Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

[flowerseverywhere]

Gregg, interesting article that puts things in a different perspective. Unfortunately for young kids even with a degree it is tough to get a start down that path with all the student debt and unemployment.


Another big factor is number and timing of children an staying married. A smaller family in a two parent home has the potential to give more resources and attention to each child. Watching my kids and their friends they are having smaller families, later in life and focusing on giving them educational advantages (and they aren't the 1% but maybe the top 25% or so). Contrast that with last week when I subbed in inner city schools while they were training the nurses in new forms they had to fill out for medicaid, and the poorer schools were full of kids with multiple siblings with different names, younger parents and one adult in the home (every single case I saw was a mother or grandmother), almost all free lunch and breakfast kids. What chance do they have of every being lifted out of poverty as compared to the parents I see in my neighborhood and my kids and their friends. Some of the kids I saw in Kindergarden and First grade knew less than my two year old grandchild and had no preparedness for learning to read and do basic math. Of course there are huge exceptions to this informal observation- but it does explain some of the gap between the poorest and richest in our society. Perhaps it is what the bottom percent is not doing right.

Needless to say I did this as a favor for a friends and it was a real eye opener to me, who normally sticks to suburban middle class and above schools.

You can tax the 1% at 80% and it won't be enough to overcome todays social issues.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree

So if everyone had a college degree suddenly all jobs would be the exact same ones that exist now that "require" college degrees? And where would all these additional high wage jobs come from? I mean if you only need so many whatevers now, why are we suddenly going to need so many more whatevers in the future just because everyone has a degree qualifying them to be a whatever? I mean you can take jobs from other countries to some extent (but that's not so easy to do while being high wage, only a few countries seem to have that down (like Germany) - while a whole bunch of other countries have mastered "the race to the bottom").

[Gregg]

I have no idea how Lawrence Katz developed his formula regarding the effect of education on income, but had the impression that it was a very long term observation not terribly skewed by what has happened in just the past few years. Anyway, I could not possibly agree more with anyone who believes that job creation is the top priority right now, for everyone, not just recent college grads. Technically creation of an environment in which job creation is rewarded is what's needed, but I split hairs. From my POV the article was interesting simply because it starts to address an issue from the bottom up rather than the top down. I'm a glass half full kinda guy most of the time so reducing gaps by lifting the bottom up is a lot more appealing to me than doing it by knocking the top down. YMMV.

[JaneV2.0]

My understanding is that progressive taxation is at least partially designed to temper the rise of the kind of robber-baron empires seen at the turn of the last century. Our post-war economy boomed with top-tier tax rates three times what earned income is taxed at today, so it's hard for me to see why anyone would complain about current rock-bottom federal taxation. I'd like to see a return to at least Reagan-era rates.

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business. But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business.

It's a very bizarre focus in life beyond a certain point (a certain point of wealth of course but also a certain point of sacrificing other values for money), but yea really, who thinks about this stuff.

But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

+1 it's seems it's become a self-reenforcing feedback loop: buy off the government, government makes laws and spends money in your favor, use profits to buy off the government. Rinse repeat, forever, until maybe eventually the whole thing collapses. Meanwhile not a single policy on anything sane like protecting the environment sees the light of day (it might offend a big polluter somewhere who has .... bought off the government).

[LDAHL]

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business. But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

It will be interesting to see how Walker fares in the recall election this June. Either the government unions re-establish their closed shop status, or they and their supporters in the Democratic Party will lose a significant and reliable funding source permanently. The Democratic primary candidate most closely aligned with the unions is Kathleen Falk. She has pledged to veto any state budget that does not return to the status quo pro ante. She appears to be running behind Tom Barrett, the Mayor of Milwaukee.

With the implications for national trends, a lot of money is pouring into Wisconsin on both sides, and television stations in the larger markets are doing very well by the first amendment right now.

[Gregg]

It's a very bizarre focus in life beyond a certain point (a certain point of wealth of course but also a certain point of sacrificing other values for money), but yea really, who thinks about this stuff.

When you think of it in terms of accumulating more of anything than you can use there is an element that doesn't make much sense. At that point it really doesn't matter if its gold or cats or Gods or zucchini plants, I would think the psychology is the same.

Regarding taxation, I think our government takes in plenty of money right now and don't think anyone needs to pay more. The government needs to spend less. And it needs to spend in ways that offer more benefits to more people. If those kinds of changes are made and we are still going deeper in debt then higher taxes might make more sense.

[dmc]

Maybe it would help if old Warren would just pay what he owes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1382591.html

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

[peggy]

Maybe it would help if old Warren would just pay what he owes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1382591.html

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

Because we don't run the country on yard sales and donations?

[Gregg]

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

I'm glad the majority of his wealth is going somewhere that might do some good, but handing a chunk over to the government would silence a lot of critics. And who knows peggy, if we keep going like we are a yard sale may be exactly how we raise money. Whacha' give me for an Osprey?