Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ocasio-Cortez 70% Tax Rate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The point was to illustrate that wealth inequality is a relevant metric. Everyone’s share of the proverbial pie is highly relevant when it comes to evaluating how wealth is distributed in a society. When wealth is so disproportionately concentrated at one end of the economic spectrum, as it is now in this country, then the scales ought to be tipped in some measure in the other direction.
    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by skooly View Post
      The point was to illustrate that wealth inequality is a relevant metric. Everyone’s share of the proverbial pie is highly relevant when it comes to evaluating how wealth is distributed in a society. When wealth is so disproportionately concentrated at one end of the economic spectrum, as it is now in this country, then the scales ought to be tipped in some measure in the other direction.
      Why?

      https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/fr..._06_1956_5.pdf

      https://youtu.be/MRpEV2tmYz4
      HFM

      As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

      Comment


      • #48
        Extreme inequality is actually bad for the economy. It knocked nearly five percentage points off the economic growth in some of the world's richest countries (including ours) between 2000 and 2015. It limits social mobility, it fosters crime, and it's associated with shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, obesity, and other negative social effects.

        I'm not advocating for eliminating all inequality. I'm not saying we should send goons to Pete's house to beat him up and take his proverbial slices of pizza. I'm saying that extreme inequality -- such as what we are historically seeing now -- is a harmful condition, and we should consider policies which tend to ameliorate the extreme imbalance. Whether it's a wealth tax, higher capital gains taxes, reduced spending, or other mechanisms, is open for discussion.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3b8a7db46bf8

        http://www.faireconomy.org/why_is_income_inequality_bad
        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

        Comment


        • #49
          Doesn't reducing unemployment, increasing the workforce, creating more jobs, etc. do just that?
          At the precipice, we change!
          The problem with Capitalism is that humans run it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by skooly View Post
            Extreme inequality is actually bad for the economy. It knocked nearly five percentage points off the economic growth in some of the world's richest countries (including ours) between 2000 and 2015. It limits social mobility, it fosters crime, and it's associated with shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, obesity, and other negative social effects.

            I'm not advocating for eliminating all inequality. I'm not saying we should send goons to Pete's house to beat him up and take his proverbial slices of pizza. I'm saying that extreme inequality -- such as what we are historically seeing now -- is a harmful condition, and we should consider policies which tend to ameliorate the extreme imbalance. Whether it's a wealth tax, higher capital gains taxes, reduced spending, or other mechanisms, is open for discussion.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3b8a7db46bf8

            http://www.faireconomy.org/why_is_income_inequality_bad
            Weird...

            ...you started off saying "wealth inequality" then this post just talks about "inequality" and then you linked to references if "income inequality" twice.

            Pete (has zero problems with income inequality, and thinks that's natural and proper in a functional society)
            Last edited by Plezercruz; 02-11-2019, 11:06 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Ronny View Post
              Doesn't reducing unemployment, increasing the workforce, creating more jobs, etc. do just that?
              Unemployment rate is 4% so I don't think it's that.
              "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by skooly View Post
                The point was to illustrate that wealth inequality is a relevant metric. Everyone’s share of the proverbial pie is highly relevant when it comes to evaluating how wealth is distributed in a society. When wealth is so disproportionately concentrated at one end of the economic spectrum, as it is now in this country, then the scales ought to be tipped in some measure in the other direction.
                Why should the scales be tipped?
                • Should the best sports players be handicapped because they're performing better than the other players?
                • Should iphone and android phones have been limited so microsoft would have a better chance with their phone?
                • Should lawyer fees be increasingly limited as they make more, to help smaller and less successful firms?
                One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by skooly View Post
                  Extreme inequality is actually bad for the economy. It knocked nearly five percentage points off the economic growth in some of the world's richest countries (including ours) between 2000 and 2015. It limits social mobility, it fosters crime, and it's associated with shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, obesity, and other negative social effects.

                  I'm not advocating for eliminating all inequality. I'm not saying we should send goons to Pete's house to beat him up and take his proverbial slices of pizza. I'm saying that extreme inequality -- such as what we are historically seeing now -- is a harmful condition, and we should consider policies which tend to ameliorate the extreme imbalance. Whether it's a wealth tax, higher capital gains taxes, reduced spending, or other mechanisms, is open for discussion.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3b8a7db46bf8

                  http://www.faireconomy.org/why_is_income_inequality_bad

                  How is this bad?

                  https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do
                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfri.../#6165bdd33e36
                  https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/
                  Carnegie library, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, Carnegie Hero Fund, Carnegie Mellon University, and Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh

                  And, are you really blaming billionaires for under-performing economic growth, crime, shorter life expectancy, infant mortality rates and for being fat? It's not their fault, it's the fault of billionaires who are accountable for the poor?

                  Where do you draw the line? Should the wealth tax benefit foreigners? But, the question I'd really like an answer to is, whether you disagree with Friedman's 9 year old son's opinions regarding the Robinson Crusoes example. See page 2-3 of The Distribution of Income and the Welfare Activities of Government.

                  Dan (thinks your position is for government goons to incarcerate Pete if he decides not to comply with handing over his pizza)
                  HFM

                  As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    More to the point...without employing goons, how do you propose to get my pizza?

                    Pete (supposes for the moment that he's not feeling particularly charitable)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The government enforces tax laws just like it enforces criminal laws, civil laws, private contracts, health codes, zoning regulations, and plenty more. The power to tax is in the Constitution. How is this even a question?
                      "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by hfm View Post
                        Where do you draw the line?
                        When we have a near 100-year high in income inequality, I think it's time to start pushing the line in the other direction.

                        skooly (will take a stab at your other questions later)
                        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by skooly View Post
                          The government enforces tax laws just like it enforces criminal laws, civil laws, private contracts, health codes, zoning regulations, and plenty more. The power to tax is in the Constitution. How is this even a question?
                          Correct. By goon squad.

                          Pete (is just calling it like it is)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Following up:

                            The goon squad isn't necessarily bad...

                            Do I want a goon squad to stop people from murdering people? You bet I do.
                            Do I want a goon squad to stop people from stealing from my and my neighbors? Yep.
                            Do I want a goon squad to stop people from poisoning my rivers and air? Totally.
                            Do I want a goon squad to stop invading armies from blowing up my city? For sure.

                            But don't forget there is a goon squad!

                            So do I want a goon squad to forcibly stop poor people from coming to the United States? Um. Maybe not...
                            Do I want the goon squad to forcibly take money from rich people and distribute it to others. That doesn't sound so great...
                            Do I want the goon squad to forcibly make people to buy health insurance? That kinda doesn't sound like a "goon squad" sort of activity.

                            A lot of things that sound like good ideas are really bad ideas when you look at them as enforcement actions. So you want some of my pizza...fine...but unless you're going to beat me up to get it, don't talk about laws, because the laws are backed up by goon squads.

                            Pete (doesn't live in the land of unicorns and leprechauns where government action happens without force)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              If the law wasn't backed by force, it would be meaningless. However, many of the examples cited in this thread have been exaggerated. For example, failure to pay taxes rarely results in the cops coming out for you, except if you lie to the IRS, conceal income, or otherwise commit tax evasion. Failure to buy health insurance results in a monetary penalty against your tax refund--there are no liens, levies, or criminal penalties.
                              "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by skooly View Post
                                If the law wasn't backed by force, it would be meaningless. However, many of the examples cited in this thread have been exaggerated. For example, failure to pay taxes rarely results in the cops coming out for you, except if you lie to the IRS, conceal income, or otherwise commit tax evasion. Failure to buy health insurance results in a monetary penalty against your tax refund--there are no liens, levies, or criminal penalties.
                                All I ask is that whenever you think to yourself, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we forced people to do X?" you also ask yourself, "Am I really willing to have government goons force people to do X?"

                                Pete (thinks a lot of Xes become rather unattractive in that context)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X