At a breakfast with Democratic delegates in Florida, the actor Ben Affleck told the crowd that Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.
When a reporter from the New York Times asked him if he ever considered sending the $1 million back to Washington, the actor said "No,"
"I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."
For the moment, let’s set aside the idiotically blasphemous way in which he frames the issue and focus on the idiotic hypocrisy of his statement.
In essence, Affleck is saying that he wants the government to forcibly take from him what he isn’t willing to give. While I don’t expect intellectual consistency from anyone who collects a paycheck by pretending to be someone else, I'm curious how far he would take this idea. Would he, for example, support the idea of a military draft?
I like Ben. I really do. In fact, I think he’s an intelligent guy and (semi)talented actor. But he shares a failing common to the wealthy members of his adopted political party. If you’re a Democrat and you disagree with the tax cuts why not give the money back to the government? If you don't believe that you should keep the money why not send it to the IRS? All it would require is a stamp, an envelope, and the courage to live up to your convictions.
Which of these items are the Democrats lacking?
(Hat tip: Steven Taylor)
1
Is that really the question though Joe? Why aren't you giving the money back?
LOL, Becuase that's not what jumps to my mind at all.
As a non-millionaire, non-trust fund kid, non-200k plus income earner, working class guy, what screams out at me is why are they getting a windfall tax cut in the middle of a war with record deficits and national debt in the first place?
posted on 08.02.2004 6:42 AM2
DS,
Is that really the question though Joe? Why aren't you giving the money back?
Because I don’t think the government needs any more of my money than they already take.
As a non-millionaire, non-trust fund kid, non-200k plus income earner, working class guy, what screams out at me is why are they getting a windfall tax cut in the middle of a war with record deficits and national debt in the first place?
My guess is that the Republicans secretly don’t really like rich people and to get them back they lower their taxes. After all, (as I’ve argued before here and here) cutting tax rates causes the wealthiest Americans to pay more to the Treasury.
posted on 08.02.2004 6:52 AM3
Giving $1 Mill back would be martyrdom to guys who can only make that much in a lifetime, my heart bleeds for Ben Affleck.
posted on 08.02.2004 7:27 AM4
After all, (as I’ve argued before here and here) cutting tax rates causes the wealthiest Americans to pay more to the Treasury.
I'll take a closer look at that when I get a second Joe. I'm having access issues. In the interim, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion or what you're criteria were, but my guess would be that you don't deal with preparing taxes in great detail.
The last tax cut, i.e. The Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, resulted in a torrent of money leading from the Treasury to the pockets of the well-to-do and the mega-wealthy. I know, I handed over hundreds of refund checks. It really peaked this last time around, and I was struck by how often, when I handed wealthy people gigantic refund checks, their reaction was much like Ben Afleck's. They were pleased, some sang Bush's praises, they seemed at times almost embarrassed, but they laughed all the way to the bank-literally.
I'm not sure where you went wrong in your estimation that the rich paid more except in very rare situations and only by massaging the qualifier 'rich', maybe you were just looking at brackets. If so bear in mind, this last cut wasn't just an income tax cut, it was a sweeping tax reduction in all kinds of investments, all kinds of neat little gimmees packed away into everything from LLP's to S and C corps, and all couched in incomprehensible tax lingo the average person never sees and wouldn't understand.
But fiscally, the cat's out of the bag now on The '01 Tax Act and it's not reflecting well on our War President that he's the champion of the poor, downtrodden, wealthy. The Tax issue has become such a potentially hot potato that folks like Drudge are floating the Flat Tax idea again. My guess is Bush will be watching that board to see how it plays.
Meanwhile my associate in New York on Wall Street are being scared to death based on what is now being reported to be an old Al Qaeda wish list of targets made years ago and only recently recovered. Stuff liek this really erodes credibility and now no one knows how seriously to take this.
Should this turn out to be another politically motivated Terror Alert and sshould it fail to do the trick, perhaps we can dutifully trot out the looming moral threat of Gay Marriage or Gay Telletubbies. Anything to keep your loyalty Joe, and in this case loyalty equates to keeping you preoccupied; and away from IRS Pub '03 with a calculator and a pad of paper. Otherwise you might figure out what's going on...
5
Mr. Affleck of course also has the wonderful opportunity to give that million dollars to a worthy cause, thereby contributing to a richer civil society. I am all for relatively low taxes - while at the same time insisting that the rich should grow to gain a deep sense of the call of God to use their wealth in a stewardly way in the various spheres of human life.
posted on 08.02.2004 8:22 AM6
The Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, resulted in a torrent of money leading from the Treasury to the pockets of the well-to-do and the mega-wealthy. I know, I handed over hundreds of refund checks
DS--You seem to be working under the assumption that a tax refund check is some sort of welfare payment to the rich, as opposed to the refund of a tax overpayment.
Since you appear work in the tax industry, how would you improve the tax code? Would you oppose a "maximum wage", where everything over a set amount ($200k seems to be the threshold for being rich) goes to the government? How would you get the truly wealthy, people like the Kennedy's, Heinz's, and (insert fabulously wealthy Republican family name here) who are able to structure their assets to minimize taxable income? THK is a good example of this, showing $5.1M in taxable income on assets worth $3-5B, a pathetic rate of return of less than 1/2%.
posted on 08.02.2004 8:32 AM7
DS,
The last tax cut, i.e. The Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, resulted in a torrent of money leading from the Treasury to the pockets of the well-to-do and the mega-wealthy. I know, I handed over hundreds of refund checks. …They were pleased, some sang Bush's praises, they seemed at times almost embarrassed, but they laughed all the way to the bank-literally.
I’ll be they did. I imagine that they had a pretty good laugh as they deposited the money. I’ll bet they were smiling when they wrote a check to invest the tax windfall. And I bet they were giggling when they collected their dividends/capital gains/profits on their investments too. Whether they were still laughing when they paid the taxes on their new earnings is another question.
The more people earn the more they pay in taxes. That’s a basic economic fact. If the point is to put more revenues in the coffers of the Treasury, then lowering taxes can help achieve that goal. But if the purpose is simply to “screw the rich” then, yeah, raising taxes is the way to go.
I'm not sure where you went wrong in your estimation that the rich paid more except in very rare situations and only by massaging the qualifier 'rich', maybe you were just looking at brackets.
Before you assume that my estimations are wrong, shouldn’t you check the facts? I know that we shouldn’t allow facts to interfere with a good theory but it might strengthen your argument to have more than anecdotal evidence.
If so bear in mind, this last cut wasn't just an income tax cut, it was a sweeping tax reduction in all kinds of investments, all kinds of neat little gimmees packed away into everything from
LLP's to S and C corps, and all couched in incomprehensible tax lingo the average person never sees and wouldn't understand.
I think you underestimate the “average person.” I myself am probably below average yet I used to have an “S”-corporation. And I’m not exactly sure how they could pack a “gimme” in that form since any profits were taxed under my marginal income tax rate.
But fiscally, the cat's out of the bag now on The '01 Tax Act and it's not reflecting well on our War President that he's the champion of the poor, downtrodden, wealthy.
Yes, those horrible people have infected the country with a plague of new jobs and economic growth. When will we learn that by letting them keep their money they will only invest it and great more wealthy people? We really must do something to stop them.
The Tax issue has become such a potentially hot potato that folks like Drudge are floating the Flat Tax idea again. My guess is Bush will be watching that board to see how it plays.
So the tax cut was so divisive that is has caused people to consider…lowering taxes rates even further?
Meanwhile my associate in New York on Wall Street are being scared to death based on what is now being reported to be an old Al Qaeda wish list of targets made years ago and only recently recovered. Stuff liek this really erodes credibility and now no one knows how seriously to take this.
How does warning people about a threat erode credibility? The reports I’ve read said that it was unclear how old the list of targets were. What would happen if an attack occurred and it was found that the HS department was aware of it but did not want to appear to be “crying wolf?” Would you step up and defend them or would you be ticked off that they failed to warn the public?
Should this turn out to be another politically motivated Terror Alert and should it fail to do the trick,…
When was the last “politically motivated Terror Alert?” No offense, DS, but you are starting to sound like one of those nutty conspiracy theorists.
Anything to keep your loyalty Joe, and in this case loyalty equates to keeping you preoccupied; and away from IRS Pub '03 with a calculator and a pad of paper. Otherwise you might figure out what's going on...
You mean like a growing economy?
posted on 08.02.2004 8:37 AM8
Gideon,
I am all for relatively low taxes - while at the same time insisting that the rich should grow to gain a deep sense of the call of God to use their wealth in a stewardly way in the various spheres of human life.
Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. The false dichotomy that says that lowering taxes hurts the poor is based on the assumption that the callous "rich" would not use their wealth to help the less fortunate.
posted on 08.02.2004 8:39 AM9
Incorporating yourself is probably one of the best ways of reducing your tax burden and insulating yourself against lawsuits. Joe's apparently done it. Mr. Edwards has done it. I'm preparing to do it. Why not use the tax code against itself. We should train low and middle class people to use these tricks as well.
It is a good question why Mr. Affleck didn't give the money back to government or donate it to charity (if he didn't do such a thing). A bigger question is why we pay our court jesters and their production company executive equivalents such ridiculous salaries.
posted on 08.02.2004 9:03 AM10
Moderate,
Incorporating yourself is probably one of the best ways of reducing your tax burden and insulating yourself against lawsuits. Joe's apparently done it.
I sent up an S-corporation for my media company when my partners and I started a newspaper. While it gave us some legal protection, the only real benefit was that it prevented us from the double taxation of a C-corp.
While I’ve heard that incorporating yourself has tax advantages, I’m not really sure how they would come into affect unless you had some form of earnings outside of normal income.
posted on 08.02.2004 9:12 AM11
While I’ve heard that incorporating yourself has tax advantages, I’m not really sure how they would come into affect unless you had some form of earnings outside of normal income.
Depends on how you get paid yoru "normal income." The big problem I see with essentially turning yourself into an independent contractor is that you probably won't be able to get affordable health insurance.
posted on 08.02.2004 9:30 AM12
Affleck is saying that he wants the government to forcibly take from him what he isn’t willing to give.
Getting back to the original question - whether Affleck is being hypocritical in keeping money not taxed from him while saying higher taxes would be a good idea - I hardly see anything wrong with it.
Proposing higher taxes for higher earners is not the same as proposing that the government should be funded by individual high earners voluntarily contributing money if they happen to feel like it. Believing that his class, as a group, should be required to pay a higher share does not entail that he alone should voluntarily pay a higher, unequal, share. Aside from whether one or the other would be more effective, there are obvious good reasons for objecting to the latter policy: it unfairly puts the burden on only some people, while inviting the others to become "free riders". It also reduces the likelihood that everyone in his class can be brought to pay a fair share, if they can slough off their burden onto a few patsies among them who are then, effectively, subsidizing their wealthy fellows.
To put that another way, Affleck's position can be made perfectly logically consistent, and reasonably unobjectionable as well. Assume that he holds the following beliefs (he apparently lost my phone number, so I'll have to guess what he's thinking for now):
1) Taxes should be distributed progressively across income levels (i.e., higher rates for higher earners) and equally within income levels (i.e., all earners at a given level pay roughly the same rate).
2) Everyone should pay in taxes what they legally owe, but no one should be expected to pay more than they legally owe.
3) The tax level for very high earners is currently too low.
Both of the first two claims seem eminently reasonable, and, taking them together with the third claim (itself a widely-held opinion), they produce a simple conclusion: The tax rate for high earners should be increased, and every high earner should pay - in any given year - whatever the law requires of them. It also implies that no one is required to voluntarily pay more if the law does not require it, even if the legal tax rate is too low.
This doesn't seem so crazy. In fact, as mentioned above, there are good reasons for holding this position (paying extra when tax rates are too low may actually be counterproductive, in that it produces less revenue than raising the rates would do, and also decreases the pressure to make taxes more effective and fairer by raising the rates). Even aside from that, however, it's not hypocritical to want a certain obligation imposed on everybody but not to want to be the only one under that obligation.
Your analogy to the draft is a good one, and in fact touches on one reason that some people do support a universal draft (or national service): it's fairer. You seem to think that universal obligations - taxes or the draft - are just a way of getting some people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do (as opposed to those who would do the same thing voluntarily), but there's more to them than that. They are also a way of distributing burdens fairly across an entire group. Many people would willingly accept a certain burden, knowing that it falls equally on their entire relevant group, that they would not accept if it fell on them alone. (Think of the one person who cleans up the community center after a group meeting. If no one else ever helps, that person soon gets fed up with it, while others start to expect that one person to do the work and begin taking advantage of them.) This is partly ordinary human psychology, but partly also an effective strategy for reinforcing cooperative behavior.
In terms of social policy, it's better to distribute the burdens of common obligation fairly than to expect people to voluntarily assume a larger personal share of the burden. The voluntary-taxation situation is a variation on the "Tragedy of the Commons" - Affleck is properly refusing to contribute common resources for the benefit of those who don't contribute when the available alternative is for everyone to contribute fairly.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:02 AM13
Joe this brings up an interesting road block. For you hardcore Republicans, Bush can do no wrong. For your hardcore Democrats, nothing Bush does is right. Both groups seem unable to step back and examine policy based on merit and on results.
I can find plenty of things Bush did right. The Afghanistan operation was handled brilliantly; Boy howdy, had they stopped there and kept the heat on the Pakistan-Afghani border, Bush would be a lock in November.
The quiet work the WH has done in securing back up oil reserves in the Caspian Basin is good stuff. I can also find plenty of things Bush did wrong. IMO the '01 TA was ill conceived and poorly timed. (Although it pales in comparison to Iraq)
But you folks on either side can't seem to take criticism for the policies of your candidate and you can't seem to help but dish out everything from valid criticism to dumb ass pics of Bush compared to a chimp, or Kerry in a clean suit, in response to your critics. Kerry did look damn funny in that clean suit and Bush does look damn funny in the chimp pics, but really, it's childish. Anyway, on to some of your responses:
The more people earn the more they pay in taxes. That’s a basic economic fact. If the point is to put more revenues in the coffers of the Treasury, then lowering taxes can help achieve that goal.
Amazing Joe! You claim tax cuts hurt the rich, and yet the rich are heavily in favor of them! I guess those rich people are just down right stupider than a bucket of rocks, huh?
The process you outline can and often does work … as LONG as you DON'T LOWER taxes AGAIN when the increased revenue materializes that the prior cut produced! Because if you do, then you've invalidated your entire defense on behalf of the rich to lower taxes in the first place. Please indicate you recognize this Joe?
Before you assume that my estimations are wrong, shouldn’t you check the facts? I know that we shouldn’t allow facts to interfere with a good theory but it might strengthen your argument to have more than anecdotal evidence.
Frankly; no. Unless the tax code was changed radically yesterday and no one bothered to tell us, then emphatically; no. I was able to get a glimpse of your rationale between trades an hour or so ago. It's unclear if you're talking about total taxes collected from a given demographic, or total taxes collected per return, or total taxes as a function of AGI, etc.
Either way Joe, if you cherry pick data from booms, needless to say you will see more tax revenue: from everyone. And since there are always various tax cuts being passed, well you get the idea…
If you like perhaps I’ll have the time and energy to play around and see if I can find a reverse situation. But in the meantime you need to keep in mind that I understand Supply Side theory and I know it can work under some circumstances. But Supply Side Theory is not a very good idea to try if, in the event it does not work for whatever reason, we go bust. It's also clearly not as simple as cuttign taxes will create future fiscal health, or cutting taxes to zero would produce a fiscal nirvana ::G::
I think you underestimate the “average person.” I myself am probably below average yet I used to have an “S”-corporation. And I’m not exactly sure how they could pack a “gimme” in that form since any profits were taxed under my marginal income tax rate.
It's not differential equations. All you need is a good head for basic arithmetic. Anyone who wishes can sign up for basic tax classes and take advanced classes all the way through the CE reqs for estate attorneys and Corporate CPA’s. I encourage everyone to do it. Few choose to however. I personally feel they ought to teach that stuff in High School.
Yes, those horrible people have infected the country with a plague of new jobs and economic growth. When will we learn that by letting them keep their money they will only invest it and great more wealthy people? We really must do something to stop them.
LOL, Strangely all these new jobs haven't even begun to offset the jobs lost over the past three years; certainly not for my working class clients. And for those that have been laid off in my book of business, the few replacement jobs they've been able to find aren't paying even half of what they were making.
I don’t actually blame all that on Bush BTW, that’s the breaks. Nor do I hold it against anyone for trying to do something about it. But one needs to be able to think outside of the knee jerk reaction of Tax Cuts. And if we are going to use Tax Cuts to create domestic jobs, we don’t want to be rewarding companies with tax breaks who outsource to foreign countries or for capital purchase of foreign equipment, right?
On the Terror Alerts, that would be a good topic for another thread I think. It’s complicated; chock full of politics and shadowy Intel. Probably make for a good discussion elsewhere so I’ll leave that to your judgment.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:13 AM14
Kevin:
"no one is required to voluntarily pay more "
Thats quite the non-sequitor!
Let Afflec Donate his Million to stem cell research or services to the homeless, what ever he likes.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:30 AM15
Kevin,
Aside from whether one or the other would be more effective, there are obvious good reasons for objecting to the latter policy: it unfairly puts the burden on only some people, while inviting the others to become "free riders".
You make a good rationalization for Ben’s behavior but it doesn’t let him off the hook. Why is it “unfair” for him to “bear the burden” by paying more in taxes yet “fair” and “reasonable” for him to want to force everyone in his class to do what he would not voluntarily do?
He doesn’t get off the hook just because there may be “free riders.” My convictions saddle me with what I consider to be civic obligations, such as recycling and participating in jury duty. Just because some people can shirk these responsibilities does not mean that I can also reject them and not be a hypocrite.
It also reduces the likelihood that everyone in his class can be brought to pay a fair share, if they can slough off their burden onto a few patsies among them who are then, effectively, subsidizing their wealthy fellows.
What you call “subsidizing” I call leadership. If they are serious about changing the policy then they should set the moral example and pay more before they would be required to do so.
Many people would willingly accept a certain burden, knowing that
it falls equally on their entire relevant group, that they would not accept if
it fell on them alone.
I believe that this is the heart of my disagreement with your position. People aren’t part of “relevant groups” or “classes.” They are individuals and are required to make individual choices. A black American, for example, doesn’t have less of an obligation to serve his country because the military already has a disproportionate number of minorities already. The individual has an obligation as an individual, not as a class or member of a group.
The voluntary-taxation situation is a variation on the "Tragedy of the Commons" - Affleck is properly refusing to contribute common resources for the benefit of those who don't contribute when the available alternative is for everyone to contribute fairly.
Then what is his reason for wanting higher taxes? Obviously he thinks the government will use those resources for the “common good.” But if he only wishes to contribute what he considers his fair share when others are doing the same, then he loses the moral high ground.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:31 AM16
Mr. Affleck is obviously speaking from the Kerry Campaign's talking points (as did Paul Newman, etc. before him). Celebrities speaking from talking points get tripped up when asked intelligent follow-up questions - which are provided by some mainstream media journalists. My impression is that Mr. Affleck is more interested in the public attention provided by his close association with the Kerry campaign than he is with the issues presented. Taxes? I don't for a moment believe that Mr. Affleck gives this or most other public issues of the day very much thought or review. Like most Hollywood celebrities and those of the "bicoastal elite," he appears to be a narcissist celebrating a culture of narcissism. Sacrifice and responsibility are not even on that menue.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:48 AM17
Please pay no attention to that e behind menu.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:51 AM18
I think there are a couple of problems here.
First is the principle that it is someone wrong or inconsistent to advocate placing forcing others to bear a burden that you aren't willing to voluntarily bear yourself. While this might sound good, it's really just a varient on the whole chicken-hawk argument that the only people who can legitimately advocate war are those who serve in the armed forces. And if this argument is lacking in the context of war, surely it is also lacking when applied to tax reform.
Second, even Afleck's million, on its own, won't do much to benefit the common good. What Afleck wants is not an overall government income gain of a million dollars. I suspect that if you told him the government now had a million more dollars than it did this would be a matter of indifference to him. What he wants is a gain of many billions of dollars, so that the government can fund the various programs that he advocates. So there's no reason for Afleck to contribute on his own, since this won't serve his goal.
posted on 08.02.2004 10:54 AM19
A popular political slogan here a while back was, "Willing to pay for a better Minnesota." This was the sloganeers' way of arguing for higher state taxes. Although I never did, I always wanted to ask them why-if they were so willing-- they didn't just write a check to the state. I guess that, like Ben Affleck, they were more than willing to pay-- with MY money!
posted on 08.02.2004 11:04 AM20
Josiah,
First is the principle that it is someone wrong or inconsistent to advocate placing forcing others to bear a burden that you aren't willing to voluntarily bear yourself. While this might sound good, it's really just a varient on the whole chicken-hawk argument that the only people who can legitimately advocate war are those who serve in the armed forces. And if this argument is lacking in the context of war, surely it is also lacking when applied to tax reform.
Actually, I don’t think that, when properly applied, it is lacking in the context of war. If for whatever reason you avoided the draft (ala Clinton) but had a change of heart and regretted not serving (not that I’m claiming he had such a transformation) then you can be consistent in your position by advocating war.
But if you're of military age and favor sending troops yet you would not be willing to go yourself, then you’re being a hypocrite.
What he wants is a gain of many billions of dollars, so that the government can fund the various programs that he advocates. So there's no reason for Affleck to contribute on his own, since this won't serve his goal.
For what it’s worth, raising taxes wouldn’t achieve his goal either. Why do we assume that people who wouldn’t voluntarily pay more in taxes would suddenly have a change of heart and open up their checkbook if the government raised rates?
My guess is that Affleck, like most wealthy people, would attempt to find a way to offset the effect of the new tax by seeking more deductions, tax shelters, etc. The net effect would be that the rich simply shifted more of their assests into non-productive forms of tax shelters, causing the higher tax rates to produce very little additional revenue.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:09 AM21
Why is it “unfair” for him to “bear the burden” by paying more in taxes yet “fair” and “reasonable” for him to want to force everyone in his class to do what he would not voluntarily do?
He's (apparently) not refusing to pay taxes at all, he's refusing to be the only one to pay at a given (higher) rate. That's not contradictory. As for "forcing" people, the tax laws (like all laws) are not optional (and, note, he doesn't make those laws); he seems to think it would be a good idea for the law to require higher taxes in his group, but that does not logically entail that he personally should want to pay more than is required at whatever level.
I think the problem is this: you seem to think his claim is: "I should pay higher taxes (irrespective of what anyone else does)", but it seems to me that his claim is actually "Everybody like me should pay higher taxes (and, whatever else happens, we should all pay equally)."
Now, both these claims entail that he would - under his ideal scenario - pay higher taxes, but the former implies that he alone would pay those taxes and the latter implies that he would pay more along with everybody else in his class. Neither of these scenarios is morally objectionable. The former - if it is really what he is claiming - is hypocritical in the face of his refusal to pay high taxes unilaterally, but the latter is not. So, to decide whether he is being hypocritical, we need to know which of the two claims above he is really making.
From his quoted words alone, we can't know. However, the principle of charity - interpreting people's remarks in the way that is most logically consistent - suggests that what he really meant was the second scenario: he and everybody else should pay higher taxes (but nobody should be asked to take on a disproportional burden). That seems to me the fairest way to understand his words and actions together, and, viewing them in this way, there is no contradiction.
What you call “subsidizing” I call leadership. If they are serious about changing the policy then they should set the moral example and pay more before they would be required to do so.
Maybe. Notice that this is an entirely separate question, however. The original question was whether Affleck was being hypocritical in not paying higher taxes unilaterally after calling for everyone to pay higher taxes equally. The issue you are now addressing is whether Affleck is being a poor moral example by not doing - as an example - what he calls for everyone to do as a matter of law and policy. Whether or not that is true, it does not affect the question whether he is being hypocritical in his own tax-paying.
As for the leadership issue, you may have a point but I am not sure it's a strong one. There are times when "leading by example" is both necessary and effective. I am not sure tax policy is one of them. Certainly rampant cheating breeds further cheating, but I am skeptical that occasional overpaying breeds a groundswell of desire to fund the government like it was a PayPal tip jar. I suspect that such a gesture - as a means of encouraging voluntary taxation - would be quixotic.
People aren’t part of “relevant groups” or “classes.” They are individuals and are required to make individual choices. . . . The individual has an obligation as an individual, not as a class or member of a group.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are some obligations that only make sense in a group context. (Playing defensive basketball, or hitting into a sacrifice in baseball - rather than seeking personal glory - are examples. There is no point in being a "team player" if the rest of the team isn't cooperating. You only hurt yourself for little overall gain.) There are some obligations that can only produce effective results when accepted as part of a group. (Being the only one to charge a machine gun is just suicidal. If the D-Day invasion had been conducted one person at a time, it would have been nothing more than a lengthy slaughter.) And there are some obligations that are simply unfair when imposed unevenly.
[I]f he only wishes to contribute what he considers his fair share when others are doing the same, then he loses the moral high ground.
I don't think I understand this. It isn't really a question of "moral high ground." The argument for progressive taxes is largely a moral argument (the wealthy have benefited more and can afford it better), but that argument does not hinge on whether anybody makes some sort of sacrificial gesture. It's still true whether or not its proponents make voluntary contributions. You seem to be suggesting that he should simply pay to buy some goodwill for his opinion; surely we can debate the issue on its merits instead.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:17 AM22
"The false dichotomy that says that lowering taxes hurts the poor is based on the assumption that the callous "rich" would not use their wealth to help the less fortunate."
Actually, that's a valid assumption for the "callous rich" with (D) behind their names. Check JFKerry's tax returns when he was between rich wives -- high six-figure income, less that $100 in charitable contributions.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:33 AM23
...the actor Ben Affleck told the crowd that Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.
I have a feeling that Ben Affleck has a lot more than $1 million which he doesn't "need." How much money does anybody really need? Enough for food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, and that's it. I would say that Ben doesn't need more than $40,000 a year. But I'm willing to negotiate this amount upward if Ben wants to petition me to let him keep more of his money.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:33 AM24
Here's a way Mr. Affleck could have "rid" himself of his "extra $1 million": http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040802/D8475IA80.html
posted on 08.02.2004 1:10 PM25
The following two claims seem to be what Affleck endorses:
1. I don't have an obligation to pay the government anything unless they require it of me.
2. The government has the responsibility to require more money of me than it does.
I don't see the inconsistency. How do these two lead to a contradiction? I disagree with his evaluation of the Bush tax cuts, but I don't think he's backed himself into a corner by saying these two things together.
posted on 08.02.2004 2:07 PM26
Jeremy,
I don't see the inconsistency. How do these two lead to a contradiction?
Let’s look at the statements he made:
Statement #1 -- "Because of Bush's tax cuts, I saved a million and a half in taxes last year. Does anyone think that's fair?"
Statement #2 -- “I can't completely martyr myself."
Definition of “martyr” - One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
Premise 1 – For Affleck to receive a tax cut is “unfair.”
Premise 2 – For Affleck to voluntarily relinquish the tax cut (and become a martyr for the cause) would be “unfair.”
Conclusion – For Affleck to have to involuntarily relinquish the tax cut because of a government mandate would be “fair.”
It is inconsistent unless he thinks that “fair” is defined as “what the government forces me to do.”
posted on 08.02.2004 3:21 PM27
Affleck. Again, this is what the right wants to use to criticize Kerry?
Aren't you tired of reaching for straws?
Talking about whether or not Ben is a hypocrite-- wow--what deep thoughts you have, Joe.
Let's talk about how many living wage jobs Bush has created and how many jobs this country has lost.
Let's talk about the growth of the deficit under Bush and what segments of the population have benefitted from this. It seems as if everytime some sensible, non Bush-worshipping poster tries to talk about these substantive things you bring it back to Ben Affleck.
Ok, I know that was the topic here, but you seem smart enough to understand that the Ben topic actually brings up some REAL issues.
Joe, have posts opposed to your point of view EVER led you to disagree with your original thoughts on a subject?
posted on 08.02.2004 3:25 PM28
Dan555,
Affleck. Again, this is what the right wants to use to criticize Kerry? Aren't you tired of reaching for straws?
Where in that post did I mention Kerry?
Talking about whether or not Ben is a hypocrite-- wow--what deep thoughts you have, Joe.
Ben is simply a placeholder for all the liberals who want the government to force other people to do what they are not willing to do themselves.
Let's talk about how many living wage jobs Bush has created and how many jobs this country has lost.
Yes, let’s talk about that, shall we? How many jobs has Bush created? Zero. How many jobs has he lost? Zero.
Let me fill you in on a little secret: Presidents do not create jobs. Entrepreneurs and corporations create jobs. The jobs are only created on the President’s “watch.” He can either impede or help the people who do create jobs by the policies he implements.
Let's talk about the growth of the deficit under Bush and what segments of the population have benefitted from this.
First, let’s hear you explain what part of the population is hurt by deficits. Care to fill us in on that one?
It seems as if everytime some sensible, non Bush-worshipping poster tries to talk about these substantive things you bring it back to Ben Affleck.
Could that possibly be because this post is about Ben Affleck
Ok, I know that was the topic here, but you seem smart enough to understand that the Ben topic actually brings up some REAL issues.
Yes, the real issue is how ignorant many Americans (including millionaire actors) are about economics.
Joe, have posts opposed to your point of view EVER led you to disagree with your original thoughts on a subject?
Of course. When people make a comment that corrects an error in my thinking, I change my point of view.
posted on 08.02.2004 3:36 PM29
Affleck: Statement #1 -- "Because of Bush's tax cuts, I saved a million and a half in taxes last year. Does anyone think that's fair?"
Statement #2 -- “I can't completely martyr myself."
Joe: Premise 1 – For Affleck to receive a tax cut is “unfair.”
Premise 2 – For Affleck to voluntarily relinquish the tax cut (and become a martyr for the cause) would be “unfair.”
Conclusion – For Affleck to have to involuntarily relinquish the tax cut because of a government mandate would be “fair.”
Two things here: First, Affleck didn't say that it would be "unfair" for him to donate money to the government. Your characterization of his position is wrong - as demonstrated by the fact that the words you use to explain his beliefs are significantly different from the words he uses, and which you quote directly above. What Affleck said was that doing so would make him a "martyr" - it would represent a uniquely large sacrifice, which is not the purpose of a tax system.
Second, it is, in fact, fair for a tax system to impose equal burdens on all equally-situated people. As has been noted over and over in this thread, Affleck's implicit claim is that the tax rate for his income level should be (a) higher, and (b) spread equally across all earners at that level. Affleck has not said he will not pay higher taxes; he has (implicitly) said he does not want to be the only one to pay them. Spreading that burden across everyone equally situated would, in fact, be fairer than imposing it on just one person (it would certainly be fairer than claiming that the only people who should pay higher taxes are those who approve of the tax increase, and that for them it is some sort of moral obligation).
Finally, note that there's a bit of an equivocation here, though not a vicious one. In asking whether his tax cut was "fair," Affleck appeared to be comparing himself to lower earners who were not as fortunate (the unfairness is that the greatest benefits went to the people who needed them least). This is different from the question of the relative fairness of all high earners, or just Affleck himself, paying higher taxes. We have both used his word "fair" in reference to the relative burdens of members of his particular class - which is not exactly what he said. However, I do suspect that there is, in his defense of non-martyrdom, some notion of fairness between members of his class - as opposed to fairness between his class and lower-earning classes, which is how he actually used the term.
posted on 08.02.2004 3:48 PM30
Poor Joe. He goes to all this trouble to maintain a Blog for anyone interested, while holding down the jobs he actually gets paid for, and folks (Like me: I freely admit I'm an a**hole and I like to argue) sometimes take it too seriously and end up giving him grief. No good deed goes unounished Joe, as I'm sure you well know by now.
Well, while I disagree with many of your positions, damn near all of them in fact, I really do appreciate the forum and the freedom to shoot my mouth off. We give America and Americans a hard time on this Blog on occasion, but in many countries around the world, this kind of free exchange would result in a visit from a guy wearing a brown shirt. Maybe a ride in the back of an unmarked car to the local torture chamber.
And I also recognize that rather than do the fluff pieces or a set of links to other Blogs, you're sensitive to your readers and you intentionally write on topics of interest. Controversial topics at that which usually produce pretty ruthless exchanges. Kudos Joe. You've got class.
posted on 08.02.2004 3:50 PM31
Ben is simply a placeholder for all the liberals who want the government to force other people to do what they are not willing to do themselves.
There.
Now it's over. Your characterization of Affleck has been wrong from the beginning, and it is nowhere more clear than here - so you can stop saying it.
Note that Affleck was openly calling for the government to raise his taxes! Unless he also specifically plans to commit tax evasion after they do so, then he is willing to do what he says. He's just not willing to be the only one to accept a burden that by rights falls on an entire group - but since he never said anyone should accept that burden alone, he is not contradicting himself in refusing to do so. Your claim that he is is simply wrong.
It seems to me you're really struggling throughout this thread. Two people have already independently posted an explicit statement of simple principles that make Affleck's claims perfectly consistent with each other and with fairly mainstream tax policy (i.e.: taxes for the rich should be higher, and no one is required to pay more than the law demands). Your original claim of hypocrisy is wrong on logical grounds; his actions do not contradict his beliefs if you construe his beliefs in a perfectly straightforward way. From there you go on to make rather high-flown claims about his moral obligations - he should be a "leader" by paying taxes he doesn't owe; he should take the "moral high ground" by paying extra taxes - and then offer a characterization of his claims as some sort of false moral argument about "fairness" that fails not least because he didn't actually use the word "fairness" in reference to voluntary payments. Your argument is all over the place, and exhibits at each turn an unfairly complicated or simply wrong characterization of what Affleck said in order to make it look bad. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
As for "liberals [forcing] people to do what they're not willing to do themselves," you've now moved from a failed attack on Affleck to some general canard about all liberals. Aside from being meaninglessly vague, it's certainly false as a general proposition. Obviously there are hypocritical liberals as well as hypocritical conservatives, and there are many (myself, most shamefully) who could do much more to live up to their ideals, but liberals have a pretty good track record for putting their money (and lives, and bodies) where their mouths are.
From being beaten, abused, and sometimes killed in the Civil Rights Movement, to joining the Peace Corps in droves, to working low-income jobs at community agencies and non-profits everywhere, to organizing unions in the face of harassment and violence, to escorting women at health clinics past abusive crowds - and staffing those clinics week after week in the face of terrorist violence and personal harassment, to monitoring sweatshops and child-labor factories of US-based corporations overseas against stonewalling and intimidation, to building loan programs and support groups for women in developing countries under hostile conditions, and so much more, liberals have done exhausting, courageous, and life-changing work at great cost. After years of begging, liberals snapped up electric-hybrid vehicles at inflated prices, they bought solar panels and hot water pre-heaters, they sought out and bought non-sweatshop clothing, sustainable-yield lumber, organic produce, and coffee and other products from properly-run corporations, they agitated for high-efficiency appliances and cars - and in every case, they created, by subsidizing them with their own dollars, profitable markets for technologies that should have been implemented by national policy. Liberals went to jail for free speech, saw their careers wrecked for (perfectly legal) political affiliations yet refused to appease their tormentors by impeaching their fellows, they blew whistles on all manner of public wrongdoing and in almost every case suffered retaliation, they broke the political machines and introduced the non-patronage civil service system, they brought the vote to the disenfranchised - often at the cost of their own blood. Every inch of progress our nation has made was the work of liberals, and sometimes their epitaph. (Sometimes those liberals were Republicans, before they turned vicious.) Every wrong that is now a part of history is the work of liberals who worked for change, very often for the benefit of people other than themselves. Every wrong that died too late, every injustice of yesterday that persists today, is the work of conservatives who have committed themselves to the suffering of others while liberals did the slow painful work of uplift.
And your complaint? Ben Affleck offered to pay $1.5million in increased taxes, if the government would only make the system fair enough that all the wealthy had to pay their share - and that to you is an indictment not only of Affleck but of liberalism? If every wealthy person were a liberal like him, the overall degree of altruism in his social class would skyrocket, and so would the amount of good we could do for those less well off.
posted on 08.02.2004 4:38 PM32
Joe,
A draft-dodger is someone who fails to do what is required of him, so the analogy is not apt. What your position requires is that only those who go to war voluntarily can consistently argue that others should be forced to go to war. Moreover, they would have to be willing to fight even if no one else did. So back during the run-up to the war, it would have been a telling retort to ask supporters of regime change why they weren't in Iraq already?
Or take welfare reform. It was argued at the time that the system of incentives created by welfare trapped people into a cycle of dependancy on the government. By your logic, it would be inconsistent for anyone receiving government benefits to make this argument, since if they thought people should be denied welfare, they should voluntarily stop receiving it.
Or take Sunday closing laws. Many businesses support these laws as a way to remain closed on Sunday without losing business to competition. Presumably this is inconsistent, since if they want to force others to close, they should be willing to close voluntarily, even if no one else does.
Or take Affirmative Action. Presumably it is hypocritical for Justice Thomas to vote against affirmative action, since if it weren't for affirmative action, he wouldn't be on the court in the first place.
There may be good reasons not to raise taxes, but this sort of faux-tu quoque is not one of them.
posted on 08.02.2004 5:07 PM33
I'm still fascinated by Ben's finding that he has more money than he "needs." I'm sure he had too much money during the Clinton administration also -- but apparently he was unaware of it at the time.
posted on 08.02.2004 6:58 PM34
Apparently the only people hated worse than liberals are actors.
posted on 08.02.2004 7:41 PM35
Affleck: Statement #1 -- "Because of Bush's tax cuts, I saved a million and a half in taxes last year. Does anyone think that's fair?"
Quote from Kevin the Dummy: Two things here: First, Affleck didn't say that it would be "unfair" for him to donate money to the government.
Thats entirely besides the point. Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Why do you think the question "Does anyone think that's fair" is other than rhetorical.
Let's break is this down. Either the statement is rhetorical or it is not. Agreed?
Option 1: The question is rhetorical:
The context would indicate that the reason the question "does not exspect an answer" is because the answer is clearly negative. Why because if it wasn;t negative the question would "expect an answer" and would cease to be different than option 2.
Option 2: The question is not rhetorical i.e it expects answer:
Since the question is "is this fair?" The answer is either yes, no, or both in a paradox. Since we are talking about Ben Affleck we already based on the context that the likely answer is no. Why, because if the answer were yes then Bush tax cut would be fair and thus a reason to support Bush which would undermine Affleck clear intention. If it were both then one couldn't say the Bush tax cuts were entirely "unfair" and therefore bad and that would again undermine Afflecks clear intention.
So the answer to the question is no but that would be the same as the rhetorical meaning thus the most probable answer sought of the question "Does anyone think thats fair?" No, nobody here thats that is fair.
Since one can infer that the Affleck thinks that no ones thinks tax cut is fair is more than likely that he thinks the tax cut is unfair.
Since I have established that Affleck thinks that the Bush tax cuts are unfair. It becomes a question of direction. Since the first part of the statement is personal one would infer that he thinks that the tax cuts are unfair in his direction. This means he could either think the Tax cuts were too little or too much. I'm betting he thinks that the cuts were to much.
Therefore if the Cuts are "too much" then it would follow that the Cut in the rate cause him to pay less than which is "due." If you go to the store and you find that the clerk was charge you too little for the services are good recieved what is that the right thing to do? Answer: Return and pay the "fair" amount.
But asked if he would be willing to return "the million dollars" He says no. This could be mean that wouldn't return 1. all of the million or 2. even a part of the million.
The problem is that either way he's a hypocrite because 1.he wants to only return "part of the million" and not all of it, then at least of part of the Bush tax cut was fair and him calling it unfair is well...unfair and its hypocrispy to attack something as unfair when you in fact believe its fair as witness by your actions...'e.i. keeping the money 2. that he wouldn't return any of the money would be morally wrong if because he would benefit from and "unfair" rate and then preaches against that "unfair" rate while refusing to make the proper payment which he owes...which also makes him a hypocrite.
Quote: Your characterization of his position is wrong - as demonstrated by the fact that the words you use to explain his beliefs are significantly different from the words he uses, and which you quote directly above
The words chosen are not as important as the likely meanings behind them which are clear to anyone without an axe to grind.
posted on 08.02.2004 7:54 PM36
Okay, okay, I concede. You’ve all worn me down. I admit my error. This whole time I’ve been trying to make my point by allowing Affleck to retain the moniker of “liberal.” I realize that was a mistake because he is not really a liberal at all. (I’m not sure what you would call his brand of neo-statism but it certainly isn’t “liberal.”)
If I understand correctly, Ben claims that he is not an individual but a member of an “economic class.” He has no obligations at the individual level unless they apply to everyone equally across his entire class. Fairness, then, is not a matter of the individual doing what he considers right (especially when it would result in a personal sacrifice) but of having the entire class being forced to do what they would not voluntarily choose to do themselves.
I’m still a bit confused on why it is “fair” for an entire group of people to be forced to do something, even if they disagree, while those who do agree are only held accountable if they are being forced…ah, my brain hurts.
Okay, so Ben is not a hypocrite. He simply thinks government coercion is a better means than moral suasion for convincing others (and oneself) to fulfill one’s obligations as a citizen. I think I understand it now.
Please excuse me while I go lobby the state to reinstitute the draft in order to institute a new level of “fairness.” I’m sure Ben would approve.
posted on 08.02.2004 8:16 PM37
In which of the following scenarios would I be a hypocrite:
1. Every day I drive the posted speed limit (55 mph) through a crowded residential neighborhood. Because of the high number of children and bike traffic, I decide to petition the municipal government to criminalize all speeds over 30 mph in the interest of public safety. While they are taking their time (months)considering the idea, I continue to go 55.
2. Believing that firearms are deadly weapons, even when safely locked in a drawer, I ask the county sheriff what can be done about confiscating all handguns in my city. I press for a law, promising to everyone that, as soon as the law passes, I will gladly surrender my own weapons.
3. Whenever I see somebody cut into a steak at a local restaurant, I harangue him about the untold suffering the animal went through, and leave with him materials from PETA decrying bovine growth hormone. I tell him, that as soon as I'm able to get human consumption of meat outlawed in the United States, I will be only too happy to give up my Philly cheesesteaks and Reubens.
Honesty, I can't see the difference here. If Affleck truthfully believes that the money returned to him by the IRS is undeserved, he should give it back, along with whatever he got paid to do "Gigli" and "The Sum of All Fears".
posted on 08.02.2004 8:29 PM38
(While my last comment was intentionally snarky, I do appreciate Kevin and Jeremy helping me realize that Affleck is applying the term "fair" only to the group and not the individual level.)
posted on 08.02.2004 10:29 PM39
If I understand correctly, Ben claims that he is not an individual but a member of an “economic class.”
I have no idea how he thinks of himself. His claim was that tax cuts for a certain (high) income level are bad policy. Leaving aside the specific substance of the claim (one which, however, is widely believed), the form of the claim - the reference to group tax rates - is neither unusual nor surprising. Whatever Ben thinks about individuals vs. classes, he cannot avoid talking about tax rates in terms of income-level groups because tax rates are set by income levels.
Contrary to your repeated fantasy about a private, voluntary, "Ben Affleck Tax Rate," actual tax rates are set for entire income levels as a group. His claim is simply that the tax rate for his group (a category he cannot avoid using, because that's how he knows what his own tax rate is - he looks it up on a table of income tax rates by income level - a table on which his personal name does not appear) should not have been cut "unfairly" relative to those of lower income groups. Whether you agree or disagree, none of this has anything to do with how Ben Affleck thinks of himself as an individual. It has to do - as Affleck said from the beginning - with how taxes are apportioned betweeen income-level groups.
He has no obligations at the individual level unless they apply to everyone equally across his entire class.
As a matter of legal fact, this is true: tax rates are not set for individuals, they are set for income-level groups. He said that the rate for his group should not have been reduced. That is not the same as saying he has a personal obligation to pay taxes that he does not owe.
Fairness, then, is not a matter of the individual doing what he considers right . . . but of having the entire class being forced to do what they would not voluntarily choose to do themselves.
Ignoring the inflammatory rhetoric, this is clost to being correct. A better way of saying it is this: "fairness" has to do with the relative treatment of different individuals, with reference to some standard of right or justice. "Fairness" is not a synonym for "morally right" or "morally good." It means a specific type of justice or right-doing: namely, that all individuals are treated equally with respect to the relevant standard (which does not mean that all individuals are treated identically). When some standard or rules are applied to different members of a group, fairness requires that those who stand equal in the relevant characteristics (defined by the standard) be treated equally, and those who are not equal should be treated differently, in due proportion to their differing characteristics. Where the issue is not a question of applying a universal standard to different individuals, various other moral concepts may apply but it is not an issue of "fairness."
Thus: Helping someone across the street is a morally good act, but it is not a "fair" act - there is no question of equal or unequal treatment, it's just a unilateral act directed at one person; refusing to help them is morally bad but it is not "unfair" (it is, rather, coldhearted or selfish). Helping your neighbor plow a field in return for them helping you is a "fair" exchange (you each agreed to abide by a rule that impinged on you both equally, and you both accepted its obligations equally); taking your neighbor's help and not reciprocating is "unfair" (you each agreed to abide by a rule that impinged on you both equally, but one person benefited and the other did not). Punishing one child and not the other when both are guilty is unfair (they both are subject to the same rules and consequences and were in equal positions of guilt, but only one was held responsible), but punishing one child and not the other when only the first is guilty is fair (they both were held to the same rules and consequences, but were in unequal positions of guilt, and so deserve unequal treatment). So again: fairness does not obtain in purely unilateral interactions; it obtains in comparisons of equality (of treatment, of burdens and responsibility, of benefit or harm) before a universal standard. Where the standard is applied to individuals similarly situated in the relevant respects, fairness calls for equal treatment; where the standard is applied to individuals dissimilar in the relevant respect, fairness calls for dissimilar treatment. (Aristotle defined justice as "to treat likes alike, and unalikes unalike" - this is essentially a definition of justice as fairness.)
Affleck's claim is that it is unfair to benefit the rich more than the less-well-off. The implicit standard here is need: the rich have less need but receive greater benefits. If that standard is reasonable (it is essentially the basis of our progressive taxation system), then he is right. It is unfair to give greater benefits to those with less need. That unfairness would have to be remedied by shifting benefits away from those with low need, and toward those with great need - which is essentially what Affleck was suggesting.
What one person chooses to do voluntarily and unilaterally has no bearing on whether the general treatment of the different groups under the standard is fair. You imply that Affleck should remedy the unfairness by giving up his own money unilaterally. This would not remedy the unfairness he referred to, and it would arguably lead to a second unfairness (all people in his income group bear a similar obligation, but you suggest Affleck is morally required to accept a greater burden - this is not treating likes alike).
To paraphrase your quote above, fairness is not a matter of a single individual doing what would be good unilaterally, but of seeing to it that all similar members of a defined class are treated equally under the relevant standard. Whether you like it or not, this is in fact the traditional definition of "fairness." Fairness is fundamentally a comparative concept: your criticism of Affleck for not doing something uniquely, unilaterally, and voluntarily as a matter of "fairness" is almost doomed to fail, because fairness - by definition - is about the relative treatment of multiple individuals under some authoritative standard applicable to all.
You seem to have had in mind something like a general concept of "moral goodness": it would be morally good for Affleck to give his money to support programs he approves of. Perhaps it would, but (a) this isn't the issue Affleck raised, and that you criticised him for, (b) this isn't a question of fairness, and (c) such contributions are generally considered (forgive the jargon) "eleemosynary" (morally good, but not specifically required - i.e., it is good to make charitable contributions, but you have discrection which ones and how much). Most importantly, whether it is morally good for Affleck to voluntarily do something or not is independent of the question what our tax policy for his entire class of like-wise wealthy fellows should be. This was explicitly the question Affleck raised.
Please excuse me while I go lobby the state to reinstitute the draft in order to institute a new level of “fairness.”
As I mentioned in a previous post, this would be more fair than a semi-voluntary system in which some people serve out of lack of alternative opportunities while luckier people do not face such a necessity. (It might even be fairer than a system in which all enlistments were truly voluntary and enthusiastic - depending on what the appropriate standard of comparison is.) Whether it is a good policy or not is a completely separate question. Whether those who volunteer are more or less admirable than those who are drafted is again a completely separate question. Whether a draft is a "morally good" recruitment system is not the same as whether it treats all similarly-situated individuals similarly. A universal draft with no (or very few) exemptions may or may not be good policy, and draftees may or may not be good patriots, but this would almost certainly be fairer than any likely alternative. (If you want to argue against the draft, you could do so on other grounds, such as that it would weaken the military, or it does not produce committed troops, or what not. The fact that it is fairer does not have to be the last word - but it is still true.)
You really do seem to have mistaken the meaning of "fairness." Affleck appears to have been using it in its technical sense (which is also its common sense - I'm not claiming he's some sort of linguistic philosopher); you appear to have been discussing some general notion of what you find morally appropriate. I think you've missed the point of Affleck's claim. I also think his claim ("fairness") is more relevant to a compulsory policy aimed at large groups (income tax rates) than is your notion of personal, voluntary moral sensibility.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:07 PM40
Kevin,
To paraphrase your quote above, fairness is not a matter of a single individual doing what would be good unilaterally, but of seeing to it that all similar members of a defined class are treated equally under the relevant standard.
Here is the problem I see with this approach (I wish I had the ability to draw a Venn diagram for this). You are saying:
The concept of “fairness” applies only at the level of the “group.” (It is unfair for the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes.)
The “group” is not an entity that exists apart from its constituent parts (i.e., the aggregate of individuals who make up the group).
The concept of “fairness” does not apply at the individual level. (Even though Affleck does not pay his “fair” share of taxes, he is not held responsible unless the group as a whole can be held responsible.)
Here is my problem. “Income levels” don’t have an ontological existence. “Income levels” do not pay taxes; the individuals within those groups pay taxes.
To claim that it is “unfair” for a particular “income level” to get a tax cut means that it is unfair for every member of that group to get a tax cut. That, however, is not what Affleck is saying. He thinks the issue of fairness only applies to him once it applies to a whole class of individuals.
But the issue of “fairness” either has a meaning in an objective sense (i.e., it is always unfair when millionaires don’t pay their fair share in taxes) or it only has subjective meaning (i.e., it is only unfair when millionaires, as an income group, don’t pay their fair share).
Affleck said that it is unfair that he does not pay more in taxes. Yet he doesn't think this inherent unfairness should be corrected until every member of his income group is also forced to pay more in taxes. Perhaps he takes a "group ethics" approach, but I still find it odd.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:35 PM41
Joe:
Okay, okay, I concede. You’ve all worn me down. I admit my error. This whole time I’ve been trying to make my point by allowing Affleck to retain the moniker of “liberal.” I realize that was a mistake because he is not really a liberal at all.Wow, sour grapes already? I haven't even joined the fray yet! ;) posted on 08.02.2004 11:43 PM
42
tgirsh,
Wow, sour grapes already? I haven't even joined the fray yet! ;)
Actually, that was intended to be something of a compliment. I was implying that Affleck being a liberal wasn't as bad as the position he was defending.
For the record, I don't think that liberals -- even the ones from Hollywood -- are all bad. I just think that they are terribly misguided. And 9 times out of 10, when they make an error in economics it is because they do not understand the difference in static and dynamic analysis (e.g., when variable X changes all the other variables will change accordingly).
posted on 08.02.2004 11:47 PM43
To claim that it is “unfair” for a particular “income level” to get a tax cut means that it is unfair for every member of that group to get a tax cut. That, however, is not what Affleck is saying. He thinks the issue of fairness only applies to him once it applies to a whole class of individuals.Sorry, Joe, but you're working way too hard for it. What you're essentially arguing is that it's never okay for someone to suggest that "I'd be willing to make this sacrifice if others like me also did." Similarly following your logic, no one not currently in the military could even weigh in on the draft issue, because they're not serving themselves. That's not how life works.
Affleck would have been hypocritical if he had said "raise everyone's taxes except mine." But he has expressed a willingness to support higher rates for himself and others like him, so that's not hypocritical.
Let me put it to you in terms you might be able to better understand. On this blog, you have suggested that abortion should be made illegal, and that women with unwanted pregnancies should have their pregnancy-related health care costs picked up by the state, and then the child should be put up for adoption once born. Have you personally paid the health care costs of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Have you personally adopted a child from a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? If your answer to either of these questions is "no," then by your own logic, your suggested solution is hypocritical.
What you have suggested is no different than what Affleck suggested: you have suggested that you would be willing to pay to support such a program provided others also do so. The fact that you are not currently paying for such a program, and that you are not currently adopting children to prevent them from being aborted does not disqualify you from suggesting those as possible solutions.
Bottom line: If Affleck is a hypocrite, then so are you.
posted on 08.02.2004 11:58 PM44
"To claim that it is 'unfair' for a particular 'income level' to get a tax cut means that it is unfair for every member of that group to get a tax cut."
Yes, but this doesn't mean it would be more fair if every member of the group except one to get the tax cut. This might be even more unfair.
posted on 08.03.2004 12:31 AM45
The real problem with liberal hypocrisy on taxes is that when you look at their proposals, you find that in essence they do exempt themselves from the higher taxes. The reason for this is that they only propose raising taxes on income, not wealth. When you have Kerry-Heinz, Edwards, or Affleck levels of wealth, there are all sorts of ways for you to structure your assets to minimize taxable income without impacting their lavish lifestyles. Edwards (as an example) did this by setting up his law practice has an LLC with himself as the sole shareholder. By paying himself a relatively small salary and the rest as dividends, he was able to avoid paying nearly $600k in Medicare taxes. Some leadership. If they were serious about making the rich pay their fair share, they would look at simplifying the tax code, for example treating all income equally, getting rid of most deductions (except a personal exemption, and maybe charitable contributions), and setting up one or two tax rates (say 10% and 25%). The tax code does not have to be complicated, it seems the only reason to make it so is to provide jobs for accountants and tax attorneys.
posted on 08.03.2004 6:06 AM46
Rob you have got to be kidding complaining about Edwards and hyporcrisy. All I can say is if you follow the money in BushCo Exploration to Spec 7 to Harken Energy, and in Haliburton's best all time investment Dick Cheney, or if you look at the shennanigans that went on between Dresser's mesothioloma asbestos exposure and the accounting used to cover it up, or if you look at Ajerbijian, (I could gon efor quite some time in this vien) you will find widely reported easily documented cases of impropriety that will make your jaw drop. I'll be writing a post on this later in the week.
posted on 08.03.2004 7:16 AM47
DS--I am not sure where you are going with the Bush/Cheney/Harken Energy/Haliburtion rant. To my knowledge neither Bush or Cheney advocate raising taxes on the one hand, while exploiting every single tax loophole to minimize their tax burden. The hypocrisy, as I see it is that both Kerry and Edwards (and probably Affleck) go to great lengths to minimize their tax burden while advocating tax increases on people far less wealthy than they. I know you have a hard time working up any sympathy for hard-working small businessman who makes $200+k/year, but come on $200k wouldn't fuel Kerry's private jet or heat his 5 mansions, hell it probably wouldn't cover Uncle Teddy's bar tab.
posted on 08.03.2004 9:00 AM48
Due to the inordinate number of comments that Ben Affleck has caused. I can only presume y'all want to sleep with him.
In comparison to the previous post, where John Kerry attempts to ingratiate himself with the military there are only 4 posts.
John Kerry, unlike Ben Affleck, may soon be your President.
Ben Affleck is an actor. Why are you paying so much attention to what he says or doesn't say? He has no power to influence policy other than that which you give to him.
You are like people who complain about the tabloid journalism of The National Enquirer, but still never miss an issue. The source of problems you are complaining about is in the mirror.
posted on 08.03.2004 12:27 PM49
Quote: have no idea how he thinks of himself. His claim was that tax cuts for a certain (high) income level are bad policy.
Wrong! He implied that the cuts were "unfair".
Quote: His claim is simply that the tax rate for his group (a category he cannot avoid using, because that's how he knows what his own tax rate is - he looks it up on a table of income tax rates by income level - a table on which his personal name does not appear) should not have been cut "unfairly" relative to those of lower income groups.
Wrong Again! You are are either a lier or an illiterate. He never said any such thing. He implied the Bush tax cut was unfair given his personal savings from the lowered tax rates.
Let's break this down again for Kevin the Dummy.
Affleck's Argument:
Part 1.
Premise 1. Via rhetorical question Affleck says the Bush Tax Cut is "unfair."
Premise 2. The reason stated for the tax cut being unfair that is because of his personal savings from the lowered rate.
Premise 3. Lowered rate creates more savings for Affleck not less
Premise 4. More savings for Affleck means more money for Affleck.
Conclusion: Affleck thinks that more money for him (to have) is unfair.
Part 2.
Premise 1. From Part 1. Affleck thinks that more money for him is unfair.
Premise 2. Bush's Tax Cut causes Affleck to have more money.
Conclusion: Bush's Tax cut is unfair.
Joe's Argument:
Part 1:
Premise 1: Affleck thinks that states of "unfair" should not be.
Premise 2. Affleck thinks that states of "unfair" which exist should cease.
Premise 3: Afflecks says that his "having more money" is a state of "unfair."
Conclusion: If Affleck does not have more money then the state of "unfair" which Affleck objects to not does exist as far as Ben Affleck's money is concerned.
Part 2:
Premise 1: Giving the money back to the Government causes Affleck not to have more money.
Premise 2. From Part 1. the "unfair" state ceases when Affleck does not have more money.
Premise 3. Affleck thinks that states of "unfair" should cease.
Premise 4. The only way, in fact, for Affleck not to have more money is to for him to give it back.
Conclusion: If Affleck thinks that the state of "unfair" created by his having more money should cease he should give back the money.
Part 3.
Premise 1. Affleck says he will not give back the money.
Premise 2. Affleck says via logical extension that that the money should be given back so as to end the state of "unfair."
Conlusion: Affleck will not end the state of "unfair."
Part 4.
Premise 1. Affleck says that the state of "unfair" should cease
Premise 2.Afflecks implies making "less unfairness" is what he believes in doing.
Premise 3. Affleck will not do what will make "less unfairness."
Conclusion: Affleck will not do what he says he believes in doing.
Part 5.
Premise 1.Creating more fairness is a true virtue
Premise 2. Claiming fairness as a virtue you believe in is an appearance.
Premise 3. Claiming that you believe in doing something in accordance with a virtue and doing something against that virtue that you say you believe in puts on a false appearance of virtue.
Premise 4. Affleck will not follow the virtue of "fairness" that he claims for himself.
Conclusion: Affleck has put on a false appearance of virtue.
Part 6.
Premise 1. A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.
Premise 2.Ben Affleck has put on a false appearance of virtue.
Conclusion: Ben Affleck is a hypocrite.
Where is the logic flawed? `
posted on 08.03.2004 9:52 PM50
Septeus7:
Let's break this down again for Kevin the Dummy.Boy, you sure do love that name-calling, don't you? Must be because you don't have a decent argument, so you have to fall back on insult.
He implied the Bush tax cut was unfair given his personal savings from the lowered tax rates.It would seem that you are the one with a problem comprehending the language. He implied that the Bush tax cut was unfair because the people who need it the least -- people like himself -- benefit the most. He was merely using himself as an anecdote, not the be-all and end-all. I think it's safe to say that even those who disagree with him here -- yourself apparently excluded -- understand this. That pretty much blows your characterization of Affleck's argument, "Part 1, Premise 2" out of the water, being a logical non-sequitur:
Premise 2. The reason stated for the tax cut being unfair that is because of his personal savings from the lowered rate.Umm, no, as above, he didn't give his personal savings as a reason for the tax cut's unfairness. He gave it as just one example of the tax cut's unfairness. Meanwhile, besides being based on the already-debunked Part 1, your characterization of "Part 2" of Affleck's argument is just silly.
Skipping over Joe's argument -- which I've already pointed out why Joe's argument is hypocritical in light of other arguments Joe's made -- I find this curious:
A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.Hmm, you have a different definition of "hypocrite" than I do, apparently. My definition shows a hypocrite as "one who professes beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess," and I fail to see how Affleck qualifies. He believes that he and others like him should not have received such generous tax cuts, and is going so far as to lobby for a rollback of those cuts -- including himself. Were he arguing that he personally should be excluded from such rollbacks, he would indeed be a hypocrite, but he's arguing no such thing.
Another example of the result of Joe's logic: anybody who believes the government should not be in the business of entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) who accepts those benefits is, by Joe's definition, a hypocrite. Never mind that they've paid into the system, the fact that they would do away with it precludes them from ever, in good conscience, accepting it. Similarly, anyone who thinks the federal government should not have a role in education should remove their children from public schools. If they don't, they're hypocrites, too.
Do you see the absurdity of this line of reasoning? There's nothing hypocritical about living within the system we've got while simultaneously lobbying to change the system we've got.
posted on 08.04.2004 1:48 AM51
Too many Kevin's on this site. I never know when to take umbrage at what somebody's said.
posted on 08.04.2004 11:28 AM52
Quote: He implied that the Bush tax cut was unfair because the people who need it the least -- people like himself -- benefit the most.
He never said anything about "people like himself." He simply asked in regards to his "personal saving of 1 million dollars" Is this fair?" Implying that his saving of 1 million was not fair. WHERE does he say anything about a group? Answer: He Does not. Unlike you, I actually read what he actually said and refered to only what he actually said. He did not saying anything about the reason it was "unfair" you are reading you own views into his statement.
Quote: He was merely using himself as an anecdote, not the be-all and end-all. I think it's safe to say that even those who disagree with him here -- yourself apparently excluded -- understand this.
Irrelevant...Red Herring
Quote: That pretty much blows your characterization of Affleck's argument, "Part 1, Premise 2" out of the water, being a logical non-sequitur:
Premise 2. The reason stated for the tax cut being unfair that is because of his personal savings from the lowered rate.
Umm, no, as above, he didn't give his personal savings as a reason for the tax cut's unfairness. He gave it as just one example of the tax cut's unfairness.
How does this change the arguement in anyway? The word reason means to give explaination. One of the way you explain something is to give an example. In this context, you just gave a difference without a distinction. If I change the word from reason to example, does this change the argument? How? In what way?
Quote: Meanwhile, besides being based on the already-debunked Part 1, your characterization of "Part 2" of Affleck's argument is just silly.
Meaning I can't refute it so I won't try!
Quote: Skipping over Joe's argument -- which I've already pointed out why Joe's argument is hypocritical in light of other arguments Joe's made
No you just claim to have done so and completely avoided the issue.
Quote: My definition shows a hypocrite as "one who professes beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess," and I fail to see how Affleck qualifies.
Unfornately your definition isn't the English one. Try this: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypocrite
The word hypocrite comes from the Greek and Latin words for actor. An actor acts; he does things.. holding different beliefs is not acting. The word hypocrite has nothing to do with beliefs it has to do with actions. contradicting other actions.
Even by your definition, Affleck is still a hypocrite becuase he claims the virtue of fairness for himself but refuses to act on the virtue of fairness. I think that says alot about Affleck's true beliefs about fairness. After all, actions speak louder than words.
Quote: Another example of the result of Joe's logic: anybody who believes the government should not be in the business of entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) who accepts those benefits is, by Joe's definition, a hypocrite.
First, its not Joe's definition its the English language's definition.
Second, that only follows if they use their particular entitlement as an example of the kind of undeserved entitlement that they oppose. The average Social Security recipient doesn't think that his particular "entitlement" is undeserved. So the anology fails.
Quote: . Similarly, anyone who thinks the federal government should not have a role in education should remove their children from public schools. If they don't, they're hypocrites, too.
Total Non-sequiter.
posted on 08.04.2004 4:04 PM53
Septeus7:
He simply asked in regards to his "personal saving of 1 million dollars" Is this fair?" Implying that his saving of 1 million was not fair. WHERE does he say anything about a group? Answer: He Does not. Unlike you, I actually read what he actually said and refered to only what he actually said. He did not saying anything about the reason it was "unfair" you are reading you own views into his statement.Oh, really? So you have his entire statement in context, rather than just the blurb Joe posted? Link, please.
Meanwhile, I can't find a transcript, but here is a paraphrase:
Emphasis added. Clearly he was not just talking about himself, despite your best efforts to mischaracterize his statements. Really, if the best you can do is yank his statements out of context, you haven't got a leg to stand on."I saved more than $1 million in taxes last year," said Mr. Affleck, who did not see that as particularly fair. "The billionaires saved even more."
Trying to explain the tax cuts in a way that Bostonians could relate to, Mr. Affleck put it this way — for the people seated in the grandstand at Fenway, the tax cuts might have been worth a nickel back, but for the folks in the luxury boxes, it was real money.
If I change the word from reason to example, does this change the argument? How? In what way?The difference is huge, although if you don't see it, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. A "reason" implies that it explains why; an example is nothing more than a "ferinstance." Affleck neither said nor implied that the tax cuts were unfair because Ben Affleck saved $1M, and that's the argument you're attributing to him.
Meaning I can't refute it so I won't try!No, meaning I have already refuted the premise of the argument, thereby invalidating the whole thing, so why get into the details?
Oh, and I didn't realize this isn't an English dictionary. My Oxford American Desk Dictionary defines hypocrisy as a "false claim of virtue." I'll concede the definition, but I still fail to see how it fits, for reasons I've already described. Affleck has volunteered to do what he says needs to be done; he simply hasn't agreed to be the only one to do so.
Even by your definition, Affleck is still a hypocrite becuase he claims the virtue of fairness for himself but refuses to act on the virtue of fairness.Would it not be equally unfair for Affleck to be the only one to make that sacrifice?
As for my other examples, I stand by them.
posted on 08.04.2004 5:13 PM54
Quote: The difference is huge, although if you don't see it, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. A "reason" implies that it explains why; an example is nothing more than a "ferinstance."
Wrong! Once again use the dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reason
The word reason simply mean to give exaplanation not necessary related to question of why.
Let's look at the argument again
Premise 2. The reason stated for the tax cut being unfair that is because of his personal savings from the lowered rate.
Okay let's stop using the word reason and use the word example.
Premise 1. Via rhetorical question Affleck says the Bush Tax Cut is "unfair."
Premise 2 (2nd ed). An example stated for the tax cut being unfair is his personal savings from the lowered rate.
Premise 3. The lowered rate creates more savings for Affleck not less
Premise 4. More savings for Affleck means more money for Affleck.
Conclusion: Affleck thinks that more money for him (to have) is unfair.
Okay, the offensive term is gone so where does the arguement break down? Answer: It doesn't.
Quote: Would it not be equally unfair for Affleck to be the only one to make that sacrifice?
No. Because its not a sacrifice its a moral duty. Being the only one to do what is right doesn't make doing the right thing unfair. You are using an appeal to popularity now...have you ever met a fallacy you didn't like?
posted on 08.04.2004 5:52 PM55
FWIW, Joe, "Passion of the Affleck" is the funniest title for any post I've read on this blog. I laugh ever time I read it.
posted on 08.04.2004 10:37 PM56
"As a non-millionaire, non-trust fund kid, non-200k plus income earner, working class guy, what screams out at me is why are they getting a windfall tax cut in the middle of a war with record deficits and national debt in the first place?"
That's only because you aren't [random millionaire]'s lawyer or that man's lawyer's secretary, or her day care/maid/lawnmower/waiter ad infinitum. Do millionaires do everything themselves, or something?
In the dreams I don't have about being a millionaire, I would respond aggressively to a discriminatory and oppressive tax code by making my taxable income as close to nothing as possible, with income only when absolutely necessary, by buying long-term future services today and putting everything else in revocable trusts for my heirs. I would also do wasteful transactions just to pay less taxes, and I might run losing ventures longer just for the fun of righting off uncollectable debts. After all, the people I am writing off would probably be the payees of the taxes collected on the income from their debt - I would be paying people to default.
posted on 08.06.2004 4:44 PM