i wish I could say I agree with you but I'm afraid I can't. Pawlenty, Bachmann, Parry and Quist all seek to appeal to people's lesser angels and to a great extent, they've been successful. When times get tough, people want to find the villain, the cause for their troubles and the simpler you can make it, the better. Liberals are the cause of our great nations decline, they crow, oblivious to the facts.

Don's point's are actually non-existent. What are his points DtM? That class mobility is more prevalent? That's a myth. Is Don looking for me to solve a 4 billion dollar deficit that you and your partners created? I'm going to need a raise because KH is looking at me to solve world poverty and that's sorta occupying my weekend. I mean really, fellows, how much can a single dipshit blogger do? Anyway, from the EPI, just so you don't think I'm making anything up.

• The top 1% of families earned 9.3% of all income in 1980. By 2000 this income share rose to 19.6%. Correspondingly, the income share of the bottom 90% fell from 66.0% to 53.9%. There were small gains in the income shares of the remaining group—the 90th to 99th percentiles, a gain of 1.9 percentage points of income.

• From 1980 to 2000, the incomes of the upper 1% rose 179% while those of the bottom 90% rose by 8%.

• In 1970, the ratio of top executive earnings to that of the average worker was 38.6. This ratio rose to 101.1 by 1980, to 222 by 1990 and to 1,046 in 1999.

Wow, that's very disturbing. I might call that a vast redistribution of wealth. Something that I hear GOP'ers are against lately. The uncomfortable truth for most of us is class mobility is a myth since Reagan. As a result of Reagan policies this from Naked Capitalism

Most people think that there is more economic mobility in America than in Europe. Guess again. We’re also near the bottom of rich countries in this category, for example as measured by the percentage of low-income households that escape from this status each year.

Here's some more data from the Federal Reserve.

The following chart shows the effectiveness of a progressive tax system. When the top rates were truly high from 1950 to 1978, American income at all levels grew at about the same pace. But when progressivity was lost in the 80s, the income of the poor began falling, while that of the rich continued growing.

Income Growth by Quintile2

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18

And finally, most prescient,

Then came the harsh ideology (concealed in the sunny rhetoric) of the "Reagan Revolution." Since the early 1980s, Reagan and his heirs have hacked away at FDR's legacy. Years of deregulation, de-unionization, skewed tax policies, and lax enforcement of worker protections have tipped the scales in favor of corporate and financial insiders, and against the great majority of American workers and families. Those same policies have fed waves of financial speculation. In one of the most recent and destructive of these episodes, millions of Americans were talked into booby-trapped mortgages. Many now face the threat of losing their homes; others stand to lose much of their home-equity wealth.

It's amazing to me you so tenaciously cling to the Reagan myth. I guess if it gives you comfort for shirking your societal responsibilities and as Scrooge would say, "If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. ".

Honestly, this thread started out with solving the States budget problems. I would contend that the solution lies in a combination of increased revenue, best accomplished through a substantial increase in income tax for those in the top 2%, spending cuts and finally reallocation of existing spending. It's hilarious to me the most activity here has been with increasing the income tax rate for the top 2%. Telling actually..

Welcome back Matt. Hope this doesn't take you away from your sometime gig on Minnesota Matters.

That the only way to help people is through government assistance.

This is nonsense of course. First of all, nobody ever said, "The only way to help people is through government assistance." But, by implying that and attributing that statement to my argument, you're casting yourself as more reasonable and more moderate.

Reagan's nine scariest words, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” . Much the same bullshit. So, as a fan of our most criminal and rapacious Presidents, you must be distressed to see his economic legacy crashing down around us. Of course it's not his fault, he was just a patsy for his far more powerful and criminal kitchen cabinet but it can't be comfortable to see the father of your philosophy brought down, historically speaking.

Here's a thought for your new year. There are a myriad ways to help people and government can be a large part of that. Our state tax code used to be more centered on income tax. We see the effect of reducing that. Property taxes have sky rocketed and communities with fewer resources are hurting. In this state we need a combination of increased revenue, spending cuts, and reallocation of monies. We can't get anywhere though by removing one of those elements from the table. Increased revenue is best obtained by substantially increasing the income tax rate on those in the top 2%. Essentially what we would be doing is rolling back the tax breaks given to the wealthy just prior to Ventura leaving office.

"they" have to pay while you don't

You keep getting this wrong so either your suffering from too much Syrah last night or your purposely misleading. Nobody has ever, in the history of this thread or any others, proposed "they pay while I don't". Try and get it right. What has been proposed is that those who've profited more, either through investment or employment, pay a higher percentage income tax then those who haven't. By reducing that to "they" have to pay while you don't" is dishonest and proves you can't be trusted to say anything about anything that's truthful.

There is no possible way that that is true in all cases.

There is no possible way anything can be true in all cases.

As such a tax code based on income can not be moral by any standards becasue it is overly general. It is a utilitarian philosophy, the same ideas that are at the core of all authoritarian governments. As soon as you allow force to be used to support your own ideas you allow it to be used against you as well.

It's difficult wading through this swimming pool of bullshit but what it sounds like is your proposing a voluntary tax code. I suppose you could make the argument that the VAT is such a system except in order for it to be truly voluntary no taxes could be levied on essentials like food or clothing. Unless everyone works a mile from the job site then fuel would have to be considered essential. In order for me to do my job computers are essential. Tools for carpenters are essential but not for me so how will that work. Housing is essential but to what extent. I live in a modest home but I know people who have much more square footage then me. At what point do you go from essential to extravagant? And who decides? Some philosopher king appointed by a panel of learned elders?

What you proposing is warmed over Friedman nonsense. Reaganism is thankfully dead.

They are not using the same services and their tax bill will not be the same.

For Spendy McSpenderson, he's paying sales tax and higher license fees every year. He's paying property taxes for that lake home. He's paying more for his water bill, assuming he's on city and doesn't have a well.

Frugal McFrugalson, is not, although his wife is griping mightily about not having a car manufactured this century and that's causing Frugal to look at his admin assistant a little differently lately but he knows he's better off with the old ball and chain but for God sake's doesn't she understand the value of money and she could maybe lose a pound or two that would never hurt but she's been a good help mate especially back in college when she was, shall we say, a bit more limber and far less inhibited.

a group of which they do not belong

You mean like vertebrates? Or Homo Sapiens? Or Caucasians or Asians or Africans or Native Peoples? You see, what I'm proposing is that as members of our Society, a group to which we all belong, those who have profited more, should be under a greater obligation for the maintainance of our Society.

your method of paying for them are unethical and immoral

Wow, how great it is that, that that sticky point is finally settled. Contact the Vatican and the Dalai Lama because I'm sure they would be relieved to know they can finally stop working on it.

when it is used as the rational for the use of force.

I assume at this point your bringing up the point of how taxation is essentially robbery. The use of force here is the force government using to make people pay taxes. Or is it just force when some people are paying taxes? Is it just force when it's "a group of which you belong" pays taxes?

You speak of trust. Trust in government I assume, of which I have none. That's why we hold elections every couple years. Since the criminal Reagan was in office we've seen the progressive income tax get gutted. Extraordinary tax cuts for the wealthiest have shifted the burden substantially onto the middle and lower classes. The most obvious and onerous effect of this policy has been the historic rise in economic inequality. It was bad under Reagan and simply criminal under Bush the lesser.

Changes in tax policy, particularly reductions in the higher marginal tax rates, have coincided with the changes in income inequality. The effective federal tax rate takes into account the total net tax liability from all sources. For the top 1%, the modern rate is far lower than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. In contrast, the liability of the poorest group increased in the early '80s although it has lowered since due to the implementation of the earned income tax credit. Perhaps the clearest recent example of the relationship between changes in tax policy and changes in income inequality is the effect of the Bush Administration's tax proposals enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003. These changes sigificantly raised the after-tax income of the highest income earners while having a negligible effect on other groups.

This from: http://www.newsbatch.com/econ.htm

We don't have to invent anything new. What we have to do is go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. Then we can tweek the system. But first we need to stop the hemorrhaging of the middle class.

I watched the Kennedy Center Honors for the Arts program the other night and saw Jon Stewart speak for Bruce Springsteen's award. He spoke of being a young man in New Jersey and driving a "off brown Gremlin". The Gremlin, he posited, was designed for two purposes. First, as birth control for young men and second, to make the PInto feel better about itself. The reason I bring this up is to ask, "Is Mike Parry the "Gremlin" for Michelle Bachmann's Pinto?"

hatred you have for wealth

I have no hatred for wealth, on the contrary, I'm striving for all the wealth I can lay my grubby little hands on. What you're perceiving as hatred is actually profound disrespect for those that have achieved a great deal and now somehow feel no responsibility for those less fortunate. Hatred is far too strong a term and I wouldn't ever invest that much emotional energy for a group of people who don't merit it. It would be like hating the dog shit you just stepped in.

to likely that you hold those views simply as a matter of enriching yourself at the expense of others.

Now here is the classic meme from the parasitic wealthy elite.

"You just want me to give you all my money."

By making the accusation that I only want some personal benefit from raising the income tax rates on the PWE (parasitic wealthy elite), you denigrate me and my argument. All without a shred of evidence for that position. I am most likely in an income group that I would personally never see a dime of state or federal money. My kids are all grown and gone, through college, so those bills are all paid. Nope, nary a shilling would I see of DtM's precious dough. But, and this is where I would benefit, my society would prosper more equitably. The generation that saved us from fascism wouldn't languish in nursing homes staffed by the lowest paid workers in the health care industry. Schools wouldn't be understaffed by underpaid teachers that wouldn't burn out in less then 5 years. The poor would be assisted. The hungry would be fed. The homeless would be sheltered. There's more but to imply I would benefit without any hint that that was ever my goal is simply wrong. Forcing dog shit to sack up and pay their freight was all I was and still am, after.

All good points and that's why Captains of Industry make the big bucks. But, fundamentally, if Corporation XYZ operates in a certain locale, that business is using resources. Water, sewage, police and fire, roads are the obvious ones. Less obvious is the education of the workforce. Less obvious is the quality of life that enables the aforementioned business to attract top talent in management and engineering. These resources must be paid for and they must be paid for at a realistic rate.

As for taxing different groups of people at different rates, it's actually worked pretty well since Teddy came up with the idea. I personally would like to see tax rates for the wealthy elite so high, I might actually might start feeling sorry for them.