2018 mid-term

[ZRod]

4 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

McMullin badly misses the mark on the progressive view of the wealthy.

 

Pointing out that the incredibly wealthy have disproportionate, damaging influence on our politics here is accurate and in no way comparable to the way Trump and his ilk treat Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities and immigrants. 

Meh... He really doesn't if you're honest. The Dems use the wealthy as a boogie man the same as the Repubs use illegals. Just because the left has a better leg to stand on right now doesn't mean that they don't use the same tactics. Taxing the ever loving crap out of top earners and creating massive federal spending isn't the solution to our problems, just as building a wall and banning immigrants from s#!t hole countries who are in need of a new home isn't the right solution.

[B.B. Hemingway]

4 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

 

Pointing out that the incredibly wealthy have disproportionate, damaging influence on our politics here is accurate

 

So the solution is disproportionately taking most of their money?

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

So the solution is disproportionately taking most of their money?

 

The U.S. oversaw massive prosperity and growth for the middle class during the FDR/Truman/Eisenhower administrations when the top marginal tax rate hovered in and around the 90s. Both parties maintained it at or around 70% until Reagan.

 

Given that and that I'm a major skeptic of untethered supply-side economics, I'm not sure the decades-long postwar consensus got that one wrong.

 

Also, you're not taking most of their money. You're taking most of their money above $500 or 600K. I don't know how the extremely wealthy structure their taxes, but I'm sure there's probably a way to minimize the losses.

 

If you have another mechanism to prevent the ultrawealthy from buying our politics, I'd be open to it.

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

So the solution is disproportionately taking most of their money?

I'd prefer to remove their disproportionate power and damage to democracy without taking their money, but I'm not sure that's possible.

[B.B. Hemingway]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'd prefer to remove their disproportionate power and damage to democracy without taking their money, but I'm not sure that's possible.

 

@Clifford Franklin 

 

Under no circumstance do I find it ethical to take 70-90% of someone's money.

 

Having said that, I'd have to think awhile (and educate myself a bit) before speaking on options to stop corruption. The problem is that none of the people that matter (those in the government) care enough to stop it.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

@Clifford Franklin 

 

Under no circumstance do I find it ethical to take 70-90% of someone's money.

 

Having said that, I'd have to think awhile (and educate myself a bit) before speaking on options to stop corruption. The problem is that none of the people that matter (those in the government) care enough to stop it.

What about taking 70-90% of their 10 millionth dollar? Or of their 100 millionth dollar? We're talking about progressive tax brackets so it's never going to be 70-90% of their money.

 

Plus, they're paying the same rate on their first $20k, $50k, etc. as everyone else. (Or probably less because of capital gains not counting as standard income and various tax loopholes that lots of money affords lawyers to exploit.)

[B.B. Hemingway]

9 hours ago, RedDenver said:

What about taking 70-90% of their 10 millionth dollar? Or of their 100 millionth dollar? We're talking about progressive tax brackets so it's never going to be 70-90% of their money.

 

Plus, they're paying the same rate on their first $20k, $50k, etc. as everyone else. (Or probably less because of capital gains not counting as standard income and various tax loopholes that lots of money affords lawyers to exploit.)

 

I don't like it. I don't think rich people should have to pay any higher a percentage than anybody else. They're already paying 'way' more in taxes than the rest of us.

 

Say it's anything over $500K as was mentioned earlier. If someone makes $1.5 million, you think it's okay to take  $700K-$900K of that last $1 million? Too each their own I suppose, but that sounds like pure (socialistic) insanity to me.....

 

And Capital gains (which shouldn't be taxable in the first place), are included in your gross income, so they do affect which tax bracket you fall in.

I know this from experience, because I've had to stagger the sales of some local lots I bought some years ago.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I don't like it. I don't think rich people should have to pay any higher a percentage than anybody else. They're already paying 'way' more in taxes than the rest of us.

 

Say it's anything over $500K as was mentioned earlier. If someone makes $1.5 million, you think it's okay to take  $700K-$900K of that last $1 million? Too each their own I suppose, but that sounds like pure (socialistic) insanity to me.....

Are they paying a higher percentage than you and me? Because I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney was paying an effective rate of about 14%, which I can assure you I pay more than that for my effective rate and make orders of magnitude less money than him. The top income bracket was over 50% for most of the 20th century until Reagan, and his tickle down voodoo economics experiment came around (whicj we still can't admit doesn't even work). So what's the big deal with bringing things back into line with where they have been historicaly during times of prosperity?

 

Also, I don't understand why people think socialism is some sort of boogyman. There are many, many socialist principles at work in our government and economy today and they benefit us all. We live in a society, we agree to make sacrifices for the greater good of us all.

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 hours ago, ZRod said:

Are they paying a higher percentage than you and me? Because I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney was paying an effective rate of about 14%, which I can assure you I pay more than that for my effective rate and make orders of magnitude less money than him. The top income bracket was over 50% for most of the 20th century until Reagan, and his tickle down voodoo economics experiment came around (whicj we still can't admit doesn't even work). So what's the big deal with bringing things back into line with where they have been historicaly during times of prosperity?

 

Also, I don't understand why people think socialism is some sort of boogyman. There are many, many socialist principles at work in our government and economy today and they benefit us all. We live in a society, we agree to make sacrifices for the greater good of us all.

 

Because full-fledged socialism is something that should be feared. I assume you mean social programs like welfare, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and public schools etc.

 

Most of the programs are abused, and are a microcosm of what socialism would do to this country.

The only such tendencies I can get along with are those that we all benefit from (roads, schools, social security)

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Because full-fledged socialism is something that should be feared. I assume you mean social programs like welfare, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and public schools etc.

 

Most of the programs are abused, and are a microcosm of what socialism would do to this country.

The only such tendencies I can get along with are those that we all benefit from (roads, schools, social security)

Nobody is advocating for full-fledged socialism. Raising the top tax bracket to be more inline with where it has historically been isn't socialist.

 

 

Every program and every system in history has been abused, that doesn't mean they aren't a worthy cause, or shouldn't be tweaked to reduce the abuse. As you alluded to, socialism has many positives and many negatives just like capitalism. Maybe we should work on finding a comfortable blend of both.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Because full-fledged socialism is something that should be feared. I assume you mean social programs like welfare, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and public schools etc.

  

Most of the programs are abused, and are a microcosm of what socialism would do to this country.

 The only such tendencies I can get along with are those that we all benefit from (roads, schools, social security)

 

I would add healthcare to your list at the bottom as well.

 

This is why I like our forum here. We can discuss a specific policy that some of us view as a positive and others aren't in favor of in a reasonable way. Most of the chaff who would piledrive the conversation into the ground with useless partisan talking points have been banned or prefer not to post. 

 

Anyway, my thoughts align pretty well with ZRod's. I could see why you would think a higher marginal tax bracket for top earners seems unjust. In the same way, I view the built-in advantages those very few top earners have in how they structure their taxes and shelter their growing wealth as unjust. I'm concerned about the state of those things you mentioned - infrastructure, education, social programs and healthcare. That's all stuff that benefits us as a society. I'm okay trading a little bit of individual freedom for big societal gains for all of us. It bothers me a lot that folks wind up stagnating in subsistence on a lot of those programs you listed initially and can't break out of the poverty cycle. Admittedly, a lot of that may be their fault individually, but a lot of it is us not doing a good enough job as society too, and I'd like to fix that. Adjusting some of our tax rates, including paring back the huge cut corporations got under Trump's tax bill, would let us do that.

 

P.S. If it brings you any enjoyment, the autocorrect on my MacBook tried to change "societ-" to "soviet" as I typed this up.

[RedDenver]

13 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I don't like it. I don't think rich people should have to pay any higher a percentage than anybody else. They're already paying 'way' more in taxes than the rest of us.

 

Say it's anything over $500K as was mentioned earlier. If someone makes $1.5 million, you think it's okay to take  $700K-$900K of that last $1 million? Too each their own I suppose, but that sounds like pure (socialistic) insanity to me.....

 

And Capital gains (which shouldn't be taxable in the first place), are included in your gross income, so they do affect which tax bracket you fall in.

I know this from experience, because I've had to stagger the sales of some local lots I bought some years ago.

If goods and services cost rich people the same percentage of their wealth as they do poor people, then I'd agree with you. But once someone is making far, far, far more than what's needed not just to survive but also to live luxurious lifestyles, then why shouldn't that additional money be used to support the society that's supporting that lifestyle? Because the other options are to take the money to support society from those that need that money much, much more than the rich or to reduce the money used to support our society. The first option is far more unethical than taking that money from those that can easily afford it, and the second option tends to lead to worsening conditions for the majority in the society and that society ending - including for the rich.

 

Historically, the strongest the US economy and middle-class have been is when the top tax bracket paid the most: around 90% tax rate on income over $3 million (in today's dollars). Note that Ocasio-Cortez is discussing far less than that: 70% rate on income over $10 million.

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Note that Ocasio-Cortez is discussing far less than that: 70% rate on income over $10 million.

 

 

There's honestly just nothing unreasonable about this imo.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

If goods and services cost rich people the same percentage of their wealth as they do poor people, then I'd agree with you. But once someone is making far, far, far more than what's needed not just to survive but also to live luxurious lifestyles, then why shouldn't that additional money be used to support the society that's supporting that lifestyle?

 

Yup. People are able to get rich because our society is set up to allow it to happen. People who might starve to death if they had a tax rate of 20% should not be paying 20% if we want said society to not be a s#!thole. And having a bunch of poor people starving means those rich people will be a lot less rich. Less rich than they are by paying a higher % in taxes. The wealthy should also not be paying as low as we would have to make the tax rate to prevent that starvation by the people with low income, or we won't be able to pay for basic things the country needs.

[B.B. Hemingway]

22 hours ago, RedDenver said:

If goods and services cost rich people the same percentage of their wealth as they do poor people, then I'd agree with you. But once someone is making far, far, far more than what's needed not just to survive but also to live luxurious lifestyles, then why shouldn't that additional money be used to support the society that's supporting that lifestyle? Because the other options are to take the money to support society from those that need that money much, much more than the rich or to reduce the money used to support our society. The first option is far more unethical than taking that money from those that can easily afford it, and the second option tends to lead to worsening conditions for the majority in the society and that society ending - including for the rich.

 

Historically, the strongest the US economy and middle-class have been is when the top tax bracket paid the most: around 90% tax rate on income over $3 million (in today's dollars). Note that Ocasio-Cortez is discussing far less than that: 70% rate on income over $10 million.

 

The income someone brings in doesn't, and shouldn't have any impact on the costs of goods/services, and what an individual pays for them. 

 

THEIR additional money shouldn't be required to aide in that support, because it's no more their responsibility than it is that of the rest of us. They should have the right to set up their family for generations, if they so choose.... Because it's their money.

 

20 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

There's honestly just nothing unreasonable about this imo.

 

It's completely unreasonable, considering that the top 1% pay roughly 40% of the taxes in this country, and the top 10% pay nearly 80%.... Not to mention that 44% of the country didn't pay anything in taxes in 2016.