Elizabeth Warren begins her campaign
Elizabeth Warren begins her campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts with:
(h/t Mark Thoma)
Also on MSNBC
(h/t reader eric)
Elizabeth Warren begins her campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts with:
(h/t Mark Thoma)
Also on MSNBC
(h/t reader eric)
It was and is so refreshing to hear a person of such stature finally, FINALLY, talking about the commons and how no one earns a penny or saves a penny that was untouched by all that We the People have bought with We the People Taxes.
Now, if she or someone such as her would just take the next step and note that the more money you are making the more of the We the People created, built, and maintained national tangible and intangible infrastructure one has used. Thus is one of the prime reasons for the ever rising, multilevel progressive income tax.
Daniel,
Low and MIddle Class use the infrastructure…..yet do not pay for it. Why the double standard?
The wealthy already pay an overwhelming majority of the bill. Tax them more…then what? Enough money will be generated to accomlish what?
Every body pays. No one gets away without paying something. The wealthy pay a small portion historically in income taxes for the government they prosper from.
Guess I got to get the next 2 posts up looking at the old tax tables.
The low and middle class use the infrastructure, but they do not pocket the increase in productivity that the infrastructrue they payed for provides. They used to though prior to 1974.
Buff: The idea that becuase I, as part of ‘We the People’ becuase I’m alot more successful don’t own my rewards, but the Government does is insanity.
Stop hearing what you want to hear and start hearing what was said.
We the society in this nation are the government by consensus and thus one in the same. Kind a like that Father, Son and Holy ghost thing if that’s works toward your understanding.
As far as the rest of your rant, why don’t you replay that with say half the infrastructure both tangible and intangible and see how far you get. Or better yet, why don’t you just buy it all yourself, control it and then see how far you get. Or better yet, you don’t have to hire anyone and certainly not pay them. We’ll see how far you’ll get.
“Everybody pays”
Not True….47% don’t pay. The middle and lower class do not pay the same portion of the bill but yet they prosper.
“Guess I got to get the next 2 posts up looking at the old tax tables.”
The tax rate has little to do with what actually gets paid to the Federal Government. Nobody actually paid 90% of their income when the tax rate was 90% for the upper brackets….little things called incentives and loopholes ensured that.
Besides you’re refering to the effective tax rate not the marginal rate which exposes a social engineering agenda not a real solution to real problem.
“We the society in this nation are the government by consensus and thus one in the same.”
No…..you’re attempting to pretend we are a Direct Democracy, we clearly are not…we are a Republic, where the States have rights.
You and Warren want everybody to beleive that the value my money is a direct product of the government, and fail to even entertain Ideals like Free Will, Individualism, and Innovation. This type of thinking is dangerous, Warren is dangerous.
If the wealthy did not pay the overwhelming share of tax revenue…then you would have a point, but since that is not the case…..you and Warren are only juggling flaming knives for the suckers.
Darren that republic-not-democracy meme is old stale and ignorant. You are relying on bad sources about this. I recommend that you brush up on your Montesquieu (like our Founding Fathers did) and, rather than study multiple centuries of political thought and its evolution, review your elementary school civics lessons. Or at least read the pithy State Department brochure explaining American democracy for foreigners–it’s accurate.
I fundamentally disagree with anybody who attributes his or her good fortune solely to individual effort and talent. And who attributes none to, for example, this country and the people who made and make it what it is. To me, such people and not Warren are quite dangerous to our country’s future.
You are correct that high-earners provide for most of the federal income taxes (not all taxes). They increasingly are receiving all the money–that’s the path that we’ve taken. Income taxes are pitifully low and even more pitifully inadequate to cover the costs that they are supposed to cover, i.e. on-budget spending, so those who are receiving the money need to pony-up for this country. We could have avoided this situation by taking a different path, and perhaps we can reduce this inequity sometime in the future by changing paths, but those are hypotheticals when dealing with today’s reality.
Social engineering is what is happening regardless of which camp you are in. It is the intent of the various camps.
So, as to who is paying enough, we go with portion and not share of income related to needs of society? Not for me.
That 47% that is not possibly paying income tax is paying every other tax and as we have “engineered” down the source of taxation to less from the feds to more from the local, they are paying a larger % of their income than the rich.
And, if you don’t like those at the lower end not paying income tax, then pay them more income.
Yes you, your family and your friend can soley recreate all the infrastructure tangible and intangible all on your own and then get rich.
God, your killing me with this comedy routine.
Your money has absolutely no value without a government to back it. That backing can be based on many things. It can not be based on the word of Darren.
You would do better not to assume what I entertain and then argue as if you have the extent of my entertainment understood.
The wealthy have the overwhelming share of income for the size of the population they represent. Still does not address the shortages of need that the wealthy have demanded of our government. Seems to me, with such a position, they are the ones who are asking for something for nothing.
When you take the lion’s share of the wealth and income you owe the lion’s share of the bill. That some top percentage pay more taxes in terms of actual dollars does not take into account that it is not a share that is proportionate to their share of the income and eventual resulting wealth. Paying to support the government that supports your efforts to build, earn and accumulate wealth is the truest form of patriotism. You can’t do it any place else inn the world as cheaply as its being done here.
I love how you people presuppose your income as if you alone ‘earn’ it then the government ‘takes’ it from you. I’ve got news for you: taxation and society occur SIMULTANEOUSLY. Your post-tax income is STILL much much higher than if I dropped you (or you and your family) in a forest and asked you to survive.
Taxation is not a ‘necessary evil’ like a group of people pooling their money together; it is much more like a salesperson where a % of his sales go to the company he works for.
For gods sake, even property rights don’t exist without government so it is nonsensical to say you own your pretax income!
apm deleted.
Another good set of question defending Ms Warren’s statist remarks:
“
maximum permissable inequality
My reply, whenever I encounter one of these “fair share” people, is to ask them this question:
What’s the maximum permissible level of economic inequality in society, expressed as a ratio of the lowest income to the highest income?
Defend this choice. Explain how it applies to movie stars, sports figures, and other celebrities. Show all assumptions and steps in the calculations.
For extra credit, address these points: Does this ideal ratio ever change? How does society know when it’s time to change it, and in which direction, and by how much? Be explicit.
Get-an-A-for-the-term question: How would society achieve and maintain your ideal ratio without causing civil insurrection? Be specific.
Sincerely,
Robert”
Can our resident confiscators answer these? And what should be the ratio of the highest paid government person be to the legal maximum limit for the private side?
Call we when Buffet writes a check to the US Fed for 90% of his wealth…
Islam will change
Jack,
What’s you limit? How much is enough? How many liberties must the Feds abridge before you say the leviathon is to big, to overreaching, to intrusive to individual liberties that you will say stop?
Islam will change
Elizabeth Warren would be a great addition to the Senate but I think she would do more good as advisor to the President. She outlined a real stimulus package and balance budget before they were talking points in Washington. With the dead lock in Congress I feel she would not be able to get anything done. This country has enough talking heads, especially the senate.
The limit is set by the cost of the needs of the country. That those costs are measured by the government is the only reasonable barometer. If you truly believe that people like Paul Ryan make sense and have the best interests of all of the people at heart, then I can’t discuss the issue with you. As the wealthiest Americans take yet more out of the economy the others will require yet more assistance to survive. As I’ve said, it is a matter of proportionate taxation. Wealthy America can’t possibly be paying its costs to the country and its government given that total tax receipts cover only a limited share of the general budget. The rest is the deficit. We need to start counting the deficit portion of the budget in determining what is a resonable share to collect in tax.
But Tigerjc, that is exactly why Warren and others like her need to be elected to office in a process of cleaning house (the House) and Senate. Advice that are not acceptable to the political class is easily ignored. It is the political class that needs changing.
1. “maximum permissible level of economic inequality” – obviously, it doesn’t work that way. The question is, what is a healthy percentage of difference between the majority of the wealthy and the majority of the unwealthy. That, I think, can be defined, at least in broad terms, by looking at the state of the country when the differences were at various levels. I’d ask a real economist to look up the figures, I don’t know where to look.