On-Topic Democracy has been suspended by the Tea Party Republicans!

[Benvolio]

I'm questioning why you are bringing this up because a Democrat has proposed it.

Try to move beyond ad hominem arguments. Think about the issue. The plan does not become viable just because Republicans are bad people.

 

[Alnitak]

Try to move beyond ad hominem arguments. Think about the issue. The plan does not become viable just because Republicans are bad people.

No point if the argument is being brought up in bad faith and one's opinion realigns every time his ideology finds itself on the opposite side of it.

 

[Benvolio]

No point if the argument is being brought up in bad faith and one's opinion realigns every time his ideology finds itself on the opposite side of it.

So your failure ever to agree with Republicans is bad faith? I see. Struggle to think about the issues aside from your partisanship.

 

[T-Rexx]

No one sees the danger of creating a health care system dependent upon borrowing the entirety of the government subsidy?

What we see is the danger of a healthcare system that is consuming 18% of GDP, and rising.

That is not sustainable.

What Republicans are advocating is more expensive healthcare, treatment of fewer Americans who suffer from disease, and damage to the American economy. All because they do not want a man they hate to be credited with doing good.

 

[Alnitak]

So your failure ever to agree with Republicans is bad faith? I see. Struggle to think about the issues aside from your partisanship.

There isn't a single issue that Republicans have a clear position on to agree with in the first place.

 

[Kulindahr]

No one sees the danger of creating a health care system dependent upon borrowing the entirety of the government subsidy?

We wouldn't have to borrow for anything if the Republicans didn't continually insist on policy that shunts forty percent of the country's wealth to one percent of the population.

 

[Benvolio]

We wouldn't have to borrow for anything if the Republicans didn't continually insist on policy that shunts forty percent of the country's wealth to one percent of the population.

So, how much total do you think we can squeeze out of that top 1 %? Source?I don't think you can get a trillion, and even that would not solve the problem. And, no, Republicans do not shunt income to anyone except the welfare class. Failing to confiscate cannot be considered shunting.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So your failure ever to agree with Republicans is bad faith? I see. Struggle to think about the issues aside from your partisanship.

No. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans on the topic of deficit spending is that Democrats do less of it, raise taxes to pay for it, and work on reducing the deficit growth.

Republicans just put it on a credit card and do it off the budget so they can blame it on the next administration, particularly if it's a Democratic one. Kinda like right now.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, how much total do you think we can squeeze out of that top 1 %? Source?I don't think you can get a trillion, and even that would not solve the problem. And, no, Republicans do not shunt income to anyone except the welfare class. Failing to confiscate cannot be considered shunting.

Under Republican policy, after-tax wealth of the upper level increases faster than for anyone lower, and the after-tax wealth of the bottom third tends to decrease. That constitutes shunting the wealth upward.

 

[bankside]

So, how much total do you think we can squeeze out of that top 1 %? Source?I don't think you can get a trillion, and even that would not solve the problem. And, no, Republicans do not shunt income to anyone except the welfare class. Failing to confiscate cannot be considered shunting.

You could just confiscate half of all assets (not income tax on new earnings, I mean half of their total assets in a one-time forfeiture) of the top 1% and that group of 1% will still be almost three time richer than the 240 million Americans with the least amount of money.


Warren Buffett with 30 billion is still very rich compared to Warren Buffet with 60 billion.

If you did take half of all assets of the top 1%, you would get about 10.8 trillion dollars. That would basically pay off the US national debt held by the public.


I did the math based on figures here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

(with thanks to jayhawk for reposting this the other day.)​

 

[Kulindahr]

You could just confiscate half of all assets (not income tax on new earnings, I mean half of their total assets in a one-time forfeiture) of the top 1% and that group of 1% will still be almost three time richer than the 240 million Americans with the least amount of money.


Warren Buffett with 30 billion is still very rich compared to Warren Buffet with 60 billion.

If you did take half of all assets of the top 1%, you would get about 10.8 trillion dollars. That would basically pay off the US national debt held by the public.


I did the math based on figures here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

(with thanks to jayhawk for reposting this the other day.)​

I've done the math as well and posted it. If we took two-thirds, it would just about pay off all the debt, and few of the 1% would actually notice the difference in their personal lives.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You could just confiscate half of all assets (not income tax on new earnings, I mean half of their total assets in a one-time forfeiture) of the top 1% and that group of 1% will still be almost three time richer than the 240 million Americans with the least amount of money.


Warren Buffett with 30 billion is still very rich compared to Warren Buffet with 60 billion.

If you did take half of all assets of the top 1%, you would get about 10.8 trillion dollars. That would basically pay off the US national debt held by the public.


I did the math based on figures here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

(with thanks to jayhawk for reposting this the other day.)​

I think, clearly, you missed the memo about how the real problem in the U.S. is too much redistribution of wealth to the poor. It's simply killing wealth and capitalism.

 

[bankside]

I've done the math as well and posted it. If we took two-thirds, it would just about pay off all the debt, and few of the 1% would actually notice the difference in their personal lives.

I think, clearly, you missed the memo about how the real problem in the U.S. is too much redistribution of wealth to the poor. It's simply killing wealth and capitalism.

Okay here is the problem though.

Past a certain point, that wealth really is a number. Warren Buffett is famously frugal. But lets take Bill Gates who apparently has made a rather palatial residence for himself. The thing is, building it didn't even dent the amount of his fortune. There are only a handful of comparable properties on the planet, and the cost his house is only a rounding error in the overall picture of his finances. Even if he ate caviar pies covered in gold leaf from now until the day he died, he could not deplete his fortune. Even if he filled his closets with loafers made from albino endangered african rhino, he could not become poor.

First of all, I'll point out that we're not talking about redistributing one cent of that wealth to the poor. We're talking about redistributing it to the bondholders of government debt.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of that number on the page, once it exceeds every fantasy of personal consumption? I suspect that once a person gets into the billions, they are acting as a steward of that money for the public good. The fact that they've accumulated so much demonstrates them to be an effective and efficient administrator of assets and economic activity. Those billions of assets are not Cezannes on the walls and luxury jets and orgies - that is pocket change. Those billions are the photocopiers, boardrooms, computers, telephones, bricks and mortar, factories, laboratories, retail storefronts, of the places you and I go in to do our jobs!

What does it mean to seize that and sell it off to pay the national debt?

 

[Overthere]

The way to deal with this, BTW, if the Democrats regain control of the House next year, is to pursue a constitutional amendment to change the makeup of the House, in two ways:

1. hand over the drawing of district boundaries to mathematicians, and
2. make the election of Congressmen proportional by party vote within state delegations.

The Tea Party could then run its own ticket, as could the Greens, the Reform, the Constitution, the Libertarian, and all the rest.

You should probably add some sort of mechanism to dissolve congress and start over when things become as crazy as they are now. Isn't that what pretty much every other democracy does, too?

 

[Alnitak]

Historically the danger to extreme wealth was the ability to fund private armies, e.g. Roger Mortimer.

Today it is the ability to manipulate politics, e.g. the Koch Brothers.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Okay here is the problem though.

Past a certain point, that wealth really is a number. Warren Buffett is famously frugal. But lets take Bill Gates who apparently has made a rather palatial residence for himself. The thing is, building it didn't even dent the amount of his fortune. There are only a handful of comparable properties on the planet, and the cost his house is only a rounding error in the overall picture of his finances. Even if he ate caviar pies covered in gold leaf from now until the day he died, he could not deplete his fortune. Even if he filled his closets with loafers made from albino endangered african rhino, he could not become poor.

First of all, I'll point out that we're not talking about redistributing one cent of that wealth to the poor. We're talking about redistributing it to the bondholders of government debt.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of that number on the page, once it exceeds every fantasy of personal consumption? I suspect that once a person gets into the billions, they are acting as a steward of that money for the public good. The fact that they've accumulated so much demonstrates them to be an effective and efficient administrator of assets and economic activity. Those billions of assets are not Cezannes on the walls and luxury jets and orgies - that is pocket change. Those billions are the photocopiers, boardrooms, computers, telephones, bricks and mortar, factories, laboratories, retail storefronts, of the places you and I go in to do our jobs!

What does it mean to seize that and sell it off to pay the national debt?

I completely agree with you that there's a, relatively-speaking, incredibly low number when we're talking about the actual amount of money you need to live completely comfortably and take care of all your needs (and even all of your wants) for a lifetime. It's certain a small fraction of what the top 1% have in terms of assets.

But I think that past that point it's no longer about being able to afford the lifestyle or things that they want in life, or worrying about taking care of themselves or even their children. It's about power and influence.

With 6 million you can control your life and possibly even pay for your kid's for life. With 60 billion you can sway what happens nationally or internationally depending on what you're doing with that clout.

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay here is the problem though.

Past a certain point, that wealth really is a number. Warren Buffett is famously frugal. But lets take Bill Gates who apparently has made a rather palatial residence for himself. The thing is, building it didn't even dent the amount of his fortune. There are only a handful of comparable properties on the planet, and the cost his house is only a rounding error in the overall picture of his finances. Even if he ate caviar pies covered in gold leaf from now until the day he died, he could not deplete his fortune. Even if he filled his closets with loafers made from albino endangered african rhino, he could not become poor.

First of all, I'll point out that we're not talking about redistributing one cent of that wealth to the poor. We're talking about redistributing it to the bondholders of government debt.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of that number on the page, once it exceeds every fantasy of personal consumption? I suspect that once a person gets into the billions, they are acting as a steward of that money for the public good. The fact that they've accumulated so much demonstrates them to be an effective and efficient administrator of assets and economic activity. Those billions of assets are not Cezannes on the walls and luxury jets and orgies - that is pocket change. Those billions are the photocopiers, boardrooms, computers, telephones, bricks and mortar, factories, laboratories, retail storefronts, of the places you and I go in to do our jobs!

What does it mean to seize that and sell it off to pay the national debt?

No, those assets are pieces of paper that say they own portions of this or that company, or have X dollars sitting in a heap sucking up more dollars from the wealth stream. The material plant of all those companies and banks wouldn't be affected in the least. The actual problem with seizing that wealth is that it couldn't be immediately sold without depressing the value of many companies across the board, and that much of America would be bought up by foreigners when the stock was sold, resulting in a drain of income out of the country.

 

[T-Rexx]

Past a certain point, that wealth really is a number. Warren Buffett is famously frugal. But lets take Bill Gates who apparently has made a rather palatial residence for himself. The thing is, building it didn't even dent the amount of his fortune. There are only a handful of comparable properties on the planet, and the cost his house is only a rounding error in the overall picture of his finances. Even if he ate caviar pies covered in gold leaf from now until the day he died, he could not deplete his fortune. Even if he filled his closets with loafers made from albino endangered african rhino, he could not become poor.

Bill Gates himself has said that wealthy people do not appreciate any difference in lifestyle for income beyond $100 million/year. After that, it's just numbers on paper.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bill Gates himself has said that wealthy people do not appreciate any difference in lifestyle for income beyond $100 million/year. After that, it's just numbers on paper.

I heard him in an interview where he'd just "lost" something like eight billion overnight in a stock plunge, and the reporter asked if he felt poorer with only like twenty billion now. He said that after the first billion, you can't tell the difference anyway -- he was more concerned about his foundation, to which he'd given five billion or so earlier that year.

Supposedly he once also said, answering a question about buying really, really expensive things, that the only thing he could think of that would be "really, really expensive" to him would be a nuclear-power aircraft carrier converted to a yacht....

 

[xbuzzerx]

Bill Gates himself has said that wealthy people do not appreciate any difference in lifestyle for income beyond $100 million/year. After that, it's just numbers on paper.

That's entirely true but, ironically, because so much of what's on top of that is assets and wealth that isn't actually necessary to their day-to-day living, it almost seems like you run into MORE outrage at the thought of taxing it-- just look at the conservative view of estate tax, for example. It's seen more directly as "government confiscation" when you take some guy worth $300 million and propose a scenario where he has to sell off a business or some estates he never uses for taxes, even though it has not in any way harmed his lifestyle.