New drinking game.
Watch a Bernie Sanders speech. Every time he mentions something “free”, chug the other persons beer.
Fair warning - I am stealing this line without attribution at the first opportunity.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry my liver is out of commission after doing the “chug every time Trump lies or says something insane” challenge. I lasted about 20 minutes of his first day of office.
Never said there was; I was just saying that a person with a low income and an inexpensive house has more to lose in a practical sense than a high income person with an expensive house does. Not in absolute dollar amounts but in terms of what that house represents in terms of effort, saving, assets, etc…
And what I was trying to get at with the other stuff is that if the general refrain is that progressive taxation is good, because the tax burden is graduated according to the amount that is sustainable, you can’t then go and claim that rich people draw greater benefits from things like public safety, the school system, etc…
The same logic applies as with progressive taxation- losing a cheap house is a much bigger deal to a poor person than losing an expensive one is to a rich person, for the exact same reason that $1 in taxation is proportionately more valuable to the poor person than the rich person.
Except for those of us in countries with “free” stuff we put the drinks on the table to be taken as needed.
Yeah, you’d get pretty drunk, since he has to spend a lot of time explaining that he’s not talking about free stuff, but instead talking about spending the people’s money more wisely by prioritizing those things that do the greatest good for the greatest number, such as tuition free (there’s that word again!) education or universal healthcare.
Housing isn’t really a good example. First, lots of poor people in cities don’t own houses, but rent. Losing belongings in a fire is bad, but if it happens they do not have to deal with rebuilding.
Also, I was assuming that everyone had insurance. Probably a bad assumption, especially for renters. Also, the richer can afford full replacement insurance. So they do suffer less, but not because of utility.
If we take house value (or loss after insurance) as a percentage of wealth as a metric, I’d say equal percentages have equal amounts of pain. If the rich person can write off the loss without thinking about it, versus the poorer person, then the rich person suffers less, but that is not from utility. As I said, there will be some impact of utility, but since most of the loss is recovered, it would be small.
The way I see it, he characterizes folks who are rich as being either greedy and buying big houses, taking exotic trips and trying not to pay taxes or as generous and giving money away to have an impact. If he is only talking about progressive taxes, it seems odd for the hypothetical good rich person to ask “How can I give more and more and more?” Unless he is advocating for paying significantly more taxes than owed. Perhaps he is paying millions more in taxes than he owes and is not a hypocrite.
He’s very clearly talking about more than just taxes – he’s talking about giving back in general. He makes reference to charitable causes (directly and indirectly) numerous times in the speech. In my understanding of the Obamas’ finances, they have indeed contributed several millions of dollars to charity:
And he’s also talking about raising taxes on the rich, and analogizing that to the idea of contributing to the welfare of others and the improvement of society in general. Overall, he’s saying “the rich have nothing to fear – your lifestyle will still be very, very good even with higher taxes… and also I think the more you contribute to others, the happier you will be”.
You’re against free stuff?
Wow. Never thought you’d be in favor of a 100% inheritance tax.
The typical conservative isn’t so much against “free stuff” generally as they are against the government taking money from some citizens to give oodles of “free stuff” to other citizens (and non-citizens). There are probably plenty of caveats to that view that I’m leaving out, but you can probably see how a 100% death tax would look from that perspective.
It’s called the Inheritance Tax and it exists because you shouldn’t get vast amounts of income tax free for doing nothing. Why are you against the heirs of wealthy people paying their fair share? Why shouldn’t they have skin in the game the way your side insists poor people should?
Calling it “Death Tax” is asinine. Nobody is being taxed for dying. Their heirs are having to pay their fair share of their income to America just like all of us do. Why should they get off scott free when everyone else has to pay?
You’re demonstrating the point. You believe the government should get vast amounts of income so they can give it to other people tax free for doing nothing. The people I love and care about should get nothing, and all the time and effort I put into providing for my wife and children should not be allowed to happen - let them look to the government as their provider.
Fuck that noise.
Regards,
Shodan
No you’re demonstrating hypocrisy. Poor people need skin in the game. The kids of rich people should get a free ride.
Fuck THAT noise.
We all need services that are provided by the Government whether you want to deny it or not. Why should rich kids not contribute towards the military? Why should their income be 100% tax free but the rest of us have to pay? And what is all of this nothing talk? Who is talking about taking everything from anyone. You are listening to liars. Liars that tell you the things you want to hear. Those that claim to love America but then will do anything to hamstring it are reprehensible.
Derleth is the one that brought up the prospect of “a 100% inheritance tax” in post #110.
Redistribution is a compensating mechanism for the imposition of property rights on the natural world.
Property rights are beneficial to society and unjust at the same time. Think about any of the games we play. Chess, Monopoly, football. Unless the game is a historical simulation, a common feature is that everyone starts out even.
Real life is not like that, when societies have property rights. You can be born into the world with much property at your disposal, or with none at all, and all of the good property allocated to other people. That’s worse for that person than starting off on a level playing field. They are essentially taxed by society because they have to pay more to get the same property that the inheritors start out with.
If your attitude is that your property belongs to you and your relatives and you can take it off my cold, dead hands, that is not a moral position. Practical, perhaps, but not moral. Other organisms may have different ideas, but why are theirs any worse than yours? If a bear comes around the corner, looking for a meal, and you shoot the bear, that may make you smarter, stronger than the bear, but it doesn’t make you morally superior. The bear has the same right to try and survive as you do.
So redistribution is a necessary component to a property rights based society. Property rights societies without redistribution are just property at the point of a gun, and have no particular moral component.
“Redistribution” is “at the point of a gun” too. Is it also “not a moral position”?
So is the collection of taxes for national defense. So is the collection of taxes to pay Trump and his minions.
Pretty much all the “free” Democratic proposals come with the ways of funding them, which the right of course does not like.
The only real proposals for free stuff I know of are conservative tax cuts which are supposed to be paid for by the massive increase in the economy they generate - which seems to never happen. Not enough to pay for the tax cuts for sure.
I haven’t heard the answer to, what is “fair share” ? Who is to determine that? What is the amount? I think I have paid my “far share” whose to say I haven’t.?