╌>

American voters increasingly want to tax the rich more

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  krishna  •  5 years ago  •  101 comments

American voters increasingly want to tax the rich more
A a recent Fox News survey of 1,008 registered voters found that 70% of Americans — including 54% of Republicans — are in support of raising taxes on those who earn more than $10 million.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



512

Rep. Alma Adams D-N.C., left, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., smiles during an event to advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act on the 10th anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2019.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)


Research by Yahoo Finance and others previously indicated that many Americans feel Trump-era tax cuts disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy. And a recent survey of 106 National Association for Business Economics members found that 84% of respondents said that “the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans.”


Not everyone agrees with raising taxes on the rich. Larry Kudlow, a top economic adviser for the Trump White House, recently told Fox Business that taxing the rich “never works” and that it blunts innovation.



On the other hand, billionaire and legendary investor Warren Buffett believes that higher taxes would actually help create more people like himself.

“I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing—and make a lot of money doing it,” Buffett said according to “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama. “The least I can do is help pay for all that.”





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Krishna    5 years ago

On the other hand, billionaire and legendary investor Warren Buffett  believes  that higher taxes would actually help create more people like himself.

“I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing—and make a lot of money doing it,” Buffett said

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2  seeder  Krishna    5 years ago

Buffett expressed the same sentiment more bluntly in a  2011 op-ed in the New York Times , writing: “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    5 years ago

Not sure Americans want to tax the rich more.  Rather it may be that Americans would appreciate that those who receive the most bounty share in the cost like everyone else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3    5 years ago
Rather it may be that Americans would appreciate that those who receive the most bounty share in the cost like everyone else.

But not everyone does pay income taxes. The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes collected than their share of income.

Is that what is considered "fair" nowadays?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    5 years ago
The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes collected than their share of income.

But they pay a much smaller percentage of taxes based on income.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.1    5 years ago

Prove that someone who works and makes a million dollars a year pays a lower percentage of their income as income taxes than someone making 25k per year does.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    5 years ago

doh!!!!!

Annual Salary : $25,000
Est Federal Tax:  $106
Est Federal Tax pct:  10.17%

Annual Salary:  $1,000,000
Est Federal Tax:  $14,991
Est Federal Tax pct:  35.98%

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    5 years ago

Went to your link. I typed 1 million for salary, take home salary was 63.76% of paycheck.

When I typed 25K as salary, take home pay was 84.88% of paycheck.

Thanks for the assist in proving my point.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    5 years ago

Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors

What’s best for the country? What’s fair? And will either matter when Congress takes up tax reform this fall?
2000x-1.jpg
Illustration: Aaron Fernandez
By  
Ben Steverman
September 12, 2017, 3:00 AM EDT
SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Let’s say you and I are neighbors. You’re an emergency room doctor, and I don’t work, thanks to a pile of money my grandparents left me.

You spend your days and nights stitching up gunshot wounds and helping children survive asthma attacks. I’ve gotten really good at   World of Warcraft , winning EBay auctions, and frying shishito peppers to just the right crispiness.

Let’s also say we both report $300,000 in income to the Internal Revenue Service this year. Who pays more in taxes?

You do, by a lot. You owe the IRS about $38,500 more, assuming each of us pays the maximum with no special deductions. I also have more flexibility to lower my burden with tax planning strategies and other tricks, and I get to skip about $24,000 in payroll taxes that you and your employer must fork over each year.

800x-1.jpg

This isn’t some quirk of the U.S. tax code. Politicians have intentionally set tax rates on wages much higher than those on long-term investment returns. The U.S. has a progressive tax system in the sense that well-paid workers sacrifice much more than poor workers on their “ordinary income.” But Americans with so-called unearned income—qualified dividends and long-term capital gains—get a break.  A billionaire investor can pay about the same marginal rate as a $40,000-a-year worker, a fact Warren Buffett has famously lamented.

800x-1.jpg

The last time Congress passed comprehensive tax reform, in 1986, it eliminated the gap between workers’ and investors’ taxes. Their rates didn’t start diverging again until the early ’90s, when Congresses controlled by Democrats boosted taxes on wealthy Americans’ wages more than on their investments. Republican-controlled Congresses widened the gap further by slashing rates on rich investors in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

A 1986-style rebalancing is unlikely to happen this fall, however, as President Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress attempt to tackle tax reform. The gap may even widen further. 

A key goal is to “simplify the [tax] code so much that you can fill out your taxes on a postcard,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said on CNN on Aug. 21. While other details of proposed tax reform remain fuzzy, Ryan and other Republicans have been promoting a draft of that postcard on social media.

800x-1.png

The first line asks filers to write down their previous year’s wages. For you—the ER doctor in the fictional scenario above—that would be $300,000. The second line asks filers to add just half of their investment income. For me, that would be $150,000.

The form’s simplicity makes its priorities clear: No matter what rates are applied or which deductions or credits are allowed, a worker would end up paying twice as much in taxes as an investor with the same income.

Americans in the top 1 percent, and especially the top 0.1 percent, have seen their wealth and income multiply in recent decades as the rest of the country’s share of the economic pie shrank. Since 2000, a recent study   found , the top 1 percent have made those gains almost entirely on income from capital, especially corporate stock—not on labor income. One reason may be the financial options of the wealthy: Business owners can lower their tax bills by paying themselves in dividends rather than in salary, for example.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury is expected to run a 2017 deficit of $693 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest   estimate , some $108 billion more than in the 2016 fiscal year. As baby boomers retire and health-care costs rise over the next few decades, the government’s fiscal situation is expected to worsen.

The argument in favor of lower taxes on investors—and on corporations, another GOP priority—is an economic one.

“We want a tax code built for growth,” Speaker Ryan said. “We want a tax code that raises wages, keeps American companies in America, gives us faster economic growth.”

1400x-1.jpg
Illustration: Aaron Fernandez

Trump, Ryan, and other Republicans in Congress are wrangling over a variety of competing goals for reform. The most aspirational is a tectonic simplification of the tax code that really   would   allow everyone to file using a postcard. But more realistic legislative targets are lowering tax rates on individuals and corporations as well as eliminating the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. They may also try again to kill the Affordable Care Act taxes—including those on all that investment income raked in by the wealthy.

By taxing investors less, some economists argue, you give taxpayers more of an incentive to save. The more savings in the economy, the more capital that companies and entrepreneurs can invest in ways that expand the economy and make workers more productive. Everyone, including workers, wins, according to this theory.

But there are potential negative consequences to such a policy. By lowering taxes on investors, you shift more of the tax burden to well-paid workers. This may give highly skilled and creative people a disincentive to work hard or improve their skills so they can earn more money, while also giving children of wealthy parents another reason not to work at all.

The most famous economic boom in U.S. history occurred when top tax rates on dividends were as much as 90 percent

And why do people need a special tax break to motivate them to save? Aren’t there already powerful incentives to be thrifty? Invested well, money can compound and multiply over time in extraordinary ways. Wealth also provides security, status, and power—including the means to make campaign donations to politicians.

Economists have answers to some of these questions, if you trust their theoretical models. An often-cited 1999 Federal Reserve   study   used dozens of algebraic equations to divine the ideally efficient tax system. It concluded that the optimal tax rate on investment income is “zero.” That’s contradicted, however, by another theoretical model,   published   in the   American Economic Review   in 2009, that found the best rate is more like 36 percent. 

Nevertheless, given economic theory’s recent track record, it may be better to stick to real-world data.

There’s evidence, for example, that investors feel influenced by taxes far more than workers do. If you worry about tax incentives distorting the economy, taxes on workers should worry you less: People tend to keep going to work everyday no matter what. Most economists agree that men in the prime of their careers “are not particularly responsive to the tax rate,” said University of Michigan economics professor Joel Slemrod. Similarly situated women are only “responsive at the margins.”

Investors, by contrast, are much more sensitive—at least in the short term. It’s happening now: If taxes on the wealthy drop next year, as many tax planners assume they will, then rich people have an incentive to wait until 2018 to recognize investment income by selling stocks or businesses they own. And that seems to be what they’re doing; revenue to the U.S. Treasury   dipped   this year even as the economy remains strong.

In other words, governments should tax workers more because they can get away with it. However unfair it might be, the disparity doesn’t affect economic behavior as much.

“Taxing investors less is really not what the U.S. needs now”

There’s a big flaw, though, in the argument that lower taxes on the rich stimulate longer-term investment, and thus jobs, famously labeled as “trickle-down economics.” While tax rates might affect the timing of some investor decisions in the medium term, it’s much harder to see how they affect long-term behavior. No matter the tax rate, investors ultimately look for opportunities to get richer.

“There is little empirical evidence showing that taxing investors less stimulates savings and growth,” said Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley.

Supply-side economists disagree, and can point to tax cuts in the 1980s that seemed to spur the U.S. and U.K. economies. But there’s little evidence of a relationship between economic growth and investment taxes over the long term.

800x-1.png

The most famous economic boom in U.S. history, right after World War II, occurred when the top rates on dividends were between 70 and 90 percent. Rapid growth also followed tax hikes on wealthy investors in the late 1980s and early ’90s. And more than a decade later, the Great Recession swamped any conceivable benefits from then-President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which dropped the top rate on dividends by half.

Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, have proposed higher taxes on investment income. For example, the so-called Buffett Rule would have imposed a minimum rate of 30 percent on all taxpayers with income of $1 million or more, no matter where the money came from. That didn’t pass, but Congress did bump up the rate on capital gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent. And it imposed the net investment income tax, or NIIT, a 3.8 percent levy on wealthy investors, to help fund the Affordable Care Act.

Efforts to kill the NIIT stalled in the Senate along with bids to repeal the ACA, but some House Republicans aren’t giving up. The NIIT is “incredibly anti-growth,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican,   said   in July. Last month he   acknowledged , however, that getting a repeal bill past the Senate could be “a challenge.” The Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank that relies on its own models, estimates repealing the NIIT would boost the U.S. economy by 0.7 percent over the next 10 years.

An unprecedented amount of wealth may soon be inherited

Even if you believe low investment taxes can spur economic growth, you might question whether lowering taxes further will have much of an effect these days. The vast majority of wealth held by the middle class is held in homes and retirement accounts. Tapping a retirement account never triggers a capital gains tax, and selling a home only does if the gain is more than $250,000 for a single person and $500,000 for a couple. If you have less than $38,000 in investment income, you already pay a tax rate of zero.

Eliminating the NIIT or lowering other investment taxes is then, at its core, about stimulating the economy by getting the wealthy to save and invest more. But the rich are already saving—a lot. Saez and his Berkeley colleague Gabriel Zucman calculate the top 1 percent of America by wealth have consistently saved more than 30 percent of their income since at least the 1970s.

800x-1.png

Meanwhile, the bottom 99 percent has been saving less and less—a factor contributing to growing inequality along with stagnant middle-class wages and rising debt levels.

While retailers complain there’s not enough consumer spending, trillions of dollars are sitting in investment accounts. Banks have a glut of deposits, stock market valuations are high, corporations are flush with cash, and prominent investors have more money than they know what to do with. Buffett’s cash pile is just shy of   $100 billion . The median U.S. worker from age 55 to 64, however, has just $15,000 saved in retirement accounts,   according to   a recent study by New School for Social Research’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.

“Taxing investors less is really not what the U.S. needs now,” Saez said. “Instead, we should focus on trying to rebuild middle-class wealth” by encouraging families to save for retirement and pay down mortgages.

Never mind the arguments over what’s best for the economy, though. There’s that ultimate American question about taxation we’re forgetting: What’s fair?

It’s not right, some conservatives argue, to tax investments at all. It’s “double taxation” to take a bite out of money flowing from assets that were taxed when first earned. (Technically, it’s dividends and gains that are taxed, not the original amount that’s saved, but the IRS makes no provision for inflation.)

800x-1.jpg
Illustration: Aaron Fernandez

Taxing workers more than investors is fair, conservatives also argue, because investors and workers are really the same people at different stages of their lives. When you’re young, you save and pay high tax rates on your wages. When you’re old, you get to enjoy the lightly taxed proceeds of that invested income.

The wrench in these arguments is the massive jump in inherited American wealth—driven by rising income inequality and loose tax laws. In practice, the person who successfully accumulates assets is often not the person who spends them. Affluent retirees   are increasingly reluctant   to even touch their nest eggs. A huge and   disproportionate share   of the nation’s largest fortunes is in the hands of people in their 80s and 90s. And the estate tax, already very easy for the wealthy to avoid, is targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.

As a result, an unprecedented amount of wealth may soon be inherited. The generation on the receiving end of this familial largesse will get a tax break every time they cash in on the fruits of others’ labor.

Yes, many of these lucky heirs and heiresses go to work anyway, or contribute in other ways. Still, it’s hard to argue that productive members of society—people like our ER doctor—should pay twice as much in taxes as people who sit around playing video games. But that’s the choice that underlies America’s tax code—and one that will figure in the debate over how, or whether, to rewrite it.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
5  Dean Moriarty    5 years ago

I'm part of the thirty percent with good morals that know theft is wrong. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5    5 years ago

What theft?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to    5 years ago

I didn't ask you Wally.  Obviously Dean  has no idea what he's talking about.  

Good morals?  LOL!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to    5 years ago
Theft by confiscatory taxation by government.

Can't be theft if the Constitution allows it Wally.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Theft by eminent domain of property by government for nefarious reasons.

I thought you were for Trump building his wall on private property, Wally?

Trump's Big, Beautiful, Stupid Wall Could Unite the Left and Right in Texas

Theft by seizure of private property and goods by local government law enforcement, not returned if the person is innocent of any charges.

Sessions sure liked that and expanded it.

Under Sessions' Plan, Government Will Seize More People's Property

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.5  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.4    5 years ago

Theft by confiscatory taxation by government.

Can't be theft if the Constitution allows it Wally.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

It is not illegal-- the Constitution is quite clear about that. (But at one time it was illegal).

How could that be? The history is interesting and informative:

1. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated- that included unreasonable seizure of citizens' money by the gov't-- which is what taxes are. So they were unconstitutional.

However, giving people power tends to make them want more power-- and over time unless checked, the tendency for governments is to want more and more power...

So:

2. Since the 4th Amendment limited their power, the gov't found a way around it-- they passed the 16th Amendment (see Ozzwald's link in comment #5.1.4) so now the income tax is legal.

(it might be said, perhaps, that people who think income tax is illegal theft by the government are either uninformed about what the Constitution actually says-- or think are living in another era !)

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.6  Split Personality  replied to    5 years ago
My family has had Island taken

Eminent domain?

Some 5,500 pieces of private property are at risk along the Texas border.

I'm sure that those who will lose property or access to their farms, water for crops or herds, feel the same way.

The path of the proposed wall doesn't follow the border, it follows the paths laid out by engineers for the least cost and inconvenience,

to the government.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.7  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.6    5 years ago

My family has had Island taken

Eminent domain?

Some 5,500 pieces of private property are at risk along the Texas border.

I'm sure that those who will lose property or access to their farms, water for crops or herds, feel the same way.

The path of the proposed wall doesn't follow the border, it follows the paths laid out by engineers for the least cost and inconvenience,

to the government.

That why many people who actually live on the border are so opposed to Trump's Wall.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.6    5 years ago
I'm sure that those who will lose property or access to their farms, water for crops or herds, feel the same way.

How does that work across country lines?   Are you saying ranchers own property/grazing rights in both countries and a barrier will cause them conflicts?

I doubt that very much.   Even if it were true, the ranchers i've read about are all for a security barrier.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @5.1.7    5 years ago
That why many people who actually live on the border are so opposed to Trump's Wall.

So many?   You mean a few mayors along the border?

That's not many.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.9    5 years ago

many more, and the same reason the Brownsville section starts and stops with many gaps as 85 cases are still in court from the first round in 2006

supposedly some 5,500 parcels of private property .......

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.10    5 years ago

There are 31 counties along the southern border with a separate Sheriffs Association, complaining that neither Trump or his Administration

has ever met with them or sought there input. 

Not surprisingly they are against the wall proposals.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.11    5 years ago

Oooh a 77 acre farm ..... thats the best you could do?

How about a ranch with thousands an acres?:

All agree border security needs to be tightened up.   No one is saying a "physical barrier" will solve everything but most agree it is an integral part of a well thought out "comprehensive" plan.  

This debate is beyond just typical politics.   It's gone completely asinine.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.13    5 years ago
This debate is beyond just typical politics.   It's gone completely asinine.

How about a whole town?

and yes it is asinine.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.13    5 years ago

This is an interesting "watch".

Keep in mind that the USA has a 60 foot easement along the border of CA, NM and AZ, so they can basically do whatever they want and eminent domain has only affected a few properties .

Because Texas was a sovereign nation actively arguing it's borders with Mexico, the US has no such luxury, since no one thought to do so when Texas was admitted to the Union, or when the Mexican War was settled, or when Texas was readmitted in 1873. No one wanted to deal with it, or though it was a big deal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.6    5 years ago

'Eminent domain?

Some 5,500 pieces of private property are at risk along the Texas border.

I'm sure that those who will lose property or access to their farms, water for crops or herds, feel the same way.

The path of the proposed wall doesn't follow the border, it follows the paths laid out by engineers for the least cost and inconvenience,

to the government.'

Aren't all these cases in the courts now?  And will be for years?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.16    5 years ago

Approximately 85 cases are ongoing, many date back to 2006

and are evidenced by huge gaps in the Brownsville TX sections of the wall.

Interestingly enough, when the DOJ was shut down and DOJ lawyers were supposed to be furloughed ,

a new case of eminent domain was filed against a Texas landowner.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.17    5 years ago

Can the wall be built while cases are ongoing?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.18    5 years ago

Sections can be if

the government owns the property,

has access to the properrty

has approved plans, material and financing for the wall for the current fiscal year.

As far as time goes,

in 2017 DHS was approved to build up to 124 new miles, or replace existing fencing

with bollard style fences.

To date, DHS has only completed 14 miles, citing multiple issues.

No one at DHS can explain why, of the 1.6 billion approved, only 6% has been spent so far.

DHS is also still constrained by a 2018 Continuing Resolution which limits their budget to the previous year ( 1.6 billion )

regardless of how much the President asks for.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.20  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.18    5 years ago

I found this interesting.

Last year, after a town meeting in Roma about the wall, Texas Civil Rights Project lawyers went door to door, warning residents about the environmental impact of a wall and offering to represent them. Some, like Benavides, the former Roma councilman, stayed in contact.

The federal government had already condemned a mile-long, 60-foot-wide swath of his riverfront property in 2008, but never started construction, as international approvals dragged on and money dried up. Recently, federal officials notified him they were taking legal action to ensure they were allowed to survey his land. Benavides had caught a federal surveyor there in October, told the man he didn’t have permission and escorted him out.

“I’ll make them work for it,” said the Army veteran and eighth-generation Roma resident who has maps of the Spanish land grants, or porciones, his ancestors received in 1767. “They come to Starr County and think they can do what they want, that we’re ignorant, waiting for a handout. We’re not. We’re American citizens. The river crossed us; we didn’t cross.”

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.14    5 years ago

A whole town?   Not from what i read.   Perhaps you should read the entire link before making such wild statements.

Like many border towns the Rio Grande appears to be the line between the US and Mexico.   Just a few streets would be affected by any barrier installed.   So saying the entire town is against a barrier is probably more than just a little disingenuous.   As noted in the article, it's just not true.

Will the partisan disinformation and rhetoric ever end?

Interestingly, most of those properties along Sebastian street Roma USA, appear to already have their own barrier fencing along the Rio Grande.   I wonder why?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.21    5 years ago
So saying the entire town is against a barrier is probably more than just a little disingenuous

Can you quote me on that?

Will the partisan disinformation and rhetoric ever end?

I didn't realize you considered this conversation adversarial, my bad.

.

As to Roma.

Why should any American be displaced ?

These are their homes, not just fields of crops or cow manure.

They deserve better.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.22    5 years ago
Can you quote me on that?

Your post above.   5.1.14  

 
I didn't realize you considered this conversation adversarial, my bad.

No, if i misread your post i quoted above, my bad.

.

As to Roma.

Why should any American be displaced ?

These are their homes, not just fields of crops or cow manure.

They deserve better.

It's questionable any will get displaced.   From what i saw most the stuff right along the Rio Grande in that area is scrub brush, not usable for much of anything but wild hogs and mules.   But i do i agree, Imminent Domain sucks when it happens to you.   I had it happen to me once and for much less than a border wall.   A power easement so a hunting camp near mine could power NYC ......

That said Imminent Domain exists for a reason and this situation is a perfect example of why.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.24  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.10    5 years ago

So many?   You mean a few mayors along the border?

That's not many.

I'm not talking about mayors but rather congressman-persons.

And its not just the majority of them that opposes the wall.

In fact-- every single one opposes it!

(Which is a strong indication the vast majority of people living on the border oppose it-- because if a member of Congress doesn't represent the feelings of their constituents they won't get re-elected. And they know this...)

Every congressperson along southern border opposes border wall funding

Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. 

But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump's border wall.

(The Newstalkers-- giving you the opportunity to Get Smarter Here! :-))

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.6    5 years ago
Eminent domain? Some 5,500 pieces of private property are at risk along the Texas border.

Lost that many with the expansion of I-35.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.25    5 years ago
Lost that many with the expansion of I-35.

LOL! And inconvenienced millions of drivers.

Cost our business about a 30% drop in sales while construction went on around us.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @5.1.24    5 years ago

Lol ..... eight Dems and and one of the more liberal Republicans in congress.

Only thing to learn here is that the opposition from these folks follows strict partisan/party lines.   Not what might be best for the country.

So other than that ..... nothing to learn here ..... move along.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6  Tacos!    5 years ago

There is so rarely any effort to spend less. I might be more sanguine about raising taxes if I thought discretionary spending were rooted in thrift, wisdom, and restraint. But, of course it's not. The larger problem - percentage-wise - is mandatory spending . It's 2/3 of the budget, gets larger all the time, and is almost impossible to cut given the laws protecting it. If we put some effort into actually bringing medical costs into line with the rest of the world, we might be able to something about that.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
6.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    5 years ago
If we put some effort into actually bringing medical costs into line with the rest of the world, we might be able to something about that.

And just how would we do that?

(BTW, I agree that that should be a priority, but I would like to hear answers from other people as to how to do that).

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @6.1    5 years ago

I hate to say it, but it may require market controls that I wouldn't normally favor. The nature of medical expenditures is such that one party (the patient) doesn't really have a choice as to whether or not he will participate in the market. Therefore, he has no negotiating power to influence prices. Providers can charge what they like.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    5 years ago

I hate to say it, but it may require market controls that I wouldn't normally favor.

It really does kill you guys to admit that the rest of the developed world is doing it the right way, huh?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.3    5 years ago

I don't know who "you guys" is, but nothing is killing me and I don't have any ego about what the rest of the world is doing.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    5 years ago

Oh, right - you're so centrist!  /s

Just look at your comment.  It literally pains you to admit that allowing the fox (medical industry) to guard the henhouse (healthcare) is bad policy.  It is the eternal rallying cry of the right to maintain that broken system.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
6.1.6  lib50  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.5    5 years ago

But I'll take it, at least the reality is reaching more of the collective consciousness now.  Maybe we've reached the tipping point and the gop sees the writing on the wall.   I don't think I've seen that reasonable of a comment from tacos on the subject before, so its progress.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.5    5 years ago

I don't understand you. Rather than discuss my comment you want to punish me for it. Why are you here?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @6.1.6    5 years ago
I don't think I've seen that reasonable of a comment from tacos on the subject before, so its progress.

It's not like it's a new revelation for me. Virtually everything in our so-called "free market" is regulated in some way. Some industries need regulating more than others.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.7    5 years ago

To clarify, you routinely fall in with whatever the right considers doctrinal 99% of the time.  On that rare 1% occasion where rational thinking takes over, just admitting it is like having a tooth pulled for you.  However, like lib says - I’ll take it.  Baby steps ...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.9    5 years ago

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about and I don't see why I need to be the topic of conversation or why I need to prove what's in my heart to you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7  It Is ME    5 years ago

" I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent , and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing"

Good Times, Good Times ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

Now ?

NOT SO MUCH. jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

Of course.....Warren has already made his mega bucks, so what the hell does he care what happens to everyone else. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.2  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @7    5 years ago
Of course.....Warren has already made his mega bucks, so what the hell does he care what happens to everyone else

Try doing some research.  He is giving away 99% of his money.  It will all be distributed within 10 years of his death, and he's already giving away plenty.  So clearly, he DOES care what happens to everyone else.

I get so tired of people posting things that are so clearly lies, when it's so easy to just do a simple fact check. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @7.2    5 years ago
So clearly, he DOES care what happens to everyone else.

He will "Clearly" CARE about everyone else, "AFTER" his death , and they still have to wait at least 10 years after that.

I donate to charity too ! jrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.2.2  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.1    5 years ago

You're not even worth talking to, since you refuse to ever learn about something before you form an opinion and start throwing emojis around.  Too bad there is no "ignore" feature here.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @7.2.2    5 years ago
You're not even worth talking to

Yet here you are, "Talking to me" ……….. AGAIN !

Weird ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Reality sucks for some. Are you  a "Kneejerk" nuclear re- ACTOR , or a "Realist" ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.2.2    5 years ago
Too bad there is no "ignore" feature here.

There is, you just have to go old school.

When you want to ignore someone, you simply ignore them.   No radio buttons to click or settings to set.   Just do it.

Amazing tech eh?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8  Hal A. Lujah    5 years ago

Here’s something that doesn’t get mentioned as much as it should: the growth rate of executive pay vs laborer pay over time and in comparison to the rest of the developed world.  Yeah - we want some of that obscene wealth to fund public causes.  Money is a finite resource.  When one entity ends up sucking in 200 times as much money as it did 50 years ago for doing the same job, it’s the laborers who end up on the shitty end of the stick.  CEO pay is outrageous in this country.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8    5 years ago
Money is a finite resource.

Actually, it's not.  The Federal Reserve created a new $1trillion/yr out of thin air during most of the Obama Administration.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1    5 years ago
Money is a finite resource.

In theory the US cannot go bankrupt, and as a last ditch fail safe method, printing money as a way out of a debt crisis is a viable option. But it would be an extreme solution, because while money may not be finite, the worth of it certainly is.

Imagine everyone in America made a million dollars a year income. Would a dollar be worth then what it is now, or would a loaf of bred cost 7 dollars and a gallon of milk 9 ?

The idea that everyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough is an absurdity, because there is a practical limit as to how much "money" can be obtained by the public at any given time. As Hal said, when the CEO's take more, the laborers get less. It not only makes sense logically, it is what happens.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    5 years ago
The idea that everyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough is an absurdity

No it's not !

Remedy;

Stop buying Shit like the next and greatest (pfffffft) $ 1,000.00 iPhones as a "I gotta have it NOW" moment, when you can't afford it. Buy it when you can afford it !

Ooooooo….lookie what I got ! Can't pay the rent, but I gots me a cool cell phone.

There are PLENTY of CHEAPER cell phones out there in this great little world of ours !

Think about something FOR ONCE ....you gots that really cool thousand buck phone that you can show all your friends, but a Billionaire just sold it to YOU !

But Billionaires SUCK.....huh !

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    5 years ago
The idea that everyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough is an absurdity,

Not everyone.....anyone.  Anyone can become wealthy if they are smart, disciplined, and work toward that end.

As Hal said, when the CEO's take more, the laborers get less.

Labor is a commodity subject to supply and demand, just like everything else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.3    5 years ago
Not everyone.....anyone.  Anyone can become wealthy if they are smart, disciplined, and work toward that end.

Some aren't really interested in equal opportunity, they want equal results. Well, equal results if you ignore education, perseverance, smart decisions, sacrifice, education, and work ethics.

Labor is a commodity subject to supply and demand, just like everything else

And the beauty of our system is that anyone can become that CEO.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

Tax them more? That's a really good way to send even more of them offshore to tax havens and will probably have negative results for doing so.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    5 years ago

Tax them more? That's a really good way to send even more of them offshore to tax havens and will probably have negative results for doing so.

I think its a matter of degree.

Strangely, some people argue for a YUGE tax increase on the wealthy-- others argue there should be no tax increase. 

People seem to ignore the possibility of a tax increase for the uber-rich but one that is relatively small.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.2.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to    5 years ago

The problem is democrats want to tax people making as little as 300,000 like they are uber -rich whatever the fuck that means to a democrat.

Link?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    5 years ago
Tax them more? That's a really good way to send even more of them offshore to tax havens and will probably have negative results for doing so.

Who gave you permission to go around posting rational, sensible stuff without any regard to people's "feelings"?

All these people who just hate rich guys...how do you think they feel now?  Did you even give one thought to them?  

Besides, it's not like rich people can afford to move wherever they want.....

Oh.....

Wait.....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @9.3    5 years ago

LOL.  A very good old friend and client of mine sold his business for 7 million dollars, moved his fortune to the Cayman Islands, his banking to the Channel Islands and moved himself and his wife to Barbados and said screw Canada's taxes.  

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry


85 visitors