dagblog - Comments for "Tax Policy Wins!"

Hal and Bernie Sanders are

Peter — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:36:00 +0000

Hal and Bernie Sanders are little more than Social Democrat Capitalists with fantasies of top down redistribution of some small fraction of the monstrous wealth held by the few and fortunate. This illusion of fairness and faux equality was used in Europe and somewhat in the US to protect Capitalism and destroy the Socialist movement. This Liberal Stateist solution even at the margins is doomed to fail because many of the less but still fortunate population will go to war to protect those who have accumulated massive wealth as illustrated by comments here.

As we are seeing in Europe when push comes to shove the Capitalist Class has dismantled much of the Social Democrat's gains when they threatened profits and neoliberal austerity is the future social plan there.

Socialism in its ideal form would avoid these problems and roadblocks because wealth would be distributed fairly at the source of its production not after it was accumulated by the fortunate and turned into power that maintains the class system and the wealth it produces.

To be honest I don't think

Jeff Linder — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:33:28 +0000

In reply to Jeff, you simply don't

To be honest I don't think they understand themselves either.

Jeff, you simply don't

Oxy Mora — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:54:52 +0000

In reply to In Hal's eyes anyone whom he

Jeff, you simply don't understand the compassionate psychological makeup of a true Socialist.

In Hal's eyes anyone whom he

Jeff Linder — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:50:03 +0000

In reply to Wouldn't you call Sam Walton

In Hal's eyes anyone whom he imagines has more than he does is "lucky". Anyone who is "lucky" doesn't deserve their windfall so Hal believes he is justified in confiscating their windfall and giving it away to someone else. Hal imagines himself as a modern day Robin Hood but he isn't stealing anything...he calls it a tax so he can sleep at night. While not stealing from the "lucky" Hal wants the recognition of being a Robin Hood and someone who cares about the plight of others. Hal's compassion is limited, however, into how deeply he can reach into someone else's pockets.

I agree it would be good if

HSG — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:01:25 +0000

In reply to While your numbers are

I agree it would be good if Bernie put out more specifics. OTH - more specifics would lead to immediate attacks rather than a conversation about the ultimate wisdom of returning to the rates that helped us build the strongest economy in the world and the largest middle class.

While your numbers are

barefooted — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:18:34 +0000

In reply to I don't blame all of societal

While your numbers are interesting as a blogger's opinion, it's the Sanders tax plan that I need to see. The candidate has said it may or may not be offered prior to Iowa; his campaign manager says definitely before the caucus. We'll see. But it seems to me that backing up your statements and proposals should preceed asking voters to accept them.

Shifting goal posts, Hal -

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:46:52 +0000

In reply to Wouldn't you call Sam Walton

Shifting goal posts, Hal - "We can determine who's luckiest by how much money they have." Well, Bowie just died a fairly wealthy man, yet he spent almost 10 years before Ziggy trying to define his "luck", and then he took a lot of chances to parley that into new styles and new "luck". Sam Walton built his "luck" - sure, any success has a bit of luck to it, along with tons of work. Yes, children often inherit that "luck", and I'm all for the estate and inheritance and gift taxes, but don't get the high tax on fortune without figuring out how to encourage enterprise and taking chances.

So how much should Bill Clinton or Sam Walton or David Bowie or Sergei Brin and Conrad Hilton be taxed on their inventiveness? And then how much should they be allowed to pass to their kids and at what rate? They're 2 different questions - conflating them doesnt help address a significant issue. And of course for every Bill Clinton or Sam Walton, there are thousands of lesser successes who likely couldn't withstand the 95% taxation the Beatles once had to put up with, which probably didn't help the decaying greyness of England's cities of the 60's & 70's that inspired Bowie's dystopian lyrics of "5 years".

Wouldn't you call Sam Walton

HSG — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:37:20 +0000

In reply to Sam Walton built up an

Wouldn't you call Sam Walton's grand and great grand-children lucky? How about the great great grand children of John D. Rockefeller who are each worth $100s of millions solely because they are direct descendants of the old robber baron? The same dynamic is in play for many many of the richest Americans today. Even many, like Chelsea Clinton who reportedly brought $15 million into her marriage to a $15 million dollar hedge-fund manager, "earned" their nut because they enjoyed very fortunate connections to the rich and powerful not by dint of hard work, effort, and innovation. Wouldn't you call that luck PP?

Sam Walton built up an

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:32:12 +0000

In reply to The Kochs, the Waltons, the

Sam Walton built up an innovative hub-and-spoke operation for large scale merchandising. Joe Kennedy illegally bootlegged liquor. Hard to see how they even compare. List some other rich families for us please - it's almost like you're proving a point. The Gandhis, the Medicis, the Rothschildren, the Guggenheims, the Borgias, the Jackson Five, the Flying Wallendas, the Trapp Family, Beau & Jeff Bridges with Michelle Pfeiffer, the Branch Davidians, the Kardashians, Billy Graham Ministries, Downtown Abbey Miniseries, Leona Helmsley, Sergey Brin, the Spinks Brothers, Paisley Park, Sylvester Stallone, Sly Stone, Emma Stone, Stone Temple Pilots...

I don't blame all of societal

HSG — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:01:13 +0000

In reply to I'm curious: who and/or what

I don't blame all of societal ills on not nearly progressive enough taxation nor have I ever said or written that. I do believe that most can be alleviated by it. I'd probably start making the code more progressive at above $500K per annum and then stair-step it up so that income above $2-3 million would be taxed at 90%+. But I'm happy to reconsider these numbers. In terms of estate taxes, the 50% rate kicks in on estates above $5.5 million, I think. That seems fair but again I'd stair-step it up so that assets over $100 million left by decedent would be taxed at well over 90%. This would mean no more billionaires by inheritance. Again I'm happy to discuss any or all alternatives.