Thousand bux a month or tax wealthy elite 70%

I should bookmark this thread so I can say I told you so a half-century from now.

 

But Boomers might have made things so bad their effects bleed into those generations too

 

It was something the OP said about me....

 

Ok. It's been tough to follow all the postings in this thread.

And the OP is 16 years old.......This is why we can't have nice things.

 

The Mighty Orange God Emperor FTW!

{I'll vote Libertarian, or maybe for the Starbucks guy, but anyway.....}

 

Many would say that there has been a lot of price inflation.

Measuring inflation is an interesting thing. Many argue that the most important costs for everyday Americans are not included in the government's analysis.

Apparently, the govt leaves the following out of its analysis: Your cost of housing (mortgage/rent), various insurance policies, university/college education, automobile purchase costs, fuel costs....all have been going up significantly over the past decade or so.

But none of these (IIRC) is included in the govt's analysis.

So, the govt says there is no inflation -- but in fact there has been quite a lot of inflation, and in the most important areas; things you essentially have to purchase.

Side note: fuel costs of course go up and down with the price of oil; and I can't remember if the govt puts food in its inflation model.

Essentially, the way that the govt measures inflation is flawed.

 

I absolutely prefer Trump to either one of those. I prefer him to anyone in the current Democrat field of candidates or known potential candidates.

 

So, $1,000 in a poor man's pocket will cause inflation, but that same $1,000 in a rich man's pocket will not? I think the inflation argument is a boogieman.[/QUOTE]

As an aside, the gov't taking a bit less from someone who earned their income through hard work is not the same thing as giving someone other people's money through taxation and redistribution. There is a pretty steady drumbeat of "the wealthy just got paid by the government." No, the government (in some cases -- not mine and not those in high SALT states) is taking a little less of their money from them.

Also, I watched the video. 3 Trillion is a LOT of money. To explain why it won't really cost that much, Yang, among other things, states we would need to add a VAT which naturally increases the costs of goods.

You might think inflation is a boogie man, but economists are constantly trying to walk the line between recession and rampant inflation. Maybe you recall the good old days of WIN?

 

I agree with you that they won't go after the 100k earners. But, people like free things and unsurprisingly, some people after receiving free things begin to feel entitled to them as a right. (I am going to leave alone the sentiment I am picking up that it would be outrageous to tax the middle class at 70% on their incremental dollars (people wouldn't stand for it), but good fiscal and social policy to do so to higher earners. It goes back to everyone is happy for someone else to pick up the tab. Where that line is drawn depends on where you may be standing.

With all of the free things being thrown around currently, taxing the uber wealthy won't do it. They will need to get a bigger pool -- but not too big so as to drive off voters.

I watched some interviews of folks attending the conference at Davos, and folks were opining (fwiw) that the sweet spot will be 250k to 300k. That will raise a lot of money, will disenfranchise some voters, but they will be made up by those voters who surprisingly enjoy the free stuff being paid for from the work of those higher earners.

So, you are completely right that they won't go so low as to alienate their voters. I disagree (just my opinion obviously) that they won't go low enough to start affecting people who believe it or not don't consider themselves wealthy and will likely resent the heck out of it.

And I have read posters opine that it won't impact human behavior because 30 cents (or some reports have it at 10 cents) is better than nothing. I will tell you unless you are born wealthy or lucky, there are a lot of tradeoffs to get the opportunity to try and make more money. You miss time from family, get called away from vacations (if you take them) and generally can be on call full time. I disagree that people won't decide to take quality of life over hard work if they are being penalized too much for it.[/QUOTE]

Edited for my complete inability to navigate this site correctly. Jumpship may be on to something.

 

There will be howls from the left (!, IKR) about value added taxes being "regressive," which they actually are (depending on what goods/services get a VAT).

Gerald Ford for the WIN!

 

Lol, this was after you edited?

Anyway, lots of stuff in there, some of which I agree with. What strikes me though is a difference in axioms. You talk about the government taking more or less of what people earn. I don't think of wealth in those terms. Our society creates value, and then we have this economy that dynamically determines how much of the bounty should be credited to each person. There is no "deserving." There are no "free things." Even hard work doesn't matter. There is only optimizing your claim in the system. So, if we want to adjust the rules, so long as we're fair, predictable, and not capricious, incentivize the right behaviors, and don't make a system that is self-defeating, it's fine. My point isn't even to find a way to pay for the goodies I want, I want a system that shrinks the discrepancies in how much of the bounty is credited to each person. Jeff Bezos had a good idea and he built a great company that is changing the world. I appreciate it. Do I appreciate it to the tune of $137 billion? No. He had a good idea, he did good work, but he was overcompensated. Why is it okay to run an economy that awards that much to one guy? (I know, I know, "profit motive;" but I bet if we told young Jeff Bezos that he'd never be worth more than $13 billion, he'd have done it anyway.)

 

Will I still be checking Clutchfans when I'm 102?

 

Yeah, I still haven't figured out how to partially quote someone without ending up in the gray as well. Thank god I'm not doing equations on a calculator...

I think Bezos also took huge risks. As did his investors. There was a lot of initial skepticism that Amazon would actually ever be profitable. That kind of innovation and risk taking should be rewarded. And he may have done it, but without the profit incentive, I'm not sure the various rounds of financing would have been there year after year. You and I just disagree on whether he was overcompensated.

On our differing views of the economy and whether someone earns something or not, I concede that there are a lot of people who are born into wealth and believe they are geniuses as a result.

But, overall, I'm a bigger fan of the the old Little Red Hen story and believe that one should get the benefit of one's efforts.

(And again, I'm not opposed to a safety net. I'm not opposed to progressive taxes. I'm not opposed to helping out those who can not help themselves or who start behind for a host of reasons we could list --- I am opposed to what appears to be the increasingly common viewpoint that people are entitled to things just because.)

 

I wondered why this thread was still going now I see.

This jumpship guy has to be an alt account for somebody right?

 

definitely

 

biff and I may not agree on many things, but pretty sure neither of us are delusional on this question