Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ocasio-Cortez 70% Tax Rate

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by tquill View Post

    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?
    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.

    Why do you think it's appropriate to compare real people to consumer electronics or sporting games? I find the analogy wholly inappropriate. By the way, lawyer fees are regulated by the State in some fashion.
    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

    Comment


    • #62
      Given that extreme income inequality is almost universally driven by goons enforcing the progression to that point, using goons to enforce movement in the other direction seems inescapable.

      Unless you think that the vast majority of government action hasn't been specifically done to increase income inequality... anyone think that?
      They speak in bulletpointese leftist nutjob drivel. It doesn't matter. Nothing is as great a motivator as the chance to truly be free.
      -Mr. Raceboy

      Comment


      • #63
        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.

        Why do you think it's appropriate to compare real people to consumer electronics or sporting games? I find the analogy wholly inappropriate. By the way, lawyer fees are regulated by the State in some fashion.
        Income is the means by which people increase their social standing. Taxing income at best enforces the status quo, and at worst widens the gap between the wealthy and those who have nothing. Even with a wildly progressive income tax scheme, all you're really doing is preventing the people who made good from gaining on the people who already have a ton of wealth.

        Pete (thinks if you really cared about inequality, you wouldn't want to tax the best means of overcoming it)

        Comment


        • #64
          Meow meow meow. Meow meowey meow meow. Meow!
          01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            As the foremost scholar Putter on this issue I have to clarify. Failure to buy health insurance, through 2018, results in a monetary penalty against the tax refund with no liens, levies, or criminal penalties. However, per legislation in 2017:

            The individual mandate officially went away as of Jan. 1, 2019, and so you won't face an Obamacare penalty when you file your returns for your 2019 taxes early next year. That means that once you file your 2018 tax return in the next few months, you shouldn't see individual mandate penalties again.
            https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/01/0...e-history.aspx

            In a somewhat ironic twist, a Federal Court has now ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional because it doesn't have a penalty. The Court reasoned that SCOTUS upheld the mandate in Obamacare under the argument that it wasn't a mandate exactly, but a tax, or at least that it was allowable under the taxing power of the Gov't. But now, since there won't be a tax penalty after the 2017 amendments, it isn't a tax anymore, and therefore is unconstitutional. (Never mind that without any penalty, it really doesn't qualify as a "mandate" anyway.)

            https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065...l-texas-ruling
            For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
            If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

            "Weíve always assumed that you canít bring back the dead. But itís a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by dusty View Post

              As the foremost scholar Putter on this issue I have to clarify. Failure to buy health insurance, through 2018, results in a monetary penalty against the tax refund with no liens, levies, or criminal penalties. However, per legislation in 2017:



              https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/01/0...e-history.aspx

              In a somewhat ironic twist, a Federal Court has now ruled Obamacare Unconstitutional because it doesn't have a penalty. The Court reasoned that SCOTUS upheld the mandate in Obamacare under the argument that it wasn't a mandate exactly, but a tax, or at least that it was allowable under the taxing power of the Gov't. But now, since there won't be a tax penalty after the 2017 amendments, it isn't a tax anymore, and therefore is unconstitutional. (Never mind that without any penalty, it really doesn't qualify as a "mandate" anyway.)

              https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065...l-texas-ruling
              That makes some sense (since Roberts' whole theory on the legality of Obamacare rested on the power to tax) but it's still pretty hilarious.

              Pete (is pretty ignorant on the health care system for the most part)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Jester View Post
                Given that extreme income inequality is almost universally driven by goons enforcing the progression to that point, using goons to enforce movement in the other direction seems inescapable.

                Unless you think that the vast majority of government action hasn't been specifically done to increase income inequality... anyone think that?
                As noted previously, I do believe that taxing income has exacerbated the wealth divide and not improved it. It has decreased the ability of people like me (who rely primarily on income to increase their social standing) to gain on people like the Donald (who almost exclusively dwells in the world of capital gains).

                Pete (thinks that for a time that was mitigated by the Alternative Minimum Tax, but the threshold for that has gotten so low that it now nabs a lot of up-and-comers too)

                Comment


                • #68
                  https://twitter.com/jonahnro/status/...381367808?s=21">
                  Last edited by buzzardmountain; 02-13-2019, 11:12 AM.
                  Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
                  I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    You only need the twitter ID in the twitter tags Robin, not the full URL.



                    Pete (demonstrates)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      i give up. Iíve tried new tags and the old way...
                      Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
                      I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by hfm View Post


                        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)
                        Philanthropy by billionaires is commendable -- assuming it's made from altruism and not from personal vainglory. There may not be such a need for their altruism if income inequality wasn't so vast. I don't blame the billionaires for the negative consequences of income inequality; I blame the system that perpetuates it. Again, it's not inequality in and or itself that's harmful -- it's the extreme degree of inequality that we see today.

                        The Robinson Crusoe example was honestly an oversimplified and convenient example to suit his purposes. First, can Crusoe #1 really lay claim to a deserted island to the exclusion of all others? Under what legal theory does he own it exclusively? Basically, he is in a state of nature where the law of the jungle applies. Second, there seems to be a material difference between struggling between life and death on a deserted island... and a finding a $5 bill on the sidewalk. His 9 year old son may find it persuasive; I did not.





                        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by skooly View Post

                          Philanthropy by billionaires is commendable -- assuming it's made from altruism and not from personal vainglory. There may not be such a need for their altruism if income inequality wasn't so vast. I don't blame the billionaires for the negative consequences of income inequality; I blame the system that perpetuates it. Again, it's not inequality in and or itself that's harmful -- it's the extreme degree of inequality that we see today.

                          The Robinson Crusoe example was honestly an oversimplified and convenient example to suit his purposes. First, can Crusoe #1 really lay claim to a deserted island to the exclusion of all others? Under what legal theory does he own it exclusively? Basically, he is in a state of nature where the law of the jungle applies. Second, there seems to be a material difference between struggling between life and death on a deserted island... and a finding a $5 bill on the sidewalk. His 9 year old son may find it persuasive; I did not.




                          Simplified yes. It doesn't need to be complex. The fact that government is a forcefully executing authority over property rights doesn't complicate the general question. Here, the deserted island, $5.00 and pizza all represent wealth. And, the sole question is when is it legally, morally or ethically correct to take from one and give to another under threat of force?

                          If you're truly not for sending the goons to Pete's house to beat him up for his pizza then, you cannot support an income or wealth tax upon Pete because to do so leads to that end result if Pete chooses not to comply. And, even if we all agree that there is an issue regarding the existence poor people and poverty as opposed to "wealth inequality," because the complaint is that there are poor people, not that there are rich people, that does not mean a solution is to take from the wealthy.

                          But, based upon your answer, if you didn't find the kids acknowledgement of fairness, of the need for fair property rights, that you just don't take from one and give to the other because one happens to be earning a lot or is wealthy and give to someone poor because they either choose not to improve their circumstance or, are unable, then we fundamentally disagree. I don't know how you feel about that impact to the extent it may take away your property rights not only yours but, also from your family, your wife and your children and gives it to potentially someone entirely undeserving. I find that completely offensive and I would think you would too.

                          Dan (shakes his head)
                          HFM

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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I love the Crusoe hypo because it raises questions about law, morality, and ethics. It might be worth discussing in its own thread, as it's off topic for this thread. Suffice to say, I just consider it materially different from finding $5 on a sidewalk.

                            Do you think that all taxation is unjustified theft? Do you think that all taxation enforcement leads to the good squad? Earlier in the thread, you seemed willing to tolerate some forms of taxation, but now I'm not so sure.
                            "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The geography of the Crusoe islands, the $5 sidewalk or pizza at Pete's home is ancillary to the common issue of redistribution of wealth or income from one to another. I tolerate taxation as necessary for our national security and for public services locally, statewide and federally. Yes, I think it's theft if the tax is unfair. And, I think it's unfair if the tax is disproportionately applied. I'm for a flat tax. Tax everyone's income at a singe rate. I'm against a wealth tax as it is generally a double tax on money that has already been taxed once before.

                              If we're going to talk semantics, when at war, it's a killing and not a murder under a theory that the killing was government sanctioned and, "lawful" unlike murder which is an "unlawful killing." So, when the government steals from one and gives to another, one may say that it's not theft because it's lawful theft or conversion of property. A killing is a killing and stealing is stealing whether it's by an individual or by government. I rather not see either.
                              HFM

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

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Had myself another "goons" moment yesterday driving home from school.

                                News reported that Illinois Democrats want to forward a bill to remove a law requiring that minors consult with their parents or a judge before getting an abortion. The result would effectively be that 13-17 pregnant teens would be able to get abortions without parental consent.

                                I thought to myself, "You know, minors really should talk to their parents before getting an abortion. This is a bad move."

                                But then I thought to myself, "Self, are you really in favor of sending out government goons to arrest and imprison people just to make sure that kids talk to their parents before getting abortions?"

                                The answer was no.

                                Pete (thinks lots of things sound like good ideas until you remember the goon squad)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X