What If There Are No Swing Voters?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum Be Polite.' started by jgoodguy, Feb 6, 2020.

  1. Wehrkraftzersetzer

    Wehrkraftzersetzer Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes

    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    173
    btw donating:

    wasn't there someplace in the bible something about somebody preferring the cleaning woman's halfpence to the rich man's basket full of sovereigns?

    oc not English currency
     
    Kirk's Raider's likes this.
  2. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    You are correct. There are scholars who believe philanthropy is unhealthy for democracies. It gives the wealthy control and power without any accountability, plus a tax break. A philanthropist still controls his money and came do as he wishes with it without the tax burden. These scholars say it would be better to tax the wealthy fairer for society...

    Again the rich do not care about you or anyone but other mega-rich... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/is-philanthropy-good-for-democracy/381996/
    They are more of a political arm of the rich...

    Snip...

    Society, wrote in a 2013 cover article in Boston Review, “What Are Foundations For?”:

    Philanthropy in the United States is not just the voluntary activity of a donor. Philanthropy in general, including the work of foundations, is generously tax-subsidized. The assets transferred to a foundation by a donor are left untaxed in two respects: the donor makes the donation more or less tax-free, diminishing the tax burden she would face in the absence of the donation; and the assets that constitute a foundation’s endowment, invested in the marketplace, are also mostly tax-free. …[F]oundations are partly the product of public subsidies. They are created voluntarily, but they result in a loss of funds that would otherwise be tax revenue. In 2011 tax subsidies for charitable giving cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $53.7 billion. So foundations do not simply express the individual liberty of wealthy people. We all pay, in lost tax revenue, for foundations, and, by extension, for giving public expression to the preferences of rich people.

    I do wonder, though, about my progressive friends. They believe in a strong government, in a fair tax system, in a robust social-welfare system, and in a vibrant democracy where all voices count equally. Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?

    It wasn’t always so in our history. When the titans of their day, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, sought to set up trusts to spend some of their vast wealth for charitable purposes, Frank P. Walsh, a progressive lawyer who chaired a congressional inquiry into industrial relations, called the new Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation “a menace to the future political and economic welfare of the nation.” In that period, 100 years ago, the foundations’ endowments surpassed what the federal government, in the pre-New Deal era, spent on education and public health. Walsh called for the “democratization of private benevolence” through more progressive taxation.

    In testimony before the Walsh Commission, Morris Hillquit, the labor lawyer and Socialist Party leader, said that large foundations like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Russell Sage “represent in the domain of philanthropy just what trusts represent in the industrial field.” Edward P. Costigan, who would later represent Colorado in the Senate, called the Rockefeller Foundation “a supreme example of the philanthropy which deadens, by its large benefactions, a public criticism which otherwise would be as formidable as inevitable.” Even feudalism and slavery, Costigan went on, “boasted of their occasional generosity.” The Reverend John Haynes Holmes of the New York Church of the Messiah, who would serve for two decades as chair of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union, called foundations “essentially repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society.”

     
  3. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    We will start with the top 20% of income earners... to 20% of total wealth owned...
     
  4. Viper21

    Viper21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    554
    Could you explain what you mean with this post..? I'm not sure what you are saying here.
     
    Andersonh1 likes this.
  5. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Here I think this may help...https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413

    What Was the Distribution of Income in 2016 Before Taxes and Transfer Payments?
    First, CBO analyzed household income excluding the effects of federal taxes and means-tested transfers (which include benefits from Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Supplemental Security Income). According to the agency’s estimates, in that year:

    • Average income among households in the lowest quintile (or fifth) of the income distribution was about $21,000;
    • Average income among households in the highest quintile—that is, the top 20 percent—was about $291,000; and
    • Average income among households in the top 1 percent was about $1.8 million.
    Those amounts include social insurance benefits (such as benefits from Social Security and Medicare).


     
  6. Andersonh1

    Andersonh1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    666
    This bit jumped out at me. If it's his money, why shouldn't he control it? Again, what I'm detecting here from "some scholars" is this sense of envy and entitlement. You can't get away from it. They want control over money that does not belong to them, not just because they think they know better how to use it, but because they want as much of that money for themselves as they can obtain.
     
    Viper21 likes this.
  7. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    No envy quit trying to some human personal desire in my action. I have backed everything up with data about how the wealthy do not civic duty. I can give you a list of books by people who are sounding the warning about the wealthy and none have envy or axe to grin, or political agenda against the wealthy. They only see threat their mega wealth is to democracy.

    Here is an article by a Sanford Professor about Philanthropy and the danger it is to democracy... please read it before you imply envy towards me and other who understand that to much money in to few hands is a danger to all...

    It is a short read I not going to put any snips up to just see if you will read it...

    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/12/03/the-problems-with-philanthropy/

    Here another take... short read...

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/against-philanthropy/563834/
     
  8. Viper21

    Viper21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    554
    Pretty sad when people demonize folks giving their own money to charities, & causes they find dear.

    While I will concede, there is some negative effects....... Bloomberg's cash completely changed Virginia's political power, & we are reaping the effects of it right now. Although, I believe political spending, & charitable spending are two different animals.

    The one article demonizes folks donating time to soup kitchens. Deplorable in my opinion. Grace, & charity to fellow humans is a wonderful thing imo.

    There has always been poor folks in need, & there always will be. Even if you take all the money, from all the "rich folks", you'll never be able to change that. You can't take people out of poverty by, taking from the wealthy. That mindset, is flawed. For without the earners, & wealth creators, we are all doomed to chaos, & poverty.
     
    Andersonh1 likes this.
  9. Andersonh1

    Andersonh1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    666
    You're thinking of the widow's mite from Luke 21:1-4. While the rich gave to the temple out of their wealth and had plenty left over, Jesus said the widow had given more because she had given all she had, even though her monetary donation was tiny compared to theirs.
     
    Viper21, 5fish and rittmeister like this.
  10. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    No one wants to stop wealth creators... if we share our nation wealth fairly all bowls will be fuller. No wealth creator ever created anything without help from the societies they live in...

    I going to show you Adam Smith believed taxation was the way one repays society... https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/adam-smith-public-policy-four-maxims-taxation

    Smith argued that taxes should be proportional to how much a person benefits from living in society.

    There should be proportionality across levels of income and sources of income such as rent, profit, and wages. At one point Smith does mention how having some taxes fall disproportionately on the wealthy, such as taxes on luxuries, is not so bad. But he stresses proportionality as the general principle: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

    Smith uses the analogy of a joint venture to compare taxation to the “expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.” Taxpayers are like shareholders. Larger shareholders in a venture contribute more while smaller shareholders contribute less. This sounds similar to Nozick’s theory of a private state or other libertarians’ proposals to make municipalities more like hotels. As I pointed out in my initial discussion of Smith and libertarianism, however, Smith concedes that governments should do many things minimalists like Nozick or anarchists like Rothbard would reject
    .

    Smith’s second maxim is that the “tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person.

    Having known and predictable taxes allows people to calculate and make better plans. Clear rules of the game encourage more investment, productivity, and innovation. The theme of predictability is discussed at great length by Hayek in a variety of places, but most clearly in his discussion of the rule of law in the Constitution of Liberty.

    Without clear predictable tax laws, the risk of abuse by tax collectors increases rapidly. The labyrinthian tax code and recent abuses by the IRS show the truth and prescience of Smith’s maxims. With complex and arbitrary tax laws: “every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself.”

    Instead, Smith’s third maxim is that taxes ought to be easy and convenient for the taxpayer. That means “every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner in which it is most likely convenient for the contributor to pay it.” In this respect, at least, I think Smith would applaud automatic withholding—though he might reject it for how it allows governments to tax people more than they realize.

    Smith’s fourth maxim of good tax policy is limiting deadweight loss: “Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the publick treasury of the state.” He uses “take out” to refer to money taken from people and “keep out” to refer to unrealized income due to tax burdens, distortions, and disincentives. He describes four ways taxes can create deadweight losses. First, there is the cost of hiring tax collectors to collect and process taxes. The more a country spends paying people to gather taxes, the less additional revenue it will have to spend in other areas. Second, taxes can discourage industry. High taxes or taxes on industries with highly elastic demand will result in much less production and maybe even less tax revenue over time. Third, ruinous tax rates will encourage tax evasion and black market activity. Fourth, paying taxes is simply annoying and burdensome. This fourth category may be the biggest deadweight loss in the U. S. today as tens of thousands of people are employed as tax accountants and tax lawyers. Furthermore, millions of hours are spent filing taxes by individual taxpayers every year. These costs are clearly deadweight costs and reduce economic efficiency.

    Adam Smith was liked by conservatives because of his "Invisible Hand" comment. But, it was pointed out in the 1980s his views on taxation and he has been shunned by the Republicans conservatives ever since. He was a Progressive taxer and like taxes.

    Have you ever looked up the volumes of tax codes we have. Do you know why the tax code has morphed into a complex mess because the wealthy and corporate America can legally avoid paying taxes? They can hire all those accounts to take advantage of tax codes they had written into our tax laws.




     
  11. rittmeister

    rittmeister trekkie in residence Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    475
    thou shalt not quote commies [​IMG]
    (i know who adam smith is)
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020 at 4:01 PM
    5fish likes this.
  12. Viper21

    Viper21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    554
    Finally. Finally something we can agree on.

    Yes. I have looked up tax codes plenty. I have been self employed the majority of my adult life. I personally find many inequities in the tax code, & find the entire thing "unfair", for lack of a better word.

    I think the whole system should be scrapped. I would be much more in favor of a flat tax, or federal sales tax, in lieu of federal income taxes. I think the whole system is a scam that hurts hard working folks like myself, & tremendously benefits the wealthy. Although, keep in mind.... it benefits poor folks, arguably more than the wealthy. What was the number Mitt Romney was demonized for stating (2012 campaign), 47% of the country doesn't pay any federal income tax..?

    I don't believe in double, triple, or worse, taxing of money either.
     
    Andersonh1 and 5fish like this.
  13. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    You were doing pretty good until these words showed up...

    I taxes are investments in your future...

    Here a link that shows where your state gets its revenues from...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-your-state-gets-its-money/
     
  14. Viper21

    Viper21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    554
    I thought we were all after truth...?? While some people are offended by his comment, he wasn't lying.


    Not all of em. There are countless expenditures of tax dollars that are of a ridiculous nature.

    That is the rub. That's what we all routinely disagree over. That's the heart of it all. How should our collective money (taxes) be spent. Nearly half of the people with a say in it (voters), don't pay any federal income tax.

    How would you feel at the idea of me, telling you, how to spend your household income..?
     
    Andersonh1 likes this.
  15. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
  16. Wehrkraftzersetzer

    Wehrkraftzersetzer Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes

    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    173
    to increase the number of taxpayers?starting with fair / good wages might help
     
    5fish likes this.
  17. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    I want to point out that everyone do pay taxes like sales, property, sin, payroll , and other taxes.

    This is a mistake done by people and politicians. You can not compare a nation budget to ones household budget. It like comparing apples and oranges....
     
  18. Andersonh1

    Andersonh1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    666
    Any sane individual tries to avoid paying any more taxes than they have to, in my opinion.

    Your way of thinking, that money does not belong to the individual who earned it, but rather to the collective group, is utterly alien to my way of thinking. Money belongs to the one who earned it, and we are all only entitled to what we earn. We are not entitled to someone else's earnings or property. Taking it through taxation and giving it to someone is, in many ways, little more than legalized theft. A certain level of taxation is needed for the government to run and perform essential Constitutional duties, but the Government goes well beyond that need in taxing, spending and deficit spending.
     
    Viper21 likes this.
  19. Viper21

    Viper21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    554
    Yeah.... you never hear of the folks arguing for more taxes, to voluntarily give more of their own money to the government. Regardless of where they fall in the tax brackets.....

    They just preach about where YOUR money would be better spent.
     
    Andersonh1 likes this.
  20. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Do you realize that tax avoidance is legal thievery? If you watch the video nations are being cheated on tax income by wealthy people and corporations. It is unjust to those nations that allowed those people and companies of wealth to operate and make money within their borders. You know at one time wealthy people and corporation use to shift profits from state to another to avoid taxes until the federal government put a stop to it. Would you like your state to be cheated on tax revenue which would cause you to pay more in taxes?

    You are playing small ball... let's see what society did so you can make a dollar... Society educated you protects you with police, roads to unable to make money, sanitary systems so you do not live with filth. I have just started there is so much more the workforce you work with was educated by society, courts to resolve disputes, and so much more... The Republicans have played the small ball, taxes is your money game playing to your greed and pride. You need to realize fewer taxes means fewer services means a poorer you... and society...

    True... because no one understands taxes...
     

Share This Page