Since I actually thought about taxes the other day, I’ve happened across a fair amount of articles that talk about taxes, especially graduated income taxes, mostly framed around McCain calling Obama a socialist.  Just a few things.

First, from Slate, quoting Teddy Roosevelt:

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

…

John McCain, meanwhile, would have to stop saying that Teddy Roosevelt is his hero, because the passage quoted above is from T.R.’s “New Nationalism” speech of 1910. Either that, or McCain would have to quit calling Barack Obama a socialist.

…

“Here’s what I really believe,” McCain said. “When you are—reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

Then, from the New Yorker, quoting Adam Smith:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Basically, the more I think about it, the more fair a progressive tax seems to me, as annoying as it is.  It’s not the part of my utopia, but a reasonable compromise.  Of course, there’s still the issue of how the taxes are spent, but that’s another story.  I think it would be interesting if each year, we took an estimate of the federal budget, an estimate of how much money a person would make, and we would pay the exact amount of taxes to correspond with how much we made and where we ranked nationally.   It could be a point of pride amongst the wealthy.

(It strikes me that reading both Slate and the New Yorker might be a bit redundant.  Also, I think I left my copy of this weeks NY at the Y.  I’m almost positive it will still be there, likely untouched.  I actually saw dudes at the gym reading People and US.  Awesome.)

With the economy being the economy, the whole money thing has been quite talkaboutable.  I never really thought much about taxes, but I guess our minds are on are money and our money is on or minds like it wasn’t this summer.  Obama, before the las debate, talked bout how he wanted to “spread the wealth around” and was quickly attacked for it.  Rightly so?  I’m not sure.  It certainly sounds bad, and I definitely see why people who work hard would go bonkers hearing him say that, but I wonder if the times we live in require some sacrifice.  I’m not saying that to be rhetorical, I really wonder if our current situation merits the upper class really biting the bullet and forking over the extra money.

The National Taxpayers union has the following numbers, the left being the wage earners and the right the percent of taxes they account for:

Top 1%		39.89
Top 5%		60.14
Top 10%		70.79
Top 25%		86.27
Top 50%		97.01
Bottom 50%		2.99

So that’s something.   Granted, the NTU wants to get rid of the income tax, but numbers are numbers.  Is it fair to ask such a tiny portion of the population to pay for such a huge percent of the budget?  I think a help number would be to look at wealth distribution.  My instinct is that if the top 1% have 40% of the wealth, then it’s more or less fair.  Let’s see.  From here via here:

Top 1% of Housholds control  34.3% of the wealth.
Top 5% control 58.9%
Top 10% control 71.2%
Top 20% control 84.6%
Top 40% control 95.9%
Top 60% control 99.8%
Leaving the bottom 40% of the country with .2% of the wealth.

So it’s not perfect, but its surprisingly close.  I’m not sure if that’s even really fair.  Plus, if Obama wants to lower taxes for most people and raise it for the top, they will end up 1- controlling less of the wealth and 2- paying for more of the budget.

It’s certainly tricky, and I don’t have nearly all the data I’d liketo really think about it.  One related concern is the income and wealth distribution becoming wider.  Two things I believe to be true are that money creates more money, so there’s just a natural tendency for the rich to get richer.  The other thing is that without economic democracy, ie people have access to money and can improve their situation and compete fairly, there can’t be any true political democracy.  Plus we know tough economic times lead to more crimes, etc.  I don’t know.  It seems like in a utopian world, we could all pay the same percentage of our income, or rather have no government and simply pay for what we use.  But in the world we live in, even though it might not be truly fair, the wealthy should be expected to pay a larger share, if for no other reason than to ensure domestic stability and that the peasants don’t storm the castle.  So much of this is so half-baked.  I should think about it more and get back to it.  I need to find a smart economist to explain some stuff to me.

(Quick note on math/ the plumber dude-

The plumber guy from the last debate said he wanted to buy a company that made 270k a year, but with Obama’s tax plan, he wouldn’t be able to afford it.  Under Obama, the tax rate for over 250 would go from 36-39%, meaning a 3% increase, meaning a difference of $600.  I don’t see how that’s a bank breaker.)

After this past weekend, the major newspapers from the cities I’ve lived in have made their presidential endorsements.  With the exception of the Boston Herald, which I never really read when I was out there, they have all endorsed Obama.  Below are some notable bits unique to the specific endorsements.

Chicago Tribune:

Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

Chicago Sun-Times:

Sen. McCain is an American hero. His courage as a prisoner of war and his 26 years on Capitol Hill command our respect. Anybody who happened to notice him struggle to shake hands with moderator Bob Schieffer at the end of the third debate had to be moved.

But somewhere along the line, McCain stopped being McCain. The maverick who always thought for himself turned his thinking over to others. He cared too much about winning.

He reversed his position on major social issues to curry favor with the Republican base. He pulled silly surprises from a hat, such as “suspending” his campaign. Most egregiously for a man of advanced age who knew how important this decision could be, he chose the unqualified Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice president.

Boston Globe:

Obama is hardly immune to political calculation. Though he has positioned himself as a supporter of campaign finance reform, he backed out of the public financing system after his ability to raise jaw-dropping sums over the Internet became apparent. In the general election campaign, he has been slow to admit how much the financial crisis would limit his policy options come January.

Houston Chronicle:

On several issues vital to Houstonians, Obama’s positions need elaboration. He recognizes the need to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in space but said he wanted to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration — an exercise that should convince him of the space program’s long history of indispensable contributions.

Obama said he did not expect the leaders of the energy sector to vote for him. He needs to realize that the energy sector must be a large part of a cooperative effort to develop alternative fuels and avoid an energy crunch.

(Notable notes: The Tribune, as has been widely noted, is endorsing a Democrat for the first time in it’s history.  The Chronicle endorsed Bush both in 2000 and 2004, the Globe didn’t even mention Sarah Palin, and the only thing I’ve ever read in the Sun-Times has been the crosswords.)

So Saturday I did my second bit of volunteering for Obama, the first being phone bank work during the primary.  Along with about 40 or so other Chicagoans, I drove out to Hamond, IN to knock on doors.  I’ve never really been that interested in the sort of face-to-face interactions with people, especially not talking about politics, but with Indiana lookin like a real possibility, I thought I should go do my thing.

Our goal for the day was mostly to talk to people who were either Obama supporters or on the fence, and to get them to vote early or persuade them to vote for Obama, respectively.  They gave us a list of names and addresses and we fanned out and went down the list.  Everyone I talked to was pretty cool about having someone bug them, and I’m sure folks in Indiana are pretty sick of getting bothered by people, so I appreciated it.  I don’t think I changed any minds, though I think I did help a few people by talking about early voting and making sure they knew where their polling places were.  I knocked on about 60 doors and talked to about 20 people.  So that was that.

It was a little strange, though.  I kinda felt like the cliche urban yuppie Democrat, knocking on doors and proselytizing.  At least  didn’t drive my Volvo there or have a latte with me.  I was really self-conscious of that at first, but I got over it soon enough.  I didn’t end up needing to do that much persuading, so it felt good to just be able to give people information they needed.  It felt mostly like civil service and not so terribly partisan.  It was funny too, becaus on teh way home I really felt like I had done something, even though I really hadn’t.  I think it’s relatively rare to do anythign beyond voting to help the process out.  Maybe I should be an election judge or something, try to do a little bit more.

The other cool thing was meeting all the Obama supporters.  They were all super nice, but pretty hardcore.  That’s awesome, of course, to really believe, but it was funny because I’m certainly not that intense.   I was certainly the only one there who’d given money to McCain as well.   I’m not sure whether I’ll go back next weekend, I think they’ll do fine without me.

(I read on other blogs that the campaign asked them not to blog about canvassing.  I hope it’s not true, but I wouldn’t be surprised, what with the Obama campaign’s total and complete on-messageness. )