The 1 Percent Solution - Soak the Rich

[Maggie]

Right, I knew exactly what you meant from the very get go. :)

I may be out of line; but (while I agree with much of what you wrote) don’t construct an argument based on false premises. You can take issue with the current U.S. tax code but do it on its own terms. Not on faints and dodges.

As I wrote before, I don’t have an opinion, yet. But whatever opinion I come to will be grounded in objective facts. You’re heart is in the right place but that doesn’t matter much – a big part of this is math, right? :abnormal: I hate math buy the way. I went to law school with the understanding there would be no math. I was mislead.

[Kung Wu]

I may be out of line; but (while I agree with much of what you wrote) don’t construct an argument based on false premises. You can take issue with the current U.S. tax code but do it on its own terms. Not on faints and dodges.

What are you talking about? What false premise?

[Maggie]

What are you talking about? What false premise?

I don't think you accurately represented the current code. Investment income is not currently taxed at the same rate. Whether that is good or bad - I don't know. But it seemed to me your implication was that it should be; and therefore………KungWu argument.

If I misread something you wrote I appologize - no sleep coupled with work equal a very blinkered boy.

[Maggie]

If I am making with the crazy, please disregard. I had two hrs. sleep last night and and 8 within the last 60 hrs. Just say'in. I am missing something - or at least I you lead me to believe that.

You might be right. So, I am going to bed now for a couple hours. I have been scattered for while now; still am.

Small thing anyway.

[Kung Wu]

I don't think you accurately represented the current code. Investment income is not currently taxed at the same rate. Whether that is good or bad - I don't know. But it seemed to me your implication was that it or should be; and therefore………KungWu argument.

If I misread something you wrote I appologize - no sleep coupled with work equal a very blinkered boy.

Yes, you are misreading me. I am arguing that investment income isn't and shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income -- especially in the name of fairness, perceived or otherwise. :)

No worries. I am also exhausted.

[Wu du Nord]

A) This thread jumped the shark real real hard. It jumped so hard that I couldn't really find a quiet water in which to dip my oar.

B) This article mentions many of the things discussed in this thread AND it repeatedly tosses college athletics in the mix. Maybe someone will enjoy reading it. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/can_the_1_percent_accept_enough/singleton/

C) Eff Cee You.

[Kung Wu]

A) This thread jumped the shark real real hard. It jumped so hard that I couldn't really find a quiet water in which to dip my oar.

LOL

B) This article mentions many of the things discussed in this thread AND it repeatedly tosses college athletics in the mix. Maybe someone will enjoy reading it. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/can_...ugh/singleton/

The free market under attack, once again. People will never learn.

[Maggie]

A) This thread jumped the shark real real hard. It jumped so hard that I couldn't really find a quiet water in which to dip my oar.

B) This article mentions many of the things discussed in this thread AND it repeatedly tosses college athletics in the mix. Maybe someone will enjoy reading it. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/can_the_1_percent_accept_enough/singleton/

C) Eff Cee You.

You first sentence is clever and I laughed – well done. As far as economics go the article you apparently agree with is illuminating. Perhaps I’ll put you in touch with my father-in-law – he believes that all personal income should be capped at $1M. Excess should be taxed (meaning confiscated entirely) by the government – to use for its own ends. You can only have so much money, right?

Got any tips for him? BTW he loses the argument during Thanksgiving - but that is as far as anyone is willing to go. Keep in mind all my wife’s relatives live and were born in Hudson County, New Jersey. As such:

It is complicated but he (my father-in-law) loses the argument in the abstract – but all my relatives in the end are subservient to the State – be it Federal, State, or Local. They know the system is wrong but act, in real life (reality is something I think you need to address, sorry), in their own self-interest. As one should expect them to do – placing my father-in-law (who doesn't care he exploited the system), aside,it gives me hope. That said, as long as the system exists as it is and it can be exploited by those in power, nothing will change.

The crux is – I am not sure it can change; but we have an imbalance now. There is no perfect world but perhaps we can get to good enough.

[Wu du Nord]

As far as economics go the article you apparently agree with is illuminating.

Pardon? Perhaps it is really your insistence on reading it as an economic article that is illuminating? Even more so when taking into account the quick cool ease with which you disparaged the positive grounding of economics as a discipline. ;-)

I linked the article not because of unity of position, but more because it mentioned many of the topics contained in this thread and extended (sort of) to college athletics; which is, of course, the primary purpose of the discussion board of which this sub-forum is a part.

I tend to agree with the notion that the ability (yes, ability) to be happy with what one has is an oft overlooked and uncelebrated virtue in American culture; especially popular culture. I've spent enough time working in finance and around people in finance to experience and bear witness to the raising and falling of countenances based nearly exclusively to the rising and falling of markets existing beyond personal influence.

Perhaps I’ll put you in touch with my father-in-law – he believes that all personal income should be capped at $1M. Excess should be taxed (meaning confiscated entirely) by the government – to use for its own ends. You can only have so much money, right?

Got any tips for him? BTW he loses the argument during Thanksgiving - but that is as far as anyone is willing to go. Keep in mind all my wife’s relatives live and were born in Hudson County, New Jersey. As such:

It is complicated but he (my father-in-law) loses the argument in the abstract – but all my relatives in the end are subservient to the State – be it Federal, State, or Local. They know the system is wrong but act, in real life (reality is something I think you need to address, sorry), in their own self-interest. As one should expect them to do – placing my father-in-law (who doesn't care he exploited the system), aside,it gives me hope. That said, as long as the system exists as it is and it can be exploited by those in power, nothing will change.

a) I thought Maggie was a woman. This is the internets, I know, I know, so like most I begin with the assumption that everyone is a guy - even the ones who select female names as pseudonyms; however, the scattered and emotional style had me duped. What gives? Is this one of those riddles like where the Doctor turns out to be the boy's mother? Is Maggie a lady AND has wife in NJ? How cool would that be, eh?

b) An aside: There is a deep fallacy at work here. That you can out debate a person who supposedly holds a position means that you have out maneuvered an individual. There is some mythical status of truth being the product of argument. In fact this simply cannot be the case. A determined well-read individual with a quick tongue could likely make absolute mincemeat of the vast majority of American Christians, when confronting them one-on-one, or at the dinner table. It's shockingly easy to reduce a true believer to a wobbly mess of self-conflicting claims. This horribly rude exercise doesn't disprove the validity of of religion.

c) Sorry, I really don't know what it is you think that I think, so I'm at a massive disadvantage in knowing what you expect me to respond to.

The crux is – I am not sure it can change; but we have an imbalance now. There is no perfect world but perhaps we can get to good enough.

Quite right. Sometimes with taxes increases. Sometimes with tax cuts. Sometimes with more government regulation. Sometimes with less. Sometimes with more direct democracy. Sometimes with less. Sometimes with more personal freedoms. Some times with less.

Just as you are quick to mock utopian ideologies, so must you come to understand that there is no utopian methodology.

At the core, there are fundmental and irremediable issues with the formulation of seemingly basic concepts: value, fair, freedom, etc. - for the most part we take these things for granted, ignoring our own hand in their construction and preservation.

[Maggie]

Pardon? Perhaps it is really your insistence on reading it as an economic article that is illuminating? Even more so when taking into account the quick cool ease with which you disparaged the positive grounding of economics as a discipline. ;-)

I linked the article not because of unity of position, but more because it mentioned many of the topics contained in this thread and extended (sort of) to college athletics; which is, of course, the primary purpose of the discussion board of which this sub-forum is a part.

I tend to agree with the notion that the ability (yes, ability) to be happy with what one has is an oft overlooked and uncelebrated virtue in American culture; especially popular culture. I've spent enough time working in finance and around people in finance to experience and bear witness to the raising and falling of countenances based nearly exclusively to the rising and falling of markets existing beyond personal influence.


a) I thought Maggie was a woman. This is the internets, I know, I know, so like most I begin with the assumption that everyone is a guy - even the ones who select female names as pseudonyms; however, the scattered and emotional style had me duped. What gives? Is this one of those riddles like where the Doctor turns out to be the boy's mother? Is Maggie a lady AND has wife in NJ? How cool would that be, eh?

b) An aside: There is a deep fallacy at work here. That you can out debate a person who supposedly holds a position means that you have out maneuvered an individual. There is some mythical status of truth being the product of argument. In fact this simply cannot be the case. A determined well-read individual with a quick tongue could likely make absolute mincemeat of the vast majority of American Christians, when confronting them one-on-one, or at the dinner table. It's shockingly easy to reduce a true believer to a wobbly mess of self-conflicting claims. This horribly rude exercise doesn't disprove the validity of of religion.

c) Sorry, I really don't know what it is you think that I think, so I'm at a massive disadvantage in knowing what you expect me to respond to.

Quite right. Sometimes with taxes increases. Sometimes with tax cuts. Sometimes with more government regulation. Sometimes with less. Sometimes with more direct democracy. Sometimes with less. Sometimes with more personal freedoms. Some times with less.

Just as you are quick to mock utopian ideologies, so must you come to understand that there is no utopian methodology.

At the core, there are fundmental and irremediable issues with the formulation of seemingly basic concepts: value, fair, freedom, etc. - for the most part we take these things for granted, ignoring our own hand in their construction and preservation.

Maggie is female but Maggie is also a dog. And she is generally against the redistribution of her cookies. I don’t believe that I disparaged economics as a discipline – it is simply not “scientific” in the same way, for example, physics is. That doesn’t mean it is useless.

I made the assumption that you agreed with author’s position. The author of the article you posted is arguing a version of President Obama’s position – which incidentally I hear lot in my neck of the woods. A while back the President stated something along the lines of - at some point an individual makes enough money. What follows is the assertion that, over and above whatever arbitrary amount is deemed “enough” – that person should be taxed at a high rate and those monies redistributed elsewhere – the elsewhere to be determined by those in power. This is an argument made to appeal to envy, it is a fundamental loss of freedom, and it is also bad economics. When people make this type of argument the underlying assumption always seems to be some version of: because person A makes a lot of money that means person B makes less – which is not even remotely true. Let the individual determine if they are happy with what they have – government shouldn’t, in effect, be dictating salary.

I suppose I am mocking utopian ideologies, in the sense that I think they are dangerous and fundamentally flawed. They don’t aim for “good enough” – they attempt perfection. And they are never going to get there.

Personally, I believe there is an imbalance that exists in the United States today. And it is the result of government’s expansion (at the local, State, and Federal level) and its intrusion into far too many segments of society.

P.S. When you write that is no utopian methodology, what exactly do you mean?

[Wu du Nord]

Maggie is female but Maggie is also a dog. And she is generally against the redistribution of her cookies.

Wow, sorry, I really can't follow this explanation. As I read, the author is a a married male who posts to an internet forum under an account he created on behalf of his dog. About the dog we are to understand two things: a) the dog's sex is female, b) the dog dislikes sharing.

What is going on here?

I don’t believe that I disparaged economics as a discipline – it is simply not “scientific” in the same way, for example, physics is. That doesn’t mean it is useless.

If we really want to head down the rabbit hole, we'll drag science along for the ride.

I made the assumption that you agreed with author’s position. The author of the article you posted is arguing a version of President Obama’s position – which incidentally I hear lot in my neck of the woods. A while back the President stated something along the lines of - at some point an individual makes enough money. What follows is the assertion that, over and above whatever arbitrary amount is deemed “enough” – that person should be taxed at a high rate and those monies redistributed elsewhere – the elsewhere to be determined by those in power.

So much for marginal value, eh? The first dollar has the same meaning, expectations and potential destination as the billionth. Ok. Good to know.

This is an argument made to appeal to envy, it is a fundamental loss of freedom, and it is also bad economics.

People who want (any) increases in the tax rate are envious slavers. People who want to lower taxes are greedy barons. Got it. See why I'm stuck on the often taken for granted moral dimensions of political discussion and policy? They matter. Deeply.

When people make this type of argument the underlying assumption always seems to be some version of: because person A makes a lot of money that means person B makes less – which is not even remotely true. Let the individual determine if they are happy with what they have – government shouldn’t, in effect, be dictating salary.

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it isn't. I do know that pretending that all situations are of a similar type isn't helpful. All the game theory in the world won't do much good if you mistake the type of game at which you are playing. Also, it's worth noting that frequently the cost of personal salary increases are passed directly to the consumer, this is particularly problematic when there is some expectation that the consumer foot the bill; especially outside the immediate future. Examples would be university tuition and home loan origination fees. This is an entirely different form of game entirely.

I suppose I am mocking utopian ideologies, in the sense that I think they are dangerous and fundamentally flawed. They don’t aim for “good enough” – they attempt perfection. And they are never going to get there.

Karl Popper and George Soros agree strongly with you on that score. Do you like apples?

Personally, I believe there is an imbalance that exists in the United States today. And it is the result of government’s expansion (at the local, State, and Federal level) and its intrusion into far too many segments of society.

And that, my friends, is precisely why Anakin Skywalker apprenticed himself to a Sith Lord; to bring balance.

P.S. When you write that is no utopian methodology, what exactly do you mean?

It simply a tip of the hat to the very good work that his been done, in various fields, to recognize the inadequacies of methodological monism and by extension the failed vanity projects of positivism.

[Maggie]

You are engaging in obfuscation and misdirection.

In any event, I do think Karl Popper would probably agree with me, as I believe those individuals invested in one of the various forms of utopian ideology to be very dogmatic. Empirical evidence that undercuts or disproves a theory or a policy they hold dear is irrelevant – they merely attempt to provide explanations (which often become increasingly puerile) in an attempt to justify their theory. In other words, the theory is not falsifiable. Marx’s and those that applied his theories, for example, would never meet Popper’s test. Same goes for those who advocate an increased minimum wage in name of helping the poor, many studies have demonstrated that the minimum wage has actually had a negative impact. Does that matter to the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world? Not one bit.

As for what Soros thinks – I have no idea. But I do know he is a strong supporter of progressive causes – how he spends his money says a lot.

[Wu du Nord]

You are engaging in obfuscation and misdirection.

Contrary to frequent and popular representation, lex parsimoniae doesn't preclude plurality. I can't apologize for my inability to indulge oversimple reductions of central terms.

The production of a magic show takes place on stage, in the public eye, and off-stage out of site. Understanding how it works (able to duplicate it) requires examination of both parts. Limit access to one portion of the show and accounts of the performance will be incomplete. So it is with [free], [fair], [equal], [rights], and all the other bits and tiddles.

With regards to misdirection, I'm not sure anyone reading or participating in this conversation has any real strong notion with regards to what it could possibly be about. Hell, last I heard, you, Maggie, were pretending to be a dog. Quite frankly, I suspect that this particular discussion has run its course and should no longer be expected to be about anything.

In any event, I do think Karl Popper would probably agree with me, as I believe those individuals invested in one of the various forms of utopian ideology to be very dogmatic. Empirical evidence that undercuts or disproves a theory or a policy they hold dear is irrelevant – they merely attempt to provide explanations (which often become increasingly puerile) in an attempt to justify their theory. In other words, the theory is not falsifiable. Marx’s and those that applied his theories, for example, would never meet Popper’s test. Same goes for those who advocate an increased minimum wage in name of helping the poor, many studies have demonstrated that the minimum wage has actually had a negative impact. Does that matter to the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world? Not one bit.

Do I need to indicate here that empiricism is not the antithesis of dogmatism? It is merely another form of it - starting at a different gate. I would imagine that much should go without saying. (How's that for an intellectual smuggling caper, eh? I can play that game as well as you, but I know when I'm doing it. I suspect that you've simply swallowed the hook and believe it to be yet another part of yourself.)

As for what Soros thinks – I have no idea. But I do know he is a strong supporter of progressive causes – how he spends his money says a lot.

Philosophically speaking vis-a-vis opposition to utopian ideologies, you are squarely in bed with the bogey-man, I'm sorry to say.

[Maggie]

Sigh. Can you ever write anything without insults? I too fear that the point of diminishing returns is firmly ensconced in our review mirror. To bad and I think you should consider lex parsimoniae before you post.