The phrase "personal responsibility" is being thrown around frequently of late, particularly by those on the right. The term is intended to remind the individual that he or she is solely responsible for his choices and, on another level, the quality of his or her life. The top Google find regarding personal responsibility describes the concept in detail. At a basic level this is clearly a good trait to promote, but often the phrase glosses over the question of whether the individual in question had access to the resources or opportunities necessary to make an appropriate choice, and despite that we may want it to be, this is not always the case.
What I want to know is this — why is the phrase often used by people who are Republicans, usually so staunchly in favor of the "American way" of capitalism that they also strongly support the creation of corporations and LLCs ("limited liability company") to limit personal responsibility for a company's actions? For clarification, my point is not to denounce capitalism, but to illustrate the balance needed between free enterprise and sensible regulation. Don't the CEO's decisions affect potentially thousands of people in profound ways? If so, why do we shield executives from the repercussions of the decisions they make? Should they not take personal responsibility for their corporation's actions?
Litigation has been proposed in some state legislatures and the U.S. Congress that espouses this viewpoint; an example is a bill that was passed in the U.S. House but did not receive a vote in the Senate, which was called the Personal Repsonsibility in Food Consumption Act. These laws, in the name of "tort reform," attempt to limit the degree to which the consumer can sue a corporation for the long term effects of its products. Admittedly the cases cited in its defense are extreme, however there is often an assumption that should be questioned--in this example, the taking of "personal responsibility" assumes that the company provides enough accurate information about its products, and that they are available to the consumer, for the consumer to make an educated choice. The details of specific cases could call into question whether that took place--whether the company executives took personal responsibility to make sure their company was providing its customers the needed information. If that is the question, the lawsuit is not "frivolous" at all.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
These spending cuts, among many others, occur while Republicans continue to argue that their tax cuts, primarily benefitting those with high income, should be made permanent. When do we get to see Congress taking personal responsibility for these choices?
Which tax cuts are you referring to here? Surely not the ones passed during the past 6 years, since they resulted in only a 9.6% overall cut for those earning $147,000-$373,000 a year, compared to middle class cuts of 29.2% for those earning $72,000-$147,000 and a cut of 17.9% for those in the lower middle income group of $44,000-$72,000 (figures courtesy of the Center for Tax Justice).
Dave
2 - JP
I was referring specifically to the Deficit Reduction Act, where we cut spending at the same time as we handed out further tax cuts. In general, I was referring to the Bush tax cuts overall--referring to which, in 2002, Citizens for Tax Justice stated that "By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent."
They also document the effect of 2 changes taking effect in 2006 which they point out will give less than 50 cents (not percent.. $0.50) to people in the bottom 95 percent of income earners.
3 - Dave Nalle
an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent.
This, of course, referring NOT to a 52% cut in the rate of taxes paid by the richest 1%, but to the proportion of the total revenue returned to the public as a result of tax cuts, which is not the same thing. More money goes back to the wealthy because they pay enormously more in gross numbers in the first place. But that 52% of the revenue returned still represents a smaller percentage of their individual income than most other groups are being given back. And, of course, that figure also includes more than just income tax cuts, like capital gains and inheritance tax cuts, which go disproportionately to the rich because they have assets to which they apply while others do not.
And of course it's also unfair to say that the poor got hardly any tax cut compared to the rich and middle class, because most of the poor pay no taxes at all, and it's hard to find anything to cut from a tax bill of near 0.
This tax issue aside you've got some good points here, but perpetuating this deceptive left-wing talking point about 'tax cuts for the rich' undermines your other arguments which may deserve to be taken more seriously.
Dave
4 - JP
I am not suggesting the wealthy do not have a larger gross amount to which cuts are applied, that is obvious. The point is that an attempt at "Deficit Reduction" while simultaneously cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy by the SAME AMOUNT SAVED is irresponsible. Have you noticed that we're pushing against the legal debt ceiling lately?
Tax cuts do not "pay for themselves." There's a long forgotten concept called "Shared sacrifice" that's being ignored here; we change tax rates so that more of the burden is carried by those earning less--and still tell ourselves the lie that "tax cuts help the economy."
Not that you'd know it from listening to any Republican, but in 2003, taxes were already the lowest they'd been in six decades! The truth is, the complaints about the tax burden and the need to enact more cuts are a self-serving Republican talking point. You're falling for it because it *sounds* good to everyone--of course we all want more of our money. But when taken to an extreme, it results in a pathetic display of borrowing and spending that is eventually going to come back and bite us. And I'm looking forward to the day when we hold members of Congress *personally responsible* for these outrageous budgets -- hopefully, starting this November.
5 - RedTard
Personal responsibility is certainly something I believe in. One of the tells that the Republicans are more interested in serving the rich than personal responsibility is the desire to cut the inheritance tax.
If personal responsibility and equality of opportunity, both of which the GOP pays lip service to, are high priorities then inheritance tax makes sense. Every person makes their own way without living off mommy and daddy's trust fund. It levels the starting blocks and, if you have to tax people, doing it when they're dead seems to be most humane.
Certainly, trust fund kids are not the norm in the United States, but does the Walton family really need to live in luxury for the next 10 generations just because Sam was very productive? Does Paris Hilton really deserve billions for the luck of having been born to the right family?
More movement and competition among the richest families is a good thing. Republicans are for competition, right?
6 - troll
since the US government exists to defend and enable Capitalists with their own irrational view of Truth Justice and the American Way - and to regulate their over exuberance for their own preservation - why shouldn't capitalists fund the effort 100% - ?
troll
7 - gonzo marx
RedTard sez...
*Personal responsibility is certainly something I believe in. One of the tells that the Republicans are more interested in serving the rich than personal responsibility is the desire to cut the inheritance tax.*
Quoted for Truth!
mark it on yer calendars , kiddies....me and Red in absolute agreement
will Wonders never cease?
Excelsior!
8 - Dave Nalle
I am not suggesting the wealthy do not have a larger gross amount to which cuts are applied, that is obvious. The point is that an attempt at "Deficit Reduction" while simultaneously cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy by the SAME AMOUNT SAVED is irresponsible. Have you noticed that we're pushing against the legal debt ceiling lately?
Of course. The problem there is not the tax cuts, but the massive spending which was not taken into consideration when making the tax cuts. The tax cuts were certainly enormously beneficial to the economy, but their benefits and the increase in tax revenue was not enough to make up for the added spending. Tax cuts should always go hand in hand with spending cuts.
Tax cuts do not "pay for themselves." There's a long forgotten concept called "Shared sacrifice" that's being ignored here; we change tax rates so that more of the burden is carried by those earning less--and still tell ourselves the lie that "tax cuts help the economy."
This just isn't true. Not one word of it. The income tax cuts reduced tax rates more for every one of the lower income groups than it did for the wealthy, and it demonstrably helped the economy which came out of a recession much faster than expected. It also increased tax revenue. These aren't just theories, they're facts.
Not that you'd know it from listening to any Republican, but in 2003, taxes were already the lowest they'd been in six decades!
Of course they were - as a result of the first set of Bush tax cuts.
The truth is, the complaints about the tax burden and the need to enact more cuts are a self-serving Republican talking point. You're falling for it because it *sounds* good to everyone--of course we all want more of our money.
The cuts that are still to come are not cuts to the income tax, but cuts to various other more specialized taxes which benefit those who have capital and investment more than anyone else. They may indeed be disproportionately beneficial to the rich. They're the true 'trickle down' cuts of the whole plan. They're the ones designed to really stimulate investment and economic growth rather than benefiting individuals in general.
But when taken to an extreme, it results in a pathetic display of borrowing and spending that is eventually going to come back and bite us. And I'm looking forward to the day when we hold members of Congress *personally responsible* for these outrageous budgets -- hopefully, starting this November.
As I think you actually realize, it's the borrowing and spending which is the problem, not the tax cuts. Stop the spending and the results of tax cuts are overwhelmingly positive for individuals and for the nation.
Dave
9 - gonzo marx
bottom line on the entire tax cut bullshit
the top 20% of taxpayers pay about 60% of the taxes, after the Bush cuts
that same top 20% make over 90% of the income generated per annum
nuff said?
nice bit on NPR yesterday breaking a lot of this down....CBO and GAO showing that the "economy" is doing really well for the top 25%...the lowest 25% are about the same....and those in the middle?
straight fucked without even being bought dinner, those are the folks paying for everything, and whose kids will be footing the bill for all the Debt being run up in the last 6 years
but, yas knew that.....even those that don't like to admit it
Excelsior!
10 - JP
No Dave, the incessant belief that tax cuts result in "trickle down" benefits for everyone is "voodoo economics" - the first President Bush had that one right. The one point I agree with you on is that borrow-and-spend is not the answer.
Where we disagree is that if spending cuts are not justified, in my view, taxes should not be cut even further when they are already historically low to begin with (especially when it primarily benefits those who need it least) You seem to believe they should. You can continue arguing this point if you wish, but it's obvious we do not agree and I'd rather focus on the main point, which was taking responsibility.
RedTard, thanks for your input, great point!
11 - Dave Nalle
JP, what we need more than tax cuts is wholesale tax reform. The entire structure of taxation in the US is inherently unfair and needs to be done away with. Bush promised to do this and one of his great failures - maybe his greatest one - is that he hasn't followed through on that promise.
As for 'voodoo economics', it's a great catch-phrase, but remains untrue. The truth is always going to be that if you give money to the rich they don't stick that money in their mattresses, they spend it. Even if they just spend it on traditional investments, that benefits enormous numbers of other people as the money goes to work building companies, creating jobs and expanding the economy. Simple, obvious truth.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
bottom line on the entire tax cut bullshit
the top 20% of taxpayers pay about 60% of the taxes, after the Bush cuts
that same top 20% make over 90% of the income generated per annum
Where do you get these figures from, Gonzo. They don't match any I've seen before. The most the top quintile has ever paid is about 66% of the total tax, and that amount came after the Bush tax cuts and resulted from an increase in income which outstripped the decrease in tax rate.
The tax paid by the rich is also out of proportion to the income they earn, even after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. After Bush's initial tax cuts the top quintile was paying 65.7% of all tax, but earning only 52.2% of all income. The second quintile - the upper middle class - was paying 18.6% of all tax while earning 20.9% of all income. They're on the winning side of the balance of taxes vs. income. The third quintile which is the lower middle class was earning 14.4% of all income, but paying only 9.9% of all taxes, so way ahead. The fourth quintile - the working poor - earns 9.1% of all income and pays only 4.5% of the total taxes - many in this group paying no taxes at all. And the bottom quintile, those who are actually poor were earning 4.2% of all income and paying only 1% of the total tax. So if you compare the ratio of income earned to tax paid, after the Bush cuts the tax system still disproportionately soaks the rich. It should also be pointed out that the entire tax burden of the bottom two quintiles is sales and social security/medicaid taxes. They pay no income tax at all.
nice bit on NPR yesterday breaking a lot of this down....CBO and GAO showing that the "economy" is doing really well for the top 25%...the lowest 25% are about the same....and those in the middle?
straight fucked without even being bought dinner, those are the folks paying for everything, and whose kids will be footing the bill for all the Debt being run up in the last 6 years
Except that no matter how many times you say this the numbers STILL don't bear it out. The middle 2nd and 3rd quintiles were the overwhelming beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts, and there's no other way to read the numbers.
Dave
13 - gonzo marx
you deal with the "idealistic" numbers of those who drank the kool-aide
check the GAO...and i'll just look at my returns for the ladt 10 years
done with this one...my Apologies for the highjack
we now return you to your regularily scheduled program
Excelsior!
14 - Dave Nalle
Numbers are numbers. I'm not sure they can be 'idealistic'.
As for the GAO, the numbers I offered are very, very close to those the GAO offers in their analysis in this document on page 32. The small differences appear to be due to the GAO not factoring in certain taxes like capital gains which predominantly impact the top two quintiles.
So I suggest you check the GAO, since they confirm that the top two quintiles pay taxes out of proportion to their share of income.
Dave