The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[il Padrino Ute]

Define fair share.

[ERCougar]

Equal opportunity obviously means something different to the two of us. If what you are shooting for is that the kid in 90210 and Compton are equal in all things available to them, then we are miles apart. Government money and welfare haven't solved the problem despite their representations that their programs would at least alleviate the problem.

We all get more from the government than we get? And you draw that conclusion because the wealthy can do better here than anywhere else? I am going to guess that you can discover the faulty logic in this conclusion even if it were true that the wealthy aren't leaving. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/10/recor...tizenship.html. Not to mention that corporations go to extreme lengths to ensure large sums of money never go through the American system, you will see that America is becoming less and less attractive a place to park one's assets.

I guess we do have different definitions and that's okay, as long as you own it. If I wouldn't be okay with my kid being born in an area of the country, then I don't feel like I should be ok with someone else's kid being born there, and I should work to eliminate the inequity. We're all members of the same human family, right? Or is that just something we say on Sunday? So I guess the question is... Would you be ok with raising a kid in Compton? If you would, discussion over.

Here's one.

I love kiva. That's where most of my charitable donations go. Givedirectly.org is another good one.
Of course we're talking domestic solutions here...

Anyway... I have to run. Maybe I'll check back later.

[Topper]

You didn't ask me this and I'm obviously generalizing. The point still holds, however.

Just making a declarative statement isn't an argument or a proof. Stating "most people believe this" is also not proof nor an argument. What is your argument that any profession, since all professions rely upon a stable system of government to protect the infrastructure, benefits in proportion greater as that person earns more?

Maybe I'm a complete dummy, but I don't see how the actor who struggles, waits tables and makes a pittance relies proportionately less on his income as opposed to the mega star?

Are you stating that there is a base amount of value that any person can self-generate and therefore the amount of benefit is disproportionate?

Or, although you deny wanting equal outcomes, are you arguing in effect for equal outcomes. In effect, because somebody has used his opportunities and achieves more than another, he has received disproportionately from the system, discounting the earner's own talent, skill or education used in achieving an unequal result, i.e., a higher income.

It is related to the Marxist maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," from Louis Blanc originally and adopted by Marx. You are basically saying society takes from those with means and abundance whatever it wants and gives whatever it wants to those without means or ability. And that is fair.

It seems unfair from my perspective, but moreover, it seems inefficient and will ultimately fail to correct all inequalities. Inequalities to some degree are necessary to motivate workers and other persons toward innovation.

[Northwestcoug]

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"?

I'll cut to the chase: there will never be enough money to do all that we should as a society. Now, where do we go from there?

The far left says we need to cure all societal ills. But the far right says progressive taxation is theft. It's too easy to lob moral arguments from either extreme. There is a lot of middle ground to explore, and room for movement on both sides. I'm confident that alleviating inequalities in wealth distribution benefits society as a whole. If you don't agree with that, then there's not much to discuss. I'm also open to the argument that taxation can play a part in that. Now let's hear some other arguments and see what progress can be made.

If you have a problem with the concept of fair share, be thankful you don't live in Canada. You should see how quickly the highest tax bracket kicks in.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'll cut to the chase: there will never be enough money to do all that we should as a society. Now, where do we go from there?

The far left says we need to cure all societal ills. But the far right says progressive taxation is theft. It's too easy to lob moral arguments from either extreme. There is a lot of middle ground to explore, and room for movement on both sides. I'm confident that alleviating inequalities in wealth distribution benefits society as a whole. If you don't agree with that, then there's not much to discuss. I'm also open to the argument that taxation can play a part in that. Now let's hear some other arguments and see what progress can be made.

If you have a problem with the concept of fair share, be thankful you don't live in Canada. You should see how quickly the highest tax bracket kicks in.

In your opinion how much would a fair share be in the US? If you don't want to be specific, give a ballpark estimate.

[Nakoma]

I'll cut to the chase: there will never be enough money to do all that we should as a society. Now, where do we go from there?

The far left says we need to cure all societal ills. But the far right says progressive taxation is theft. It's too easy to lob moral arguments from either extreme. There is a lot of middle ground to explore, and room for movement on both sides. I'm confident that alleviating inequalities in wealth distribution benefits society as a whole. If you don't agree with that, then there's not much to discuss. I'm also open to the argument that taxation can play a part in that. Now let's hear some other arguments and see what progress can be made.

If you have a problem with the concept of fair share, be thankful you don't live in Canada. You should see how quickly the highest tax bracket kicks in.

Hopefully, Canada does a better job elevating its poor into the middle class than the US. I don't know how many trillions the US has spent on entitlements since Johnson declared his War on Poverty, but last I saw the percentage of poor in the US is about the same or more as when he declared the war.

[Nakoma]

Hopefully, Canada does a better job elevating its poor into the middle class than the US. I don't know how many trillions the US has spent on entitlements since Johnson declared his War on Poverty, but last I saw the percentage of poor in the US is about the same or more as when he declared the war.

I'm wrong. The percentage in poverty has come down since Johnson declared War on Poverty. Looks like it was already headed down prior to his declaration and has remained between 10 and 15 percent since the early 70s.

poverty.jpg

[Northwestcoug]

In your opinion how much would a fair share be in the US? If you don't want to be specific, give a ballpark estimate.

Like anyone could even know that.

Hopefully, Canada does a better job elevating its poor into the middle class than the US. I don't know how many trillions the US has spent on entitlements since Johnson declared his War on Poverty, but last I saw the percentage of poor in the US is about the same or more as when he declared the war.

I'm not sure I could evaluate that. Canada leans left in about every political issue you can think of. From my limited experience the poor in Canada do not suffer the same breadth of societal ills as the poor in the states. But as to why, I assume that liberal economic policy only plays a part.

[Topper]

I'm wrong. The percentage in poverty has come down since Johnson declared War on Poverty. Looks like it was already headed down prior to his declaration and has remained between 10 and 15 percent since the early 70s.

[ATTACH]6385[/ATTACH]

But, what that graph shows that even though the numbers have continued to increase the percentage who are impoverished is not decreasing despite increased spending. That indicates whatever methods we are using are inefficient and otherwise not working.

[PaloAltoCougar]

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

You're thinking of my manservant's living room in the east wing.

[Topper]

You're thinking of my manservant's living room in the east wing.

I probably grossly underestimated your wherewithal. Apologies, stately Sir. By the way, how are the excursions on the private jet? Do you have a helicopter pad at the PAC estate?

[il Padrino Ute]

Like anyone could even know that.

I rest my case.

[imanihonjin]

I guess we do have different definitions and that's okay, as long as you own it. If I wouldn't be okay with my kid being born in an area of the country, then I don't feel like I should be ok with someone else's kid being born there, and I should work to eliminate the inequity. We're all members of the same human family, right? Or is that just something we say on Sunday? So I guess the question is... Would you be ok with raising a kid in Compton? If you would, discussion over.

I love kiva. That's where most of my charitable donations go. Givedirectly.org is another good one.
Of course we're talking domestic solutions here...

Anyway... I have to run. Maybe I'll check back later.

I don't disagree with you on this particular point. You and I just disagree on the means. I don't think the government does a good job and I actually believe it has a negative net effect in its welfare efforts.

[imanihonjin]

I'll cut to the chase: there will never be enough money to do all that we should as a society. Now, where do we go from there?

The far left says we need to cure all societal ills. But the far right says progressive taxation is theft. It's too easy to lob moral arguments from either extreme. There is a lot of middle ground to explore, and room for movement on both sides. I'm confident that alleviating inequalities in wealth distribution benefits society as a whole. If you don't agree with that, then there's not much to discuss. I'm also open to the argument that taxation can play a part in that. Now let's hear some other arguments and see what progress can be made.

If you have a problem with the concept of fair share, be thankful you don't live in Canada. You should see how quickly the highest tax bracket kicks in.

And so on we go. The left will continue pushing their social programs saying that every human has a right to X and we continue marching on down the road toward socialism. Why should I be grateful I don't live in Canada? If the left had their way we would look remarkably the same. Republicans are taking us in the same direction, just at a slower pace.

By the way I agree with your first sentence. Because we are a society of limited means we have to figure out the best way to utilize the resources we have. Government playing the part of charitable organization and redistributor is, IMO, not the most efficient or equitable way to utilize the resources we have.

[New Mexican Disaster]

. Because we are a society of limited means we have to figure out the best way to utilize the resources we have. Government playing the part of charitable organization and redistributor is, IMO, not the most efficient or equitable way to utilize the resources we have.

What is the most efficient or equitable way to utilize the resources we have?