Turns Out Americans Actually Do Want to Tax the Rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I didn't say it was my top priority. Just listed 2 examples that would benefit middle class people like someone asked for

1. Universal healthcare, the rich and upper middle class already have good coverage. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
2. Free food for all children. The rich and upper middle class would not even bother to look at basic food items. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
3. Free college education, the rich and upper middle class already can afford $70K/year tuition. It will benefit the poor and middle class.

We already have these to a large degree.

1. Poor people get Medicaid, and lower-income get highly subsidized care
2. We already give free food to poor and lower-income, via food stamps
3. Pell grants cover the full tuition cost for lower-middle class families and below at the community college level

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

Not extreme liberals - just Americans. We want more of these things, expanded to include the middle class. We want free breakfast and lunch at schools, we want free 4 yr public college for good students.

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

No one is demonizing the wealthy - we are demonizing the wealth gap. Rising wealth gap is destructive to a country. I pay property tax for a property I bought after working 30 years. So I do not see a reason for super rich people to pay wealth tax on their diamonds, yachts, and planes they have worked for. Its okay if some wealthy folks leave America for this reason (although I can guarantee you that most would not). It's not like the wealthy people are sharing their wealth or obligation to maintain this country anyway. All the laws that the wealthy support is regressive and detrimental to the long term viability of this country. So, I do not care if they leave.

Could have fooled me. The wealth gap is being blamed on the wealthy. Democrats believe wealth is a zero-sum game, that the wealthy are wealthy because they somehow cheated the money from those people who are poor. Just look at the posts that started this thread - describing wealthy people as hoarders, implying that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be hoarded. Yes, you pay property tax, so do wealthy people.

The wealth gap is a result of the unfair rules of the game in the economic system we have set up. For billionaires that convince themselves that their wealth is 100% earned and no one else who helped create those profits is entitled to a larger share, yes they deserve to be demonized

No one is demonizing bill Gates for becoming a billionaire then giving his money away to save lives and improve education

Name off some of those unfair rules. I mean, what gave Microsoft an unfair advantage over Apple in the late 80s, and what gave Apple an unfair advantage over Microsoft in the late 2000s. What gave Amazon an unfair advantage over Barnes and Noble, and what gave Five Guys an unfair advantage over your local favorite burger joint. No one is entitled to anything that they have not earned, and what they earn is determined by market value of their work output.

NP bYou are discussing something different from the point being made. Question is not whether the rules of the road are equivalent for apple and Microsoft or even a disruptive small business. The question is who was responsible for that wealth? The small group of executives that were in place during the wealth creation of the company? The employees including the technical experts that are creating the technology? The US system of free enterprise that allows people to build these types of creativity and enterprise (in liberal hellhole California, natch). I believe the wealth belongs in different percentages to all the above groups and the rework of this has to be achieved by labor laws and taxes.

The road

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

No one is demonizing the wealthy - we are demonizing the wealth gap. Rising wealth gap is destructive to a country. I pay property tax for a property I bought after working 30 years. So I do not see a reason for super rich people to pay wealth tax on their diamonds, yachts, and planes they have worked for. Its okay if some wealthy folks leave America for this reason (although I can guarantee you that most would not). It's not like the wealthy people are sharing their wealth or obligation to maintain this country anyway. All the laws that the wealthy support is regressive and detrimental to the long term viability of this country. So, I do not care if they leave.

Could have fooled me. The wealth gap is being blamed on the wealthy. Democrats believe wealth is a zero-sum game, that the wealthy are wealthy because they somehow cheated the money from those people who are poor. Just look at the posts that started this thread - describing wealthy people as hoarders, implying that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be hoarded. Yes, you pay property tax, so do wealthy people.

The wealth gap is a result of the unfair rules of the game in the economic system we have set up. For billionaires that convince themselves that their wealth is 100% earned and no one else who helped create those profits is entitled to a larger share, yes they deserve to be demonized

No one is demonizing bill Gates for becoming a billionaire then giving his money away to save lives and improve education

Name off some of those unfair rules. I mean, what gave Microsoft an unfair advantage over Apple in the late 80s, and what gave Apple an unfair advantage over Microsoft in the late 2000s. What gave Amazon an unfair advantage over Barnes and Noble, and what gave Five Guys an unfair advantage over your local favorite burger joint. No one is entitled to anything that they have not earned, and what they earn is determined by market value of their work output.

NP bYou are discussing something different from the point being made. Question is not whether the rules of the road are equivalent for apple and Microsoft or even a disruptive small business. The question is who was responsible for that wealth? The small group of executives that were in place during the wealth creation of the company? The employees including the technical experts that are creating the technology? The US system of free enterprise that allows people to build these types of creativity and enterprise (in liberal hellhole California, natch). I believe the wealth belongs in different percentages to all the above groups and the rework of this has to be achieved by labor laws and taxes.

The road

Not discussing anything different at all. The PP specifically claims that the wealth gap is due to "unfair rules". It's then perfectly logical and on topic to ask for these unfair rules to be named and to be shown how they are unfair. Now if you disagree with the PP about "unfair rules" being the cause of the wealth gap, then we can move on to discuss what is in fact responsible for wealth and therefore gaps in wealth. As to the proper share of wealth allocation between managers, executives, technical experts, employees, and etc, I believe the free market sorts that out pretty well without the need for government intervention. The market is very good at paying people for their economic contribution. Aside from that, the US is *EXCEPTIONALLY* good at increasing the productivity of, as evident through our GDP. I've noted many times to people from other countries, that the strength of the US economy is only partly in the extremely smart people leading and working at companies like Google or Amazon, but the fact that other than a very small minority, vast majority of people can find a job in which they can be economically productive.

[Anonymous]

the US is *EXCEPTIONALLY* good at increasing the productivity of, as evident through our GDP.

Wage growth is trailing productivity growth by a LOT. Starting around 1980. Why do you think that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

the US is *EXCEPTIONALLY* good at increasing the productivity of, as evident through our GDP.

Wage growth is trailing productivity growth by a LOT. Starting around 1980. Why do you think that is?

^^^
Link for above: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I didn't say it was my top priority. Just listed 2 examples that would benefit middle class people like someone asked for

1. Universal healthcare, the rich and upper middle class already have good coverage. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
2. Free food for all children. The rich and upper middle class would not even bother to look at basic food items. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
3. Free college education, the rich and upper middle class already can afford $70K/year tuition. It will benefit the poor and middle class.

We already have these to a large degree.

1. Poor people get Medicaid, and lower-income get highly subsidized care
2. We already give free food to poor and lower-income, via food stamps
3. Pell grants cover the full tuition cost for lower-middle class families and below at the community college level

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

There is much room for improvement -- on the taxes side and on the social programs side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

EXTREME LIBERALS. Do they drink Mountain Dew or something? Your points about food stamps, Medicaid, and Pell grants weren't bad, but then you undermined them with these straw men.

We're the richest country in the world. Our overall GDP is quite a bit more than any other country. We're in the top ten GDP per capita. We should basically be able to afford anything other countries manage to swing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump voter here; I don't have a huge problem with a wealth tax over twenty million, or increasing marginal rates over 10 million.

Fellow Trump voter here, why 20 million though, and why 10 million? How did you arrive that that number? Just feels right?

Arbitrary .... I guess I don’t think they should apply to the high wage w2 doctor or lawyer.....

My biggest fear is only once instituted they may be adjusted downwards.....

But I also feel that if we are ever going to have political consensus, both sides must clalm down with the slippery slope arguments.

The issue I have with wealth tax is that it's bound to have exclusions, because no government can reliably determine an accurate net worth of every single individual in the country. And when you have exclusions, people who are subject to the tax are going to do economically inefficient things to move their wealth into things that are excluded. If you exclude holdings of private companies because their valuation is inherently difficult to gauge, then people are going to move their money from public companies into private ones. There may very well be a trend of companies taking themselves private. Unlike some of my more philosophical fellow Republicans and Libertarians, I believe the Federal government has broad powers to tax, and while a tax on wealth may not be a good idea, it is not immoral, or certainly no more immoral than an extremely progressive tax system. So long as the government is allowed to take different amounts of money from different individuals, the subject of "why" the money is being taken becomes rather academic.

Well argued contrary argument, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, wages have been mostly stagnant -- particularly when compared against increases in productivity. The top 1% -- and particularly the top 0.01% have hoovered up most of the profits. The last forty years have not been good for the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I didn't say it was my top priority. Just listed 2 examples that would benefit middle class people like someone asked for

1. Universal healthcare, the rich and upper middle class already have good coverage. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
2. Free food for all children. The rich and upper middle class would not even bother to look at basic food items. It will benefit the poor and working poor.
3. Free college education, the rich and upper middle class already can afford $70K/year tuition. It will benefit the poor and middle class.

We already have these to a large degree.

1. Poor people get Medicaid, and lower-income get highly subsidized care
2. We already give free food to poor and lower-income, via food stamps
3. Pell grants cover the full tuition cost for lower-middle class families and below at the community college level

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

Not extreme liberals - just Americans. We want more of these things, expanded to include the middle class. We want free breakfast and lunch at schools, we want free 4 yr public college for good students.

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Sure sounds like a liberal: all we middle-class people want is for other people to feed OUR children, too, and pay for OUR kids' college education, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sure sounds like a liberal: all we middle-class people want is for other people to feed OUR children, too, and pay for OUR kids' college education, too.

Conservatives kind of take property rights for granted and believe, without evidence, that money acquired is the same as money earned. So, instead of viewing vast wealth as a problem -- evidence of an imbalance in the system; they don't view taxes on vast wealth to fund things that are beneficial to the society as a whole as an equitable adjustment to the system. They view it as taking from somebody who has rightfully earned the money in order to give it to someone who does not deserve the money. (If they deserved it, they'd have it. Poverty is evidence that you are undeserving. Wealth is evidence that you've earned what you have.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pre-K isn't about people who can afford daycare getting someone else to pay for it. It's about reducing inequality of opportunity so kids don't arrive to kindergarten already behind their peers

It's also about providing access to daycare for all women so that they don't have to retire from the work force and can continue to be lifelong taxpaying citizens.

Right now, any parent with more than 1 child has to be a high income earner to be able to afford to pay multiple daycares at the same time, thus many women exit the labor market and either don't or can't get back in or get back in at a substantially reduced salary level. That's bad for the country, not just bad for their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

EXTREME LIBERALS. Do they drink Mountain Dew or something? Your points about food stamps, Medicaid, and Pell grants weren't bad, but then you undermined them with these straw men.

We're the richest country in the world. Our overall GDP is quite a bit more than any other country. We're in the top ten GDP per capita. We should basically be able to afford anything other countries manage to swing.

And did you see the liberal response to my points? "We want middle income people to get the freebies, too!"

Problem is, someone else will have to pay for it. And with you all arguing that middle income people, let's say up to $100k, should for free food and college rituals. you're folding in at least 80% of all families. You think the top 20% (where DCUM sits, at a minimum) should pay for the food and college educations of all 80% of Americans? Can't be done. There isn't enough money in the top 20%.

Plus, we already pay for K-12 for all. We pay for community college for low-income students. We give free breakfasts and lunches to low-income. Along with food stamps. We provide medical care. We subsidize housing costs.

Yet basically what I heard from that liberal was "it's not fair that poor people get everything.....I'm middle class and I want others to provide for me too." You know what Thatcher said about OPM.....sooner or later, you run out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The middle class have been hit extremely hard with exorbitant increases in childcare, higher ed and healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, wages have been mostly stagnant -- particularly when compared against increases in productivity. The top 1% -- and particularly the top 0.01% have hoovered up most of the profits. The last forty years have not been good for the middle class.

Wages have been stagnant due to a greatly expanding employee base. Even though the labor participation rate has shrunk in the past decade or so, it is still significantly higher than it was in the 50s and 60s. With women entering the workforce plus a constant stream of immigrants, the number of people working in the US has out-paced organic population growth. Average individual labor rate is simply the result of GDP divided by number of employed. As the number of employed has kept pace with GPD growth, the average individual labor rate has been stagnant as a result. Labor rate will only rise when there is a shortage to push up wages - this occurs during periods of low unemployment, like now. I will also point out that the upper middle class has greatly expanded because not just the top 1% has benefited from the economic prosperity of the US. People with jobs in the upper middle class are in shorter supply as they are not as easily replaceable by *new* immigrant labor.

All of this is to say, there is no nefarious cause for the stagnant wages. It's simply a matter of supply outpacing demand. If you want wages to rise, limit the number of immigrants coming in to the country to compete for those jobs, and don't make it stigmatizing for women to choose to be a home maker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, some of you act as though we have no giveaway programs right now. We do indeed. But what extreme liberals want - free health care!...free food for all!.....free college! - just isn't affordable. No way. No how.

EXTREME LIBERALS. Do they drink Mountain Dew or something? Your points about food stamps, Medicaid, and Pell grants weren't bad, but then you undermined them with these straw men.

We're the richest country in the world. Our overall GDP is quite a bit more than any other country. We're in the top ten GDP per capita. We should basically be able to afford anything other countries manage to swing.

Other countries don't manage to swing free college for all, that's for sure. For their bright, high-scoring kids, maybe.....but not every mediocre student who managed to squeak through high school with a C- average.