In Disney's shadow, homeless families struggle

[mect]

I think the safest jobs are those that require outside the box thinking and creativity. Human interaction is becoming increasingly replaceable. I prefer self checkout for instance. Probably would prefer ordering from a computer at McDonald’s too.

I agree about outside the box thinking, but think you misunderstood me when I said human interaction. I agree, I prefer self checkout. I also prefer computer ordering (I love the kiosk setup going in at Costco). However, I don't think most people would want a computerized marriage counselor. I also don't think most people would want computerized customer service departments (other than for basic returns and such). I even think education is going to be pretty safe for countries that can afford it, as I think the human element is an important part of the learning process for most people. Child care, elderly care, etc I think will continue to be safe. Even if you people could make a robot capable of safely watching a child, I think most people would prefer having a human do that.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Agreed but if one thing history has shown us is never underestimate the future

 

[realibrad]

Your questions are designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Let's look at them again-



Lotto winners only wish they paid the same tax rate as investors who make similar amounts every year, not just once in a lifetime. I think we should raise investor taxes so they pay at least the same rate.

I think we should tax very large inheritances at the same rate as if the value were earned income. Not the estate but rather the recipients. I have no problem with the first several $M being exempt.

That bit about being in the global 1% is like the "write a check" routine & an attempt at shaming. If I'm supposed to be ashamed, what about the guys at the top of this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-real/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cb39873707bc

Or should we just worship them instead because they're smart enough to rig the system so that people making $68M/year pay the same federal tax rate as people making $85K?

Taxing inheritances even though they were already taxed seems interesting. Can you explain that further?

As for tax rates, I'm for a progressive system but with steps less large than what I expect you want. I'm even for a negative income tax. That gets into a much bigger discussion though.

I'm not for the rich rigging the system for their benefit. I think for many at the top, the government is just a tool to increase their wealth. We are in agreement there.

You are too defensive. I'm not pointing out that you are in the top 1% to make you feel guilty. I'm trying to see how you answer something I see to be logically inconsistent. Notice how I'm not attacking or insulting you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxing inheritances even though they were already taxed seems interesting. Can you explain that further?

As for tax rates, I'm for a progressive system but with steps less large than what I expect you want. I'm even for a negative income tax. That gets into a much bigger discussion though.

I'm not for the rich rigging the system for their benefit. I think for many at the top, the government is just a tool to increase their wealth. We are in agreement there.

You are too defensive. I'm not pointing out that you are in the top 1% to make you feel guilty. I'm trying to see how you answer something I see to be logically inconsistent. Notice how I'm not attacking or insulting you?

Please. If the inheritance were used to pay wages instead then the recipient would pay taxes on that, wouldn't they? And if you have to pay taxes on inheritance, so what? It's still free money.

 

[realibrad]

Please. If the inheritance were used to pay wages instead then the recipient would pay taxes on that, wouldn't they? And if you have to pay taxes on inheritance, so what? It's still free money.

But I want to know your logic. I presume you don't want to tax all money that is exchanged. What is the reason that you want to tax some inheritance but not all?

 

[Brainonska511]

Taxing inheritances even though they were already taxed seems interesting. Can you explain that further

Not all inheritance is already taxed. If you pass on investments, the heirs can inherit them at a stepped up basis, IIRC.

 

[realibrad]

Not all inheritance is already taxed. If you pass on investments, the heirs can inherit them at a stepped up basis, IIRC.

I'm not super up on taxes, but would those investments not get capital gains taxes? Would they also not get taxed once they "realized" the profits from those investments?

 

[Jhhnn]

But I want to know your logic. I presume you don't want to tax all money that is exchanged. What is the reason that you want to tax some inheritance but not all?

Because wealth is a good thing in small doses. It cushions families against circumstances beyond their control.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not super up on taxes, but would those investments not get capital gains taxes? Would they also not get taxed once they "realized" the profits from those investments?

Inheritance resets the clock. Had I bought Apple stock long ago & sold it today, I'd pay taxes on the gains. If my son inherited it & sold it the same day he'd pay no taxes.

 

[realibrad]

Because wealth is a good thing in small doses. It cushions families against circumstances beyond their control.

How much wealth is okay and not harmful? Again, you are the 1% globally. I don't see any reasonable way that your wealth is more/less harmful than the 1% of the 1%.

 

[Jaskalas]

The important thing to remember is that as people compete more against machines, this doesn't decrease the resources available to society. In fact, in general it increases them. The problem is that it concentrates wealth with those that own the resources, not those that perform the labor. I think this (along with globalization) is one of the main driving forces behind the decline of wages coupled with the increase in productivity. This is one reason I think government is going to have to play a roll addressing this issue. No one has provided me with a convincing argument for how capitalism can address this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to capitalism as an economic system. I just think it needs some checks and balances.

We do not oppose Capitalism. We're trying to save it from itself. It has a gaping hole that needs to be plugged, that's all.

 

[Jhhnn]

How much wealth is okay and not harmful? Again, you are the 1% globally. I don't see any reasonable way that your wealth is more/less harmful than the 1% of the 1%.

The fact that I own my home outright has no effect on poor people in other parts of the world. That's the major component of middle class American wealth. It's the same for other durable goods. Financial instruments can be a different story but half of all American families don't have any of those.

You keep trying to drag in the ROTW. It doesn't fit with this topic, a domestic problem.

 

[realibrad]

The fact that I own my home outright has no effect on poor people in other parts of the world. That's the major component of middle class American wealth. It's the same for other durable goods. Financial instruments can be a different story but half of all American families don't have any of those.

You keep trying to drag in the ROTW. It doesn't fit with this topic, a domestic problem.

I'm trying to establish how and where you draw your lines. The extremes of inequality seem to be seen by you as harmful, but, I cannot figure out why. If your argument was that you can only get to the 1% of the 1% through corruption, then I would expect your policy suggestions to be targeted at reducing that corruption. What you are suggesting is to take away what people earn instead which implies to me that your issue is with their wealth regardless of how they earned it.

So, I want to know what wealth is bad and what is not. You are saying that you own a home, and that home's value is far above what a majority of the people on the planet would ever hope to earn in their lifetime. That then leads me to question why your wealth is not bad but other wealth is bad and how you know when its bad.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm trying to establish how and where you draw your lines. The extremes of inequality seem to be seen by you as harmful, but, I cannot figure out why. If your argument was that you can only get to the 1% of the 1% through corruption, then I would expect your policy suggestions to be targeted at reducing that corruption. What you are suggesting is to take away what people earn instead which implies to me that your issue is with their wealth regardless of how they earned it.

So, I want to know what wealth is bad and what is not. You are saying that you own a home, and that home's value is far above what a majority of the people on the planet would ever hope to earn in their lifetime. That then leads me to question why your wealth is not bad but other wealth is bad and how you know when its bad.

Money is power. Power corrupts. That's obvious when we realize that the top .001% ($62M/yr+ in 2012) pays the same federal tax rate as somebody making $85K/yr while those in between pay more. That's not right. It's not an accident, either. It's corruption. Mega rich right wing billionaires own the GOP & the propaganda organs that support it. If they have less money they'll be less able to corrupt the system. Their taxes need to go up considerably to reduce their influence or they'll just keep buying more, one way or another.

We can use the money to improve healthcare (or most anything) to reduce the load on families so they can have better financial security.

The propaganda effort behind the worship of greed has altered the way Americans look at the world. Remember when Trump bragged that he didn't pay taxes because he was smart & people thought that was great? That's not right, either.

 

[realibrad]

Money is power. Power corrupts. That's obvious when we realize that the top .001% ($62M/yr+ in 2012) pays the same federal tax rate as somebody making $85K/yr while those in between pay more. That's not right. It's not an accident, either. It's corruption. Mega rich right wing billionaires own the GOP & the propaganda organs that support it. If they have less money they'll be less able to corrupt the system. Their taxes need to go up considerably to reduce their influence or they'll just keep buying more, one way or another.

We can use the money to improve healthcare (or most anything) to reduce the load on families so they can have better financial security.

The propaganda effort behind the worship of greed has altered the way Americans look at the world. Remember when Trump bragged that he didn't pay taxes because he was smart & people thought that was great? That's not right, either.

So would it be fair to say that your fear is that some people have too much power, so you want to take that away? Ill ask that first before going any further.

 

[Jhhnn]

So would it be fair to say that your fear is that some people have too much power, so you want to take that away? Ill ask that first before going any further.

They obviously have too much power or they wouldn't have been able to corrupt the GOP & the minds of too many Americans. Or will you ascribe some reason other than corruption to the tax facts listed above? You know, like "Oh, well. We just hadn't noticed. Maybe we should form a committee."

 

[realibrad]

They obviously have too much power or they wouldn't have been able to corrupt the GOP & the minds of too many Americans. Or will you ascribe some reason other than corruption to the tax facts listed above? You know, like "Oh, well. We just hadn't noticed. Maybe we should form a committee."

I asked that question to not presume your answer. I would suggest you do the same.

So again, is your worry that wealth causes corruption and so we need to limit wealth to keep people closer together?

 

[Jhhnn]

I asked that question to not presume your answer. I would suggest you do the same.

So again, is your worry that wealth causes corruption and so we need to limit wealth to keep people closer together?

I already made my argument. I showed how it is true, that the Wealthy have obviously corrupted the tax system to favor themselves at the expense of everybody else. It's corruption. You can deal with that directly or not at all. I won't qualify it further.

 

[realibrad]

I already made my argument. I showed how it is true, that the Wealthy have obviously corrupted the tax system to favor themselves at the expense of everybody else. It's corruption. You can deal with that directly or not at all. I won't qualify it further.

Taxing wealth will not fix the corruption. That is because the tool you are trying to use is the very thing that is corrupted. It's like trying to use a dirty rag to clean something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxing wealth will not fix the corruption. That is because the tool you are trying to use is the very thing that is corrupted. It's like trying to use a dirty rag to clean something.

Hardly. Taxation per se isn't corrupt. Republican tax policy is corrupt.

 

[Paladin3]

I think this is an education issue. I have a friend who works for Disney and makes a very good living. She is an accountant. She works hard and moved up the ladder, waiting until she was 30 to have her one and only kid. Her husband works hard too servicing advanced medical equipment for hospitals.

I don't know how anyone with only minimum wage skills expects to support a family, especially if you have multiple kids before you establish a career. Taxing the rich more, or artificially inflating the minimum wage and compressing the overall pay scale isn't going to fix things for those kinds of people. Maybe if we culturally place more value on education, developing marketable job skills and reproductive responsibility it would help.

 

[realibrad]

Hardly. Taxation per se isn't corrupt. Republican tax policy is corrupt.

Republicans pay the same taxes. Your argument you is that the ultra rich have corrupted the system to their advantage. They were all he to do this because they have so much power. I'm not saying taxation is the problem. You are saying that the system has been corrupted. You somehow expect that same system to fix itself.