The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[il Padrino Ute]

Why does there need to be fairness in income?

[Topper]

Why is a progressive tax system is fair? The wealthier you are, the more you benefit from the infrastructure that costs money to support--not only from the economic structures that disproportionately support your income, but also from the enforced property rights that protect you from the hordes of strong but poor who would otherwise kill you and take the spoils.

But beyond that, it's the decent thing to do. If we really believe the Golden rule to be a guiding ethical principle, it naturally follows that equality, at least of opportunity, should be a very high aim of society, and certainly higher than a simple blind maximization of GDP. Does a progressive tax system put the brakes on our national production? Probably (although this isn't absolutely true). But I hope our national ideal can't be summed up in a number.

What evidence do you have that the wealthier in proportion to your income the greater proportion of benefit you receive?

I am aware that many accept as a fait accompli that a progressive system is fair, but the argument has never been convincing to me. Forbes tried to raise this issue, but most voters ignored it. I don't believe most voters have even contemplated its impact.

If a person makes $10,000 above the exempt amounts or another person makes $250,000 above the exempt amount, why is it "fair" that the lower wage taxpayer retains a greater percentage than the higher wage earner?

In support of it, I would argue if all taxpayers knew there was a single rate of income tax, citizens would be more wary of asking for more government services and for raising the rates. If you can argue to raise the rates on the "other guy", fiscal irresponsibility can occur.

The only responses I've ever received is twofold. First, it isn't fair that lower wage earners retain the same amount because they should be able to retain more discretionary income. Second, the high wage earners don't "need" the discretionary income. IOW, I haven't heard an adequate response to progressive system.

You build in irresponsible spending by encouraging voters to vote for spending which won't affect them. This reminds me of the government experiment with Medicare and the advent of health insurance. In those matters which took hold in the 1960s, the consumer and the provider lost touch with costs of service, because somebody else was financing the service. As a result of this and other factors, there was a massive increase in the cost of medical services.

Today, we have a massively expensive federal and state government, with millions and millions disconnected from the cost of those services. We have politicians willing to pander to those interests. It would seem to me the only fair route would be to reconnect all voters with the cost of government services so that no voter would be disconnected. All should feel the pinch when there is a vote to increase government services.

The only pragmatic answer that supporters of the progressive tax system is that it is easier to collect more money. In other words, we can gather more from fewer people. There really isn't anything inherently fair in that approach, but there is something real about it. Government gathers its money wherever it can.

Let's take PAC as an example for illustrations purposes only.

If CougarFriend makes twenty thousand dollars above all exempted amounts, and the government decides that it needs 20% of the income of all taxpayers. CougarFriend has one house, two cars and no children.

PAC has one larger house, two cars and makes $1MM over the exempt amount, how is he proportionately benefiting more than CourgarFriend? He pays increased property taxes on his larger house. Where does he receive a proportionately larger benefit?

[ERCougar]

1) I included the word "disproportionate" for a reason. The rich benefit more (disproportionately more) from a capitalist infrastructure than the poor do. We can argue this point if you really want, but you're not going to win it.
2) I said far fewer give more than they take from your silly narrow definition of straight dollars. If we want to include the value non nominal goods, that proportion quickly becomes zero, which is why for all the whining the ultra rich do (and really, they don't... It's this strange ultra conservative middle class that does it for them), you don't see many of them jumping ship for Europe or South America. Even our ultra progressive taxation system (lol) gives them more than it takes from them.
3) assuming you're right that the government sucks at everything (just a crazy shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're exempting the military from your blanket characterization), what does that have to do with progressive taxation as a means to social justice? Taxation rate adjustment is probably the least bureaucratic means of wealth redistribution out there.
4) What is your better path to social justice? (I'm still waiting for a better definition of social justice than equality of opportunity)

[ERCougar]

You claimed that the progressive tax system was fair because if you earn more money you are likely to consume more government/societal resources to keep/protect/produce/etc....those resources. I don't disagree with you about the consumption (however, I am not sure what that has to do with progressive tax rates as a flat tax would still require the wealthy to pay more in absolute dollars, but that is not the point I am arguing). You then go on to state that far fewer than most people think actually pay more to the government than they receive back. The only logical conclusion could result from your two statements is that the group constituting far fewer than most would think would have to make up the shortfall for all others outside of that group.

The government does suck at everything. I also don't think social justice is best served by means of taxation.

1) I included the word &quot;disproportionate&quot; for a reason. The rich benefit more (disproportionately more) from a capitalist infrastructure than the poor do. We can argue this point if you really want, but you're not going to win it. <br />
2) I said far fewer give more than they take from your silly narrow definition of straight dollars. If we want to include the value non nominal goods, that proportion quickly becomes zero, which is why for all the whining the ultra rich do (and really, they don't... It's this strange ultra conservative middle class that does it for them), you don't see many of them jumping ship for Europe or South America. Even our ultra progressive taxation system (lol) gives them more than it takes from them. <br />
3) assuming you're right that the government sucks at everything (just a crazy shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're exempting the military from your blanket characterization), what does that have to do with progressive taxation as a means to social justice? Taxation rate adjustment is probably the least bureaucratic means of wealth redistribution out there.<br />
4) What is your better path to social justice? (I'm still waiting for a better definition of social justice than equality of opportunity)

[TripletDaddy]

PAC has one larger house, two cars and makes $1MM over the exempt amount

Are you sure? I thought PAC still had an "entertainment center" in his living room??

[ERCougar]

What evidence do you have that the wealthier in proportion to your income the greater proportion of benefit you receive?

I am aware that many accept as a fait accompli that a progressive system is fair, but the argument has never been convincing to me. Forbes tried to raise this issue, but most voters ignored it. I don't believe most voters have even contemplated its impact.

If a person makes $10,000 above the exempt amounts or another person makes $250,000 above the exempt amount, why is it "fair" that the lower wage taxpayer retains a greater percentage than the higher wage earner?

In support of it, I would argue if all taxpayers knew there was a single rate of income tax, citizens would be more wary of asking for more government services and for raising the rates. If you can argue to raise the rates on the "other guy", fiscal irresponsibility can occur.

The only responses I've ever received is twofold. First, it isn't fair that lower wage earners retain the same amount because they should be able to retain more discretionary income. Second, the high wage earners don't "need" the discretionary income. IOW, I haven't heard an adequate response to progressive system.

You build in irresponsible spending by encouraging voters to vote for spending which won't affect them. This reminds me of the government experiment with Medicare and the advent of health insurance. In those matters which took hold in the 1960s, the consumer and the provider lost touch with costs of service, because somebody else was financing the service. As a result of this and other factors, there was a massive increase in the cost of medical services.

Today, we have a massively expensive federal and state government, with millions and millions disconnected from the cost of those services. We have politicians willing to pander to those interests. It would seem to me the only fair route would be to reconnect all voters with the cost of government services so that no voter would be disconnected. All should feel the pinch when there is a vote to increase government services.

The only pragmatic answer that supporters of the progressive tax system is that it is easier to collect more money. In other words, we can gather more from fewer people. There really isn't anything inherently fair in that approach, but there is something real about it. Government gathers its money wherever it can.

Let's take PAC as an example for illustrations purposes only.

If CougarFriend makes twenty thousand dollars above all exempted amounts, and the government decides that it needs 20% of the income of all taxpayers. CougarFriend has one house, two cars and no children.

PAC has one larger house, two cars and makes $1MM over the exempt amount, how is he proportionately benefiting more than CourgarFriend? He pays increased property taxes on his larger house. Where does he receive a proportionately larger benefit?

Easy. Your job doesn't even exist without the rule of law.

[Topper]

I think, for me, these services being provided are one area that is often overlooked. Sure, people who decide to be elementary school teachers or go into law enforcement have made a decision from the beginning that they are not going to be wealthy. But they also shouldn't continue to see that gap widen as they provide public service.

What makes you believe that school teachers or police are not seeing their wages keep pace with inflation? I've read generally that many wage earners have not kept pace, but some of the articles I've read it seems to suggest that government employees have done better than those in private industry. So I'm not certain that your allegations are correct. I wouldn't be surprised if after the Great Recession those wages were suppressed as state governments lost the ability to pay increased rates, but over the long term those professions have seen their wages keep pace generally is my understanding.

[Topper]

Easy. Your job doesn't even exist without the rule of law.

The rule of law is a societal concept in spectrum between anarchy and total authority. That's a funny quip but makes no sense.

What if both are lawyers; one is a community affairs attorney and another a securities attorney?

[imanihonjin]

1) I included the word "disproportionate" for a reason. The rich benefit more (disproportionately more) from a capitalist infrastructure than the poor do. We can argue this point if you really want, but you're not going to win it.
2) I said far fewer give more than they take from your silly narrow definition of straight dollars. If we want to include the value non nominal goods, that proportion quickly becomes zero, which is why for all the whining the ultra rich do (and really, they don't... It's this strange ultra conservative middle class that does it for them), you don't see many of them jumping ship for Europe or South America. Even our ultra progressive taxation system (lol) gives them more than it takes from them.
3) assuming you're right that the government sucks at everything (just a crazy shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're exempting the military from your blanket characterization), what does that have to do with progressive taxation as a means to social justice? Taxation rate adjustment is probably the least bureaucratic means of wealth redistribution out there.
4) What is your better path to social justice? (I'm still waiting for a better definition of social justice than equality of opportunity)

I said I wasn't disagreeing with you about consumption for purposes of this discussion and your points 1 and 2 address the point as if I were.

You failed to address the logical conclusion of your points. If only a few actually pay in more than they get, who makes up the shortfall?

Sorry to blow it for you, but I think the military is as bad as any government agency at wasting money, if not the worst.

I don't have a problem with equal opportunities, I just don't like the idea of trying to ensure equal outcomes.

[Northwestcoug]

No, you are right, that at least isn't stealing to the point where the government is forcing you to pay for the resources you use, but we both know that for many, we pay far more in that we ever get out. That is stealing.
I also agree with you that it is self interest of all parties that is the driving force. I think that everyone should have skin in the game. Even if it is a small fraction for those who are on the bottom of the scale. I think it would be good to also have an amendment to the constitution setting forth those rates and that any time Congress wanted to adjust the tax rates it had to do so on a proportionate basis across all tax brackets. A 10% incremental increase across the board would still be larger for those on top but at least it would keep everyone else in check too if they were impacted by the change.

That is a hilariously broad definition of stealing, and it reveals your almost 'manifesto-like' perception of taxation. It won't do us any good to argue specific incremental actions when you view political philosophy in such broad strokes.

[imanihonjin]

That is a hilariously broad definition of stealing, and it reveals your almost 'manifesto-like' perception of taxation. It won't do us any good to argue specific incremental actions when you view political philosophy in such broad strokes.

It is one thing to tax to cover the use of government resources, it is another to use taxation as a form of redistribution.

The government is taking in tax revenue at inflation adjusted record levels and the left would love to keep it increasing more and more (if Bernie is elected and is able to implement all of his crazy ideas he would need an extra $18 trillion over 10 years...and you know what is crazier, even if this happened at the end of the day he and his cohorts would claim they need more). What I would like to know is when is enough, enough. The left keeps saying that the wealthy need to pay their fair share, what does this mean? What is "fair share"?

[ERCougar]

I said I wasn't disagreeing with you about consumption for purposes of this discussion and your points 1 and 2 address the point as if I were.

You failed to address the logical conclusion of your points. If only a few actually pay in more than they get, who makes up the shortfall?

Sorry to blow it for you, but I think the military is as bad as any government agency at wasting money, if not the worst.

I don't have a problem with equal opportunities, I just don't like the idea of trying to ensure equal outcomes.

I'm arguing that there is not a shortfall, which is why democratic governments can function and why the wealthy stay in ours, despite their horribly unfair treatment. We all get more from it more than we give, once you include all benefits, and the wealthy seem to be doing better here than they could be doing anywhere else.

No one is trying to ensure equal outcomes. But to pretend that there is equal opportunity, that the kid born in Compton has the same opportunities as the one born in Beverly Hills, is absurd. And financial help has proven over and over to be the quickest and most efficient equalizer of opportunity out there (see the EIC for the most recent well studied example). The poor need money (duh), and money without strings attached.

Really, I promise I'm ready for your more effective program...

[Topper]

I'm arguing that there is not a shortfall, which is why democratic governments can function and why the wealthy stay in ours, despite their horribly unfair treatment. We all get more from it more than we give, once you include all benefits, and the wealthy seem to be doing better here than they could be doing anywhere else.

No one is trying to ensure equal outcomes. But to pretend that there is equal opportunity, that the kid born in Compton has the same opportunities as the one born in Beverly Hills, is absurd. And financial help has proven over and over to be the quickest and most efficient equalizer of opportunity out there (see the EIC for the most recent well studied example). The poor need money (duh), and money without strings attached.

Really, I promise I'm ready for your more effective program...

I would argue the poor need skill sets including the skill sets to acquire and to manage their finances. Retasking and reeducating workers with out of date skill sets is not done well in the US. That may also contribute to the wage stagnation.

Obviously, people need some minimum amount of support. You're not hearing any arguments to that effect. What do you mean, poor need money without strings attached? If a person is poor because of substance abuse or mental illness, you don't believe a condition of receiving financial support should be for the recipient to obtain and to follow medical treatment?

That requires vocational, technical, professional and life skills. In many studies, the lack of life skills contributes significantly to poverty in industrialized nations.

[ERCougar]

It is one thing to tax to cover the use of government resources, it is another to use taxation as a form of redistribution.

The government is taking in tax revenue at inflation adjusted record levels and the left would love to keep it increasing more and more (if Bernie is elected and is able to implement all of his crazy ideas he would need an extra $18 trillion over 10 years...and you know what is crazier, even if this happened at the end of the day he and his cohorts would claim they need more). What I would like to know is when is enough, enough. The left keeps saying that the wealthy need to pay their fair share, what does this mean? What is "fair share"?

How far is enough? When opportunities are equal. I'm serious here. As long as they aren't, I think we all have a responsibility to keep trying to come up with ways to improve the situation. If you want to come up with non governmental ways that will work, I promise I'm all in. I'm still waiting to hear those though.

[Topper]

It is one thing to tax to cover the use of government resources, it is another to use taxation as a form of redistribution.

The government is taking in tax revenue at inflation adjusted record levels and the left would love to keep it increasing more and more (if Bernie is elected and is able to implement all of his crazy ideas he would need an extra $18 trillion over 10 years...and you know what is crazier, even if this happened at the end of the day he and his cohorts would claim they need more). What I would like to know is when is enough, enough. The left keeps saying that the wealthy need to pay their fair share, what does this mean? What is "fair share"?

Here is an oddity. Government continues to add program after program, yet the gap for some poor continues to widen. When will government actually develop programs that are effective in managing poverty? Governments treat symptoms, not root causes of problems.