**** Elections thread *****

[JimmyS1985]

family farms is one thing, but why is his estate tax repeal also benefitting people with over $20 billion in wealth? I mean they're not small family farms.

I mean why not just make an exception, if your estate exceeds something like $500 million, you start paying 55% or so for every dollar over $500 million. A tax free $500 million, I don't know anyone who would complain about that.

I'm just throwing numbers out btw, but we need to figure out a way to narrow the income/wealth gap, and if there's a better method to do that than increase taxes only on the wealthiest of the wealthy, I'd like to hear it.

[wufwugy]

family farms is one thing, but why is his estate tax repeal also benefitting people with over $20 billion in wealth? I mean they're not small family farms.

I mean why not just make an exception, if your estate exceeds something like $500 million, you start paying 55% or so for every dollar over $500 million. A tax free $500 million, I don't know anyone who would complain about that.

I'm just throwing numbers out btw, but we need to figure out a way to narrow the income/wealth gap, and if there's a better method to do that than increase taxes only on the wealthiest of the wealthy, I'd like to hear it.

Scott Adams has addressed this. He said that he would very likely stop working on his new projects if Hillary's estate tax plan was passed. And I believe him. The inputs to his estate has already been taxed at a pretty high rate; the estate tax, especially a high one, is just a great burden on top of all that.

Anyways, the reason it's important for somebody like Scott Adams to not be discouraged from working due to very high taxes is because they benefit society so much. He's working on an app that he thinks may one day be near the popularity level of Uber. This type of thing is relevant all over the place. We don't want to discourage production, but that's what high taxes do.

[JimmyS1985]

Scott Adams has addressed this. He said that he would very likely stop working on his new projects if Hillary's estate tax plan was passed. And I believe him. The inputs to his estate has already been taxed at a pretty high rate; the estate tax, especially a high one, is just a great burden on top of all that.

Anyways, the reason it's important for somebody like Scott Adams to not be discouraged from working due to very high taxes is because they benefit society so much. He's working on an app that he thinks may one day be near the popularity level of Uber. This type of thing is relevant all over the place. We don't want to discourage production, but that's what high taxes do.

The problem with giving a tax cut to someone who already is flush with far more disposable income than your average person, is they're the quickest to run into "the law of diminishing marginal utility".

If you got $500 million tax free in an inheritance, you have enough money for you to never work, or your kids, kids, kids, to never work.

I don't think unbridled wealth is good for a society, or an economy. Most people who support these tax cuts argue on moral grounds, and perhaps shaky economic grounds, I argue purely on economic grounds however that heavily investing in our wealthy be alleviating them of their former tax burden, actually does damage to the country, and the economy.

If you pass a giant tax cut, it should not be financed with borrowed money from china and japan, in order to pay for it, if that's the case, than it's better for the strength of the nation, to have never been passed in the first place.

[wufwugy]

The problem with giving a tax cut to someone who already is flush with far more disposable income than your average person, is they're the quickest to run into "the law of diminishing marginal utility".

The individual will have diminishing marginal utility of their own consumption, but that isn't the only thing their wealth does. The "leftover" wealth is all savings (which is future consumption) and investment (which is what drives economic growth).

I argue purely on economic grounds however that heavily investing in our wealthy be alleviating them of their former tax burden, actually does damage to the country, and the economy.

On average, net taxation already comes from the wealthy. On average the poor and middle class pay less net tax (IIRC it's actually negative tax). Also, we should keep in mind that it's the private entities that created the wealth in the first place. We should not frame it as government having a duty to the proceeds created by citizens.

If you pass a giant tax cut, it should not be financed with borrowed money from china and japan, in order to pay for it, if that's the case, than it's better for the strength of the nation, to have never been passed in the first place.

I agree. Reform involves creating an economy that grows at a pace at least double what it has under Obama and drastically reducing welfare. Tax reductions can help the former but also can only be permanent as long as the latter doesn't outpace.

[JimmyS1985]

I forget how much CEO pay has gone up in the past 30 years, lets say I dunno, 700%? I'm throwing numbers out btw.

I think if the CEO gets a 700% pay raise in 30 years, I think the average worker or median household income should get a 700% pay raise in 30 years. You know an economy where everybody truly does benefit when the countries economy expands.

I disagree with the idea, that only CEO pay should go up, but your average worker's should remain stagnant, things of that nature. Or perhaps I should say median household income remains stagnant, to get rid of the extremities at both ends of the extremely poor, and extremely rich.

[wufwugy]

I forget how much CEO pay has gone up in the past 30 years, lets say I dunno, 700%? I'm throwing numbers out btw.

I think if the CEO gets a 700% pay raise in 30 years, I think the average worker or median household income should get a 700% pay raise in 30 years. You know an economy where everybody truly does benefit when the countries economy expands.

I disagree with the idea, that only CEO pay should go up, but your average worker's should remain stagnant, things of that nature. Or perhaps I should say median household income remains stagnant, to get rid of the extremities at both ends of the extremely poor, and extremely rich.

Wages and salaries at all levels reflect productivity pretty well. The faster rise at the top level compared to lower levels is a natural phenomenon that cannot be fixed with government policies. The government can make some difference, but it isn't through regulatory redistribution policies.

The common idea that it is wrong that CEO income growth is faster than others is itself wrong. CEO income growth rates have been pushed up by things like economies of scale. Differential incomes is not a sign of bad in an economy. The bad comes from regulatory, tax, and welfare policies that make it more necessary for companies to have things like economies of scale in order to function.

[JimmyS1985]

Wages and salaries at all levels reflect productivity pretty well. The faster rise at the top level compared to lower levels is a natural phenomenon that cannot be fixed with government policies. The government can make some difference, but it isn't through regulatory redistribution policies.

The common idea that it is wrong that CEO income growth is faster than others is itself wrong. CEO income growth rates have been pushed up by things like economies of scale. Differential incomes is not a sign of bad in an economy. The bad comes from regulatory, tax, and welfare policies that make it more necessary for companies to have things like economies of scale in order to function.

I'm reminded of the El Salvadoran Civil War, they had an economic system in place, that funneled 95% of the nations income to the wealthiest 2% of the population. This disparity helped fuel an extremely violent and brutal Civil War.

That's why I like watching that movie "Romero" it's about Catholic Bishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador who became a Martyr during the El Salvadoran Civil War, the wealthy people had him assassinated because he was helping out the poor masses too much, almost a Christ like character really.

I think he was Canonized by the Pope recently, which is a major step on the way to Sainthood.