The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

use the google you dingleberry

You have to hand it to him. He's fiercely dedicated to his goal of remaining ignorant.

[byu71]

You have to hand it to him. He's fiercely dedicated to his goal of remaining ignorant.

You got me. You and your bum buddie are too formidable.

[Topper]

You got me. You and your bum buddie are too formidable.

I am so glad we have these sorts of exchanges. Without them we wouldn't be informed or entertained.

[Northwestcoug]

I love his message...too much wealth belongs to too few people. I would have no problem voting for a socialist candidate if I thought socialism was economically viable.

I love my money as much as the next guy, and I tend to vote with my wallet. But I agree; there is a problem with wealth distribution in this country.

And I don't know what the solution is, '71 or Topper. Just agreeing with the sentiment.

[byu71]

I am so glad we have these sorts of exchanges. Without them we wouldn't be informed or entertained.

Bernie's popularity and Hillary's move in his direction to shore up the base really worries me. I hear from voters, he is really straightforward and genuine and that is why I would vote him? Really, it doesn't matter what the policies are?

I am also afraid there are a great number of voters who like the idea of the government providing all the things he talks about and are naive enough to believe paying for it is as simple as "getting it from the rich".

I am not a fan of the frontrunners in either party. They all seem to pander to voter ignorance.

I will add I agree with Northwest. There is a wealth disparity that is troublesome and becoming more so.

Instead of taxing income, I would be OK with a graduated confiscation tax on anyone worth over $10 million. Also a tax on those who gained their great wealth through inheritance. That would hammer a lot of the wealthy liberal democrats like the Kennedy's and Kerry. I would eliminate being able to protect great wealth by giving it away to charity instead of paying inheritance tax. Sorry Warren and Bill. Why should who decide who needs help instead of the government.

I would also tax heavily people who give speeches and are paid because the payee wants influence.

[Moliere]

I love my money as much as the next guy, and I tend to vote with my wallet. But I agree; there is a problem with wealth distribution in this country.

And I don't know what the solution is, '71 or Topper. Just agreeing with the sentiment.

I've long thought that generational wealth is a bigger issue than people that actually make their own money. I'm an advocate for very strict inheritance rules that would make hoarding wealth less attractive. I'd be in favor of stricter inheritance laws and higher inheritance taxes.

[cowboy]

I love my money as much as the next guy, and I tend to vote with my wallet. But I agree; there is a problem with wealth distribution in this country.

And I don't know what the solution is, '71 or Topper. Just agreeing with the sentiment.

I hear the wealth distribution concern raised by bright people and it baffles me. Why does it matter that a few people are very wealthy? Wealth isn't a zero sum game, and if anything wealth in a free market economy raises the standard of living for all. Just look at the standard of living for those below the poverty line now to those living below the poverty line 60 years ago. The only time wealth distribution becomes a problem is when regulation or monopolization eliminate the potential of free enterprise to enable the average person to become wealthy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not a fan of the frontrunners in either party. They all seem to pander to voter ignorance.

Oh my...

[byu71]

Oh my...

Good post

[Topper]

I love my money as much as the next guy, and I tend to vote with my wallet. But I agree; there is a problem with wealth distribution in this country.

And I don't know what the solution is, '71 or Topper. Just agreeing with the sentiment.

I believe many are fixated upon the wrong problem. Wealth in itself is not harmful, but the accumulation of wealth which doesn't circulate in the economy is the problem. For the most people to be benefited money needs to circulate and be available to the greatest number of people possible.

This creates a healthy and good sized middle class, which brings prosperity to the greatest number of persons.

Although I make a good amount of living assisting people in accumulating generational wealth, I can't say it is good for the economy at large. France has promoted it to some extent and that country has problems circulating capital to the benefit of the middle class.

Currently the estate and gift tax contributes very little to the national fisc. Last time I checked it was only about $40B, virtually insignificant. Changes in the tax code need to discourage mere accumulation and encourage reinvestment. This is where the rubber meets the road. I have some ideas which others have floated, but getting both parties to understand and to agree with them would be the rub.

Just taxing rich people either by increasing capital gains taxes or income taxes won't raise that much revenue and the ueber wealthy aren't affected much by tax changes. And just donating the money through taxation to government doesn't get the money circulating in the right places. That's why it is a more complex problem than most people care to consider and even more difficult to implement.

[snowcat]

Income inequality is the wrong issue. Income mobility should be the area of focus. Unfortunately income mobility is not what we would hope for it to be in the US (the American dream). Recent studies suggest that it is not worse now than in the past (as many seem to perceive), but neither is it better. If income mobility is poor, then income inequality becomes a bigger problem. I want to hear from the candidates their ideas on how we can improve income mobility.

[Topper]

Income inequality is the wrong issue. Income mobility should be the area of focus. Unfortunately income mobility is not what we would hope for it to be in the US (the American dream). Recent studies suggest that it is not worse now than in the past (as many seem to perceive), but neither is it better. If income mobility is poor, then income inequality becomes a bigger problem. I want to hear from the candidates their ideas on how we can improve income mobility.

However, that issue is not as catchy. If you speak of income inequality you get to argue about rich and poor. If you talk about how we can let the poor become rich, that isn't as popular. My guess is you will be waiting a long time before a majority of the candidates discuss this issue. It is analogous to liquidity of capital. Not a sexy issue, but the issue that affects the economy more genuinely.

[imanihonjin]

I believe many are fixated upon the wrong problem. Wealth in itself is not harmful, but the accumulation of wealth which doesn't circulate in the economy is the problem. For the most people to be benefited money needs to circulate and be available to the greatest number of people possible.

This creates a healthy and good sized middle class, which brings prosperity to the greatest number of persons.

Although I make a good amount of living assisting people in accumulating generational wealth, I can't say it is good for the economy at large. France has promoted it to some extent and that country has problems circulating capital to the benefit of the middle class.

Currently the estate and gift tax contributes very little to the national fisc. Last time I checked it was only about $40B, virtually insignificant. Changes in the tax code need to discourage mere accumulation and encourage reinvestment. This is where the rubber meets the road. I have some ideas which others have floated, but getting both parties to understand and to agree with them would be the rub.

Just taxing rich people either by increasing capital gains taxes or income taxes won't raise that much revenue and the ueber wealthy aren't affected much by tax changes. And just donating the money through taxation to government doesn't get the money circulating in the right places. That's why it is a more complex problem than most people care to consider and even more difficult to implement.

So what to do these people amassing large sums of money actually do with their money? Do they hide it in a safe in their house or under their mattresses? The vast majority of this money is invested in something or the other (or at the very least in some bank account accruing nominal interest)....or in other words it is being circulated.

[Applejack]

I would eliminate being able to protect great wealth by giving it away to charity instead of paying inheritance tax. Sorry Warren and Bill. Why should who decide who needs help instead of the government.

Did I miss something? Isn't this the platform on which the republican party is built (individuals are better than the government at determining need)? When did BYU71 become a democrat/socialist?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

An election like this really makes me sad that my vote doesn't count, there are just so many good candidates in both parties. I wish I could vote for all of them!