More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jared Bernstein

GET UPDATES FROM Jared Bernstein
 

Pesky Brother-in-Law, Thanksgiving Edition

Posted: 11/24/11 12:00 AM ET

Ah, Thanksgiving. Savory food, family... and that pesky relative with a PhD in Fox News that keeps needling you to the point where you can't even enjoy Cousin Chrissy's carrot soufflé. [All references are to actual dishes at my family table! Also, usual disclaimer and Thanksgiving tidings to my bros-in-law -- Jim, Clint, Sean, Andy, Tom. Earlier editions of this series are here and here.]

Well, don't fret, and definitely don't let them throw you off your eating game. Here's a handy roundup of retorts to a few egregious arguments you're likely to hear. Master these, and you'll probably end up having thirds of Aunt Debbie's pecan pie.

Bro-in-Law: Poor people aren't even poor in this country -- they've got tons of stuff -- TVs, air-conditioning, even houses!

Well, one thing's for sure -- they don't have a lot of money. You know what the poverty threshold is in this country? For a single mom with a couple of kids, it's around $17,500 a year. Imagine raising kids on that kind of income today (look to your mom for support). And according to the official numbers, 20 million people -- about 7% of the population -- live in families with income below half that amount -- I don't care if you own 10 TVs -- good luck patching a life together on that kind of income.

But you're right bro, a lot of poor people have TVs and ACs... less than half own homes, by the way, and many of them are cash-poor elderlies. But you've got a point, up to a point. Once you take into account their government benefits, like food stamps, Medicaid benefits, and tax addons to their wages, it's true that a lot of poor people are not living in anything like a state of privation.

In fact, the wage credit for low-income workers kept over five million people, including three million kids, out of poverty last year. So some of the stuff we're doing is helping and that's something we might want to be a little bit proud of. Sure, government gets some stuff wrong, but helping to top off low-wage incomes to help families trying to do the right thing is a great policy. By the way, bro, your hero Ronnie Reagan expanded that wage subsidy program (the Earned Income Tax Credit), calling it the best antipoverty program we've got. (Let me know how he deals with that one.)

And here's the thing. While a lot of poor families may be getting by, it's awfully tough for them to get ahead. There's less income mobility here than in most other advanced economies, and there's also less mobility than they're used to be. While prices of a lot of things like TVs, ACs, and laptops have fallen a lot, helping today's poor to consume a lot more cool stuff than yesterday's, some other very important prices have gone up a lot faster than average, like college, or like access to better neighborhoods with better schools. That's how kids get a chance in this country, and precious few kids in families living on $20K or less are getting those chances.

Even if they've got a few TVs.

Bro-in-Law: Well, by now you've gotta admit it -- Obama's failed. Time to get on the [Mitt, Newt, etc.] bandwagon and give somebody else a chance to clean up the mess because your guy can't do it.

Now wait a minute, bro. I mean let's just think about that for a minute. Your man W turned a phat budget surplus into a deficit and left Obama with an economy contracting at the nightmarish rate of 9% (that real GDP in Bush's last quarter in office -- 2008q4), shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month.

This President takes office, gets the Recovery Act into the system, and by the second half of 2009, GDP's growing again. But early 2010, the private sector's adding jobs, as it's been doing ever since -- too slow, I grant you -- but there's no question he turned things around.

And let's be real here... your pals up there in DC have blocked every idea he's tried to move. And some of them, like Mitch McConnell, say they're doing so in order to defeat him. Imagine that-this guy proudly announced he"ll throw the President's plans to help the economy under the bus if that's what it take for his own political gain. I don't care how ambitious you are, that's just despicable and I don't get it.

(Looking around for support of basic fair play, say... ) So I really don't think that's a fair judgment of this president and what he's accomplished. Even with vicious, aggressive forces working 24 and seven against him, he's done great stuff.

And I gotta tell ya, listening to those guys and gals who want to take his place, I'm pretty much hearing the very playbook that lost the game-big time-the last time out. It's like they drove the car into the ditch, fought the President every step of the way as he got it out, blocked him from jump starting it, and now they want the keys back!

(Help yourself to Aunt Judy's cranberry pie -- and take that extra scoop of vanilla -- you earned it!)

Bro-in-Law: I can't stand the way you liberals go on about the rich not paying their fair share. You know as well as I do that half the country doesn't even pay taxes!

OK... put down that turkey drumstick and give him your best incredulous look. Then start by appealing to common sense.

Why, that can't be right. I mean, every time you buy gas you're paying a tax, right? And everybody who works pays payroll taxes, don't they? Heads should start nodding.

The fact is, virtually everyone pays taxes. Your beloved bro is talking about federal income taxes and that's just one of many kinds of taxes people pay. For most Americans, it isn't even the largest tax they pay-more than four in five working Americans pay more in the payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

Let that sink in while you take a spoonful of Bubbi's cranberry sauce. Then, add that unlike Federal income taxes which rise with your income level, payroll and sales taxes -- the kinds of taxes that low-income people pay tend to be regressive in that they extract a larger share of income from low-income families than from the wealthier households.

Same with state and local taxes -- property taxes, sales and excise taxes, additional income taxes -- they also tend to be more regressive.

In fact, poor families -- those in the bottom fifth of the income scale -- pay 16% of their meager income in taxes of one sort of another.

And if we're talking about the federal income tax, more than eight of every ten people who owed no federal income taxes fall into one of two categories: working people who paid substantial payroll taxes, and seniors living largely or entirely on fixed incomes. The rest? Largely students, people with disabilities, the long-term unemployed, and others with very low incomes. Oh yeah -- and a bunch of corps with kickass tax lawyers (and, to be fair, often large capital losses which they can deduct from their tax liability).

How I ask you, my brother, are you saying we should raise taxes on seniors who depend on Social Security, on disability and veterans benefits? Is that where you want to take this, given that something like 4,000 millionaires will pay no income tax this year? I mean, remember Warren Buffet talkin' about how he paid less taxes than his staff -- now there's something that doesn't seem right at all... (more heads nodding -- let's land this argument with style):

I gotta tell ya bro, I'm not worried about the Buffets of the world. I'm worried about the working single mom trying to make ends meet, the young adult in community college, the senior living on her Social Security, the security guard workin' his butt off for the minimum wage. And all of 'em are paying payroll and sales taxes.

Jeez, if anything, bro, I can't imagine how families like that are getting by. I guess we've got a lot to be thankful for today...

Nuff said.

This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 272
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
12:03 AM on 11/26/2011
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private (banks) to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and (corporations) that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...'

How smart of a man was he and how true is that today, with our banks getting bailed out and setting on cash and won't lend and our GREEDY unpatriotic corporations move our jobs overseas turning this country into a third world nation with the help of the Republicans because they passed the law paying these companies to out source our jobs and now they wonder where are the jobs. (HYPOCRITES)
photo
deepintheheartoftejas
Middle o/t Road = Yellow stripes & dead armadillos
07:54 PM on 11/26/2011
Thomas Jefferson was truly a prophet. He used, in 1802, the economic term "inflation", which did not exist before 1835, and the term "deflation", which was not invented until 1922. How did he learn these terms? It must have been time travel.

Or, maybe the quote was fabricated out of thin air in the 20th century, since no one can find any reference to him having said that before the 1930s.

I prefer to think he was a time-traveler, personally.
07:41 PM on 11/25/2011
ItWould behoove you to know that most people:

A) Don't know what "Payroll Taxes" means, i.eSocial Security &Medicare they pay every week

B) That only people making up to $106,000 are taxed . While above income pay ZERO.

C) That when Republicans had their 2001-2007 100% Control of all Government: In addition to collecting enough to pay Current Recipients:

D)They also collected A SURPLUS of $1.6Trillion (Social Security SURPLUS)

E)Which was about the same amount they gave their rich benefactors in Tax Cuts!

F)That while normally 24% of such tax cuts go to Jobs, according to Testimony under oath by Consumer Reports PREmeldown, ONLY 9% ofRepublican TaxCuts went into US Jobs!

H) The rest of that money went to Drive up Oil Prices($28 p-barrel to $146, Foriegen &Commodity Stock, Those chopped up mortgages that caused the Boom/Bust we suffer now. While failing to invest in our future &Cut Basic Science!

So when Republican uncles mention not wanting so called "Job Creators" This is MORE Republican Psychological Abuse of the electorate with help from Beltway Media which repeats their lies AS IF fact, on every station! Without ever saying that:

1)Republicans wracked up 87% of the debt.
2)GWB left a 1.3Trill deficit. &For it not to then accumulate the day Obama entered he's have had
3) To have ended Iraq, Afgan.TaxCuts,prescription Drugs! Logistical Impossibility!
4)TARP==Bush(after 3million already lost their jobs). BEFORE Obama was even elected.
5)Democrats made it CONDITIONAL (loans!). Obama got it back w/Interest!
08:52 PM on 11/25/2011
I basically agree, but your point B is nonsense.
11:23 PM on 11/25/2011
He's right. Any income above 106K doesn't go towards SS or Medicare.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Craig Koebelin
Live and lurn
07:36 PM on 11/25/2011
If you must engage please include asides of admiration for your BIL's favorite football team to soften the tone for the sake of Aunt Debbie's peace of mind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Craig Koebelin
Live and lurn
07:29 PM on 11/25/2011
This never works. Why get into it. Just change the subject. Pass the pie.
03:36 PM on 11/25/2011
guynamedjoe48) To you I say McConnell and the do nothing Republicans Is the problem when he said they would do everything possible to make Obama a one term president. By that he meant they would filibuster EVERYTHING like the jobs bill they wouldn't even let it come to the floor for a debate. The GOP has done NOTHING in the last 3 years. Remember the method they had to use to pass the healthcare bill. If the STIMULUS didn't work, ask Rick Perry why he took 17 billion of it to balance his budget an save thousands of jobs as did other GOP governors. Ask the AUTO workers? Bush had plenty to do with today's problems with his 8 years of wrong polices and by losing 8 million jobs , closing 50,000 FACTORIES, PAYING our companies to move our jobs overseas. Bush the only President that didn't raise taxes to pay for his two wars, drug program or two tax cuts for the rich and passed a huge deficit on to Obama to find a way to pay, besides causing a depression by doing away with regulations. I say the Republicans should now raise taxes to pay their back taxes. Bush cost our social security,medicare,local,state and our federal government trillions of dollars in LOSS REVENUE and all this caused more spending to pull us out of the mess he left with no help from the GOP.
08:17 PM on 11/25/2011
yes, correct.

Would also add that it was not Just GWB but the Republicans Who -- when they controlled both
the House and Senate did not do their jobs.

1)Did zero Oversight as plane loads of $100bills sent to Iraq (pay bugus Texas companies etc).
2)Haliburton was over charging billions while Republicans shut up whistle blowers.
3) Republicans abused their Majority status handed Dems Bills at 9AM for 10AM votes.

It was The Democrats who restrored our very Democracy. I.E. Oversight & Minority Party rights WHICH The Republican Gas & Oil Party have been abusing at the expense fo our Country.

And how come the Beltway Media never mentioned that Karl Rove used to go to the well of
the Senate to blackmail any Republican who dared to work with Democrats. That Dick
Cheeny's office used to be called "The Torture chaimber" BEFORE Abu Greb came out.

As for Republican lie that "The Stimulous Didn't work" PRECISELY when Confidence has
been crucial to recovery Fact is that after the Stimulous Passed the Market stopped going
down at 6,300, turned around and climbed to 12,500, now testing 11,000 and reacting to
Europe.
02:33 PM on 11/25/2011
Only one thing wrong here. You can tell him the facts all you want. He won't believe you - because he doesn't want to.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
datenutloaf
.......not approved by the moderators...........
11:32 AM on 11/25/2011
.......as if the pesky Short-Attention-Span 18%er BIL would listen to a longwinded explanation........
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guynamedjoe48
09:00 AM on 11/25/2011
Bro-in-law reply #3 So, you agree that we should lower taxes?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:34 AM on 11/25/2011
I agree that we could lower taxes if more people were prosperous. Lowering taxes on the ultra prosperous does not, despite the claims, create jobs. It simply puts more money into the stock market.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guynamedjoe48
08:58 AM on 11/25/2011
Bro-in-law reply #2 Actually, bro, the Democratic Party took over the Senate and House of Representatives in Jan. of '07, so, I'd say GW had some help with what you're talking about. Also, Obama, had all three branches of government run by the Ds until Jan of '11, so, please explain how he was able to pass Healthcare, yet, the Rs stopped him at every turn. Its funny that you talk of the Recovery Act, yet you don't mention that the GAO just came out with its report that seems to say that the Recovery Act didn't stimulate anything. McConnell simply stated what many in this country now believe,Obama and his policies are the problem , not the solution. Read some History and pass the potatoes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Irmanator
Romney fails the sniff test
09:13 AM on 11/25/2011
First part - presidential veto could have trumped any kind of major change the democrats tried to introduce. "Obama lead all three branches" - filibuster by all Republicans gave the deciding vote to Dino's Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh and the independent Liebermann who sided with the R's many times. Healthcare was passed through reconciliation which only needs a straight majority and avoided McConnells constant, unflagging, hyper-partisan, undemocratic, anti-american abuse of the filibuster. You should read some history bro.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:28 AM on 11/25/2011
Belief is not history. Now pass me the gravy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guynamedjoe48
08:34 AM on 11/25/2011
Bro-in-law rely #1 I know what you mean that's why I invested 900$ to get my CNA certificate and went to work cleaning bedpans, while I went to school part-time to get my RN which the hospital paid for, so, now I'm making well above the poverty level in wages. Why isn't the government promoting that kind of jobs program to actually get people to be self-sufficient.
07:13 AM on 11/25/2011
I am always amazed by those with PhDs in Fox News, as you say. Seems as though they trip over themselves in the rush to turn the television set on so that they can learn from Fox News what their opinions of the day will be. Fox News watchers are nothing but pall parrots.... they just listen to Fox News and then repeat Fox News... I think by and large these are people who are incapable of formulating opinions on their own... they need Fox News to tell them what to think. What's so interesting is that they are great defenders of Fox News (which is broadly vilified as being packed with propagandistic lies and just plan stupidity). Fox News viewers are the stupidest according to recent polls, and I think when these viewers hear Fox News derided as being ignorant, they instinctively want to defend one of their own --a broadcaster supporting their army of the ignorant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eden4barack08
Watch out! He carries a big stick!
06:59 AM on 11/25/2011
Why do these sisters of ours keep marrying these idiots though?

Anyhow, excellent suggestions Mr Bernstein, thanks. If only FACTS and TRUTH actually mattered to these fools, this country would REALLY be the greatest in the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigmaddy
Retired Union, USN
08:42 AM on 11/25/2011
My cousin who's a bagger show up for diner yesterday I met him at the door told him that he was entering My home which was paid for with Union wages and that all the rest of my guest were democrats and that his politics well be left outside on this day of thankgiving. By the time we finished dessert I thought he was going to explode holding all of his talking points in.
mmprtnrs
Relax, it's history
09:20 AM on 11/25/2011
Sounds like you don't agree with "free speech".....sad.
Kali03
Obama/Biden 2012
11:10 AM on 11/25/2011
Good for you for laying down the boundaries w/your cousin! His spleen is probably about to explode even now as I type. But you kept your own home calm and peaceful during dinner, and that is great!

:D
06:56 AM on 11/25/2011
LOVE! the title of the article!
05:33 AM on 11/25/2011
I find it incredibly sad that there are so many workers in America that have to get breaks from the government in order to just keep their heads above water and not fall into poverty. Working people whose employers don't pay them a living wage. Should the government really be subsidizing corporations so that they can get away with creating a working poor class here in America? I read an article just the other day about employees of contractors in the airports that make below minimum wage salary because they do service work and are expected to receive tips although legally they can't ask for the tips and the public is told that their service is "free". This is how it is in America today with the destruction and demonization of the protections for workers call unions. Demonize them all you want, but if you put a union against a corporation and ask who has the workers best interest at heart, I think there is no contest. GOP/TP want to privatize everything, meaning profit comes before workers rights, consumers rights, and the best interest of society. Is that really where we want to be?
07:22 AM on 11/25/2011
My heart bleeds, too. But think of what you can't see -- the people who can't get jobs at all because their work isn't worth $7.25 an hour. Talk about pulling the ladder up after you....the minimum wage has effectively put the first rung of the unemployment ladder out of reach for those people.

Now, then. Should employers nevertheless be required to pay people a "living" minimum wage? OK, how much is that? Shall we raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour? $50 an hour? Are you starting to see the problem?

Then there's this: Before we start to raise the minimum wage, we must first answer another question: How quickly are we willing to let human workers be replaced by, among other things, automation? Or self-employed contractors? At some wage level both those options become attractive.

Bottom line, to pay what some people think they deserve would be to say, in effect, that the world owes them a living. The world, wallet firmly in pocket, says it does not. (If you think the world really does, then that's another whole conversation.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigmaddy
Retired Union, USN
08:45 AM on 11/25/2011
And what happens when all the jobs don't pay and the masses can't no longer buy your stuff that you are trying to peddle cause they ain't got no money?
photo
fenderbender1
The world as I see it
08:46 AM on 11/25/2011
You seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room! The facts are out there, and they are as clear as the nose on your face. Personal income and profits of corporations and their CEOs have risen over 300% in the last 3 decades.Does our society owe THEM a living (especaially such an extravagant one).They think they deserve it! And if you do as well, ("YOU think the world really does, and that's another whole conversation") Putting the horse before the cart is no way to get your pointless argument across to people who are really paying attention. This is HuffPo--not Fox! "Bottom line, to say the world owes some people a living, while others starve and live in squaller, is just silly, narrow-minded ,self important, justification for souless people to try to justify their awful attitudes and beliefs!
Joel Smithis
Small business owner
10:33 PM on 11/24/2011
Happy Thanksgiving Professor!

Only time will cure some of the bros-in-law. Some are beyond repair, but nevertheless, we'll chip their armor away one little word at the time.