Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **Squire** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:42:09

I'm a pretty consistent Republican and I think we ought to tax passive income at the same rates as earned income. I'd rather see the reduced rates for passive income and LTCGs eliminated before an increase in the regular marginal rates.

by **Werthless** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 15:47:41

pacino wrote: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.

For a family of four, how many earners is that? One full-time worker works 2,000 hours per year.

We're spending ~$10k, per capita, in this country at the federal level alone. It's hard to argue that the problem is too little money.

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 16:05:06

Squire wrote:I'm a pretty consistent Republican and I think we ought to tax passive income at the same rates as earned income. I'd rather see the reduced rates for passive income and LTCGs eliminated before an increase in the regular marginal rates.

I mostly agree with you, but I think doing this in an absolute manner would really hurt those with disposable income, but not extreme wealth (e.g. those in the 2nd quintile/decile, as TV mentioned). What I'd like to see is an exemption for a relatively high amount of capital gains per year (or a tax at a preferable rate, e.g. the current LTCG rate) and taxing the exceedance at a higher rate. This would raise taxes on Warren Buffet, but keep the incentives for capital investment for someone who has the income of a professor, doctor, etc.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 16:47:54

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

What income is it that the walton heirs, for one instance, are producing exactly again

Not that "income" has any fuck the thing to do with it

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

Yeah, because the only reason Harry Hamm ever dug an oil well was his lifelong goal of having multiple billions of dollars at his command, and he wouldn't have lifted a finger without that goal in mind. Check.

The point which you're missing (though I know you recognize it) is that redistribution is not a policy that makes the pie bigger

I love pie, but right here, fuck pie. What you need to do is have a coherent society, and absurd concentrations of wealth in a few hands within a society tend to cause that society to go to shit. Smarter & wiser people than you or me have pointed that out many times.

Oh and your presumption that people are "envious" of anyone for anything in particular hangs a particularly ugly sign around your dirty neck. You're better than the filthy shits who parrot anything people like Rush mutter. Try not to do it here again.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 17:00:51

Werthless wrote: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."

Why, again, do we have to frame this first in terms of bringing the "bottom" up? Since that, in your mind, is impossible - and it may be - let's imagine a similarly impossible test - arranging things so the top wealthholders hold some fraction less of their wealth. I want to see how quickly the likes of Warren Buffet, Gates, Larry Ellison, Harry Hamm, et al renounce their citizenship and move to, say, Singapore.

It's a smaller group on which to run our pilot, and they'e much less likely to put up a fuss - after all they've got so much to lose, they may not miss the reallotted portion all that much.

You may find that imagining how wealth has more than narrow materialistic/economic ramifications would enable you conceive how wealth disparities may fray societies.

by **Werthless** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 17:10:30

drsmooth wrote:Why, again, do we have to frame this first in terms of bringing the "bottom" up? Since that, in your mind, is impossible - and it may be - let's imagine a similarly impossible test - arranging things so the top wealthholders hold some fraction less of their wealth. I want to see how quickly the likes of Warren Buffet, Gates, Larry Ellison, Harry Hamm, et al renounce their citizenship and move to, say, Singapore.

Because the goal of our entire social spending infrastructure is to bring the bottom up? It sounds like you would be happier if we destroyed wealth, literally light money on fire, if it created more equality. That's, uh, pretty far from the mainstream. Perhaps you'd be happier living in Afganistan where their Gini coefficient is much smaller than in the US!

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 18:19:23

Werthless wrote:
drsmooth wrote:Why, again, do we have to frame this first in terms of bringing the "bottom" up? Since that, in your mind, is impossible - and it may be - let's imagine a similarly impossible test - arranging things so the top wealthholders hold some fraction less of their wealth. I want to see how quickly the likes of Warren Buffet, Gates, Larry Ellison, Harry Hamm, et al renounce their citizenship and move to, say, Singapore.

Because the goal of our entire social spending infrastructure is to bring the bottom up? It sounds like you would be happier if we destroyed wealth, literally light money on fire, if it created more equality. That's, uh, pretty far from the mainstream. Perhaps you'd be happier living in Afganistan where their Gini coefficient is much smaller than in the US!

I'm no longer surprised that you managed miss my point here, which is that acute wealth concentration is not purely an economic matter; it has more than economic consequences. I encouraged you to try to conceive of the situation in other than in purely material terms; your reply suggests you're currently incapable of doing so.

Someone more cynical than I would shout "filthy Marxist!" and leave it at that.

But I know you can do this

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 18:25:16

I think we all agree that we want to improve the well being of those at the bottom. What we don't agree on is whether punishing those at the top will help in that regard.

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 18:28:55

Doc - The "acute accumulation of wealth" that you fret over is historically bad - when a small group of privileged keep for themselves and deprive others. That's not happening in America. A small group is getting very wealthy indeed - and it hurts no one. Well, it kind of hurts anyone in the center or the right, because it gives populist political ammo to the left, whose message is that "your life sucks because the Koch brothers are so rich"

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 18:38:15

Weird that you say something about someone else not understanding that dividing the pie differently doesn't change the size of the pie, but then you say that a few people having huge amounts of wealth doesn't hurt anyone else. A few people having wealth doesn't enlarge the pie so that others can take more. It just means those other people have less, and many of them are hurt by that fact.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 18:43:03

TomatoPie wrote:I think we all agree that we want to improve the well being of those at the bottom. What we don't agree on is whether punishing those at the top will help in that regard.

I don't think acknowledging that the top earners make huge amounts of money on the backs of those under them is much of a punishment. And I don't think acknowledging the fact that those top earners make their money by taking advantage of the public infrastructure we all pay for is a punishment. It's just asking that some of the money they earn gets payed back to the society that helped them earn it. I mean, you act like those unfortunate top earners are going to break under the weight of their sacrifice.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 19:27:51

Keystone goes down by a single vote 59-41. What exactly did this accomplish for Landrieu?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 19:33:44

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 19:36:40

jerseyhoya wrote:Keystone goes down by a single vote 59-41. What exactly did this accomplish for Landrieu?

A loss in the runoff.

by **pacino** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 20:41:17

She's an idiot

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 21:53:50

jerseyhoya wrote:Keystone goes down by a single vote 59-41. What exactly did this accomplish for Landrieu?

the headline is "Republican-led Senate Votes Against Desperately Needed Canadian Oil Sludge Pipeline - Millions of US Jobs Killed"

thanks McConnell

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 21:56:53

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Keystone goes down by a single vote 59-41. What exactly did this accomplish for Landrieu?

the headline is "Republican-led Senate Votes Against Desperately Needed Canadian Oil Sludge Pipeline - Millions of US Jobs Killed"

thanks McConnell

by **Werthless** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 21:58:42

Monkeyboy wrote:Weird that you say something about someone else not understanding that dividing the pie differently doesn't change the size of the pie, but then you say that a few people having huge amounts of wealth doesn't hurt anyone else. A few people having wealth doesn't enlarge the pie so that others can take more. It just means those other people have less, and many of them are hurt by that fact.

I hate how bill gates is taking money from poor people.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 22:14:17

TomatoPie wrote:Doc - The "acute accumulation of wealth" that you fret over is historically bad - when a small group of privileged keep for themselves and deprive others. That's not happening in America. A small group is getting very wealthy indeed - and it hurts no one. Well, it kind of hurts anyone in the center or the right, because it gives populist political ammo to the left, whose message is that "your life sucks because the Koch brothers are so rich"

Your misreading of the issue resembles Werthless's, but yours proceeds from a more impoverished (see what I did there) understanding of economics.

A sizeable hunk of that wealth, in some but not all cases generated by people who are or have been admirable creators & stewards of wealth, becomes "managed", mostly by people who "manage" to perpetuate their "management". Their priorities increasingly become not "our" priorities. And make no mistake - or rather, you should stop making this mistake - their priorities are not your priorities.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 22:27:36

jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Keystone goes down by a single vote 59-41. What exactly did this accomplish for Landrieu?

the headline is "Republican-led Senate Votes Against Desperately Needed Canadian Oil Sludge Pipeline - Millions of US Jobs Killed"

thanks McConnell

There was just an election, so now even though his majority is not even seated, everything is his fault now. Change!

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.