Oligarchy: The fight for democracy and the environment are the same

[Curious George]

The rich are not rich due to income but capital investments. This has been standard for decades.

I am not suggesting anyone take away a persons ability to invest, or donate (well maybe remove foreign investment from any possible tax shelter). Nor am I suggesting we take away anyone's ability to be rich. I can hardly see why anyone would protest such a move.

 

[Shad]

Yes. Well at least practically, anyway. We already have a progressive tax. This should be steeper yet. You are taxed the very same on your first 20k as the guy from McDonald's is taxed on his first 20k.

The tax brackets should increase to a point where 99% of an income is goimg back to the federal government at a certain point. A person has no business making 50M per year. The tax brackets can follow the years inflation. But at a certain point a person should be givimg $99 for every $1 they take.

The rich are not rich due to a paycheck. They are rich due to capital investment. Wealth isn't income. Back to ecom 101 with you.

 

[Curious George]

The rich are not rich due to a paycheck. They are rich due to capital investment. Wealth isn't income. Back to ecom 101 with you.

Lol. You seem to misunderstand me.

 

[Shad]

I am not suggesting anyone take away a persons ability to invest, or donate (well maybe remove foreign investment from any possible tax shelter). Nor am I suggesting we take away anyone's ability to be rich. I can hardly see why anyone would protest such a move.

You are taking about income tax bracket yet are clueless that wealth is not based on a paycheck nor is income the major source of the wealth of the rich. The rich will just pay themselves like 250k a year while the rest is put into capital investments which are taxed at 2.5/5%. Your solution misses the mark due to you not knowing the systems at work. Less copying Sanders, more learning about financial systems at play.

 

[Shad]

Lol. You seem to misunderstand me.

No I understood your babble about income taxes. Which misses the mark thus I must correct you. You think income taxes are the solution but are clueless that your solution was bypassed over 50 years ago.

 

[icehorse]

Go read the Paris Accords. Those same companies are getting billions due to the accords.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the Paris accords continue to subsidize fossil fuel companies? If so, then the Paris accords - at least this part of it - is exacerbating the problem.

 

[Shad]

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the Paris accords continue to subsidize fossil fuel companies?

Yes and put billions into those same companies for the very type of energy you want. They are double dipping into the pot. Those companies will have a strangle hold on both energy markets.

If so, then the Paris accords - at least this part of it - is exacerbating the problem.

It is crony capitalism put to paper with the nice facade of fighting climate change so people never read the details.

 

[Curious George]

You are taking about income tax bracket yet are clueless that wealth is not based on a paycheck nor is income the major source of the wealth of the rich. The rich will just pay themselves like 250k a year while the rest is put into capital investments which are taxed at 2.5/5%. Your solution misses the mark due to you not knowing the systems at work. Less copying Sanders, more learning about financial systems at play.

I think you are mistaken. I also think your percentage is off. My solution is not a panacea. It is a step in the right direction. Of you think it doesn't matter, then why wouldn't you support such an idea?

 

[Shad]

I think you are mistaken. I also think your percentage is off. My solution is not a panacea. It is a step in the right direction. Of you think it doesn't matter, then why wouldn't you support such an idea?

Your solution has been bypassed decades ago.

No it is a normal percentage once you game the system. I've done it.

 

[Curious George]

Your solution has been bypassed decades ago.

I am still trying to understand what your actual issue is with it?

No it is a normal percentage once you game the system. I've done it.

2.5 or 5%? Capital gains is more than that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Seriously? Now you want the government telling you how much of your money goes to which candidate?

You don't see the issue with basically unfettered corporate donations, and lack of transparency?
Under the current system 'your money' is a misnomer anyway. It makes very little difference.

How much of a senator's time goes towards fundraising versus serving their constituency?

 

[Shad]

I am still trying to understand what your actual issue is with it?

1. It was tried already and bypassed as soon as it was in the 50s.

2. It is redistribution based on class envy at the core

3. You will hit the small business owner as they fall into higher tax brackets.

2.5 or 5%? Capital gains is more than that.

Not if you know the system and have a good accountant. You can hedge your income and drop to 0% if you wanted.

 

[Curious George]

1. It was tried already and bypassed as soon as it was in the 50s.

I would be interested in learning about that. Do you have any cites?

2. It is redistribution based on class envy at the core

Hardly

3. You will hit the small business owner as they fall into higher tax brackets.

We already have progressive taxes. I am just suggesting we extend them

Not if you know the system and have a good accountant. You can hedge your income and drop to 0% if you wanted.

Sounds more like a bad investor if you ask me.

 

[Lyndon]

1. It was tried already and bypassed as soon as it was in the 50s.

2. It is redistribution based on class envy at the core

3. You will hit the small business owner as they fall into higher tax brackets.



Not if you know the system and have a good accountant. You can hedge your income and drop to 0% if you wanted.

you seem to pride yourself in ripping off the government and hence the people!!

 

[BSM1]

Personally I prefer market-based solutions that make it in everyone's interest to act positively. These mechanisms address the "tragedy of the commons". And they can save money. But too often, we see government promoting more expensive and more polluting solutions, such as coal.

Here's just one example: Take James Brainard, the Republican mayor of Carmel, Indiana, since 1996. He’s put a priority on lowering emissions because it saves his city money and makes it a nicer place to live There Is A Conservative Approach To Climate Change | HuffPost

If conservatives in general accepted the science rather than denying it, I'm sure we would see many ideas that would save money and improve the environment at the same time.

Again, you're focusing on the US. The US is not the major polluter in the world. What do we do about these countries?

 

[BSM1]

You don't see the issue with basically unfettered corporate donations, and lack of transparency?
Under the current system 'your money' is a misnomer anyway. It makes very little difference.

How much of a senator's time goes towards fundraising versus serving their constituency?

Corporations are not allowed to donate to candidates, so this may be a misunderstanding on the part of many. Plus, you may be stepping on the First Amendment by telling individuals how much they can contribute.

 

[Curious George]

you seem to pride yourself in ripping off the government and hence the people!!

Lots of people think they can. But the truth is a little more complicated. Many people overpay. Chances are he is not ripping off the government but offsetting income with losses.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Corporations are not allowed to donate to candidates, so this may be a misunderstanding on the part of many.

Or it could be shorthand. If you prefer to convert 'Corporate donations to candidates' to 'Corporate donations to PACS and Super PACS', then feel free. If you think corporate money isn't used in massive amounts to support candidates (or in resistance to others) then that would be a different story, but I don't think you believe that.

Plus, you may be stepping on the First Amendment by telling individuals how much they can contribute.

Maybe, but I think it would take a stretch. You'd need to see donations as a means of 'addressing grievances with the government'.
In any case, there are already contribution limits in place, right? It's more that they seem to be of the paper tiger variety.
Would you see the current loopholes as advantageous to transparency and accountability?

This is a little old, and it's possible my understanding isn't up to scratch, so apologies in advance. It's hard keeping my head around your political system, but I do try.

From $25 to $10,000,000: A Guide to Political Donations - Campaign Finance - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again, you're focusing on the US. The US is not the major polluter in the world. What do we do about these countries?

They aren't first.
But they appear to be second. Are we not allowed to ask about them until China has improved?

Top 5 most polluting countries | Sustainability for all

 

[BSM1]

They aren't first.
But they appear to be second. Are we not allowed to ask about them until China has improved?

Top 5 most polluting countries | Sustainability for all

The report is obviously skewed because they mention global warming right off the bat. Of course, "global warming" fell out of vogue many years ago. "Climate change" has replaced it as the catastrophe du jour. You've been had.