Aux Armes, Citoyens!

[Keith Levenberg]

Who could be bored by this? This stuff is riveting. I think we actually discussed the 8th amendment here awhile back. My view is that it's a peculiar amendment subject to changing meanings in a way that other provisions are not. That's because the term "unusual" sort of builds in the whole "evolving standards of decency" thing that in any other provision would be a made-up penumbra. The 4th amendment has something of this too in protecting against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's difficult to assess reasonableness without context. Suppose, however, there was legislative history from the founding era indicating that the people who wrote the 8th amendment unquestionably intended it to permit capital punishment. What relevance would that have to its constitutionality if the punishment were nevertheless both a) cruel and b) unusual?

Your Hamlet example reads like it builds on a large body of lit theory that I have never read, but I find it very odd. Of course if that monkey had typed out Hamlet, he would have written Hamlet! It doesn't even seem terribly uncommon for humans to accidentally create works of art that have meaning for others never intended by their creators, and for their reputation to hinge in large part on that unintended meaning. I'm not quite sure what pertinence this has to the legislative history issue, but it's an interesting question in an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin sort of way.

I think it's important to note that the textualist objection to legislative history originated in a historical backdrop in which legislative history was used to introduce ambiguity rather than to resolve it. You might think it went too far in the other direction, but I'm not sure they go as far as you think they're going. They are not opposed to all forms of external context, just particular types of legislative history that are particularly prone to abuse (floor statements by individuals that represent the views of 0.03% of the people whose intentions are relevant, committee reports written by staff that might represent the views of 0.0% of the people whose intentions are relevant). There are other types of extrinsic evidence of intended meaning which are not controversial, some of which one might fairly put in a bucket called "legislative history" (for example, histories of the way in which a statute is amended against a backdrop of judicial decisions of which Congress is presumed to be aware).

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
... Now, you are fully entitled to think those people were stupid and primitive and if only they had the benefit of the wisdom of Marx and Keynes and Ocasio-Cortez they would have realized that it's way more efficient to confiscate private wealth, shut down the pharma industry, and fund these things publicly.

Me: The Somme of straw men.

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
One would think so, but that's what he actually argued. Will happily admit I've never seen anyone else go that far down the plank.

I didn't actually see it that way. The straw men in question would be posing the choice as binary (current levels/methods of taxation and non-profit funding vs. confiscation, shutting down pharma, etc.); lumping Marx and Keynes together on this topic; lumping AOC in with them; implying that the other side of the argument required viewing the constitutional drafters as dumbasses; conflating the level of Bezos' personal wealth with the economic or public benefits of Amazon; probably more but I'm even boring myself now. And yes, VLM had his binary moments too.

 

[Michael Lewis]

That monkey point reminds me of the quote, variously attributed, that "it was said that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually, whether intentionally or not, reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."

 

[kirk wallace]

I'm very glad Maureen weighed in and shut down the errant misrepresentation of tax history part of this. Looking to the past's high marginal top rates is really only a bright shiny object. Looking at today's incomes and effective rates is the only way to dig in. If Warren Buffet tells you that effective individual rates on super-earners are too low, it is a good sign that there maybe something in the data to consider. I don't know about AOC's 70% on income over $10 million --which one source said would affect 18,000 returns per year -- but IMO taxing such wealth accumulation at 20-24%% (say you are tax-resident in TX or FL or WA and most of your income is long-term cap gain or dividends) and not having an effective estate tax (which somehow wasn't mentioned above) is a social ill. Today's brackets are a travesty; we need four or five more at the top end; and we probably need Buffet's proposal which is basically an alternative minimum federal income tax of 30% on all returns with over $1mm of taxable income. That is, if you are a high-wage (ordinary income) earner (athlete, SF or NYC realtor, lawyer, doctor (?), entertainer etc.), this would have no effect b/c you are already paying ~37-40% federal tax), but if you are a Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Romney or VC Fund manager and most of your income is currently taxed federally at 20%, this would start to level the tax-playing field. (We would need an entire different regime to impose meaningful taxes on real estate developers who manage to have super low taxable income despite very large gross incomes.)

I don't think one needs to be part of the "eat the rich" movement to take Mark E's observation about life in Norway as at least one example of ways societies can have high taxes, prosperity and a general high quality of life for almost everybody. (Norway can't be a model for the US because we are not about to reign in our military spending nor tax car fuels dramatically to deter consumption; but it can still serve as a data point.)

But then you do, as alluded to above, also need to believe your government is more or less spending the money wisely. We used to believe that generally, but the largely race-based resentment that the government was spending its money on the "wrong" people, which had rumblings as AFDC started covering more African Americans in the early '60s, flowered under Reagan and , despite the facts, has not left us since. And even then, there was pretty broad consensus that government spending on science and medicine was efficient and important. So, yes, count me with VLM on saying give the money to Tony Fauci.

 

[Peter Creasey]

Keeping things in context, the government has hardly excelled in cost-effective handling of the post office, Medicare and Medicade, social security, Fannie Mae, War on Poverty, Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and virtually every "government service" it has imposed on us while overspending our tax dollars!!!

. . . . . Pete

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I had meant not to respond, but this statement--"Your Hamlet example reads like it builds on a large body of lit theory that I have never read, but I find it very odd. Of course if that monkey had typed out Hamlet, he would have written Hamlet!"--is stunning. I do hope it does not represent common legal thinking. First the monkey example is age old. The saw is that if an infinite number of monkeys pounded the keys of an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time, eventually some of them would produce the works of Shakespeare, the concept being that the infinite numbers would overcome the astronomical odds against that happening. If my memory is correct, there is even a Bob Newhart routine from the 50s or 60s about being the inspector who has to check the monkeys' results. There are both literary and philosophical examples of thought experiments even more directed at how odd it would be to see a coherent text produced by chance or some other form of non-authorship (Borges' the Library of Babel, Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion). The point of all of them is that unauthored texts look like language but are not and cannot really be rationally treated as such. A monkey randomly pounding keystrokes obviously does not produce language and does not write anything. If one monkey by accident produces Hamlet, he still hasn't engaged in an activity at all different from all the other monkeys who produced gibberish. It is not literary critics alone, but philosophers and linguists who agree that by definition only an intending intelligence produces language as opposed to marks on a page (it may be that AI will qualify someday, and other species may have the capability so one can't say only human beings can do this). If you believe the monkey did write Hamlet (even "of course, he did"), then indeed it will make sense to treat texts--and not just legal texts--as if the marks on the pages actually "said" something as opposed to conveying someone's (or some group of people"s intention). But it will make your legal theory something of a science fiction.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

Yes, I'm familiar with the old chestnut about monkeys on typewriters. I just find it odd to say that if they had typed out Hamlet, they wouldn't have written Hamlet. (I'm also confused by what connection this is supposed to have to legal interpretation.) I think the only technically accurate thing to say would be that the monkey wrote Hamlet but that the version of Hamlet written by the monkey isn't nearly as impressive as the version of Hamlet written by Shakespeare because it was the product of random chance. And I think this can be true even if you accept that the marks on the pages don't represent any kind of language or communication from the monkey.

On taxes: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Ah, I see. We're quibbling over the meaning of written. OK then, except that I'd add that the monkey hadn't written Hamlet at all, just something that looked like Hamlet. The issue isn't Hamlet as a work of art, but Hamlet as language, so the issue of whether or how much we should be impressed by it isn't really relevant.

 

[robert ames]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Keeping things in context, the government has hardly excelled in cost-effective handling of the post office, Medicare and Medicade, social security, Fannie Mae, War on Poverty, Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and virtually every "government service" it has imposed on us while overspending our tax dollars!!!

. . . . . Pete

well, the post office pays their own way, and with the advent of the internet this has become a losing game. not the post office's fault.

and the cost administrative costs of medicare and medicaid pale in comparison the the overhead cost of [you name it] health insurance company.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
That monkey point reminds me of the quote, variously attributed, that "it was said that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually, whether intentionally or not, reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."

According to right wingers like Keith, you put a million people together who individually can't make good decisions and presto, neo-classical economics! Never mind that pretty much all right wing economic theory has been shown to be empirically false. Bromides for everyone! The government is wastes all my tax dollars! The private sector is *so* efficient. Trickle down, bro, trickle down.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by robert ames:

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Keeping things in context, the government has hardly excelled in cost-effective handling of the post office, Medicare and Medicade, social security, Fannie Mae, War on Poverty, Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and virtually every "government service" it has imposed on us while overspending our tax dollars!!!

. . . . . Pete

well, the post office pays their own way, and with the advent of the internet this has become a losing game. not the post office's fault.

and the cost administrative costs of medicare and medicaid pale in comparison the the overhead cost of [you name it] health insurance company.

Pete, you can't substantiate any of your claims with evidence. Stay in your weird ass lane.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by kirk wallace:
I'm very glad Maureen weighed in and shut down the errant misrepresentation of tax history part of this. Looking to the past's high marginal top rates is really only a bright shiny object. Looking at today's incomes and effective rates is the only way to dig in. If Warren Buffet tells you that effective individual rates on super-earners are too low, it is a good sign that there maybe something in the data to consider. I don't know about AOC's 70% on income over $10 million --which one source said would affect 18,000 returns per year -- but IMO taxing such wealth accumulation at 20-24%% (say you are tax-resident in TX or FL or WA and most of your income is long-term cap gain or dividends) and not having an effective estate tax (which somehow wasn't mentioned above) is a social ill. Today's brackets are a travesty; we need four or five more at the top end; and we probably need Buffet's proposal which is basically an alternative minimum federal income tax of 30% on all returns with over $1mm of taxable income. That is, if you are a high-wage (ordinary income) earner (athlete, SF or NYC realtor, lawyer, doctor (?), entertainer etc.), this would have no effect b/c you are already paying ~37-40% federal tax), but if you are a Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Romney or VC Fund manager and most of your income is currently taxed federally at 20%, this would start to level the tax-playing field. (We would need an entire different regime to impose meaningful taxes on real estate developers who manage to have super low taxable income despite very large gross incomes.)

I don't think one needs to be part of the "eat the rich" movement to take Mark E's observation about life in Norway as at least one example of ways societies can have high taxes, prosperity and a general high quality of life for almost everybody. (Norway can't be a model for the US because we are not about to reign in our military spending nor tax car fuels dramatically to deter consumption; but it can still serve as a data point.)

But then you do, as alluded to above, also need to believe your government is more or less spending the money wisely. We used to believe that generally, but the largely race-based resentment that the government was spending its money on the "wrong" people, which had rumblings as AFDC started covering more African Americans in the early '60s, flowered under Reagan and , despite the facts, has not left us since. And even then, there was pretty broad consensus that government spending on science and medicine was efficient and important. So, yes, count me with VLM on saying give the money to Tony Fauci.

Thanks, Kirk!

Hopefully, everyone watched dumb-ass Michale Dell get owned by smart guy Erik Brynjolfsson at Davos.

It's funny how folks can't get out their own way with the false equivalency of rich and smart. Hasn't been my experience, but it does take a certain ruthlessness and base clever to get rich, I'll grant that.

As to R&D, pretty much everything worth anything was paid for by the government and subsequently exploited by business interests. It was government technocrats that put the funds towards those projects, but I guess Merck will get to a better influenza vaccine once they have that viagra thing figured out. I have little faith in the private sector to do anything truly productive anymore. It's mostly clicks, accounting tricks and getting in the middle of transactions. It's all rather depressing.

 

[Peter Creasey]

Nathan, the fact is widely known that the cited "government service" programs are not self-sustaining...read: either broke or going broke.

. . . . . Pete

 

[Bill Lundstrom]

originally posted by kirk wallace:
I'm very glad Maureen weighed in and shut down the errant misrepresentation of tax history part of this. Looking to the past's high marginal top rates is really only a bright shiny object. Looking at today's incomes and effective rates is the only way to dig in. If Warren Buffet tells you that effective individual rates on super-earners are too low, it is a good sign that there maybe something in the data to consider. I don't know about AOC's 70% on income over $10 million --which one source said would affect 18,000 returns per year -- but IMO taxing such wealth accumulation at 20-24%% (say you are tax-resident in TX or FL or WA and most of your income is long-term cap gain or dividends) and not having an effective estate tax (which somehow wasn't mentioned above) is a social ill. Today's brackets are a travesty; we need four or five more at the top end; and we probably need Buffet's proposal which is basically an alternative minimum federal income tax of 30% on all returns with over $1mm of taxable income. That is, if you are a high-wage (ordinary income) earner (athlete, SF or NYC realtor, lawyer, doctor (?), entertainer etc.), this would have no effect b/c you are already paying ~37-40% federal tax), but if you are a Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Romney or VC Fund manager and most of your income is currently taxed federally at 20%, this would start to level the tax-playing field. (We would need an entire different regime to impose meaningful taxes on real estate developers who manage to have super low taxable income despite very large gross incomes.)

I don't think one needs to be part of the "eat the rich" movement to take Mark E's observation about life in Norway as at least one example of ways societies can have high taxes, prosperity and a general high quality of life for almost everybody. (Norway can't be a model for the US because we are not about to reign in our military spending nor tax car fuels dramatically to deter consumption; but it can still serve as a data point.)

But then you do, as alluded to above, also need to believe your government is more or less spending the money wisely. We used to believe that generally, but the largely race-based resentment that the government was spending its money on the "wrong" people, which had rumblings as AFDC started covering more African Americans in the early '60s, flowered under Reagan and , despite the facts, has not left us since. And even then, there was pretty broad consensus that government spending on science and medicine was efficient and important. So, yes, count me with VLM on saying give the money to Tony Fauci.

this is spot on.
a couple thoughts or observations i would add are:
people may be surprised how small doctor's, who aren't surgeons or radiologists, salaries are when their medical school debt is taken into consideration.
i am intrigued by the idea of an asset based tax that, i believe, is utilized in Sweden or maybe all of Scandinavia. in my mind, this would be a fair way to mitigate some of the effects of hoarding wealth. especially people that keep 7 or greater figures in bank and brokerage accounts and never put that money back into the economy.
also, this is probably difficult to implement but high income tax on "wealthy or high wage earners" without taking into consideration cost of living rates in different parts of the country seems a bit unfair to me but like i said, implementing such a taxation system would be very difficult to impossible. just thought.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by robert ames:

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Keeping things in context, the government has hardly excelled in cost-effective handling of the post office, Medicare and Medicade, social security, Fannie Mae, War on Poverty, Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and virtually every "government service" it has imposed on us while overspending our tax dollars!!!

. . . . . Pete

well, the post office pays their own way, and with the advent of the internet this has become a losing game. not the post office's fault.

and the cost administrative costs of medicare and medicaid pale in comparison the the overhead cost of [you name it] health insurance company.

I always find it interesting that when people trot out these accusations of government spending they always focus on social services and steadfastly ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the room: the egregious cost excesses seen in military procurement and military contractors (private industry!). I wonder why that is...

Mark Lipton

 

[Pavel Tchichikov]

originally posted by MLipton:
I wonder why that is...

Clearly because someone here instructed them in the value of government research in the military sector, and its benefits for the private sector for decades to come. Oh wait, did he skip that part? I wonder why that is...

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Michael Lewis:
That monkey point reminds me of the quote, variously attributed, that "it was said that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually, whether intentionally or not, reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."

Good one!

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by robert ames:

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Keeping things in context, the government has hardly excelled in cost-effective handling of the post office, Medicare and Medicade, social security, Fannie Mae, War on Poverty, Freddie Mac, foreign aid, and virtually every "government service" it has imposed on us while overspending our tax dollars!!!

. . . . . Pete

well, the post office pays their own way, and with the advent of the internet this has become a losing game. not the post office's fault.

and the cost administrative costs of medicare and medicaid pale in comparison the the overhead cost of [you name it] health insurance company.

And Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac's contribution to the mortgage meltdown was later and far less duplicitous than the private sector.

 

[robert ames]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Nathan, the fact is widely known that the cited "government service" programs are not self-sustaining...read: either broke or going broke.

. . . . . Pete

pete--you truly are gormless. congress funds the government, so when the government is going broke, you should attribute that to congress passing huge tax cuts and refusing to fund the government that it created. period. going broke and being broken are two different things.

government programs are not designed to be self sustaining. where did you come up with the notion that they are? with the exception of the post office, they are designed to be sustained by taxes, etc.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Nathan, the fact is widely known that the cited "government service" programs are not self-sustaining...read: either broke or going broke.

. . . . . Pete

Of course social service programs aren't self-sustaining: Social Security, Medicare and Medicade provide people with economic and health services and have no income except for federal tax money. The question is do they provide the services they were designed to provide and that the private sector either can't or won't. The effectiveness of these programs has one massive bit of evidentiary support: the Republican party has long wanted to get rid of them (since at least the 80s) and has never managed it because of the support of tbe electorate, which values especially retirment support and health care. They also have reduced almost to non-existence profound elderly poverty. You may not want to pay taxes to support them, but in what sense do they not do what they are meant to do? As for the Great Society poverty programs, I don't know how many studies I have read recently that claim that if we take into account the various forms of government support to low income familes provided by these programs, poverty in this country is much lower than other studies frequently claim, Putting aside the question of whether such support should be taken into account when determining numbers of people living in poverty given the difference between what government determinations of what counts as poverty and what most people might experience as poverty, that is pretty strong support that those programs also achieve their ends, and that suport comes from conservative economic studies, no less.