that we agree that untargeted stimulus funds just released into the economy at any level are not a solution.
Why should anyone on Fox start to be truthful now?
"Now, remember, last time we had stimulus -- stimulus one earlier in '08, most of that money went into savings accounts. They did not go out and spend money. They put it into their savings account."
And there you have it, the real reason FOX/Neo-cons are against it. They don't want money going to people who might actually need to spend on things like rent, food, gas, heat, etc...
$600 to your savings account = good.
$600 to your grocery store = bad.
Using the line of thinking on these threads, everyone who buys gas is a taxpayer. I do take issue with the notion that if I have social security taxes withheld, I deserve a welfare check ahead the guy that pays the same tax AND and income tax.
Two observations:
First: When detractors refer to "don't pay taxes", they mean income taxes.
Second: Everyone pays taxes. Ever hear of sales tax?
On the one hand, Fox is correct: those who do not pay income tax may get a rebate;
on the other hand, Fox is incorrect: there is no one who does not pay a tax.