Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
203 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Other people getting stuff you didn’t rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: US_Politics [+] [View All]
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
Do you make more than $50,000,000 per year?

If not then you will not be taxed for this.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wildwizzard wrote:
"We can't tax the mega-rich to pay for X, because if we do that then we can't tax them to pay for Y or Z" is an argument that I see primarily floated by people who don't want mega-rich taxes to pay for any of X, Y, or Z.


I am fine with progressive taxation. I am even fine to tax the rich EXTRA for specific efforts.

I would do the snoopy happy dance if we could all get on board with some serious luxury taxes again.

But I object stongly to "tax the Uber Rich" being brought up as the solution to everything... like it was an actual magic wand with unlimited wish granting potential.

If you literally liquidated Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet's fortunes entirely (Both had ~ 90 Billion last I read) ... we could cancel out the 1.5 Trillion student loan debt and toss a bit toward something else. But then those fortunes would be gone. You cannot spend them twice. Even if we strip the 1% of every penny they have (which would not be reasonable nor econmoically sound policy) it is still a finite amount.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Boardgame Aesthete
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.


Did you even read the discussion windsago and I had upthread about that very thing?

Quote:
It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.


I don't know what does or doesn't anger you. What angers some people, however, is the idea of anyone else getting something they didn't.

I work for a government agency. One that has problems with retention, particularly among STEM workers. One idea for keeping more new employees that has been floated (so far without the agency's management being receptive) is student loan repayment assistance. This is actually something that some federal agencies do offer, but ours doesn't.

You know what an awful lot of older employees (who got much better benefits, graduated college long before the current debt bubble, enjoyed careers in less constrained fiscal environments when promotions were more plentiful, etc.) complain about when this is suggested? "I had to pay for college myself: why should new employees get a benefit I didn't! I want an equivalent sum of money given to me as a bonus if they get loan assistance!"

This is a case where they literally will not be adversely affected at all if newer employees are given this benefit, but some of them just can't stand the idea of other people getting what they didn't.

(To be fair: it is a minority of older employees taking this attitude. But a very loud one.)
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Meerkat wrote:
wildwizzard wrote:
"We can't tax the mega-rich to pay for X, because if we do that then we can't tax them to pay for Y or Z" is an argument that I see primarily floated by people who don't want mega-rich taxes to pay for any of X, Y, or Z.


I am fine with progressive taxation. I am even fine to tax the rich EXTRA for specific efforts.

I would do the snoopy happy dance if we could all get on board with some serious luxury taxes again.

But I object stongly to "tax the Uber Rich" being brought up as the solution to everything... like it was an actual magic wand with unlimited wish granting potential.

If you literally liquidated Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet's fortunes entirely (Both had ~ 90 Billion last I read) ... we could cancel out the 1.5 Trillion student loan debt and toss a bit toward something else. But then those fortunes would be gone. You cannot spend them twice. Even if we strip the 1% of every penny they have (which would not be reasonable nor econmoically sound policy) it is still a finite amount.





Since the tax proposed by Senator Warren does not come even close to the confiscatory scenario you envision, then all you are doing is providing the most flimsy strawman I have seen in a while. God forbid they have to give anything back after they made out like bandits on the last tax cut.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wildwizzard wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
The point of the "magic wand" in the example was to isolate the actual principle being argued over. (Of course that never works.) Not to argue about the fact that magic wands are nonexistent and silly.

The intent was to make possible the question: "If it causes you no harm, why would you be against this?"

You need a "magic wand" to wave away secondary effects like increased taxes or taking away money from other needs - which of course are real considerations in an actual scenario. But what people (including me) have observed is that a lot of the people reacting angrily to any suggestion of offering debt relief seem less angered by economic arguments than they are by the idea that someone else might get something they didn't.


I understand the point of the hypothetical.

Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.

It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.


The framing of that conflict is on bad foundations, though. In this scenario--both in the hypothetical and in the one proposed by Warren--it is not the hard-working folks who rolled up their sleeves to pay for their own college tuition who are being called upon to bail out people who made poor life choices.


But there is no magic wand.

Ultimately somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Quote:

Instead, it's families with $50 million or more who are being taxed to pay for the tuitions of everyone. This includes people who made "bad choices" (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) as well as people who made "good choices" (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school).



THIS is exactly why people get spun up ...

bad choice - (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) --- Not their fault

good choice - (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school)- AKA Not their hard work.

The presumption that the majority of people in difficulties are predominantly victims of circumstance and those not in difficulty are predominantly merely blessed by circumstances undercuts our entire USA work ethic that created our prosperous society in the first place in addition to flying in the face of objective reality.

It is extra insulting to those of us who were not born into rich families and whose families did have to make sacrifices and who personally did have to work hard and sacrifice ourselves to better our lives.

Yes life is a luck lottery in many ways. But it isn't ALL a lottery. Choices matter too. Most of us know that choices matter at least as much, if not more than, life's lottery overall.


Quote:

This enables the "bad choice" people to enter the work force without crushing debt and start contributing to the economy right away, and it enables the "good choice" people to do something else with the wealth and effort that they would have put toward college tuition.


How does forgiving current student debts help the good choice people now? I missed that?

If you are discussing free college from this point forward... then there won't be any bad or good choice people in terms of future student loan debt. But that isn't the current point of contention being discussed.

Quote:

At no point in this scenario do "bad choice" and "good choice" people come into conflict with each other.


Well your magic wand proposal might not put them in conflict, but in the real world that isn't feasible.

How taxes are collected and spent effect everybody. It is a finite resource. Even assuming they don't get directly taxed themselves they might have other prorities they want tax money spent on.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doremus wrote:
Since the tax proposed by Senator Warren does not come even close to the confiscatory scenario you envision, then all you are doing is providing the most flimsy strawman I have seen in a while. God forbid they have to give anything back after they made out like bandits on the last tax cut.


I wasn't proposing actual confiscation as a straw man. I was pointing out the limitations of the resource pool in real dollars.

I am fine with taxing the uber rich more. I think the recent tax cuts were a bad idea. But we cannot possibly tax the uber rich for every thing that taxing the uber rich is proposed as the solution for.


So if we are going to discuss why one may or may not get behind student loan forgivness as a tax payer, and there are some good reasons to consider doing so... and some good reason not to... aka it is a reasonable discussion to enter into.

But starting out with the poisioned well premise that people who wouldn't even want to give magic money away are just judgy mean monsters isn't a good way to start that discussion.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:
I am fine with taxing the uber rich more. I think the recent tax cuts were a bad idea. But we cannot possibly tax the uber rich for every thing that taxing the uber rich is proposed as the solution for.


Tell you what, how about you side with the majority of us here, and we keep taxing the uber rich to solve our problems until it stops working, and then when that happens, I promise to start agreeing with you whenever you tell people that we can't just keep taxing the uber rich for everything. Deal?


Like, let's just try it a few times and see how it goes before we start worrying too much about the uber wealthy, politically connected and temporally powerful owner class.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.


Did you even read the discussion windsago and I had upthread about that very thing?


Yes I did. And I didn't have major objections to it.

I didn't jump in until somebody said people who object to the bail out are monstrous.

Quote:

Quote:
It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.


I don't know what does or doesn't anger you. What angers some people, however, is the idea of anyone else getting something they didn't.

I work for a government agency. One that has problems with retention, particularly among STEM workers. One idea for keeping more new employees that has been floated (so far without the agency's management being receptive) is student loan repayment assistance. This is actually something that some federal agencies do offer, but ours doesn't.

You know what an awful lot of older employees (who got much better benefits, graduated college long before the current debt bubble, enjoyed careers in less constrained fiscal environments when promotions were more plentiful, etc.) complain about when this is suggested? "I had to pay for college myself: why should new employees get a benefit I didn't! I want an equivalent sum of money given to me as a bonus if they get loan assistance!"

This is a case where they literally will not be adversely affected at all if newer employees are given this benefit, but some of them just can't stand the idea of other people getting what they didn't.

(To be fair: it is a minority of older employees taking this attitude. But a very loud one.)



I will grant you that there are people with narrow ego centric views who might not care about all those points you made about the advantages they had the current younger group do not. They might still be whiny and bitter even if they grasp it all. But I suspect that even of that minority taking that attitude you describe, they are likely not aware of just how those advantages they had have changed for younger workers.

In short... they are far more likely to be blind to what worked for them that has changed than to just be dog in the manger level of if I cannot have it nobody should types.

There really are dog in the manger types of personalities ... but I don't believe they are the majority of people overall.





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:
wildwizzard wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
AmadanNaBriona wrote:
The point of the "magic wand" in the example was to isolate the actual principle being argued over. (Of course that never works.) Not to argue about the fact that magic wands are nonexistent and silly.

The intent was to make possible the question: "If it causes you no harm, why would you be against this?"

You need a "magic wand" to wave away secondary effects like increased taxes or taking away money from other needs - which of course are real considerations in an actual scenario. But what people (including me) have observed is that a lot of the people reacting angrily to any suggestion of offering debt relief seem less angered by economic arguments than they are by the idea that someone else might get something they didn't.


I understand the point of the hypothetical.

Here is the crux of the conflict... there are people in the world who tend to consistantly make wiser life choices, espeically in terms of economics - which means they make sacrifices UP FRONT to get a hard earned goals later on. Yet they are also consistenty then painted by some others as mean or stingy or monsters for not being thrilled about having to always bail out the people who didn't, and often still don't, make those wiser choices.

It isn't that we angered by the idea of addressing the crisis... it is that we become angered by the ideas that don't acknowledge these are bail outs while the underlying issues that caused the need for the bail outs are still not being acknowledged or corrected.


The framing of that conflict is on bad foundations, though. In this scenario--both in the hypothetical and in the one proposed by Warren--it is not the hard-working folks who rolled up their sleeves to pay for their own college tuition who are being called upon to bail out people who made poor life choices.


But there is no magic wand.

Ultimately somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Quote:

Instead, it's families with $50 million or more who are being taxed to pay for the tuitions of everyone. This includes people who made "bad choices" (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) as well as people who made "good choices" (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school).



THIS is exactly why people get spun up ...

bad choice - (such as being peer pressured to take on immense debt before they could legally drink or rent a car) --- Not their fault

good choice - (such as being born into a family that could pay for their medical school)- AKA Not their hard work.

The presumption that the majority of people in difficulties are predominantly victims of circumstance and those not in difficulty are predominantly merely blessed by circumstances undercuts our entire USA work ethic that created our prosperous society in the first place in addition to flying in the face of objective reality.

You started this out by suggesting that the beneficiaries of this proposal were people who didn't work hard enough to deserve it. If you want to talk in sweeping generalizations then be prepared to be replied to in sweeping generalizations.

Quote:
Quote:

This enables the "bad choice" people to enter the work force without crushing debt and start contributing to the economy right away, and it enables the "good choice" people to do something else with the wealth and effort that they would have put toward college tuition.


How does forgiving current student debts help the good choice people now? I missed that?

If you are discussing free college from this point forward... then there won't be any bad or good choice people in terms of future student loan debt. But that isn't the current point of contention being discussed.

Warren's proposal also addresses ongoing tuition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Escapade wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I am fine with taxing the uber rich more. I think the recent tax cuts were a bad idea. But we cannot possibly tax the uber rich for every thing that taxing the uber rich is proposed as the solution for.


Tell you what, how about you side with the majority of us here, and we keep taxing the uber rich to solve our problems until it stops working, and then when that happens, I promise to start agreeing with you whenever you tell people that we can't just keep taxing the uber rich for everything. Deal?


Like, let's just try it a few times and see how it goes before we start worrying too much about the uber wealthy, politically connected and temporally powerful owner class.


Side with you how?

You need to define what that means.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:


It is extra insulting to those of us who were not born into rich families and whose families did have to make sacrifices and who personally did have to work hard and sacrifice ourselves to better our lives.


I'm one of those people and I'm not the least bit insulted. At all. I know I worked hard. I don't have to fight to deny other people the chance to maybe not have to work as hard to prove it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doremus Jessup
msg tools
Avatar
mb
Meerkat wrote:
Doremus wrote:
Since the tax proposed by Senator Warren does not come even close to the confiscatory scenario you envision, then all you are doing is providing the most flimsy strawman I have seen in a while. God forbid they have to give anything back after they made out like bandits on the last tax cut.


I wasn't proposing actual confiscation as a straw man. I was pointing out the limitations of the resource pool in real dollars.

I am fine with taxing the uber rich more. I think the recent tax cuts were a bad idea. But we cannot possibly tax the uber rich for every thing that taxing the uber rich is proposed as the solution for.


So if we are going to discuss why one may or may not get behind student loan forgivness as a tax payer, and there are some good reasons to consider doing so... and some good reason not to... aka it is a reasonable discussion to enter into.

But starting out with the poisioned well premise that people who wouldn't even want to give magic money away are just judgy mean monsters isn't a good way to start that discussion.



Senator Warren addressed a real problem (student debt) with a real solution (a targeted loan forgiveness program) with a vehicle for financing it (a wealth tax on the most wealthy families, the ones by the way that profited most handsomely from the recent tax reform). Referring to it as "magic money" is just reciting the same old right wing memes to protect the wealthy. And pointing out the ridiculous straw man you served up is not "poisoning the well". Its pointing out the ludicrousness of your argument. As in Warren's tax proposal goes no where near total confiscation.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
Assume for a minute Elizabeth Warren has a magic want than can disappear $50k of all student debt. Nobody has to pay for it and there are no negative consequences. (If you don’t believe in magic wands, go start your own thread.)

A significant number of people would still be opposed to using the wand because... no fair. We are truely a strange species.


It's kind of insane. I have student debt.

If I could wave a magic wand and erase everyone's debt but mine I'd wave that sucker around.

Who wouldn't?

Well, spiteful dumbfucks wouldn't, I guess.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"I didn't get this so you shouldn't" is a pretty common argument against things that are already completely publicly funded, too. Those who campaign against school bonds will usually use some variation of it. "We didn't have air conditioning when I was a kid; why do kids need it now?" etc
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Burke Martin
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikePustilnik wrote:
I was reading about her proposal just today.

Of course if there were no negative consequences, then it would be fine. But you are talking about magic, not reality.

Should the creditors end up losing their money?
Should the taxpayers have to pay for this?
Or just add to the public debt?
Or maybe just print the money?
All of these have negative consequences.

And what about the students who chose to go to less expensive colleges, or worked during their studies, just so they would have lower debt when they graduated? Is it fair to them that the students who chose to go into more debt will get their debts forgiven, at taxpayer expense?


So what youre saying is you arent getting enough free shit?

wtf is wrong with people in this country?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
EMBison wrote:
Assume for a minute Elizabeth Warren has a magic want than can disappear $50k of all student debt. Nobody has to pay for it and there are no negative consequences. (If you don’t believe in magic wands, go start your own thread.)

A significant number of people would still be opposed to using the wand because... no fair. We are truely a strange species.


Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fake Mike wrote:
EMBison wrote:
Assume for a minute Elizabeth Warren has a magic want than can disappear $50k of all student debt. Nobody has to pay for it and there are no negative consequences. (If you don’t believe in magic wands, go start your own thread.)

A significant number of people would still be opposed to using the wand because... no fair. We are truely a strange species.


Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only


right, still do it, anything that increases happiness is still good, even if it discriminates and only helps people that "don't need it" or that "hate me"

This isn't the gotcha you thought it was ><

It's magic.

Lowering taxes on the rich to withhold goods/services isn't a zero sum game, it kills people.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Poole
msg tools
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:
Side with you how?
You need to define what that means.


Advocate for taxing the rich to pay for things that will benefit society at large, vote for them, and agree we won't worry about the ultra rich being taxed until they're taxed significantly more than they are at this moment in time.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David C
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I'm mostly for this. I just wish that college worked a little more free-market. You don't NEED to go to Stanford, folks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pustilnik
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Putting aside the "magic wand" scenario (which I have already answered), here is my own opinion on Warren's proposal:

Crushing student debt is a serious problem that should be addressed. But Warren's proposal to immediately eliminate all of it is too expensive. And yes, it is unfair to the students who were worked harder and were more responsible financially.

Meerkat wrote:

I think that there would be a lot less potential for objection and resentment if what Warren and others were offering up was a bit less pie in the sky and more genuinely reasonable solutions to a real crisis.

For example... literally taking over the student debt and stopping the interest accumulation. Letting the former students finish paying off their loan principle directly to the Government over time, instead of to banks.

All the current loan holders get Treasury Bonds in the amount of the principle owed. They are paid off... the Government has taken on some more debt but not that much in the grand scheme of things and the crushing burden of repayment on the students is significantly lessened.

What is wrong with a plan like that?

It doesn't address what needs to happen next to keep today and tomorrow's students from ending up in the same situation, so that still needs addressing, but it fixes the crisis for today in a way that is actually almost fair. (Still unfair to the people who took on the debt and paid it off including all the interest... but nothing is perfect).


I would definitely support something like this.

Now let's talk about Warren's proposal for free public college tuition. I do think that public colleges do charge too much, and that public colleges do need to charge less. But the cost should not be zero. About 50% less seems right to me. The students should pay for at least some of their own education. I am okay the the taxpayers paying the rest. By requiring the students to pay something, we minimize clogging public universities with students who are there to party, and don't really care about learning at all. Such students do exist, and detract from the education of the students that really do take their studies seriously.

So, reduce public university tuition by half, yes. Reduce it to zero, no.

5 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
Sue_G wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
EMBison wrote:
Assume for a minute Elizabeth Warren has a magic want than can disappear $50k of all student debt. Nobody has to pay for it and there are no negative consequences. (If you don’t believe in magic wands, go start your own thread.)

A significant number of people would still be opposed to using the wand because... no fair. We are truely a strange species.


Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only


Oooh, a gotcha with a magical movement of the goal posts.


... The point there being that broadly painting everyone who disagrees with a specific policy proposal by asserting that there is something innately evil in their character is maybe a bit of an overreach. There are plenty of cases where "giving free stuff to people" isn't a good idea.


What's perhaps more interesting in this particular case is that it reflects wealth redistribution going primarily to the middle and upper-middle class, while leaving poor people with nothing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
Fake Mike wrote:
What's perhaps more interesting in this particular case is that it reflects wealth redistribution going primarily to the middle and upper-middle class, while leaving poor people with nothing.

Are you talking about Warren's proposal here, or just the general hypothetical of forgiving student debt with a magic wand and nothing else?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
wildwizzard wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
What's perhaps more interesting in this particular case is that it reflects wealth redistribution going primarily to the middle and upper-middle class, while leaving poor people with nothing.

Are you talking about Warren's proposal here, or just the general hypothetical of forgiving student debt with a magic wand and nothing else?

Specifically the student debt part of the proposal, ignoring where it comes from in the spirit of the thread.

Maybe I should say wealth distribution instead of redistribution? Either way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Parker
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
Terwox wrote:
Fake Mike wrote:
EMBison wrote:
Assume for a minute Elizabeth Warren has a magic want than can disappear $50k of all student debt. Nobody has to pay for it and there are no negative consequences. (If you don’t believe in magic wands, go start your own thread.)

A significant number of people would still be opposed to using the wand because... no fair. We are truely a strange species.


Okay, same question right back at you, except:

1) wand is only used to benefit white students
Or
2) wand is used to eliminate mortgage debt on jumbo ($650k+) mortgages only


right, still do it, anything that increases happiness is still good, even if it discriminates and only helps people that "don't need it" or that "hate me"

This isn't the gotcha you thought it was ><

It's magic.


For the record, I think that's a fine position to take, though we could get into an argument as to *how* magic this wand is: since government gifts to white people, such as home loan subsidies, are one of the main causes of the racial wealth gap today, would the wand also magically prevent issues like that? Probably not a particularly interesting argument though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Escapade wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Side with you how?
You need to define what that means.


Advocate for taxing the rich to pay for things that will benefit society at large, vote for them, and agree we won't worry about the ultra rich being taxed until they're taxed significantly more than they are at this moment in time.


I already do that.

However I think that the taxes on the uber rich should be raised (And tax loopholes mostly only they get removed) and go into the general fund just like any other taxes. To then be bickered and dickered over like any other tax revenue.


1) We already need to be taxing rich people more because we are running an unsustanible deficit with the budget we currently have.

2) If a new program has enough merit to be funded than it should be funded out of the general tax pool. Not some stick it only to the people who aren't us targeted tax.

Caveat for #2: taxes tied in some way directly to the use or expense of a program, like gas taxes for roads or tax on waste disposal based on type of waste generated etc. make reasonable sense.

So I object to this never ending rah rah BS of lets start an expensive new program because we can make it revenue nuteral if only we tax rich people more. It is impracitcal poltical rabble rousing. We cannot tax them alone enough to possibly pay for Medicare for all, AND Free College for all, and loan forgiveness, and however many other new plans politicians can come up with that sound great of paper but would cost a lot to impliment.

Also BTW I think Warren's idea of taxing wealth would be a nightmare in terms of assessing wealth, cost a lot to impliment and have some potentially horrible consequenses on unintended not actually Uber weatlhy in terms of liquid assets people. Plus I think it is in many ways inherently wrong to tax people for not wasting money or to tax them repeatly for the same non land based items. So how to tax the Uber Rich more, well that is a different discussion. But Warren's idea is an awful one IMO.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.