Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **SK790** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 22:49:49

thank you for posting that 2nd paragraph, dajafi. i wanted to say something similar, but couldn't get my words right. 5 minutes was probably too long to bang my head against the wall.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 00:19:48

TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

by **traderdave** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:11:48

TenuredVulture wrote:I think there are a lot of Dems looking for an alternative to Hilary. There was always an element of nostalgia to the Clinton thing (like using a song popular in the 70s for a 90s campaign) and now that nostalgia is reaching back to a time before man voters were alive.

I might be way off base but I feel like the Clinton thing is more entitlement than nostalgia. The Clintons, especially Hilary after the Lewinsky mess and folding to Obama in '08, have been the good Democratic soldiers for decades now and I truly think that they believe Hilary is OWED the White House. Honestly, depending on the GOP candidate, I would find it difficult to vote for Hilary Clinton. If, come 2016, we are picking between Bush and Clinton again, I am sitting it out or writing myself in.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:59:33

drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

That's OK - somebody did that math for you.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... /page/full

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:06:34

TomatoPie wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

That's OK - somebody did that math for you.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... /page/full

So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.

by **td11** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:09:40

that article does nothing to address your claim that "You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being." all it does is show that if you took all of the money "rich" people have, that wouldn't be enough to run the country.

by **Phred** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:10:34

CalvinBall wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

That's OK - somebody did that math for you.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... /page/full

So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.

No. Apparently it was just being lucky.

by **Bucky** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:11:30

that article doesn't come close to you original assertion

(edit: looks like i'm a slow reader)

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:12:03

Or predatory?

it's like 2008 never happened

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:35:04

TomatoPie wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

That's OK - somebody did that math for you.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... /page/full

a) as others have pointed out, that Townhall article sucks, and is irrelevant to the current conversation

b) your recent posts on this topic indicate you don't know the difference between wealth and income. If you don't know the difference between wealth and income you're not prepared to comment productively on the matter of redistribution. I'm going to assume you're capable of learning the difference between the two, and retracting your mistaken assertions.

by **Werthless** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 13:57:13

How much social spending per person would be sufficient for the bottom quintile, such that we could declare an end to the war of poverty? Once someone can define that, then maybe we can talk about whether confiscating money from the top X or top Y people would get you there.

To me, the answer for the last 40 years has always been just "more than we are spending today."

by **Bucky** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 14:22:25

$20,000

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 14:42:46

Of course, the real issue facing us isn't really the bottom quintile, but the problems facing those in the 2nd highest quintile, even the 2nd highest decile.

In addition, regardless of fairness, justice, or social stability. The reality is concentrating too much wealth in too few hands is bad for the economy--consumers create jobs, not rich people.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:16:08

drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:You could confiscate every penny from the obscenely successful, and it wouldn't make a dent in the bottom quintile's well being

I'm pretty sure you have to whiff on a lot of very basic math to believe this on anything but obstinately ideological grounds.

Me, I'm too lazy to do the math myself

That's OK - somebody did that math for you.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew ... /page/full

a) as others have pointed out, that Townhall article sucks, and is irrelevant to the current conversation

b) your recent posts on this topic indicate you don't know the difference between wealth and income. If you don't know the difference between wealth and income you're not prepared to comment productively on the matter of redistribution. I'm going to assume you're capable of learning the difference between the two, and retracting your mistaken assertions.

Once you've taken their wealth, they no longer produce income.

Or you could just tax 100% of their income. That would not affect their incentive to earn, right?

The point which you're missing (though I know you recognize it) is that redistribution is not a policy that makes the pie bigger. Compare growth rates of the US to the advanced social states of Europe.

While it may comfort you to think that somehow the wealthy have made life worse for the poor, there's evidence against that position, and none to support it. Class envy is worse than pointless - it's counterproductive.

by **pacino** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:17:04

you are making some strawman that doesn't exist to then knock down. no one is proposing 100% tax. this isn't the classroom vacuum. you need to get beyond some things. honestly.
'class envy' if you write phrases such as that, there's really little to discuss in this thread with you. others are far more interested in an actual back and forth. you basically come into the thread and just talk past people.

by **Werthless** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:18:14

TenuredVulture wrote:Of course, the real issue facing us isn't really the bottom quintile, but the problems facing those in the 2nd highest quintile, even the 2nd highest decile.

In addition, regardless of fairness, justice, or social stability. The reality is concentrating too much wealth in too few hands is bad for the economy--consumers create jobs, not rich people.

How do you suppose people get rich, by taking wealth from others? I find your assertion, that more people with extreme wealth in a country will lead to a worse economy, misguided if not outright empirically incorrect. Too few wealthy people would be a bigger problem, if we are talking about raising the absolute standard of living of our poor.

To tie back to dajafi's earlier point, which is a common ground between liberals and conservatives, is that economic mobility and opportunity is an important characteristic of an economy's fairness. In other words, how likely is a person born into the bottom income quintile to reach middle class? How can we improve that, without completely reforming how we educate our youth? It doesn't matter whether rich people are doing poorly or well in this economy, but whether low income people have a legitimate opportunity to succeed.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:19:29

TenuredVulture wrote:In addition, regardless of fairness, justice, or social stability. The reality is concentrating too much wealth in too few hands is bad for the economy--consumers create jobs, not rich people.

Job creation takes entreprenuers/risk takers AND consumers.

You're barking up the right tree, but you haven't hit on the most salient point.

Too many of the super-wealthy use that wealth for super-influence on public policy, to their benefit and to the detriment of the rest of us. I'd be for campaign finance reform if I thought that would fix it.

by **pacino** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:20:17

Settling in on an absolute poverty is impossible, but the FPIG for 2014 is set at $23,850 for a family of four. That's lower than what many single people feel comfortable living on. That's a fairly low assessment of what we consider poverty in our country. We are not relating that to poverty in India because none of our citizens or inhabitants live in India. We may be affected by work and market forces there, but not to the degree that we should be fine with a flattening of wages worldwide. As Americans, we should fight against American levels of poverty, not tell people to accept an emerging country level of poverty. That's a rather devolutionary way of approaching the concept.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:22:40

pacino wrote: no one is proposing 100% tax.

How much more should we tax the super-wealthy? Who qualifies for your new tax rates? What problems will you solve with these new revenues?

You seem to buy in to the canard that the wealthy are under-taxed, that the wealth gap is - by definition - a bad thing. Do you solve it the European, RobinHood way?

by **pacino** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:29:13

TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote: no one is proposing 100% tax.

How much more should we tax the super-wealthy? Who qualifies for your new tax rates? What problems will you solve with these new revenues?

You seem to buy in to the canard that the wealthy are under-taxed, that the wealth gap is - by definition - a bad thing. Do you solve it the European, RobinHood way?

I'd gather we have completely different views on the economic aspects of things. Your opinions about tax levels and how the economy works are not agreed upon facts. I've posted on this board for years about a multitude of things I'd like to focus on.

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.