Letter: Rich should pay a little more

I am writing to encourage Louisiana’s senators and representatives to engage seriously in negotiations to avoid the impending fiscal cliff. I would like to frame the debate in terms of the dramatically increasing income gap.

Since 1979, the income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans has been steadily increasing, with a rapid acceleration following the Reagan administration’s dysfunctional trickle-down theory of economics. It could better have been called the gusher-up theory, with the top 1 percent of Americans increasing after-tax income by 155 percent, compared to the lower 20 percent’s increase of 37 percent, which amounted to an overall decrease in real income.

The majority of Louisiana delegates are now rallying behind a tea-party rhetoric of no more taxes, as if they were John Hancock and members of our government representatives of King George. The humiliating status of Louisiana in the face of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s “read-my-lips” pledge is a state on the verge of fiscal, moral and educational bankruptcy.

The truth is that we need taxes to support a functioning government, an educational system and a developing infrastructure. The question is never one of taxes or no taxes — it’s a question of tax structures and what those taxes are used for — for instance for wars against imaginary weapons of mass destruction or for schools.

The current Republicans, with Sen. David Vitter and Jindal leading the charge, promote policies that increasingly punish the impoverished while enriching the wealthy. I believe we should promote different values — the primary one being the value of the community. It may sound heroic to say to the unfortunate that they have to learn how to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, as George Bush may have thought he did. But the reality is that we need a government that promotes the general welfare, not just the welfare of those who profit from gusher-up socioeconomic policies.

By curtailing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the Republican agenda affects those who can least afford it. Wealthy people will not lose if the government cuts social programs. We are already more than well-enough off. Wealthy people who want to keep their tax cuts want only to increase their gains, citing some kind of myopic Darwinian sociology.
Louisiana stands as an exemplar of how keeping more for ourselves doesn’t work. We know that for the greater good, those of us who have been benefitting from past policies may need to contribute a bit more, perhaps cutting our after-tax incomes from something like $180,000 to $170,000. The past election shows that a good many upper-middle-class and upper-class citizens are willing to pull in their belts just a little tighter. It might, in fact, be good for us to lose some weight.

Irvin Peckham

professor

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (40)


1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 21/12/2012

@InPville - Thanks, you are probably right. I suppose one should be surprised it doesn't happen more often.

2) Comment by InPVille - 21/12/2012

@bourbon-soda: "but I am still puzzled at what content here up to the time of the quarantine, would warrant more than 5 minutes' review before being cleared." -[**]- I agree that there doesn't seem to be any reason to warrant a quarantine. The discussion on this letter has been relatively mild. For this reason a conscious quarantine doesn't seem to be a high probability to me. I think it is more likely that someone at the Advocate made an inadvertent change to some html code that resulted in the comments not showing up. The comments were still in the system to be pulled back up. None of the other letter comments were involved. Like I said it happened to me before and when I sent a message about it, the comments were soon restored. The Advocate pattern as I have seen it is to remove individual comments deemed "out of bounds" and not delete the whole discussion.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 20/12/2012

@Bouncer - sorry, should read "should insulate against criticism."

4) Comment by bourbon-soda - 20/12/2012

@InPVille - As this discussion circles the drain, thanks for explanation but I am still puzzled at what content here up to the time of the quarantine, would warrant more than 5 minutes' review before being cleared. @Bouncer - That credentials or position should against criticism from putatively lesser citizens is a peculiarly (or perhaps not) authoritarian idea in an essentially democratic venue that exists for no other reason than that the putative peasantry may comment on emperors' clothes.

5) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 18/12/2012

I'm perfectly OK with the rich paying a little more. But I am more in favor of the federal government spending a LOT less. No more increase in the debt ceiling. Balance the budget, like all the rest of have to do. Printing money devalues currency and like an invisible thief, steals from all of us by decreasing the value of our savings. It's worse than an increase in tax on income. It taxes all the money we have ever been able to save AND devalues our incomes. From both the rich and the poor (although the rich can afford it better). Our posterity deserve better than this. We should not be the first generation of Americans to leave our children and grandchildren worse off than we were.

6) Comment by InPVille - 18/12/2012

That should be: "The total ANNUAL GDP of the United States is about $15,000,000,000.

7) Comment by InPVille - 18/12/2012

@Bouncer: But pot shots are what you take against crackpot ideas. Should The President actually get that $1,600,000,000 over the course of the next 10 years it will amount to $160,000,000 per year against a project 1,000,000,000+ annual deficit leaving an increasing amount of debt added each year of $840,000,000+. The tax increase only gives the illusion that anything is being accomplished to those without the wit or inclination to understand what is really going on. Add to the current $16,000,000,000 national debt the $24,000,000,000 in unfunded Medicare liability, the $21,400,000,000 in unfunded Social Security, the 3,600,000,000 in unfunded Military Retirements, the $2,000,000,000 in unfunded Federal Employment retirements it comes to about $65,000,000,000. The total GDP of the United States is about $15,000,000,000. This doesn't include the interest that will have to be paid on that amount as it will change over the years. It doesn't include the new entitlements that the geniuses in Washington will dream up from their fevered brains in coming decades. Consider too that the population of the country is aging which means fewer paying to support the already too top heavy situation. Dr. Peckham needs to gain a grasp of our real fiscal situation instead of lobbying for his fantasy.

8) Comment by InPVille - 18/12/2012

@bourbon-soda: "I am trying to find anything in the comments that would warrant ~12h sequestration or embargo." -[**]- I suspect there was no embargo. Comments have disappeared before. My suspicion is that someone sent an email to theadvocate.com from one of the "contact us" links such as appears at the bottom of this thread. I've done the same thing before with similar results.

9) Comment by bourbon-soda - 18/12/2012

I am again perplexed. There is less personal characterization of Dr. Peckham in all my comments on both his articles than there is of me in Bouncer's latest comment. The interested reader can check this by searching "peckham" on this site.

10) Comment by Bouncer - 18/12/2012

You know, I really don't like calling people out in these forums, but I have noticed that any time you get a chance, bourbon-soda, you enjoy taking pot shots at Professor Peckham, suggesting that his writing is somehow deficient or lacking in reasoning. Frankly, your evident obsession with this particular individual and his professional status strikes me as rather unhealthy. In addition, your jealousy of someone who is a published full professor at the state's flagship institution is painfully transparent. The more snarky comments about him you make, the more your bitterness and envy are revealed. What happened? Were you unable to complete that Ph.D.? Did you not get hired by LSU or some other college, hence, the animosity toward University faculty? You really need to get a life and find a more suitable target for your envious sniping.

11) Comment by bourbon-soda - 18/12/2012

I am trying to find anything in the comments that would warrant ~12h sequestration or embargo.

12) Comment by Bouncer - 18/12/2012

Caucajun: For the record, Professor Peckham's wife died from cancer a couple of years ago, and he has not remarried. You can take your stinking foot out of your mouth now.

13) Comment by caucajun - 17/12/2012

Peckham said this: We know that for the greater good, those of us who have been benefitting from past policies may need to contribute a bit more, perhaps cutting our after-tax incomes from something like $180,000 to $170,000. His wife must make a lot more than he does, records show he makes about $86,000 a year and won't pay any of those new taxes obama wants on the rich.

14) Comment by swinham - 17/12/2012

Here is the first paragraph of an article I read yesterday[Revolutionary France, Nira Kaplan, 2008]: More than a century of poor financial management finally came to a head during the mid-1780s. The long and expensive Seven Year’s War (1756-63), had inspired a few attempts to reverse the proliferation of exemptions and reform the tax base, but these efforts were no more successful than the war had been. To make matters worse, when the French government sent troops to America to help the rebellious colonists in 1780, it funded the deployment with high-interest, short-term loans that it had no ability to repay. Does it appear much has changed?

15) Comment by InPVille - 17/12/2012

@DMJ: If you get into debt and then pay it down, it shows your credit worthiness. If you get into debt and continue to borrow more and more without reducing the amount of indebtedness, it isn't going to improve your credit rating, quite the opposite.

16) Comment by NearBarbarian - 17/12/2012

Great letter, Irv. Judging from many of the comments below, you've struck a nerve--particularly amongst those who vote against their own best interests. Cheers!

17) Comment by DMJ - 17/12/2012

Yes, let's not forget to blame the poor...

18) Comment by Duckyluve - 17/12/2012

The poor should be taking LESS too

19) Comment by DMJ - 17/12/2012

Pville, the reason our credit rating dropped the first time was not because we kept borrowing (this helps your credit rating) but because we came so very close to not raising the limit, thus defaulting on our loans. Let's at least agree on what happened before we attempt to come up with a solution...

20) Comment by jdk944 - 17/12/2012

Mr. Peckhams latest "rant", void of reality, except that which he calls it so. THE FACTS ARE THAT INCREASING TAXES ON THE RICH is NOT the issue with this latest political game, nor will it SOLVE ANYTHING!! Maybe you need the government to take care of your personal bodily functions as well, I DO NOT!!

21) Comment by madbiker - 17/12/2012

I agree with one comment the prof said, and that is we need taxes to "support a functioning government". How many people think we have a functioning government? Clearly parts of government is functioning, however there are so many parts that are so disfunctional, that if an individual were to act like that, they would be locked up. Our government is addicted to worthless progams used to feel good that provide no benifet for the masses, just like Americans are addicted to junk food. The government needs to get back on a diet of veggies that are outlined in the Constitution and give up the sweets that taste good, but produce no benefit.

22) Comment by bourbon-soda - 17/12/2012

Maybe we could hit up our old buddies for repayment of lend-lease and the Marshall Plan and ridding them of Hitler, adjusted for inflation and compound interest, and for protecting them from the Soviet Union and now Russia for all those decades. Oh, wait, our old buddies are broke despite all our subsidy and their socialized medicine, retirement, protracted college, generous unemployment benefits etc. that they are always badgering the US to adopt.

23) Comment by InPVille - 17/12/2012

@DMJ: "If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we risk defaulting on our loans. Risking the faith and credit of the U.S. government is not something we want to do." -[**]- If we do not do something about the deficit spending, the % of tax revenue which goes to payment on the interest on the debt will increase. Right now the interest rate is relatively low. When it goes up to or above the historical average, interest payments will become a bigger problem. If we don't do something about the deficit spending, the nation's credit rating will be lowered AGAIN, and problems with making payments on the national debt will increase leaving future generations of Americans worse off than ourselves. . . a fine legacy.

24) Comment by bourbon-soda - 17/12/2012

Assuming that this letter is intended to be something like a persuasive essay rather than free verse or fantasy or something else not strictly logical, I would love to see it graded by some of my old English professors. Maybe it helps to realize that "[c]ritical thinking itself, Peckham suggests, is a middle-class projection,..." (from http://www.usu.edu/usupress/books/index.cfm?isbn=8046 ). I can believe it.

25) Comment by DMJ - 17/12/2012

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we risk defaulting on our loans. Risking the faith and credit of the U.S. government is not something we want to do.

26) Comment by nimby? - 17/12/2012

there will never be enough funding . there are some improvements I'd like to make that I can't afford right now . should I raise my debt ceiling ?

27) Comment by ScotB - 17/12/2012

This is so tiresome an argument. If president Obama gets the tax increase he proposes, it will operate the federal government for 8 days! We must cut spending, which is the real problem. Our generation must not pass on a crushing debt to our children's generations. No more increases in the debt ceiling, please!

28) Comment by Sandy - 17/12/2012

I have a better idea, DMJ. Just let the government tax at a 100% rate, and then distribute it in a manner that they deem to be "fair". That is really what you are looking for. It is not about taxes, it is about what you perceive to be social justice.

29) Comment by DMJ - 17/12/2012

Increase top rate to 39%. Make all capital gains after the first $150K be taxed at same rate as income. Remove the tax cap for Social Security. Means test Social Security and Medicare (like Romney suggested). Once unemployment is down closer to 5%, allow all Bush-era tax cuts to expire. Problem solved.

30) Comment by tradewinns - 17/12/2012

i'm all for the "rich" paying more. but unless spending is curtailed, the results will not change. i also am tired of the progressives lumping welfare programs and social security/medicare together. in case you didn't know our federal government "buys in" medicaid patients into the medicare program daily. the federal government stole our lockbox funds (lyndon johnson) and now want to talk about the drain on the federal budget caused because they have to pay the money back. and medicare isn't "free" even after you qualify. the government takes back a portion of your social security every month so you pay for medicare even after you retire. not so welfare programs. in fact there was a news agency (i think it was abc) who detailed how in Pa. welfare folks garnered $64K of benefits yearly and how hurtful it was for a welfare receipient to take a job that paid less than that amount because not only would they lose benefits and have to work, but they made less because they also now had to pay taxes! more intelligent planning by progressives.

31) Comment by 8point6 - 17/12/2012

"for instance for wars against imaginary weapons of mass destruction " www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

32) Comment by Chucky - 17/12/2012

Just give a little more i said give a little more, got a gun the IRS and we are going to make you 'GIVE' some more.

33) Comment by InPVille - 17/12/2012

@Peckham: "Since 1979, the income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans has been steadily increasing, with a rapid acceleration following the Reagan administration’s dysfunctional trickle-down theory of economics." More Peckham bunkum/humbug. The trend toward a growing income difference between the most and least wealthy is found throughout the western world as shown in this study: -[ Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries ]- which may be found at the following link -[ http://www.oecd.org/social/socialpoliciesanddata/47723414.pdf ]- The differences are greater in egalitarian Sweden and Finland. The difference in Australia is slightly greater than the U.S. What is dysfunctional is Dr. Peckham's ability to line up a cause with the effect.

34) Comment by swinham - 17/12/2012

The_Host ["You can't spend more than you make. Unless you are the Federal Government of course"]: Or the state of Louisiana, though it has to be a little trickier about it since our constitution ostensibly prohibits it. Gumbo33 ["Perhaps if obvious freeloaders would remove themselves from the welfare lists there would be more money that could go to the real poor and unfortunate souls, instead of the people who just want a better TV or car or clothes and really are in a position to better themselves through hard work."] : And, perhaps if the ridiculously wealthy would relinquish a few of their tax loopholes, the whole system would be fairer.

35) Comment by The_Host - 17/12/2012

Even if the rich paid a little more and the government spent a little less it wouldn't solve the problem of overspending in this country by politicians. We overspend by such a large amount that there is no way to keep up with the spending regardless of how much you tax. You can't spend more than you make. Unless you are the Federal Government of course.

36) Comment by postscript56 - 17/12/2012

gumbo - conservatives love that little theory because it fits so well with the reality they would like to have. but in the reality we do have smalll and large businesses increase or decrease the work force because of the amount of work they have, not because their taxes go up or down. if a business owner tells you they add or subtract workers based solely on tax rates then they are lying to you. but i doubt you could find even 5% of business owners willing to blow that smoke. as for the government "adding" more people to welfare, since the dawn of man there have been individuals who have not been willing to work as hard as others. it is the human condition. not a result of one form of government over another. the percentage of people willing to live off the work of others is no greater now than it has ever been, nor will any government policy of any kind change that. it is the human condition. social programs do not exists for those folks, but for the huge numbers of people who who can't meet even their basic needs on what businesses are willing to pay.

37) Comment by conscience - 17/12/2012

Democratic party talking points; got In a swipe at Reagan, a snarky jab at Bush 43 as well as a discredit for both Jindal and Vitter. The problem professor is that there are too many recipients of government entitlements and too few taxpayers. The overwhelming majority of working Americans (yes folks that make over 250K work also) understand that taxes are needed to fund the basics of government. What they don't support is the funding of wasteful programs that enrich the politically correct and do nothing to build a sustainable economy. It would also be helpful if our current leaders in Washington would define talking point terms such as "rich", "fair" and "a little more".

38) Comment by Whatnow - 17/12/2012

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365

39) Comment by Whatnow - 17/12/2012

Mr. Peckham, since you include yourself in the category of being "more" than well-enough off, no one is keeping you from giving that "more" to the government by way of a check. I'm sure Washington will spend it wisely. They may even spend it for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/20/top-ten-government-spending-at-its-stupidest/#ixzz2FI6vwaY2

40) Comment by gumbo33 - 16/12/2012

I've talked to enough business owners that report business earnings on their personal income taxes to know they can't afford to hire and deal with more taxation. The question is what or who is considered "rich?" If your definition is $250,000 for a household then raising taxes on those households (as this administration wants to do) is in effect raising taxes on your local businesses. This would probably be adverse for the economy and hiring at this point. Also, don't throw Medicaid into the same pile with Soc Sec and Medicare. Medicaid is a full on entitlement the other two are paid into over time by those individuals who work. Additionally, there are about a million programs for the "poor". I'm sure there are many people that take advantage of these programs who probably shouldn't. The question then is what your definition of "poor" is? Education is Free, food is free, rent is discounted, enrichment programs abound, church is free, parks are free (the list pretty much goes on). The other side of this is responsibility, accountability (moral & fiscal) and realizing that living off the government dole generation after generation doesn't exactly instill confidence that more taxes will help those that don't want to help themselves. Perhaps if obvious freeloaders would remove themselves from the welfare lists there would be more money that could go to the real poor and unfortunate souls, instead of the people who just want a better TV or car or clothes and really are in a position to better themselves through hard work. I personally think the problem lies in a loss of moral fiber, a loss of God in our National conversation. There is indeed an obligation to help feed and help the poor, NOT an obligation to aid the government in adding more people to the growing welfare list.