Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[baldgriff]

"the mega wealthy understand they are in a fortunate position and would pay more as a class, but no one would individually just give more in taxes as an individual just as a charity. It would have to be law where every other mega wealthy 50 mill a year earner or whatever also has to pay as codified in taxes."

why this makes any sense to you, I will leave for the board to decide. and with this, I move on.

As a class - there are none where the entire class is willing to give more of their hard earned money to the government. Their may be a few individuals that will say its likely a good idea (the optics are great), but also understand that as a class it will never happen.

[gcstomp]

bald, you could be right. maybe its just world play by a few who know it wont happen but looks good to say, and whats downside to saying this really.

but experiment i laid out for 100k earners who suddenly just have to pay $100 tax next year, then a few years later tax rate goes back to normal, they would be law abiding people who would just comply and pay what they owe. be it 24%, or $100. its idiotic to think they would just give more to irs. that would be charity, taxes arent charity, 1000 out of 1000 knows there exist great charities to give to, and any one would be better than giving more to govt. if they wanted to go that route.

how someone could say they dont get this, really? assuming you pay taxes now, next year taxes for you, taxes are cut to 1/10th, why arent you just giving more to irs? i know, because that would be stupid, that is not tax, that would be charity, and you could think of a 1000 ways to give to better charity. hey, then year after taxes are again normal rate, why are you now paying new rate willingly. because you are not stupid, you always pay your legal taxes. anyhoo, enough of talking about obvious.

[Sour Masher]

As a class - there are none where the entire class is willing to give more of their hard earned money to the government. Their may be a few individuals that will say its likely a good idea (the optics are great), but also understand that as a class it will never happen.

I tend to agree with the idea that most folks don't want to pay more taxes. However, I bristle any time folks evoke "hard earned" when talking about the mega wealthy. Putting aside that many ultra wealthy inherent their wealth and do very little work, and accepting that there are very hard working, focused, self-made millionaires and even billionaires, at a certain point, climbing higher and higher up the wealth scale gets further and further away from reflecting the ratio of work too wealth. Much of the exponential benefits the ultra wealthy obtain derive from thee inherent advantages of the systems we have in place that allow folks to build upon the labor of others to acquire massive wealth. It can be rightly argued that those capitalistic system are good in that they motivate innovation, drive, ambition, etc. However, the idea that a 5 year old Youtuber like Ryan from Ryan's Toy Video's works hard to earn his 22 million in 2018, or that Oprah works 1000s of times harder than others in society is obviously wrong.

If wealth acquisition was simply a function of the amount of hard work one does, everyone would agree that any progressive tax or wealth redistribution would be unfair. However, it is not, most especially when dealing with the ultra wealthy. They benefit from a system that allows them to gain massive amounts of capital, so proposing changes that pay back into the system, while still keeping absurd amounts of wealth for themselves isn't immoral, nor does it dampen the drive for wealth acquisition.

[B-Fly]

Not sure I agree with Nate's analysis here, and I'm sure some folks here will jump on the "identity politics" aspect of the analysis, but it's an interesting read and thought exercise:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

Of the groups he defines, despite my advanced age I appear to fit closest in the Millenials and Friends segment, as he's described them, with some Party Loyalist tendencies as well, so this analysis would peg me as most inclined to support Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke or Corey Booker.

[Sour Masher]

gcstomp,

anyone who believes that their tax rate is too low, as a moral issue, logically would send the IRS the amount they believe is proper.
NOTHING would stop them from also seeking to then have that rate codified so that similarly-wealthy people would pay the same.

I don't understand your logic even a little bit. as I said, it makes no sense for anyone to truly believe in something - but not follow through because the federal government isn't forcing them to do so. is there any other issue where you think someone can make a claim of believing in something, but they are forced to the sidelines because they can only do what the federal government tells them? what am I missing?

the Ocasio-Cortez one is a completely different story. she doesn't have much money, and we all have to eat.

JJ, many of the ultra wealthy our business owners, right, with much of their wealth tied to their business. As an example, Bezos, the richest person in the world. These folks, as I've said before, our ultra competitive. They have to be. They care more about their relative position in the game than the rules/tax rates, I'd argue. Look at what a massive advantage Amazon had over brick and mortar for years with the tax loopholes they exploited. What other retailers wanted was a level playing field. They were okay with charging customers sales tax as long as their competitors had to as well. Because any inequities in taxation can cause massive advantages that lead to losses and gains that are exponentially higher than the money lost by a higher tax rate on all.

So while, again, I agree that no group wants to pay more taxes, I think the notion that wealthy business owners would choose to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by paying higher taxes than competitors, allowing them to reinvest profits to grow their businesses, is silly. But some of those people may feel it is just and proper to pay a little more as a group, as long as everyone is doing it. If I were a business owner in that class, I know I wouldn't volunteer to give more money to the government; however, if a tax hike on my class occurred for the greater good, I'd be okay with it, as long as I know it affects my competitors the same way, and thus I am not at risk of losing everything due to others having a big taxation advantage over me.

As far as the non-business owners--the entertainers, those that inherited wealth, they are still living like kings and queens, even if they pay 5%-10% more of the income in taxes. If they don't understand how much they benefit from the system that asks them to pay more into it, oh well. The tax increase on them ensures their fans/supporters can keep affording to support them, and don't right and go all French Revolution on them. It is in the best interest of the ultra wealthy for society as a whole to be healthy, happy, and have their most basic needs met.

[baldgriff]

Feel free to bristle all you want. The truth of the matter is that NO Income Bracket is willingly going to offer to give the government anymore of their money - no matter how it is earned. I am no real fan of Oprah, but lets be honest, that lady has worked exceedingly hard to get where she is today and should be allowed to reap the rewards of her work.

Her Wiki Bio states "Oprah Winfrey is an American media executive, actress, talk show host, television producer and philanthropist. She is best known for her talk show The Oprah Winfrey Show, which was the highest-rated television program of its kind in history and was nationally syndicated from 1986 to 2011 in Chicago." Further on: "Winfrey was born into poverty in rural Mississippi to a teenage single mother and later raised in inner-city Milwaukee. She has stated that she was molested during her childhood and early teens and became pregnant at 14; her son was born prematurely and died in infancy.[15] Winfrey was then sent to live with the man she calls her father, Vernon Winfrey, a barber in Tennessee, and landed a job in radio while still in high school. By 19, she was a co-anchor for the local evening news."

This woman has made it given most every challenge their is. She is now reaping the fruits of her labor and her investments I assume. So yeah - she worked extremely hard. I dont see her standing at the head of the line offering to give the government back more from what she has earned. Its just disingenuous to believe that just because someone has more than you do - that they are somehow obligated to either give it to others or to have the government take some of it to redistribute to others.

I am by no means rich - I worked hard to get to where I am. I didnt graduate College, but I still was able to work my through the ranks and land a pretty good job. If I can make my house payment, put food on the table and make sure the kids are ok - that is good enough for me. I think I already pay more in taxes than I should, because we have allowed government to run areas of our lives that we should be responsible for - I pay it, because I prefer not going to jail. That said, I dont believe anyone of us should be telling the others of us how they should be spending their funds - or what "moral obligation" they have because they happen to be in a higher tax bracket than ourselves.

[Judge Jude]

Sour,
I was talking about personal income taxes while you appear to be talking about business taxes.

[Sour Masher]

Come on Bald, you really think Oprah works 1000s of times harder than you? You mentioned hard work being a thing for the wealthy, and I pushed back that while Oprah says she is a billionaire because of hard work and talent, I say, yes, that is part of it, but a huge part of it is luck and the system that allows her to reap so many rewards. Her whole empire stands on social structures and technologies she did not invent. Her extreme wealth is a product of a healthy society with lots of disposable income and leisure time. And she probably pays less taxes than you in terms of parentage of wealth and income. Is that fair? Would it be fair is she paid the same percentage? What about those trust fund kids who inherited billions and party all day and night? You wanna protect their tax bracket too?

Running a society costs money. Without that money, the society falls apart, and all those wealthy people go down with the ship. Asking them to pay a bit more of a percentage than folks like you and me isn't unfair. That is a separate issue from how much we all pay, and what our government should and should not spend out taxes on. I know you are a small government guy. I get that. I don't get when small government guys not only want lower taxes for all, but seem especially protective of uber rich paying more than they do as a percentage of income and wealth.

[B-Fly]

Feel free to bristle all you want. The truth of the matter is that NO Income Bracket is willingly going to offer to give the government anymore of their money - no matter how it is earned.

I do it every year. Not only do I donate money to the general funds of the PTOs and the foundation that support my local public school district, but I make targeted donations for fee waivers and supplemental programs aimed at the lower-income students knowing that my own kids would never qualify for those programs. I also regularly vote "yes" on ballot initiatives that involve expanding government revenue through tax increases or debt issuance (which leads to tax increases for debt service), to fund specific government projects/programs. I'm not remotely unique or alone on that score. And yes, at the highest tax bracket, the likes of Gates and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Bloomberg have frequently donated/granted their personal funds to governmental entities to support governmental programs.

So (1) lots of people in various tax brackets willingly give government entities more money than they're obligated by law/tax code to give, and (2) democratically, we can absolutely elect candidates who promote governmental solutions that do or do not entail tax increases, whether it be higher marginal income tax rates on the highest earners, higher estate taxes, more debt issuance, etc. Representative government can't and never has been able to perform the functions of government without a system for drawing revenue from the governed, whether to provide for the common defense or to advance the general welfare.

[baldgriff]

I do it every year. Not only do I donate money to the general funds of the PTOs and the foundation that support my local public school district, but I make targeted donations for fee waivers and supplemental programs aimed at the lower-income students knowing that my own kids would never qualify for those programs. I also regularly vote "yes" on ballot initiatives that involve expanding government revenue through tax increases or debt issuance (which leads to tax increases for debt service), to fund specific government projects/programs. I'm not remotely unique or alone on that score. And yes, at the highest tax bracket, the likes of Gates and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Bloomberg have frequently donated/granted their personal funds to governmental entities to support governmental programs.

So (1) lots of people in various tax brackets willingly give government entities more money than they're obligated by law/tax code to give, and (2) democratically, we can absolutely elect candidates who promote governmental solutions that do or do not entail tax increases, whether it be higher marginal income tax rates on the highest earners, higher estate taxes, more debt issuance, etc. Representative government can't and never has been able to perform the functions of government without a system for drawing revenue from the governed, whether to provide for the common defense or to advance the general welfare.

Fly -
I didnt state that there are individuals that do this of their own volition out of a good heart and caring for others. I stated pretty clearly there is NO Income Bracket. As an aside aren't those personal funds that are donated able to be used as deductions to reduce your taxes? So rather than actually paying more - you are spending/donating your money to the targeted programs that you value.

Also, I never stated that the government shouldnt have a means by collecting funds i.e. taxation. I said I personally feel that we give government to much already, but I pay it because I dont want to go to jail.

[gcstomp]

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Buffett-GatesBloomberg/241235

It would be disappointing, if true, that those you named Bfly would be giving to IRS in such an inefficient way. No one has given more, or pledged to give more in future, to help humanity, environment, global health initiatives than Buffett, Gates, others in this link and that is thru the non wasteful highly productive Gates Foundation for example. Why would you give to a ridiculously wasteful entity (IRS) when you have such a better way to direct your resources. Fun link, check to see where some of these big names give.

I am getting a bit of baldgriff as I get older. I see govt as so wasteful with resources relative to where Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg give, per link.

[B-Fly]

Fly -
I didnt state that there are individuals that do this of their own volition out of a good heart and caring for others. I stated pretty clearly there is NO Income Bracket. As an aside aren't those personal funds that are donated able to be used as deductions to reduce your taxes? So rather than actually paying more - you are spending/donating your money to the targeted programs that you value.

Also, I never stated that the government shouldnt have a means by collecting funds i.e. taxation. I said I personally feel that we give government to much already, but I pay it because I dont want to go to jail.

I'm not very good at obtaining or keeping receipts for my charitable donations and forwarding them to the guy we pay to prepare our taxes, so I leave a lot of my charitable donation tax benefits on the table, and my understanding is that since I pay the AMT the tax impact doesn't come remotely close to a recoupment of the donated funds, in any event. So I do not think the donations to public/government-run programs really operate as a dollar-for-dollar displacement of mandatory tax payments into the general public coffers.

[gcstomp]

Thats a 15 month old link, as it looks like Bezos is now # 1 my a good margin in list of wealthiest, combined with how much Gates has been donating to charity, and fluctuations in their stock holdings. Time span of 15 months an there are 50 billion dollar swings, wow. do we declare that is due to hard work? https://www.bloomberg.com/billionair...ffrey-p-bezos/
I am not sure how one would tackle tracking relationship between hard work, and wealth. It certainly is not linear, and when crossing the multi millions per year barrier, for actors, musicians, athletes, other celebrities like Kardashians, you cant reasonably assert their wealth is proportional to their hard work.

[B-Fly]

https://www.philanthropy.com/article...oomberg/241235
It would be disappointing, if true, that those you named Bfly would be giving to IRS in such an inefficient way. No one has given more, or pledged to give more in future, to help humanity, environment, global health initiatives than Buffett, Gates, others in this link and that is thru the non wasteful highly productive Gates Foundation for example. Why would you give to a ridiculously wasteful entity (IRS) when you have such a better way to direct your resources. Fun link, check to see where some of these big names give.

I am getting a bit of baldgriff as I get older. I see govt as so wasteful with resources relative to where Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg give, per link.

Yes, of course, voluntary donations and grants are more focused on supporting or promoting specific programs or initiatives and are generally donated, either directly or through a foundation or NFP, to the governmental entity executing the program. The IRS as a entity is less efficient primarily because it has the duty to monitor/audit/enforce tax laws/tax collection.

Edit to add: I'm not sure your link suggests that Buffett, Gates and Bloomberg's donations aren't going to public/governmental entities. I know for a fact that a great deal of the money from the foundations of Gates, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg and even Walton have gone to governmental entities to support government-run programs.

[baldgriff]

Come on Bald, you really think Oprah works 1000s of times harder than you? You mentioned hard work being a thing for the wealthy, and I pushed back that while Oprah says she is a billionaire because of hard work and talent, I say, yes, that is part of it, but a huge part of it is luck and the system that allows her to reap so many rewards. Her whole empire stands on social structures and technologies she did not invent. Her extreme wealth is a product of a healthy society with lots of disposable income and leisure time. And she probably pays less taxes than you in terms of parentage of wealth and income. Is that fair? Would it be fair is she paid the same percentage? What about those trust fund kids who inherited billions and party all day and night? You wanna protect their tax bracket too?

Oprah worked extremely hard to get to the place where she can say "You get a car, and you get a car and you get a car.... everyone is getting a car". Do I think she works hard in the same way she did when she was coming up the ranks? I would say that if you want to stay on top, you gotta work hard to stay there. I dont know what her work day entails, but I would imagine she is pretty laser focused on what is going on in her world. She earned the money she made the hard way - she has also likely invested a good portion of those funds wisely and earns money based on those wise decisions. Why should I begrudge her one dime of what she has done to make her life what it is today? Why should I think that she has some responsibility to give one dime more of that to the government because she happened to make more than I did.

What system allowed her to go from living in poverty, having a child die while she was a teen, to becoming a co-anchor of a news show at 19 years old. She worked hard in a country that wants people to succeed. She overcame! and yes - She got lucky! (but made some of that luck by working hard). So what if she got lucky! So just because she hit the lottery ticket - she now has some moral obligation to make sure that Joe or Jane Doe(s) in Baton Rouge, or the folks with whatever disability are taken care of, or that she has a responsibility to give the government any more than you or I? Nope - she did the work and gets to reap the benefits - and if she decides to give people cars - its her money and she can do with it as she pleases......

As to the Trust Fund Kids?? Yep - they didnt earn it. They just happened to get lucky. However, it doesnt mean that the person who set up those trusts didnt work hard to earn that money and provide for their heirs, so that they didnt have to be worried about those things we normal people do. Damn - must be really nice to be a trust fund kid - you know because they have more than me - well they should have to pay for Joe or Jane Doe(s) in Baton Rouge, or the folks with whatever disability to be taken care of, or they should have the responsibility to give the government.

Why do I protect the "uber rich"? I dont protect the uber rich. I have been very consistent saying that no one should be required to pay more than another person based on the fact that they have or make more. Some people work harder than others and make more than others. Some people get all of the luck and make more than others. Saying that they should be required to give back more is just wrong. And where does that line start or stop? Nope - government shouldnt be making morality decisions. People should pay their tax - and then spend their money in the manner that they see fit.

B-Fly donates his money to specific charities and targeted programs. The Gates's and Zuckerbergs of the world give to other programs or set up tax shelters called foundations so they can give to where they want to and get a taxable deduction to do so........ thats so they can pay a lower percentage of income tax than I may.

Making a decision that says "Ubers" have more than I do - so they are more responsible than me - well thats part jealousy and part shifting your responsiblity to someone else. Rather than just saying, I dont have money to put to that.

I shouldn't be saying - well I cant pay for it, but I value it so that rich person there should pay for it. That person generally did something, or produced something that allowed them to earn what they earn. I will not begrudge someone for being successful and their success does not create some further responsibility to the entire world. They can spend it how they want - save it how the want and bequeath it to their heirs or anyone else that they choose to make life better for. They have no responsibility to take care of a person or group you or I believe they should take care of - just because they have more than we do.