Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
Talk is cheap. What proposals have been voted on in the house and senate? Paul Ryan is speaker of the house, you mean he cannot even get a vote on his proposals?
Click to expand...
Beautiful example of moving-the-goalposts you’ve given here.
 
zz912 said:
Beautiful example of moving-the-goalposts you’ve given here.
Click to expand...
No goalposts were moved. The poster was responding to the following comment. I will admit that republicans sometimes informally mention tax reform. When it comes to proposals that get voted on, they come up very short.
There has been talk, but that is just that, talk. Once they get into office the idea of tax reform goes out the window.
Click to expand...
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Talk is cheap. What proposals have been voted on in the house and senate? Paul Ryan is speaker of the house, you mean he cannot even get a vote on his proposals?
Click to expand...
To my understanding, Ryan has not had a shot at it yet. His first budget as speaker has not yet happened.
 
ringil said:
You mean rich people?

I say tax them. They benefit from our capitalist system so let them pay to be part of it.
Click to expand...
As one thing, nobody quite agrees on what “rich” is. I recall some time ago Obama proposing that anyone making $250,000 would fit his definition of “rich”. Well, that is a lot of money, but it doesn’t mean a person, particularly one who only meets it for a year when selling an investment, is truly “rich”. There is actually no correlation between wealth and income except at the very bottom. Even at the very top, there isn’t, necessarily.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As one thing, nobody quite agrees on what “rich” is. I recall some time ago Obama proposing that anyone making $250,000 would fit his definition of “rich”. Well, that is a lot of money, but it doesn’t mean a person, particularly one who only meets it for a year when selling an investment, is truly “rich”. There is actually no correlation between wealth and income except at the very bottom. Even at the very top, there isn’t, necessarily.
Click to expand...
Yeah,I remember in 92 when Clinton was running.His promise to only raise taxes on the rich really resonated with one of my sisters’ and her husband.They resented the rest of the family for being more successful monitarilly and as such stated that was why they were for BC.Little did they know that BC idea of rich included anyone making 34K a year and up:rolleyes:Needless to say my sis and BIL are now Republucans
 
Ridgerunner said:
As one thing, nobody quite agrees on what “rich” is. I recall some time ago Obama proposing that anyone making $250,000 would fit his definition of “rich”. Well, that is a lot of money, but it doesn’t mean a person, particularly one who only meets it for a year when selling an investment, is truly “rich”. There is actually no correlation between wealth and income except at the very bottom. Even at the very top, there isn’t, necessarily.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on how you measure income. If you measure income on a Haig-Simons basis, the correlation is pretty strong. If you measure it on a taxable income basis, it is much weaker. There is no compelling reason, however, to think that taxable income is the appropriate way to measure income.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig%E2%80%93Simons_income
 
ringil said:
You mean rich people?

I say tax them. They benefit from our capitalist system so let them pay to be part of it.
Click to expand...
Mine was not a class-envy comment. Do you not recall the IRS investigating conservative groups that they did not like? Do you not remember the hearings on same where much use of made of the 5th amendment? I don’t envy people who have more than I do. Perhaps they worked harder than I did. Maybe they made better choices in their lives. Envy of one’s neighbor is not an attractive endeavor.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I think it depends on how you measure income. If you measure income on a Haig-Simons basis, the correlation is pretty strong. If you measure it on a taxable income basis, it is much weaker. There is no compelling reason, however, to think that taxable income is the appropriate way to measure income.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig%E2%80%93Simons_income
Click to expand...
I was not heretofore familiar with the Haig-Simons formulation. But it seems to me (and perhaps this is your point) that it’s more accurate to say I=C +T+NW. And NW could be canceled by “T” (transfer payments, both voluntary and involuntary)

Ultimately, all NW =T because people die and their wealth transfers to others in one way or another. But it’s momentarily NW or “wealth”, and that’s true.

However, since for most people I= C+T, almost no matter what “I” is, the Haig-Simons formulation will mostly be missing that “Delta NW” element.

Interesting stuff, and I thank you for calling Haig-Simons to my attention. Would that I were better educated in economics than I am.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As one thing, nobody quite agrees on what “rich” is. I recall some time ago Obama proposing that anyone making $250,000 would fit his definition of “rich”. Well, that is a lot of money, but it doesn’t mean a person, particularly one who only meets it for a year when selling an investment, is truly “rich”. There is actually no correlation between wealth and income except at the very bottom. Even at the very top, there isn’t, necessarily.
Click to expand...
He meant consistently making $250,000 a year. Yes, that is “rich” by any reasonable definition. But there are people in the US who are “worth” hundreds of billions of dollars. To debate on the meaning of “rich” in the face of such ridiculous wealth is just a dilatory tactic.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
He meant consistently making $250,000 a year. Yes, that is “rich” by any reasonable definition. But there are people in the US who are “worth” hundreds of billions of dollars. To debate on the meaning of “rich” in the face of such ridiculous wealth is just a dilatory tactic.
Click to expand...
No. Obama applied it even to one-time gains. As far as I know, there isn’t a single person in the U.S. who is worth “hundreds of billions”. The richest at present is Bill Gates, whose net worth is said to be $78 billion.

Now, at what wealth level do you want to start taking away peoples’ money? a billion? A million? Where?

And where do you want to start taxing people more than 40 or 50%? Lots of high earners pay that, so how high do you want it to go and starting at what income level?
 
Ridgerunner said:
No. Obama applied it even to one-time gains. As far as I know, there isn’t a single person in the U.S. who is worth “hundreds of billions”. The richest at present is Bill Gates, whose net worth is said to be $78 billion.

Now, at what wealth level do you want to start taking away peoples’ money? a billion? A million? Where?

And where do you want to start taxing people more than 40 or 50%? Lots of high earners pay that, so how high do you want it to go and starting at what income level?
Click to expand...
You’re right, I should have said “tens of billions”. Regardless, in the face of such wealth, it isn’t incumbent on me to give an exact starting point. I would say $250,000 a year is more than a reasonable starting point.

The main point is, to have a small percentage of people with enough money to own multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. while a large number have to struggle with the necessities of life is morally objectionable.

But let me ask you, is there any concentration of wealth that you think is morally objectionable? Or is there a moral right to accumulate unlimited wealth when others are poor?
 
didymus said:
Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections
Click to expand...
Wow, applause for the McClatchy news org. A LARGE kettle of fish has been caught up. Amazing - how can one begin to tackle all this corruption. It may have always been happening at some less sophisticated level but like internet technology, the crooks have bit off a little bit more than they can chew. FOLLOW THE MONEY! Willie Sutton, a notorious but likable bank robber, was asked: “Willie, why do you rob banks?” He readily answered:
“That’s where the money is!”. 👍
 
Expatreprocedit said:
You’re right, I should have said “tens of billions”. Regardless, in the face of such wealth, it isn’t incumbent on me to give an exact starting point. I would say $250,000 a year is more than a reasonable starting point.

The main point is, to have a small percentage of people with enough money to own multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. while a large number have to struggle with the necessities of life is morally objectionable.

But let me ask you, is there any concentration of wealth that you think is morally objectionable? Or is there a moral right to accumulate unlimited wealth when others are poor?
Click to expand...
People who make $250,000 don’t have multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. In some places, that’s a middle-middle class income level. In some, it would be a very prosperous level. But it’s not “rich”.

Wealth, in and of itself, is not morally objectionable, and the Church doesn’t say that it is. What one does with it might be morally objectionable or meritorious, but wealth in and of itself is not evil.

It is one of the great Marxist myths that economies are “zero sum games”, that is, if one man is wealthy that necessarily means another is poor as a result. But in even a slumping economy like our own, it’s not the case. The poverty of a particular person in this society is somewhat dependent on sheer chance, but it’s much more often due to poor life decisions like dropping out of school or getting pregnant at age 15. Drug use is definitely a cause of poverty.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No. Obama applied it even to one-time gains. As far as I know, there isn’t a single person in the U.S. who is worth “hundreds of billions”. The richest at present is Bill Gates, whose net worth is said to be $78 billion.

Now, at what wealth level do you want to start taking away peoples’ money? a billion? A million? Where?

And where do you want to start taxing people more than 40 or 50%? Lots of high earners pay that, so how high do you want it to go and starting at what income level?
Click to expand...
Down to a measly $76 billion now! LOL

forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#version:static
 
Ridgerunner said:
People who make $250,000 don’t have multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. In some places, that’s a middle-middle class income level. In some, it would be a very prosperous level. But it’s not “rich”.

Wealth, in and of itself, is not morally objectionable, and the Church doesn’t say that it is. What one does with it might be morally objectionable or meritorious, but wealth in and of itself is not evil.

It is one of the great Marxist myths that economies are “zero sum games”, that is, if one man is wealthy that necessarily means another is poor as a result. But in even a slumping economy like our own, it’s not the case. The poverty of a particular person in this society is somewhat dependent on sheer chance, but it’s much more often due to poor life decisions like dropping out of school or getting pregnant at age 15. Drug use is definitely a cause of poverty.
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my question. I asked if there is a moral right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth when others are in need.
 
Ridgerunner said:
People who make $250,000 don’t have multiple mansions, luxury jets, etc. In some places, that’s a middle-middle class income level. In some, it would be a very prosperous level. But it’s not “rich”.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say what you ascribed to me above. Those were two separate paragraphs; in the first I was saying $250000 would be a fair point to start higher taxation, in the second I was talking about the richest people in the country, and yes, they have multiple mansions and luxury jets.

Please don’t misrepresent what I write.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top