The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ha. I rest my case.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Ha. I rest my case.

I missed it, what case?

[Northwestcoug]

Why do people think they are entitled to other people's money? There are more of us and we think you have too much, so we will just take it? What's the moral principle here?

Um, welcome to the taxation system of pretty much every capitalist country in the world. Good ole' USA included.

[Topper]

What if you threw in a clause that it did not apply to the first $1M or so?

Funny what lengths we go to in order to protect our poor billionaires.

How about fairness? Just because somebody through market forces accumulates more he is not entitled to retain it? iow if you succeed too much kill the bastard! Jealousy is an ugly emotion.

[PaloAltoCougar]

How about fairness? Just because somebody through market forces accumulates more he is not entitled to retain it? iow if you succeed too much kill the bastard! Jealousy is an ugly emotion.

Candidly, statements like this bother me as much as do Bernie’s statements on what he’d do to fix the situation. Fairness? Life is very clearly unfair. Take a kid with the good luck to have sprouted from Sam Walton’s family tree at the same moment as another was born to a crack-addicted mother and absentee father in East St. Louis, and tell them their respective lots in life are due to market forces.

Can someone here contradict the oft-heard statement that during the past 35 years of tremendous economic growth, inflation adjusted incomes have skyrocketed for the top ten percent, while they’ve remained unchanged for the lower 90%? I’d welcome some data refuting that statement. But if that has truly been the case, there’s something very wrong with the system that needs fixing.

But I hate confiscatory tax policies as much as I loathe crony capitalism. While I don’t think bumping the tax rates at the high end of the scale is a bad idea (I regard raising tax rates by 10% in the highest bracket as being slightly less troubling than murder), that certainly won’t fix the problem Bernie’s trying to correct.

[Topper]

Candidly, statements like this bother me as much as do Bernie’s statements on what he’d do to fix the situation. Fairness? Life is very clearly unfair. Take a kid with the good luck to have sprouted from Sam Walton’s family tree at the same moment as another was born to a crack-addicted mother and absentee father in East St. Louis, and tell them their respective lots in life are due to market forces.

Can someone here contradict the oft-heard statement that during the past 35 years of tremendous economic growth, inflation adjusted incomes have skyrocketed for the top ten percent, while they’ve remained unchanged for the lower 90%? I’d welcome some data refuting that statement. But if that has truly been the case, there’s something very wrong with the system that needs fixing.

But I hate confiscatory tax policies as much as I loathe crony capitalism. While I don’t think bumping the tax rates at the high end of the scale is a bad idea (I regard raising tax rates by 10% in the highest bracket as being slightly less troubling than murder), that certainly won’t fix the problem Bernie’s trying to correct.

My argument is about intrinsic fairness. Forbes had a single rate tax, which had credits up to the level people needed to survive, so that the first $25,000 to $30,000 (whatever that amount is, I am not arguing where that should be) would not be taxed and for those who needed social assistance, you would supplement them to ensure they had enough to live on, but after that every dime would be taxed at the same rate. That sounds intrinsically fair. (There are studies that tend to show, you need to incentivize some of those on social assistance to rise up form the bottom but making the assistance enough to survive but not enough to thrive so that the recipients are motivated to rise up from the ashes as it were).

And I can see concepts of eliminating the massive accumulation of wealth in families as making sense from an economic perspective.

And I believe the failure of incomes to adjust for non-PAC people is a function of capital being ensconced within the top tier of the upper One Percent, not because the income tax rates are too low and not because government hasn't redistributed the wealth.

Here is my dilemma: I don't agree government should be the one to redistribute massive wealth coagulating within families which is not reinvested into the community at large. Perhaps it would be better if the option of donating the money to charities which provide a certain percentage of their net assets to eliminating poverty, donating to capital investments in small businesses (my favorite) or donating to government as a last resort. There is no study that shows government invests taxes any more wisely than anybody else. I can't fathom any reason to trust government to utilize the money wisely or for the benefit of its citizenry.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SNL with a hilarious recreation of the democratic presidential debate. Larry David's impersonation of Bernie Sanders is an instant classic.

[creekster]

SNL with a hilarious recreation of the democratic presidential debate. Larry David's impersonation of Bernie Sanders is an instant classic.

I actually think sanders does a fair Larry David.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Um, welcome to the taxation system of pretty much every capitalist country in the world. Good ole' USA included.

You guys are totally uninformed on this topic. The US already has the most progressive tax structure in the industrialized world.

Yet still that isn't enough apparently.

Here's a better idea, repeal the entirety of the Bush tax cuts relating to taxes on income. Put all those people taken off the tax rolls back on. More people should have skin in the game. Put in a higher bracket, say 10 million a year and increase the rate a few points.

If that economically retarded NY Times writer, who JL has found a kindred spirit with (I would expect nothing else), would have simply pointed out the numbers on the higher tax rates and pointed out that it solves current budget deficit, I probably wouldn't have found the article objectionable.

But he couples it with yet more entitlements and more spending. There's no end to it. The underlying rationale is that the many need the money more than the few and we're going to use the force of government to take it. Because, afterall, they think they can get more votes that way.

The voting public at large, including the wealthy, realize that a progressive tax structure is the reality and probably best. But there are limits. This notion that the US tax system is unfair totally ignores reality.

As I've said on here numerous times, Utah has the lowest income inequality in the country. DC, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts have the worst. The people that worry about it the most seem to enact policies that make it worse.

It's totally unclear to me how tax policy has any demonstrable effect on income inequality.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Candidly, statements like this bother me as much as do Bernie’s statements on what he’d do to fix the situation. Fairness? Life is very clearly unfair. Take a kid with the good luck to have sprouted from Sam Walton’s family tree at the same moment as another was born to a crack-addicted mother and absentee father in East St. Louis, and tell them their respective lots in life are due to market forces.

Can someone here contradict the oft-heard statement that during the past 35 years of tremendous economic growth, inflation adjusted incomes have skyrocketed for the top ten percent, while they’ve remained unchanged for the lower 90%? I’d welcome some data refuting that statement. But if that has truly been the case, there’s something very wrong with the system that needs fixing.

But I hate confiscatory tax policies as much as I loathe crony capitalism. While I don’t think bumping the tax rates at the high end of the scale is a bad idea (I regard raising tax rates by 10% in the highest bracket as being slightly less troubling than murder), that certainly won’t fix the problem Bernie’s trying to correct.

Someone that knows a lot about this is Charles Murray whose book, Coming Apart, is indispensable. To get the equality you have in places like Switzerland and Scandinavia would require a similar population with similar habits. That doesn't exist in the US.

Also, IMO, the 50s through 70s were the anomaly and not the 80s, 90s and 00s. The US is no longer largely the sole industrial power in the world. The hollowing out of manufacturing has played a huge role along with the reduction in exports. But we also have a lot more purchasing power than we did 35 years ago. A VHS VCR in 1980 cost almost 10x as much as the cheapest Blu Ray at Costco.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Um, welcome to the taxation system of pretty much every capitalist country in the world. Good ole' USA included.

You guys are totally uninformed on this topic. The US already has the most progressive tax structure in the industrialized world.

First of all, even if that is true (depends on how you manipulate the numbers), that does not in any way contradict what NWC said.

The voting public at large, including the wealthy, realize that a progressive tax structure is the reality and probably best. But there are limits. This notion that the US tax system is unfair totally ignores reality.

Yes, it is reality and it is probably best. Your problem seems to be that if someone simply raises the topic (I simply linked the article and said it was "interesting") you go into Sean Hannity mode and start trotting out ridiculous strawman arguments (nobody is proposing a 90% tax rate).

We already have a progressive tax system. Discussing whether that system can be tweaked and still maintain a strong economic system is a debate we should be having.

[Topper]

First of all, even if that is true (depends on how you manipulate the numbers), that does not in any way contradict what NWC said.



Yes, it is reality and it is probably best. Your problem seems to be that if someone simply raises the topic (I simply linked the article and said it was "interesting") you go into Sean Hannity mode and start trotting out ridiculous strawman arguments (nobody is proposing a 90% tax rate).

We already have a progressive tax system. Discussing whether that system can be tweaked and still maintain a strong economic system is a debate we should be having.

We are all aware that the US has a progressive income tax system. I remain perplexed why progressives and wanna be intellectual without argument why this is best. The argument for this is tosh poky more money more easily to a voracious government and because better off wage earners do t need the same proportions as the lower wage earners.

However, the single rate tax has not been tried unless it was a long time ago in this country. I believe Hong Kong uses a single rate with exemptions for necessary income to survive.

If we has a single rate tax filings would be simpler and the incentive and ability to get ahead would greater. If you simply shift the tax burden to the other guy you thereby eliminate consideration of tax increases upon yourself. If there were but a single rate all taxpayers would worry if tax increases are truly necessary and voters would scrutinize the fisc. With a progressive income tax those in the lower brackets are less connected to government spending because they can vote with impunity.

The only way to install fiscal responsibility is to implement a single rat income tax. Adjusting the rate on the top bracket will simply encourage government to be more irresponsible.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We are all aware that the US has a progressive income tax system. I remain perplexed why progressives and wanna be intellectual without argument why this is best. The argument for this is tosh poky more money more easily to a voracious government and because better off wage earners do t need the same proportions as the lower wage earners.

However, the single rate tax has not been tried unless it was a long time ago in this country. I believe Hong Kong uses a single rate with exemptions for necessary income to survive.

If we has a single rate tax filings would be simpler and the incentive and ability to get ahead would greater. If you simply shift the tax burden to the other guy you thereby eliminate consideration of tax increases upon yourself. If there were but a single rate all taxpayers would worry if tax increases are truly necessary and voters would scrutinize the fisc. With a progressive income tax those in the lower brackets are less connected to government spending because they can vote with impunity.

The only way to install fiscal responsibility is to implement a single rat income tax. Adjusting the rate on the top bracket will simply encourage government to be more irresponsible.

FYI: I don't read most of your posts anymore. In case you wonder why I don't respond to stuff like this.

[Northwestcoug]

You guys are totally uninformed on this topic. The US already has the most progressive tax structure in the industrialized world.

Yet still that isn't enough apparently.

Here's a better idea, repeal the entirety of the Bush tax cuts relating to taxes on income. Put all those people taken off the tax rolls back on. More people should have skin in the game. Put in a higher bracket, say 10 million a year and increase the rate a few points.

If that economically retarded NY Times writer, who JL has found a kindred spirit with (I would expect nothing else), would have simply pointed out the numbers on the higher tax rates and pointed out that it solves current budget deficit, I probably wouldn't have found the article objectionable.

But he couples it with yet more entitlements and more spending. There's no end to it. The underlying rationale is that the many need the money more than the few and we're going to use the force of government to take it. Because, afterall, they think they can get more votes that way.

The voting public at large, including the wealthy, realize that a progressive tax structure is the reality and probably best. But there are limits. This notion that the US tax system is unfair totally ignores reality.

As I've said on here numerous times, Utah has the lowest income inequality in the country. DC, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts have the worst. The people that worry about it the most seem to enact policies that make it worse.

It's totally unclear to me how tax policy has any demonstrable effect on income inequality.

What JL said. For the record, I only said that income inequality is a problem in the US. I haven't mentioned specific solutions, just because I do not think there are many good options given the complex historical and racial issues that the modern poor deal with. That includes a more progressive tax as a sole solution. However, it most definitely should not be rejected out of hand. It is ridiculous that rational arguments about taxation cannot be tolerated in the current conservative political landscape.

[imanihonjin]

What JL said. For the record, I only said that income inequality is a problem in the US. I haven't mentioned specific solutions, just because I do not think there are many good options given the complex historical and racial issues that the modern poor deal with. That includes a more progressive tax as a sole solution. However, it most definitely should not be rejected out of hand. It is ridiculous that rational arguments about taxation cannot be tolerated in the current conservative political landscape.

Why is income inequality a problem? I infer that you must believe that the wealthy can only get wealthy at the expense of the poor. Please explain why that is and why taxation is the way to fix that problem.