The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[il Padrino Ute]

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"?

The left has no answer for this. It's just something they say to make themselves feel good.

[imanihonjin]

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...

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.

[old_gregg]

The left has no answer for this. It's just something they say to make themselves feel good.

what is your marginal tax rate ipu?

[ERCougar]

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?

My picking on you is just pointing out the irony of an attorney not seeing how he disproportionately benefits from the existence of a strong well done infrastructure. But it applies to most, if not all, high wage earners. They make more money by capitalizing off of the work of others. That's ok, but they need to be aware that their very livelihood relies disproportionately on the existence of a system that allows them to do that.

[snowcat]

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.

This is why I choose to support micro financing as part of my charitable giving (charitable as defined by me, loans I help finance are not tax deductible). If I can do a tiny bit to help someone move out of poverty, I will have done something important. I invite all here to join me, we can start a CS group.

www.kiva.org

Here's one.

[il Padrino Ute]

what is your marginal tax rate ipu?

Why do you ask?

[Topper]

The left has no answer for this. It's just something they say to make themselves feel good.

No, the answer ER implies is that because the wealthy are doing well within the given system, despite its inadequacies, the wealthy have a duty to help those for whom the system doesn't work as well. If it is so bad according to this line of thinking, leave for somewhere more fair. And for many people that is not an option, though there is an exodus, probably not large enough to cause an impact, of some wealthy persons immigrating to other countries which don't take worldwide incomes if you are not currently a resident in that country.

I don't believe people such as ER doing it to make them feel good, but it is based upon the notion above. If ER were a politician, I would question his motives, but he is not, so I don't believe he believes that argument for self-satisfaction. Those with that position believe that is fair, for those to succeed to help those who do not.

[imanihonjin]

My picking on you is just pointing out the irony of an attorney not seeing how he disproportionately benefits from the existence of a strong well done infrastructure. But it applies to most, if not all, high wage earners. They make more money by capitalizing off of the work of others. That's ok, but they need to be aware that their very livelihood relies disproportionately on the existence of a system that allows them to do that.

Everyone that earns any wage does this....literally everyone. It just so happens that some skills are valued more than others and someone has to pay high skilled works more to be able to capitalize of the high skilled labor.

[Topper]

My picking on you is just pointing out the irony of an attorney not seeing how he disproportionately benefits from the existence of a strong well done infrastructure. But it applies to most, if not all, high wage earners. They make more money by capitalizing off of the work of others. That's ok, but they need to be aware that their very livelihood relies disproportionately on the existence of a system that allows them to do that.

You didn't make the point.

How does a low earning public interest lawyer not benefit to the same proportion to that of a high wager earning attorney? That is the question which you are avoiding.

[il Padrino Ute]

No, the answer ER implies is that because the wealthy are doing well within the given system, despite its inadequacies, the wealthy have a duty to help those for whom the system doesn't work as well. If it is so bad according to this line of thinking, leave for somewhere more fair. And for many people that is not an option, though there is an exodus, probably not large enough to cause an impact, of some wealthy persons immigrating to other countries which don't take worldwide incomes if you are not currently a resident in that country.

I don't believe people such as ER doing it to make them feel good, but it is based upon the notion above. If ER were a politician, I would question his motives, but he is not, so I don't believe he believes that argument for self-satisfaction. Those with that position believe that is fair, for those to succeed to help those who do not.

You're probably right and I didn't do a good job making my point, which is that the left has no answer for how much would be a fair amount for the rich to pay. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, nobody on the left ever gives a specific amount that they would consider fair.

[old_gregg]

Why do you ask?

curious if you're putting in your fair share or stealing

[ERCougar]

You didn't make the point.

How does a low earning public interest lawyer not benefit to the same proportion to that of a high wager earning attorney? That is the question which you are avoiding.

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

[Topper]

Why do you ask?

Most people here would be in the 28% or 33%, some lower, and a few, in the 39.6% rate, which of course does not include the 3.8% for net investment income (thank you very much Mr. Obama).

[imanihonjin]

curious if you're putting in your fair share or stealing

Define fair share.

[il Padrino Ute]

curious if you're putting in your fair share or stealing

I pay what is required of me. That's a fair share, is it not? If you pay what's required of you, then you're paying your fair share as well.