“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Paul Krugman: Privilege, Pathology and Power
Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.
And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.
So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?
Eugene Robinson: What Could Go Wrong in 2016?
You probably noticed that 2015 was pretty weird. But hey, it’s a brand new year—a fresh start, a blank slate, an unwritten script. In 2016, what could possibly go wrong?
Uh, where to begin?
My fingers balk at typing the words “President-elect Trump” because I don’t think such a thing will actually happen. But at this point I’m wondering how to justify ruling anything out.
A year ago, was there anyone on earth who predicted that Donald Trump would utterly dominate the Republican presidential race? That the boastful billionaire would be setting the nation’s political agenda? That Jeb Bush, armed with more campaign money than he could possibly spend, would be drifting helplessly toward the single-digit wings of the crowded debate stage?
Jared Berstsein: Yes, Virginia… There Is an Aggressive and Highly Successful Anti-Tax Lobby
The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece yesterday morning showing how the effective tax rate — taxes as a share of income — spiked up significantly in 2013 for the wealthiest taxpayers due to an increase in the tax rate on capital gains. This is important information and the piece appropriately highlights how the higher rate sharply increased the tax liability of the richest 400 taxpayers, whose effective rate went from 16.7 percent in 2012 to 22.9 percent in 2013. [..]
For readers who also read the recent New York Times piece on the “income defense industry” of the wealthy-the extensive anti-tax infrastructure they’ve built up over the years to reduce their tax liabilities-this WSJ piece may have sown some confusion. For example, the Journal quotes a conservative commentator complaining about “the mistaken narrative… that… high income Americans have used a combination of aggressive tax planning, loopholes and political influence to lower their tax burdens to unconscionably low levels.”
E. J. Dionne, Jr.: An Article of Conciliation
At year’s end, I want to offer a word to my conservative and libertarian readers whose patience I try regularly.
Perhaps you read me to have someone to yell at, or in search of evidence for how dumb liberals can be. No matter. I’m glad you’re there.
I am not someone who believes that if only we understood each other better, we would find our way to agreement. Indeed, sometimes people get to understand each other better and the results are disastrous. They learn that the distance between them is even greater than they assumed.
But more fundamentally, people disagree because they have honest differences over what matters most. We might all claim to believe in liberty, justice, equality, community, security and personal responsibility. But we can still quarrel because we put different weights on each, or because we define some of these concepts differently.
Owen Jones: Cut now, pay later: the floods show what happens when you strip back the state
Money is no object in this relief effort,” came the passionate anti-austerity cry. “Whatever money is needed for it will be spent. We will take whatever steps are necessary.” David Cameron made this statement during the flood crisis of February 2014, and his defenders will point out that the prime minister was referring to flood relief, not defence. But here is “false economy” at its starkest: cutting back on services ostensibly to save money, then having to spend far more on the consequences. As official documents now show, the government’s own advisory board recently pointed out that a lack of funds would leave northern communities at risk of floods. One £180m floods defence project was scrapped in Leeds, for example. And now? Well, according to KPMG estimates, the long-term cost of the disaster to everyone could be somewhere between £5bn and £5.8bn.
This is not to claim that proper investment in flood defences would have entirely prevented this disaster, but it certainly could have mitigated the consequences. And “false economy” is a flawed concept, because not everything can be reduced to pound signs. Who can put a price on the misery of individuals in their current plight, at the destruction of their treasured positions, their beloved homes and businesses? But the flood disaster exposes – brutally – how the government’s economic policies leave this country exposed to the great challenges and risks of the future. A threat, you could say, to national security, our economic security and your family’s security.
Recent Comments