I agree piezoe. Now do us a favor and stop all the gushing over Warren. She is an obvious fraud.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Elizabeth Warren on a Roll!
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
Private property rights and a gov't which did not redistribute income is the way the US was set up and led to it becoming the most prosperous and powerful country in the world.
Now that we've decided to enable the gov't to point guns at one set of people and take their money away and give it to another set of people, the country has entered the 'decline of the roman empire' stage and the left will at all costs attempt to deny any causality.
The only people who think that protection of private property is 'individual anarchism' are the propagandists who speak for the people leading us to oblivion.
fhl, it seems to me that many who speak loudly against what they refer to as "income redistribution" are failing to recognize that the policies they championed, when adopted, in fact resulted in income redistribution. And that is largely how we got from the distribution we had in the 1950s and 1960s to today's distribution. In other words, we have already had income redistribution, and it was caused by implementing policies of those who say they are opposed to income redistribution!
I would certainly agree with you that the sacredness of private property was central in the minds of the country's founders, and the fledgling, Vidal would have called it "The First Republic", Republic of the Colonies, united for a few common purposes, but otherwise jealously guarding their individual sovereignty, had an income distribution that, if anything, was even worse than today's.
What is so sad to see is how the income distribution of the 1950s and 1960s, one that made the postwar United States a land of opportunity, has been destroyed by income redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy. Far too little capital is now left in the hands of the middle class, especially the lower middle class. The opportunities are there. For the middle class, however, the means to take advantage of them, without investment from the wealthy, are much harder to come by than in post war America.
The factors that caused this redistribution have been debated endlessly. To my mind the single most important factor was the compounding over time of the lower tax rates paid by the wealthy on unearned income versus the higher rates paid by the middle class on earned income.
There were also several accelerating events. A chief one occurred in the 1980s when the marginal income tax rate in the lowest bracket was elevated simultaneously with the near elimination of progressiveness in the upper brackets. This was very soon recognized as a mistake. To this day, however, the damage done has been only partly undone. The upper brackets remain too compressed.
One can see the compounding effect of taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned in the shape of the income distribution curve over time. It is clearly exponential. Exactly what one expects from compounding.
Last edited:
I haven't made up my mind about her. I simply posted an excerpt from an extremely thorough article on Bloomberg. I haven't made any personal decision regarding her politics or intentions yet. She has definitely caught my attention!I agree piezoe. Now do us a favor and stop all the gushing over Warren. She is an obvious fraud.
Last edited:
fhl, it seems to me that many who speak loudly against what they refer to as "income redistribution" are failing to recognize that the policies they championed, when adopted, in fact resulted in income redistribution. And that is largely how we got from the distribution we had in the 1950s and 1960s to today's distribution. In other words, we have already had income redistribution, and it was caused by implementing policies of those who say they are opposed to income redistribution!
I would certainly agree with you that the sacredness of private property was central in the minds of the country's founders, and the fledgling, Vidal would have called it "The First Republic", Republic of the Colonies, united for a few common purposes, but otherwise jealously guarding their individual sovereignty, had an income distribution that, if anything, was even worse than today's.
What is so sad to see is how the income distribution of the 1950s and 1960s, one that made the postwar United States a land of opportunity, has been destroyed by income redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy. Far too little capital is now left in the hands of the middle class, especially the lower middle class. The opportunities are there. For the middle class, however, the means to take advantage of them, without investment from the wealthy, are much harder to come by than in post war America.
The factors that caused this redistribution have been debated endlessly. To my mind the single most important factor was the compounding over time of the lower tax rates paid by the wealthy on unearned income versus the higher rates paid by the middle class on earned income.
There were also several accelerating events. A chief one occurred in the 1980s when the marginal income tax rate in the lowest bracket was elevated simultaneously with the near elimination of progressiveness in the upper brackets. This was very soon recognized as a mistake. To this day, however, the damage done has been only partly undone. The upper brackets remain too compressed.
One can see the compounding effect of taxing unearned income at a lower rate than earned in the shape of the income distribution curve over time. It is clearly exponential. Exactly what one expects from compounding.
If I was to design a system of investment taxes that I thought was fair, it would be to tax dividends only once, not at both the corporate level and the personal level. Taxing it twice is robbery.
And long term capital gains should be indexed for inflation. It is hardly fair to have to pay a tax on something that went up partly due to the effects of inflation.
The most stark example is that of gold, (which is taxed differently and worse, anyway). A person buys gold and then the govt creates money and then when you sell the gold the gov't thinks it's owed a tax on the increased value. That is not much more than a scam in my book.
Last edited:
"Spittle-flecked right-wing lunatic Elizabeth Warren targets the completely aboveboard, scrupulously ethical and fully transparent, nothing to see here move along Clinton Foundation..."
Elizabeth Warren Targets Clinton Foundation Donors
Warren takes aim at foreign donors to Clinton Foundation in TPP attack
http://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-targets-clinton-foundation-donors/
A new blog post written by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) may appear to be an attempt to align with Hillary Clinton, but it takes direct aim at multiple Clinton Foundation donors.
(More at above url)
Elizabeth Warren Targets Clinton Foundation Donors
Warren takes aim at foreign donors to Clinton Foundation in TPP attack
http://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-targets-clinton-foundation-donors/
A new blog post written by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) may appear to be an attempt to align with Hillary Clinton, but it takes direct aim at multiple Clinton Foundation donors.
(More at above url)