THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

MGL—I think you are being a little facetious in your commentary. Whether taxes are too high or too low is, of course, a matter of opinion.

The issue is that if one cuts taxes and raises spending, or at least doesn’t cut it, what will happen is that the current account deficit will rise and eventually get to the point where the global financial markets believe that America will eventually be bankrupt, or will have to print money.  Interest rates and inflation will storm up and to put it bluntly the economy will be fkd.

So in reality one must always think about how much debt you want to load the country up with. It is here that Bush jnr has been a tad irresponsible—and we could be about to find out. The dollar may have a long way to fall, making us all feel worse off.

The question is one of philosophy. Should a government raise taxes to spend more or cut taxes and spend less (allow us to spend more).

People have views on how effectively governments spend money (but the consensus is not that well) but there are something where individuals have to accept the government must have fiscal control (health care, welfare etc.).

This is why people vote. The majority gets what it wants, and if the minority feels like it’s getting screwed then it tries to create a following and overthrow/fight the majority.

Dan, true enough.

Worth reminding, the current tax shift (higher spending plus lower taxes == tax shift to future taxpayers) is promulgated by a guy who lost the 2000 election by a half-million votes.  It was close-ish, I guess.

Democracy is indeed the worst-possible system, except for all the other.  Too bad we didn’t try it, huh?

I was being less facetious than I was being genuinely perplexed.

Making a blanket statement that “we” need to tax more or less or spend more or less is like saying that, “Baseball teams need to spend more on payroll.”

Without context, the dicussion is meaningless.  And the context with regard to government contains a billion or so pieces of data.

Should a government raise taxes to spend more or cut taxes and spend less (allow us to spend more)?

Sadly, people, including the politicians, think it is as simple as that.  Spend more than what?  If I said that we allocate 20 million a year towards AIDS research, is that too much?  Too little?  Just right?  100 million toward cancer research?  3 billion towards education? 40 billion toward heloping other countries in need?  500 million toward military aid to Isreal?  I am making up these numbers, but damned if I know.  Damned if ANYONE knows.  Certainly GWB doesn’t know and neither does Obama or Romney.

Off the top of my head, it seems that our current tax rates are just about right, but I really have no idea.  It also seems like the tax rates in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were ridiculously high, but I don’t remember people crying back then (sure, everyone complains about taxes, no matter where they are).  I mean compared to then, people ought to be jumping for joy now.  I guess we get used to whatever is status quo.  And sure, everyone wants to see their tax burden lowered, whether that would be good for society or not. All anyone cares about is what’s in their own best interest anyway (more or less), right?.  Asking people if taxes are too high is like asking people if they think they are average, above average, or below average intelligence.  The average answer will be somewhat “above-average.”

Every candidate argues that the other ones raised taxes in their state as governor or voted for tax increases as a Senator or Congressman, and every candidate claims that they lowered or voted for lowered taxes, as if one is great and the other is horrific.

Either way, does that tell me ANYTHING about a candidate?  No! Nothing.  Wouldn’t I have to know about a million more details to make a judgment on someone’s “tax record?” And still yet, it might be a matter of perspective.

And yes, the bottom line is that whatever you do, the dollars spent have to equal the dollars collected, although not necessarily at exactly the same time.  I know virtually nothing about business, but I think I can figure that one out.  Any politician who does not understand that or ignores it (passes a deficit on to the next set of politicians or next generation of constituents) should be fired immediately.  Yet, it is so easy to do.  Cut revenue (taxes), don’t cut spending equally, borrow money, and say, “Whoopee, look at me, I cut your taxes!”

Sorry to rant about politics on a baseball blog, but it never ceases to amaze me the drivel that comes out of the mouths of the leaders and potential leaders of the free world (and other politicians).

Oh, and BTW, the housing market is not in a shambles and if you can’t sell your house, it is because the price is too high.  The price of real estate fluctuates like everything else.  If you thought that your house was guaranteed to rise in value every month or year, you were misinformed from the beginning.  Putting your money in a home is not unlike putting your money in the stock market.  In fact, the stock market has a much higher historical return.

Does anyone want to guess (no cheating) how much value the average home in the U.S. has lost in the last year, 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years, given that we have such a terrible housing crisis, at least according to the media and the government?

I believe home values have not yet fallen below the level of two years ago.  But that’s not really the point, right?  The point is that housing values created a “bubble” that consumers and lenders used to finance spending, and the contraction we are now seeing has a multiple-effect impact on the economy as a result.  To me, clearly the runup in housing prices as a result of substandard lending practices was something that shouldn’t have happened, and we are beginning to pay a serious price for it.

I don’t even know how to respond to a post like this--the world view on display is so radically different than mine that there is no common ground on which to even start having a discussion.

So I’ll just say that as a political theorist, you’re a hell of a sabermetrician, MGL.

Sorry to rant about politics on a baseball blog, but it never ceases to amaze me the drivel that comes out of the mouths of the leaders and potential leaders of the free world (and other politicians).

I would the same thing about your lefty political rants.

I should also add that the hard-core left-wing rants from tango and mgl make it harder to enjoy this blog. I wonder why I bother putting it in my RSS reader. If I wanted this sort of thing, I’d read DailyKos.

this is why i like Huckabee. he supports the fair tax. From Donovan Quinn “By replacing the income tax with a retail-level national sales tax, businesses will have greater incentive to produce goods and services. Since business income will no longer be taxed, and since businesses will not be taxed for anything it purchases for resale, business owners will see their tax burden lifted. Accordingly, businesses will have greater incentive to produce goods and services along the lines of the supply side model.

By this same token, the demand-side model is also implicated. At first glance, one may think that leveling a national sales tax would create barriers to trade. (Certainly a 23% sales tax seems prodigious.) However, with businesses no longer passing on the costs of payroll taxes and other embedded costs to their customers, retail prices will drop. Moreover, with an across the board sales tax in place, every good sold will be on an equal playing field with every other good sold; as such, every good will have an equal chance of receiving a dollar vote. (Right now, this is not the case; some items for sale have more embedded costs than others.) Beyond this, businesses now with surplus income resulting from having to pay little if any taxes will make larger purchases, particularly at the wholesale level. This, in turn, will stimulate the economy from the bottom-up, along the lines of the demand-side model.

Since Huckanomics does not favor the supply-side over the demand-side or vice versa, Huckanomics will not favor inflationary—or for that matter, deflationary—monetary policies.”

Only a handful of people support the fair tax due to widespread ignorance or politicians lacking an open mind. You may disagree with Huckabee on social issues, and that is his strong point at least to the part of his party that supports him, but his take on taxes would be revolutionary and is good for everyone.

Americans have proven that we can argue endlessly about tax policy, and in the end it’s mostly wasted energy.  Still, I think a couple things are clear:

1.  Within the range of possiblities that are usually discussed, the objective tools to quanity the effects of tax policy are very weak and based on limited data with many confounding variables.  It is not like trying to project which pitchers are likely to pitch well next season.

2.  Long term, we are far better off if most years the government takes in roughly as much in revenue as it spends.

3.  In our current system, politicians almost always have an incentive to cut taxes and spend more, so even without philosophical differences, #2 is very difficult to achieve.  Except for a couple years of dot com bubble, it has not happened in my memory.

That was supposed to say “quantify the effects...”

Would repealing the income tax (is he talking about payroll taxes too?) and replacing it with a 23% sales tax work?

Would that provide enough revenue to perform the same functions that government is doing now?  I haven’t studied the issue but it just doesn’t sound right to me.  It doesn’t seem like Huckabee is talking about ending the war or shutting down any government programs, other than the IRS.

As to MGL’s question, when will they stop trying to lower taxes, I assume they will reach that point when they get to zero.  That would be when Ron Paul would be satisfied.  Unlike Huckabee he intends to cut military and other spending to make it work.

I can understand frustration with Republicans thinking they can lower taxes and grow tax revenues at the same time.  They bring up the Laffer curve, but have only the most minimal understanding of it.

Its quite simple, and in theory it should be something there is no debate about:

1) Use a tax rate of 100% and nobody will work, and you get zero revenue.
2) Use a tax rate of zero and obviously, you get zero revenue.
3) Somewhere in the middle is a tax rate that maximizes revenue.

Kennedy, in cutting the highest rates from 97%, moved towards the optimal point.  20 years later Reagan cut the top rate from 70%, and the Laffer curve worked for him as well.

At this point Republicans did not understand the whole concept, just the simplified lower txes = more revenue.  That only works if you are on the one side of the curve.  Bush lowered already relatively low rates, and lowered tax revenue as a result, though a few years later inflation caught up and more money came in.

I once saw a study that suggested the tax revenue- maximizing rate is 42%.  It stuck in my head, because there’s something that just seems right about that number (What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?).  Clinton’s top rate (39%) came the closest to that,and he’s the only president who balanced the budget since I think Nixon.

1. Huckabee’s system shifts more of the burden to the poor from the rich. I question whether the decrease in revenue tax from the richest would be counterbalanced by their increased spending elsewhere.

2. How much taxes do people think the top 1% of income earners pay? 10%, 20%, it is actually 34% (as of 2001), and the top 5% paid 53.3% of total taxes. 

3. As to the housing question on top of what Studes said consumer confidence falls, consumer spending falls. Without the expected rapid return on housing new construction (often speculative) falls, unemployment rises, unemloyment withdrawls rise. That is part of why housing and the general credit problem is a big deal.

"I once saw a study that suggested the tax revenue- maximizing rate is 42%.  It stuck in my head, because there’s something that just seems right about that number (What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?).”

I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the tax system.

Well played, sir.

A couple of points:
1.  Relative to taxes:  When I add up all the taxes I pay (Fed Income, State Income, sales, higher prices charged me because corporations have to pay taxes, city taxes, property taxes, etc.), I pay more than 50% of my income in taxes.  It seems intuitively obvious that this is too high, since we’re far from rich.  So, it’s obvious to me that taxes s/b lowered.  Of course it’s also obvious to me that we should spend no more than we bring in (as a country or state or city).  Therefore, we need to spend a lot less…
2.  Relative to shifting the tax burden from the poor to the rich, this is a statement that bears scrutiny.  Here are a few facts from the year 2005:
a.  The top one percent of income earners paid 39% of all fed income taxes (in 1999 it was 36%).
b.  The top five percent paid 60% of all Fed taxes (in 99 in was 55%)
c.  The top 25% (with incomes of $62K or more) paid 86% of all Fed income taxes!!
d.  The bottom 44% of taxpayers paid zero, zilch taxes
e.  As an aside, that 44% represents about 122M Americans who are outside the Fed tax system!!
(Numbers from Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/15/07)

I don’t understand how intuition can be applied here at all, and I thought that was mgl’s point.  I can’t possibly comprehend the amount of things my tax dollars go to, so how can I guess an appropriate taxation level?

You’re assuming that the way to determine the correct level of taxation is to figure out how much the Federal government should be spending, and set the taxation level there.

Maybe you’re right - but there’s also the dead weight loss to consider. Look at a supply/demand curve:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004/12/economics_101/

(I just googled for the first page with a dead weight loss graph I could find; I have no idea what the text says about it.)

The amount of taxation you have causes inefficiencies in the market - in the case of an income tax, the labor market. In the case of a sudden rise in unemployment, it could be the correct thing to lower the income tax and cause employment to rise, regardless of the revenue concerns.

For the same reason, taxation rates to revenue aren’t as simple a function as you claim - there are times when you can lower taxes and thereby increase revenues.

The empirical answer to “what level should taxes be at” from a macro perspective, assuming you want to maximize tax revenue while minimizing impact on the economy, is probably the level at which a rise in taxes would lower revenues, while a reduction in taxes would lower revenues - essentially the optimal tax rate.

I should also add that the hard-core left-wing rants from tango and mgl make it harder to enjoy this blog. I wonder why I bother putting it in my RSS reader. If I wanted this sort of thing, I’d read DailyKos.

Wow, I can’t believe it can take more than a second or two to see the occasional thread which has nothing to do with baseball or has to do with politics, and simply not read it.  You are obviously curious, I guess in a masochistic way, if you read them and then take the time to comment on them.

What a bizarre (and disengenuous) comment.  I say disengenuous because that cannot possibly make you enjoy this blog any less since you don’t have to read the 1% of the threads that have nothing to do with baseball.

I toy with the idea of not ever starting a non-baseball thread, but then I think, “This is (partially) my blog and I get to do whatever I want, and…

there are lots of smart (smarter than I) people who read and post on this blog, and I like to get their thoughts and opinions on things that confuse and interest me.”

What really irks me about politics and politicians is that there are so many smart and knowledgable people in the world and with the internet, many of them are just a click away.

It does not APPEAR to me that the decision-makers in the government make use of all this collective and individual wisdom.  Or do they?

If I were running for POTUS, my standard answer to just about any “technical” question (taxes, immigration, Iraq, Iran, etc.) would be, “How the hell do I know.  Do I look like an expert economist, miitary tactician, sociologist, etc., and even if I were, I would only have one man’s opinion, albeit expert, not worth a dollup of spit in a bucket?  But, I can guarantee you that I will use every available resource as POTUS to find out the correct answers to these questions.  Don’t expect to agree with everything I come up with and ultimately decide, but I will also guarantee that I will do and decide what is best for everone in the country, collectvely, to the best of my ability and based on the vast amounts of information and advice I get from these resources and from you the people as well.”

I also realize that there are some things that are indeed a matter of opinion, either on their face (such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and even our “opinions” on these things can and ar colored by certain facts) or ultimately even after all the “facts” are placed on the table.

I would be laughed off the stage, no, and get about 3 votes, maybe 4?

Anyway, I like and agree with #11.

#18 was indeed my point.

The idea that certain tax rates stimulate more or less taxable income sounds right and certainly needs to be applied to the equation.  However, evn if let’s say, a 30% tax rate generates more total revenue than a 35% rate, because people somehow have an incentive to generate more taxable income, there have to be other consequences of that, intended or unintended.  IOW, it may not necssarily be correct to simply maximize revenue within a certain reasonable interval of tax rates.

Of course the rich pay the lion’s share of the taxes.  Let’s see, that is because they, uh...make more money.  Yeah, that’s it I think.  Whether you tax them at the same rate or more than (as we do now) the poor, they will always pay the lion’s share.  So what?  I guess the only way to prevent that would be to have a reverse graduated tax.

And if the top 1 or 5% of income earners paid like 5 or 10% of the taxes, we would be able to afford to spend, what about, almost nothing?

Saying that the top 1% or 5% of income earners pay 40 or 50 or 60% of the taxes is an example of a “fact quote” that is meaningless, yet often used to make a point that, what?  Rich people are taxed too much and poor people are not taxed enough?  Is there anyone that actually believes that anymore (now that the max tax rate is so low as compared to in years past)?  BTW, and this is strictly a matter of opinion, I think that the rich SHOULD pay lots of taxes to subsidize the less fortunate, within.

As far as a “fair tax” (what a name, huh!), if that means that everyone had to pay 20% or so (I have heard more) on sales tax, unless the underlying prices were driven down by at least half that (which I doubt), or wages were driven up, that would be quite a burden on low income people, to say the least.

I am all in favor of essentially getting rid of the IRS code for (at least) three reasons:  One, it is incredibly inefficient, and two, I am a big fan of keeping things as simple as possble (couldn’t tell from my sabermetrics and posts of course).  Three, the code was at least partially generated as a result of special interests and that cannot possibly be right.

Bottom line is that you have to do the following:

1) Determine how much you want to spend and for what.  Some things are relatively easy and others are hard.  Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer to how much to spend and on what.  Not even close.  That has to be determined by a consensus.  And by definition, no one (or very few) is going to be completely happy with the consensus.

2) That above number is how much you have to collect in revenue.  You don’t HAVE TO figure #1 first and then automatically tax people eough to generate that amount of revenue. You can do #2 first and then simply allocate that total amount of money as “the consensus” sees fit.  Or you can go back and forth.

3) Determine what tax rate maximizes total revenue, if in fact it is true that you can generate more total revenue with a lower tax rate by stimulating taxable income.  I am not convinced that is true within a reasonable spread of tax rates.  But if somone told me that that is true, I would believe them.

95% of your job is done.  The other 5%, which is the messiest and the area where there is lots of opportunity to screw up, and what started the quagmire we call the IRS code in the first place:

4) Figure out how to get that revenue, who pays what and based on what.  NO ONE will be completely happy with the outcome in this area, and EVERYONE will want what is best for them.  The rich will be clamoring for a flat tax rate.  The poor will be clamoring for a steep graduated tax rate system.  The rich and other investors will be clamoring for a low capital gains tax rate.  Home builders will be clamoring for interest and other “home related” deductions (like we have now, which I think it totally ridiculous).  Some people will clamor for “vice taxes” like on cigarettes and alcohol.  Environmentalists will clamor for highgas taxes.  Small business owners will clamor for tax breaks for small businesses.  People with lots of medical expenses and little insurance will clamor for medical dedections.  People with children will clamor for all kinds of child related tax breaks and deductions.  Etc., etc., ad infinitum and ad nasueum.  I say screw them all and have no breaks or deductions for anyone and simply have a tax, flat or otherwise (I have no problem with a graduated income tax, I have no problem with a flat income tax, although I would prefer the former), and I have no problem with a VAT, national sales tax, or so-called fair tax.

And lastly, the ONLY point I was making about the housing market is that the media and government has been implying that home prices have fallen precipitously over the last few months/years, and that is simply not true (although it is true in certain locales, which is always the case, no matter what the overall U.S. market is).

And I am sick and tired of hearing from homeowners and realtors that their houses are not selling.  The realtors should tell the homeowners that the ONLY reason that their homes are not selling is that their asking prices are too high.  Even if all of a sudden everyone stopped buying houses for some strange reason, which is not true of course, as soon as the price of an average home got low enough (which is wherer they SHOULD be in the first place), everyone would start buying houses again!

The appropriate tax rate depends almost entirely upon the role you feel is appropriate for government to play in your life. Don’t like government? Starve it.

Personally, while I think it’s unwise to trust the government, I know it’s unwise to trust business/industry.  If nothing else, Iraq has taught us that the privatization of core government functions is a disastrous idea and Friedman’s view of the ideal economy is intellectually bankrupt as an ideology as is any ideology that requires the compromise of democratic principles.

The people’s quality of life is higher in a mixed economy and frankly, the government is not only more efficient than corporate America in many ways, it performs a vital role in protecting it’s citizens from corporate America. You can’t contract out accountability.

Hey Mickey,

The simple answer is that this is a question that many people have dedicated their lives to, and there is still no clear answer among economists as to how the tax system should function. But if you want a good economic discussion of the subject, I suggest you get “Public Finance and Public Policy” by James Gruber. It’s the textbook we used in one of my econ classes on tax policy, and it explains a lot of the issues in easy-to-understand terms. Looks like it’s $105 on Amazon—expensive, but worth it, IMO.

Make sure you buy it through our link at the top of the page… that’s a sweet $5 tax to the government of TMApress.... an appropriate level.

DG, thanks.  I’ll order it.

The appropriate tax rate depends almost entirely upon the role you feel is appropriate for government to play in your life. Don’t like government? Starve it.

I think that is too simplistic.  I think it is more fact-based than you and other people make it out to be.  What does “don’t like government” mean?  No money for a military (no military)?  If yes (yes money), how much?

Taxes pretty much are for 2 things:  One, to buy the things that everyone wants and needs: roads, defense, etc.  If the government did not tax us and provide for us in those areas, we’d all have to chip in and provide for them ourselves (which is another legitimate issue actually - what things should we buy ourselves and what things should the government buy for us with our pwn money - our taxes)?

The other thing are all the entitlements and optional things, which each person would not necessarily buy/prvide for themsleves if given a choice.  Those things, while probably necessary in an advanced, prosperous society, are a large part of the quagmire.

#20: The small number of non-baseball topics are actually annoying enough that I personally visit less often than I otherwise would, but they’re not so bothersome as to keep me away entirely.  Your baseball content is really just that good.

Consider each thread a party.  It’s apparent from the title that is will be a non-baseball post, isn’t it?  Just skip over the thread (party) and go on to the next party.  You are bound to find one you like.

However, I think what I will do is move the intro of non-baseball posts to the “jump”, this way you won’t be subjected to the content on the main blog page… you’d actually have to consciously click the “read more”. 

Does that sound reasonable?

What a bizarre (and disengenuous) comment.  I say disengenuous because that cannot possibly make you enjoy this blog any less since you don’t have to read the 1% of the threads that have nothing to do with baseball.

Since 2 of the last 7 topics have been political, that’s hardly 1%. You are the one being “disengenuous”.

"Since 2 of the last 7 topics have been political, that’s hardly 1%.”

Probably not a good idea to use selective endpoints on a sabermetrics blog.

“MGL is batting .286 over his last 7 posts.”

There are about 800 threads in this blog, of which 40 or so have nothing to do with baseball or sports.  That’s 5%.  Of course, current events will influence that rate over a smaller sample, like election years.

***

I also believe that if you are going to be at a party—while you don’t have to agree with the hosts 100% of the time, and dissent (with evidence) is even encouraged—it doesn’t help that the only time you voice yourself is when you disagree with the hosts all the time, and never move the discussion forward.  This is a sign that you are at the wrong party, and you should think about leaving gracefully (without needing to kick and scream yourself out).

The top of the main page of this blog says:

Think of this place as something like a college classroom. We’re in charge, we pick the topics, we set the rules, and we try to foster as much intelligent discourse as possible. If this isn’t your cup of tea, there are plenty of other sites out there for you to try—we’re not going to be for everybody, and we’re not going to try to appeal to the masses.

26: There’s nothing unreasonable about the way you guys are doing things now.  That said, moving the non-sports topics to after the jump would certainly be an improvement in the eyes of this reader.

If it is 5%, I stand corrected and I aplogize for being disengenuous.  This is a good example of how our preceptions and reality (1%/5%) can be quite disparate.

I think I was most perplexed anotut the “left-wing rant” comment, although I can only speak for myself (not Tango).

Is questioning the candidates for POTUS’, and politicians’ in general, grasp of “economics, public policy, and taxes” a left-wing rant?

I genuinely have no idea whether it is correct to raise taxes, lower them, or leave them as is, and I contend that neither do any of the candidates, and perhaps even the experts.

Last night I spent 2 hours researching this stuff on the internet and I came away more confused than before.

If you ever want to see how different so-called “experts” can be on the oppositie side of an argument AND how a poor use of words and “statistics” can be used to support just about any point of view, Google “Bush tax cuts.” You will be amazed!  I am talking specifically in regard to whether they benefited the rich or the poor (or somewhere in between), and to some extent with regards to whether they were “good” for the country/economy.  There isn’t even a consensus on whether they raised or lowered revenue (for example, since the economy in general fluctuates all the time, we don’t necessarily know whether a tax cut or increase causes a rise or fall in taxable income, or it is the result of something else).  Reading about taxes and the economy from the “experts” is not unlike reading about baseball from the “experts” (journalists and commentators, that is, not the sabermetricians).

There is so much phony and bad “expertise” in all areas, it really annoys me.

BTW, I can see how people can get annoyed at just a little bit of non-baseball content and I do understand that it might not be a great idea to include it on this blog, from a reader’s standpoint.  If I had another forum (e.g., a personal blog) I probably would not do it, but right now, this is the only forum I have.

It’s funny, I don’t even read the Keith Law chats anymore on ESPN.com because it annoys me when they talk about food, music, and other non-baseball things.  Of course it seems to me that Keith just likes to show that he is not a one-track person, whereas I fully admit that I know virtually nothing about anything else other than baseball!

I admire MGL’s stance on this thread. So many people like to think that they have thought all this out, understand all of the relevant information, and then have formulated the most correct and logical opinion.

But, IMO, most people simply adopt the political tendencies of their parents, because that’s what they hear during the formative years (my 15 yr old very conservative nephew is an example). And, of course, some others adopt the opposite view of their parents in the same push-button fashion. And then others, in their impressionable college years, read a book or two, say on libertarianism, and think they have found ‘the answer’. That’s why so many politically involved people are young.

But, unless I am mistaken, politics and related subjects are not ‘natural’, in the sense that physics, chemistry, and biology are. IOW, it’s all just someone’s opinion. Even something like the ‘natural law’ of libertarians is essentially just opinion, or an ‘axiom’ to be accepted or not. In fact, the most ‘natural’ behavioral law is probably the primitive ‘might makes right’, or maybe ‘might plus intellect makes right’, in the case of humans. So, all of the societal organization, countries, political philosophies, etc., is just a big experiment to see what works best in terms of the success, happiness, and proliferation of the human species, with varying emphases on the individual vs collective.

So, IMO--the conservatives, the libertarians, the middle-of-the-roaders, the liberals, etc.--are all just considering limited information, and shooting from the seat of their pants.

If MGL is really a left-winger (as that poster was claiming), at least he has the intellectual honesty to admit that he doesn’t have a sufficient understanding of the math/philosophy of taxes to really profer an opinion. OTOH, his claiming that the rich have an obligation to support the poor is...a break from the intellectual honesty we have come to love him for.

I think I clearly stated that that is my “stone-cold” opinion, that I think from a merely personal perspective, that the rich should support the poor, or however you want to word that.  I know (I think) that DS is being facetious, but I can’t emphasize it enough that that is strictly a personal opinion and is by no means the “right” one.  And of course, that is not nearly a specific enough of a statement or stance to have much value on its face.  I certainly would not be in favor of “enabling” unproductive behavior (such as, for example, “Don’t worry, you don’t have to work if you don’t want to, we’ll give you welfare,” or some such thing).  There is always going to be a fine line between supportive behavior and enabling behavior.  These things are complicated and I like to take one specific issue at a time.  Listening to the candidates give their “stances” and “opinions” on complex issues (such as taxes) nauseates me.

Even as a “left-wing liberal” or whatever I was accused of, for example, I have no idea whether we should be in Iraq, should not be, should withdraw partially, completely, fast, slow, etc.  Anyone who says or thinks that they have enough information (other than those in the military or government I suppose) to make decisions about Iraq (and 80 million other things) is not being intellectually honest, as much as I dislike using that term.

The bottom line is that people in general, from the top to the bottom, do not like to admit, or are fundamentally incapable of recognizing, that they do not have enough information/knowledge or are intellectually incapable of coming up with “correct” answers to complex questions.  Sadly, that is true of leaders of countries and multi-billion dollar companies, not to mention your average Joe.

What always gets me about people being labelled as a “left-wing” is what is a “center”? 

There are 6 billion people in this world, though the pundits in the center of the universe believe in only 300 million.  My views of the world is fairly centrist according to Canadian standards, and probably more on the right-side according to European standards.  If you take the midpoint as to where 3 billion people stand (or how many ever adults there are divided by 2), the “left-wing” American is probably on the right-side globally speaking.

And the only difference between an American, Canadian, European is birthplace.  We’re all the same people, and a product of our culture.  There’s nothing inherently better or worse about being an American.  You move to Europe, you’ll eventually adapt to their culture and move your positions toward whatever their center is.

#34, good point, I don’t think I have ever thought in those terms.

#34, I would highly recommend reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America from 1835.  It is incredible and gives a thoughtful view of the US’s version of democracy. The full text can be found online at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html or it is available in book form.  It gives some perspective as where the US started from politically compared to Europe.  One thing that still stands out in my mind from the work is this statement (paraphrasing from memory, I read it around 18 years ago):  “All major political thought in America would be liberal in Europe, the conservatives in America are satisfied with how liberal they are, and the liberals want to be more liberal.” Back then, and until at least after WWII, conservative meant being for a monarchy or, later, totalitarian nationalism. 

After the writing, extremes like communism and fascism came about, and forms of socialism evolved, which centered the US.  To look st how things were then, compared to how they are now, is eye opening.  WWII changed much in Europe.  While the US is now more right wing than most of Europe, there are right wing elements in Europe which simply would not be allowed here to become a political force in the US.

de Tocqueville’s predictions were good also, he basically predicted the Civil War.  It is a social, political, and economic study, and well worth having in your memory when talking about those topics in US/European terms, plus a good place to understand the beginning of the American ‘experiment’.

#36, thanks.  The fact that the notion of conservatism, liberalism, etc. has changed over the years and is different in different locales is one of 8000 reasons why “labeling” is not very useful to any discussion, to say the least.

Another example of how things have changed, the Democratic Party (the “Party of Jefferson” as they like to call themselves) was initially formed (as the Democratic-Republican Party) from the Anti-Federalists, and was against a large, powerful centralized government and for restricting judicial interpretation.  The Republicans (the “Party of Lincoln,” who only won because the Democrats had both a Northern and a Southern candidate) were started as party to counter the great power the slave-owning southern Democrats had in DC.  I believe the Republicans imposed the first income tax when they passed a bill to pay for the Civil War.

Immigration changed the parties later, with ‘dry’ Scandinavian protestants going to the Republicans and ‘wet’ Catholics and German Lutherans going to the Democrats.  Until most recently, there have been major definitive factions within, and major splits from, both parties.  Today everyone wants uniformity it seems.  Historically, the farther we get from the creation of the USofA, the slower the evolution of the parties.