2018 mid-term

[Danny Bateman]

In and of itself? No. But when it's some of the same people demanding that "rich" people pay more in taxes than they already do? Well, I don't like it.

  

To the point, I just have a huge problem with the left saying "Because you, and/or your family have been more successful than the rest of us, you MUST contribute an obscene amount of money to the government to help towards making up for the shortcomings of other citizens".

There's a lot I could respond to in what you posted, but I'll keep it somewhat simple:

I disagree runaway government spending is our biggest problem. Cutting taxes to the bone just because it's easy and looking to focus instead of cutting spending to offset it is silly. I do think our spending priorities as a country are silly a lot of the time - less military spending and more spending our our own people I don't think should be very controversial.

To the bolded, I have a huge problem with how easy the incredibly wealthy have it. Donald Trump is a perfect example. He's failed upward his entire life. He was born into incredible wealth and inherited his empire from Daddy. There's talk his fortune and status were enough to essentially buy several deferments out of serving in Vietnam. By dint of his inherited wealth, he could flunk his way through school *successfully*, spend most of his time as a socialite and TV personality to increase his personal fame and ultimately devise a business model built on charging people to slap his name on their stuff and stiffing the little guy while taking credit for their hard work as some builder extraordinaire. He was so greedy as to eventually offer phony real estate "advice" to gullible average folks by pressuring them to max out credit cards and dip into their retirement savings in exchange for what, in hindsight, looks an awful lot like straight up fraud. The man had the temerity to raid his own "charity" coffers to by paintings of himself and Tim Tebow merchandise for... himself. He's bragged about using his wealth to schmooze politicians to do things he wants them to do, which of course neither you or I have the clout or funds to do. He continues to profit handsomely off his power and position since becoming president since he has no desire to fully separate his business from the federal government. He refuses to be transparent about his taxes because "they're under audit," apparently for going on 3 or 4 years now. 

All of that said, excuse my language, but you're GD right I want to even things out. Our system is set up to massively benefit those who already have wealth sustain and increase it while the rest of us barely see anything that legitimately improves our quality of life. The donor class has enough money to ensure our system just keeps cranking out system that helps them and screws the little guy.  Social mobility and income inequality are big problems here. 

I don't want to punish people who have been successful. I just want to un-rig a system that is so heavily in their favor.

 

[Landlord]

They should have the right to set up their family for generations, if they so choose.... Because it's their money.

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand how a person who's net worth is 1 billion only being able to pass on 200 million instead of 400 million to their descendents isn't still entirely setting up their family for generations??

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand how a person who's net worth is 1 billion only being able to pass on 200 million instead of 400 million to their descendents isn't still entirely setting up their family for generations??

In your example, you think it's reasonable to take 80% of someone's money, and I think it's criminal. We'll likely never understand each other on the issue.

 

[Mierin]

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

Not everyone benefits from roads and schools equally. And why do we all benefit from school? What about people without kids? Would you argue that we as a society benefit from everyone getting a high school education? If so, why wouldn't we also benefit from everyone having access to health care?

To the point, I just have a huge problem with the left saying "Because you, and/or your family have been more successful than the rest of us, you MUST contribute an obscene amount of money to the government to help towards making up for the shortcomings of other citizens".

This line is telling and, imo, wrong. Especially since moving out of the socioeconomic status of one's birth is an anomaly. It is practically decided where we will end up economically based on the situation we are born into, but Americans have an irrational belief in meritocracy.

As an aside, I find it weird how so many people making 6 figures seem to think they have some kind of kinship with people like the Waltons, when the reality is they have a lot more in common with people making $40,000/year.

 

[RedDenver]

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.

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.

If your concern is fairness and equality of taxation, then let's take a look at wealth distribution to see who has the money:

The top 1% has 40% of the wealth, so having 40% of the tax burden is not only reasonable but equitable and fair. But notice that you've cited that not the top 1% but rather the top 10% have 40% of the tax burden, so they're not being taxed at a fair rate based on their wealth. Also, the bottom 40% have less wealth than the top 1%, which is another reason saying the bottom don't pay enough is misleading:

And the top has been getting richer since the Great Recession, so it makes sense to create new higher marginal tax brackets:

P.S. Thanks for the good discussion and debate. It gives me hope that reasonable people can still disagree about what's best for our country without degenerating into shouting matches or worse.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Not everyone benefits from roads and schools equally. And why do we all benefit from school? What about people without kids? Would you argue that we as a society benefit from everyone getting a high school education? If so, why wouldn't we also benefit from everyone having access to health care?

This line is telling and, imo, wrong. Especially since moving out of the socioeconomic status of one's birth is an anomaly. It is practically decided where we will end up economically based on the situation we are born into, but Americans have an irrational belief in meritocracy.

As an aside, I find it weird how so many people making 6 figures seem to think they have some kind of kinship with people like the Waltons, when the reality is they have a lot more in common with people making $40,000/year.

I'd assume that those without kids, went to school at some point themselves, no? I don't have a problem with the government offering health insurance. The ONLY issue I take with Obamacare is that they penalize you for not buying insurance of some kind. I don't think you should force people to purchase a product (It's the libertarian in me).

Inheriting millions would be nice, but just because most of us don't, doesn't mean that you can't escape the economic situation you grew up in. There are plenty of avenues to do so, and while it may not be easy, it's entirely possible ( I would know, I did it). 

I make 6 figures and in no way do I consider myself to be (as my grandpa would say) "bumping d***heads with the big boys". My stance on what/how the rich should be taxed has nothing to do with my income, and everything to do with what I see to be fair, and ethical.

** I couldn't resist using my grandpa's phrase, was always one of my favorites

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

If your concern is fairness and equality of taxation, then let's take a look at wealth distribution to see who has the money:

The top 1% has 40% of the wealth, so having 40% of the tax burden is not only reasonable but equitable and fair. But notice that you've cited that not the top 1% but rather the top 10% have 40% of the tax burden, so they're not being taxed at a fair rate based on their wealth. Also, the bottom 40% have less wealth than the top 1%, which is another reason saying the bottom don't pay enough is misleading:

P.S. Thanks for the good discussion and debate. It gives me hope that reasonable people can still disagree about what's best for our country without degenerating into shouting matches or worse.

If you read it again, I cited that the top 1% take on 40% of the tax burden, and as you pointed out, that seems fair considering that's close to the percentage of wealth they make up for in this country. I was arguing that raising it to 70-90% is criminal, because it would have them paying more than, what I believe to be, their fair share. Raising taxes on a group of people just because "they've got it"? It's criminal, imo.

----- Thanks to you as well. Always appreciate the discussion.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I'd assume that those without kids, went to school at some point themselves, no? I don't have a problem with the government offering health insurance. The ONLY issue I take with Obamacare is that they penalize you for not buying insurance of some kind. I don't think you should force people to purchase a product (It's the libertarian in me).

  

 Inheriting millions would be nice, but just because most of us don't, doesn't mean that you can't escape the economic situation you grew up in. There are plenty of avenues to do so, and while it may not be easy, it's entirely possible. 

  

 I make 6 figures and in no way do I consider myself to be (as my grandpa would say) "bumping d***heads with the big boys". My stance on what/how the rich should be taxed has nothing to do with my income, and everything to do with what I see to be fair, and ethical.

  

** I couldn't resist using my grandpa's phrase, was always one of my favorites

  

Your grandpa sounds like a funny dude.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I'm sorry I guess I don't understand how a person who's net worth is 1 billion only being able to pass on 200 million instead of 400 million to their descendents isn't still entirely setting up their family for generations??

'

Apropos of nothing, I always found it incredibly bizarre that conservatives got millions of working class Joes without a dollar to their names to rally against overturning the estate tax.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Your grandpa sounds like a funny dude.

Quality one-liners must come with age. He's got an arsenal.

 

[RedDenver]

If you read it again, I cited that the top 1% take on 40% of the tax burden, and as you pointed out, that seems fair considering that's close to the percentage of wealth they make up for in this country. I was arguing that raising it to 70-90% is criminal, because it would have them paying more than, what I believe to be, their fair share. Raising taxes on a group of people just because "they've got it"? It's criminal, imo.

----- Thanks to you as well. Always appreciate the discussion.

Keep in mind that we're NOT talking about taxing anyone at 70-90% of either their wealth or their income. We're talking about the top marginal tax bracket, so even a 70% tax on that bracket wouldn't tax them at 70%.

And raising taxes on those that have it isn't at all criminal. Taxing those that don't have it would be criminal. As I pointed out before, the super-rich have historically been taxed at much higher rates than 70% in the modern era, and both the super-rich and the economy did really well.

FYI, the 70% rate that AOC mentions comes from an MIT study that found that a rate of 73% would maximize government income as higher rates would start to hurt the economy and reduce tax income.

 

[Mierin]

I'd assume that those without kids, went to school at some point themselves, no? I don't have a problem with the government offering health insurance. The ONLY issue I take with Obamacare is that they penalize you for not buying insurance of some kind. I don't think you should force people to purchase a product (It's the libertarian in me).

Inheriting millions would be nice, but just because most of us don't, doesn't mean that you can't escape the economic situation you grew up in. There are plenty of avenues to do so, and while it may not be easy, it's entirely possible ( I would know, I did it). 

I make 6 figures and in no way do I consider myself to be (as my grandpa would say) "bumping d***heads with the big boys". My stance on what/how the rich should be taxed has nothing to do with my income, and everything to do with what I see to be fair, and ethical.

** I couldn't resist using my grandpa's phrase, was always one of my favorites

The point is, people with kids benefit a hell of a lot more from taxes that pay for education.

Also, I did it too. But data is data. Meritocracy is a myth. Individual exceptions don’t change that. People who don’t make it to a higher bracket, e.g. poor people, aren’t required to have “shortcomings,” as you put it, to be in that situation. There are poor people who work multiple jobs. They aren’t poor because they’re lazy. 

 

[RedDenver]

The point is, people with kids benefit a hell of a lot more from taxes that pay for education.

No, everyone who got educated by that tax money benefited. The fact I have kids who will also benefit doesn't change that.

 

[Mierin]

No, everyone who got educated by that tax money benefited. The fact I have kids who will also benefit doesn't change that.

One of us isn’t following but I’m not sure which. Of course everyone who was educated by that tax money benefited. I thought that so obvious it doesn’t need to be stated. But I said in the first sentence of my post “not everyone benefits from roads and schools equally.” I’m not sure why this is a contentious point for anyone. Are you denying that parents benefit more from it than non parents? Without it they would all be in charge of their kids’ education - either paying for it or finding the time to do it themselves. Also, people who have kids are costing the government more $ because it’s more people to education.

Let me add, although originally I didn’t think it was necessary - I think it’s obvious that society benefits from everyone getting an education. That’s my point. Not everyone gets a deadly disease but I think society would benefit if anyone who does can afford to get help.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

My dad grew up a dirt poor Iowa farm boy, into a family that expected him to stick around and stay poor. He worked three jobs in order to get the hell out of there, attend the University of Nebraska, and pursue a professional career and middle-class lifestyle.

That was the story as I understood it for years. Then when he was about 80, my Dad told me the only reason he was able to go to UNL was the GI Bill. Oh, he definitely worked those three jobs when other kids were goofing around, but it took the largesse of the federal government to give him the funds and social staircase to escape his social class. That's why he remains a hard working World War II vet who doesn't buy into the conservative tropes about what makes America great.