Yep, I'm starting another generational thread

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yes, we do cater to the wealth in society and I think we need to roll that back, but I also don't think that means "higher taxes" I'd frame it more from the perspective of eliminating their exclusion from taxes.

I think it is both, eliminating exclusions and restoring taxes to more balanced rates.  To bring it back to the original topic, the tax code is stacked against low wage earners-- Gen Y and soon Gen Z--and highly in favor of the already wealthy through both the deductions and rates.  The original articles touched on some of this, such as deductions on homes, for race horses, and pass through entities that allow a far lower tax rate than is applied to W-2 wages. 

A study a few years back showed that the progressive tax system was actually relatively flat was you factored in ALL taxes, not just federal taxes.  The lowest quintile paid 13%, while the highest quintile paid 18%.  That was before the latest tax scam that shoved even more wealth to the already wealthy and $1.5T to the deficit, from the folks that rail about the deficit only when the other party is in power.

Further, the cut in corporate tax rates is misguided.  While the nominal corporate tax rate was indeed "high" as the Republican's claimed, because of all the deductions allowed, it was squarely in the middle decile amongst the world in actual tax rate.  Again, all it did was shove more wealth to the already wealthy--for just as in previous tax cuts the corporations are using the vast majority of the savings to do stock buy backs, not expand business as they were already awash in cash--and hollow out the federal government, just as planned.

All in all, the tax scam served to screw most Millennials even more.

[mu03eng]

I think there is a mistaken belief that somehow we grew as a society due to rugged individualism. From Horacio Alger to Atlas Shrugged, there is almost a myth about how anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (Which obviously can happen but mostly it doesn’t.)

In reality we have advanced as a society due to the communities in which we have belonged. People sacrificed for one another and helped out their neighbor so society overall could benefit.

For many parts of society, that sense of community has broken down. Including the government, which despite propaganda of the past 50 years, has actually been quite effective at education, poverty reduction, defense, research and development, etc.

We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.

I agree with the selfish part, but this is where I think philosophically we are different with different perspectives.

I whole-heartedly agree with the bolded statement, however while you espouse government as a mechanism to generate mutual support I would argue that government is actually an impediment to selflessness. The more government, especially at the federal level, picks winners and losers the more people either become dependent on the government(versus using their "neighbors") or oppose the larger society as intrusive in their life. I think the goal of government should be to promote both selflessness and independence because by it's very nature government is inefficient and unwieldy (the ineffiency is what keeps them from being totalitarian and preserves democracy). So in my view, government needs to be refined to create a fair playing field and foster the people to each other as opposed to themselves.

I'm not saying I am right (I think I am, that's why I believe it but doesn't mean I am) or that you are wrong but I think it is a crucial distinction that needs to be understood. 

[Herman Cain]

I think it is both, eliminating exclusions and restoring taxes to more balanced rates.  To bring it back to the original topic, the tax code is stacked against low wage earners-- Gen Y and soon Gen Z--and highly in favor of the already wealthy through both the deductions and rates.  The original articles touched on some of this, such as deductions on homes, for race horses, and pass through entities that allow a far lower tax rate than is applied to W-2 wages. 

A study a few years back showed that the progressive tax system was actually relatively flat was you factored in ALL taxes, not just federal taxes.  The lowest quintile paid 13%, while the highest quintile paid 18%.  That was before the latest tax scam that shoved even more wealth to the already wealthy and $1.5T to the deficit, from the folks that rail about the deficit only when the other party is in power.

Further, the cut in corporate tax rates is misguided.  While the nominal corporate tax rate was indeed "high" as the Republican's claimed, because of all the deductions allowed, it was squarely in the middle decile amongst the world in actual tax rate.  Again, all it did was shove more wealth to the already wealthy--for just as in previous tax cuts the corporations are using the vast majority of the savings to do stock buy backs, not expand business as they were already awash in cash--and hollow out the federal government, just as planned.

All in all, the tax scam served to screw most Millennials even more.

One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.

[MUBurrow]

One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.

you'll have to forgive us

[Herman Cain]

you'll have to forgive us

The Tenth Commandment addresses your concerns.

[Golden Avalanche]

I think there is a mistaken belief that somehow we grew as a society due to rugged individualism. From Horacio Alger to Atlas Shrugged, there is almost a myth about how anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (Which obviously can happen but mostly it doesn’t.)

In reality we have advanced as a society due to the communities in which we have belonged. People sacrificed for one another and helped out their neighbor so society overall could benefit.

For many parts of society, that sense of community has broken down. Including the government, which despite propaganda of the past 50 years, has actually been quite effective at education, poverty reduction, defense, research and development, etc.

We’ve become selfish. Taxation is part of that. Libertarianism is by and large a selfish philosophy propagated by those who have benefitted from society and refuse to recognize it.

I like what you have written here.

[mu03eng]

you'll have to forgive us

Does this adjust for the Boomers leaving the work force resulting in an income cut?

[MUBurrow]

The Tenth Commandment addresses your concerns.

And the Eighth will be the one that comes back to get you.

[MUBurrow]

Does this adjust for the Boomers leaving the work force resulting in an income cut?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I would guess that its priced into the data somewhat - but as the chart tracks net worth and not income, I would imagine that the impact of Boomers' retirement savings spend down between 1998-2013 wouldn't be significant enough to dramatically impact net worth figures? Like I said though, I'm honestly not sure.

Edit: I do see the chart tracks a reduction of workforce participation rate of 5%, so that's probably a clue that Boomers leaving the workforce has impacted the numbers, at least somewhat.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

One of the common failings of people who are not wealthy or unsuccessful is an obsession of what the other guy gets. I see that all the time in the business world.

I am not in the top 1%, but I am in the top 10% and the idea that I needed a tax cut is stupid.  I didn't, I am doing just fine.

The fact is, 83% of the benefits of the tax cut went to the top 1%, those that need it the least, except in their need to cement a permanent aristocracy.

[mu03eng]

To be honest, I'm not sure. I would guess that its priced into the data somewhat - but as the chart tracks net worth and not income, I would imagine that the impact of Boomers' retirement savings spend down between 1998-2013 wouldn't be significant enough to dramatically impact net worth figures? Like I said though, I'm honestly not sure.

Edit: I do see the chart tracks a reduction of workforce participation rate of 5%, so that's probably a clue that Boomers leaving the workforce has impacted the numbers, at least somewhat.

Right, I'm curious what the definition of wealth is. I think the heavy majority of boomers who were retired as of 2013 were skewed to the back half of the date range (say 2008-2013) which I think might impact the data. As Boomers transitioned from income based revenue coupled with retirement investment(asset creation/expansion) to a position on fixed income by drawing down assets which has to have an impact on "wealth"

Further, the timeframe is somewhat problematic given where it falls within the context of what was going on in the macro-economy (great recession and what not).

Having said all that the original point is valid, I'm looking at this more as a stat head than an substantiate objection

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Lastly, I'm curious as to this libertarian vitriol. As a self proclaimed libertarian I'd love to understand what about it you see as so prevalent (I don't think it is) and harmful

mu03eng - My 2 cents to answer your question on the libertarian vitriol.

I'm in the Sultan camp on this.  But a few reasons:

• 1.

Social issues - Libertarians are supposed to be permissive on everything from religion, abortion, drugs, etc. yet the self proclaimed ones always seem to be the first to vote for restrictions on all the above.  If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against restriction legislation related to social issues.  (It doesn't happen.)

• 2.

National Debt - I thought that was important?  If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against laws that increase the national debt like the stupid tax bill of 2017.  (It doesn't happen.)

• 3.

Economics - See Kansas.  They went full Libertarian and they are now the most f'd up state in the Union.  We have big issues in Connecticut, but at least we are not Kansas.

• 4.

The Koch Brothers - Spending $0.5 billion on an election in the name of Libertarianism, but in reality just to benefit themselves.  Complete selfishness which is why regulation is needed.  People and corporations are greedy, period.  The government needs to at least attempt to level the field with taxes and "regulation" to protect citizenry.
The "Tea Party" was a fraud and completely funded by them.
[/list]

From 50,000 feet Libertarianism sounds great, but upon closer inspection it really isn't practical.  No taxes sounds awesome, but how do we pay for infrastructure, public transportation (including highways), military, education, etc.
And the self-proclaimed libertarians never act or vote like a true libertarians, so how can anyone take them seriously?  hence the vitrol.

(I know I'm missing a few points on this too.)

[Jay Bee]

Didn’t David Koch leave and sh1t on the Libertarian party almost 35 years ago? Wtf

[mu03eng]

mu03eng - My 2 cents to answer your question on the libertarian vitriol.

I'm in the Sultan camp on this.  But a few reasons:

• 1.

Social issues - Libertarians are supposed to be permissive on everything from religion, abortion, drugs, etc. yet the self proclaimed ones always seem to be the first to vote for restrictions on all the above.  If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against restriction legislation related to social issues.  (It doesn't happen.)

• 2.

National Debt - I thought that was important?  If your a true Libertarian then vote your belief and vote against laws that increase the national debt like the stupid tax bill of 2017.  (It doesn't happen.)

• 3.

Economics - See Kansas.  They went full Libertarian and they are now the most f'd up state in the Union.  We have big issues in Connecticut, but at least we are not Kansas.

• 4.

The Koch Brothers - Spending $0.5 billion on an election in the name of Libertarianism, but in reality just to benefit themselves.  Complete selfishness which is why regulation is needed.  People and corporations are greedy, period.  The government needs to at least attempt to level the field with taxes and "regulation" to protect citizenry.
The "Tea Party" was a fraud and completely funded by them.
[/list]

From 50,000 feet Libertarianism sounds great, but upon closer inspection it really isn't practical.  No taxes sounds awesome, but how do we pay for infrastructure, public transportation (including highways), military, education, etc.
And the self-proclaimed libertarians never act or vote like a true libertarians, so how can anyone take them seriously?  hence the vitrol.

(I know I'm missing a few points on this too.)

I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.

Also I think there is a difference between this puritanical libertarianism that doesn't take into account the real world applications. This is why I generally declare myself a Whig rather than a libertarian because I acknowledge that government must exist in very important places and to think otherwise is foolish. Pure libertariansim is foolish just like all the other isms be it communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.

Also I think there is a difference between this puritanical libertarianism that doesn't take into account the real world applications. This is why I generally declare myself a Whig rather than a libertarian because I acknowledge that government must exist in very important places and to think otherwise is foolish. Pure libertariansim is foolish just like all the other isms be it communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.

mu03eng - I always like your posts because you are just so darn reasonable![/list]

[tower912]

My favorite ism is pragmatism.

[mu03eng]

mu03eng - I always like your posts because you are just so darn reasonable![/list]

Thank you for the very nice complement 

[mu03eng]

My favorite ism is pragmatism.

I might get that as a tattoo

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I agree with everything you stated and I don't think anyone who does those things is truly a libertarian. One of the biggest issues I have in politics is how people's ideology is warped by how it impacts them personally. Your ideology should apply at all times regardless if it helps or hurts you on a case by case basis. Case in point, I'm minimally helped by the recent tax cut, but I definitely don't support it. Another case in point from Wisconsin, this tax "rebate" for parents with a kid....just pure graft even though it means $100 in my pocket.

This this this^^^.  We need a clapping hands emoji.[/list]

[MU82]

mu03eng, you da man.

One thing for sure: Of all the Whigs I know, you definitely are my favorite!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

My favorite ism is pragmatism.

my favorite ism starts with a J, aina.

[mu03eng]

mu03eng, you da man.

One thing for sure: Of all the Whigs I know, you definitely are my favorite!

ha ha ha, thanks....I'm just grateful I don't need a whig

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography.  In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros.  President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity.  So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott.  He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge.  (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)

Whigs.

[mu03eng]

Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography.  In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros.  President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity.  So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott.  He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge.  (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)

Whigs.

The one by Chernow right? Excellent biography.

Lots of would've could've should've in around the Mexican War that significantly alters the landscape of the western hemisphere

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Speaking of Whigs, I'm reading the Ulysses S Grant biography.  In the Mexican War, General Zachary Taylor (a Whig) became super-popular after winning the first battle in Matamorros.  President Polk got spooked when in the November mid-terms the Whigs picked up a ton of seats based on Gen. Taylor's popularity.  So Polk did the political thing and replaced him with General Winfield Scott.  He didn't tell anyone and just sent Scott to Mexico to Mexico who handed Taylor a message from the President that he was no longer in charge.  (Grant loved Taylor and picked up many of his military decision-making procedures from Taylor.)

Whigs.

I'm reading Chernow's Grant right now too.

Speaking of Polk, my history teacher brother calls him the greatest president in US history.  The guy ran on doing 4 things and did all 4.  Then didn't run again, b/c he did what he said he was going to do.  (add Texas as a state, expanded US territory to the Pacific with the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, lowered tariffs and established an independent US Treasury)