Obamacare and Cedar Point

I challenge anyone to write a more comprehensive, fact-based, NON-emotional response to this subject than what was just presented by GoBucks89.

My wife is a CPA and was an auditor, and I share a similar background, though not as educationally extensive. There is no way journalists have any understanding of what they're talking about. Which is OK, because their liberal constituencies only want to read that "Romney pays a 14% effective tax rate" so they can be enraged and hate the guy, without any understanding of the unintended consequences of jacking those rates up, or other changes to pacify the "slaughter the rich" mentality whether the rich are people, or corporations.

Unfortunately, the large liberal audience here probably will never understand that, and will likely now slam me with their wealthy-people-hating bigotry (even though I am not a one-percenter).

For all their talk of tolerance, equality, etc, liberals sure don't like rich people. Cause they must have stolen all their money from poor people, right? All while sitting on furniture made from baby seal skin and conditioned with children's tears!

I like rich people who abide by the same rules all the rest of us do and respect that their success is a byproduct of the society that we all share. I do hate arrogant jerks, which is a category most of the "well known" rich people fall under. Once someone has enough money to play by a special set of rules, or even worse, take advantage of people who aren't as well off as you, then I wish they'd take their money and get out.

My remarks about Romney were more to do with the 10+ years of tax returns he refused to release, as his refusal made speculation over what they contained fair game. I personally believe he is/was a tax cheat, and his campaign never did anything but add fuel to that speculation.

In the end, we all pay taxes for things that our society has decided we value (like healthcare) and while I doubt anyone loves paying taxes, we generally take for granted what we get for them. The extraordinarily wealthy who complain about having to pay their share (or any share) have the means to relocate to a country that better suits their desires and are more than welcome to do so. As for me, I'll gladly pay my share to enjoy our parks, roads, public schools, police/fire/military protection, and everything else our society provides for its people.

MaverickLaunch said:
I challenge anyone to write a more... NON-emotional response...

I like how you followed that statement with a response full of emotion-based rhetoric.

...pacify the "slaughter the rich" mentality...
...liberal audience here...
...slam me with their wealthy-people-hating bigotry...
...liberals sure don't like rich people...

Good stuff. :)

So I see that you are not up to the challenge.

I never said I wasn't emotional about it. I said that GoBucks89 wrote a great, non-emotional post. Don't put words in my mouth.

Ralph Wiggum said:
I personally believe he is/was a tax cheat, and his campaign never did anything but add fuel to that speculation.

I have to be honest, that sounds more like jealousy than any kind of fact-based belief.

You do realize, don't you, that the wealthy already pay a higher marginal income tax rate than the "poor"? What exactly do you mean when you say you want the rich to pay their fair share?

Perhaps you mean that dividends and capital gains should be taxed at regular income rates? Because strictly from an ordinary income standpoint, the rich are paying LOTS more (both in nominal terms and a percent) than the lower income folks.

IMO the worst thing this president has done is to create division and a hatred towards the wealthy -- class warfare. I'm not even rich and it bothers me. Agree with him or not, but a leader does not divide his people, he unites them.

That started long before this president.

I think the problem in the US isn't so much tax rates, but the more general problem of income inequality. Between 1979 and 2007, income grew by 275% for the top 1% of earners, while growing by only 40% for the middle 60% of earners.

Capitalism, by its very nature, accumulates wealth in the hands of the few at the top. That's not sustainable, and suggests that the top earners should pay a higher percentage, if only to sustain our economy.

I agree there is income inequality. And I'd be discouraged if there wasn't. If we all made the same income, what's our incentive to work or take risks?

The solution can't be to just take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, can it? That's such a lazy, short-sighted approach that is certain to have vast undesirable unintended consequences. I wish our politicians (on both sides) would realize that we don't necessarily need them to try and "fix" everything, sometimes doing nothing is far better than the hands-on approach we've been seeing for the last 20 years.

MaverickLaunch said:
And I'd be discouraged if there wasn't.

The problem isn't that there is income disparity. It's that the disparity is historically massive. And if is history is any indication, it's a problem that will have dire consequences.

The solution can't be to just take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, can it? That's such a lazy, short-sighted approach that is certain to have vast undesirable unintended consequences.

Why is it lazy and shortsighted? If that method works to create a sustainable economy where wealthy people still exists and poor people can still consume the wealthy folks' goods, what's the problem?

...sometimes doing nothing is far better than the hands-on approach we've been seeing for the last 20 years.

Maybe, but in the case of income disparity, there's no indication that doing nothing is better, and every indication that it's a terrible "solution".

djDaemon said:

Why is it lazy and shortsighted? If that method works to create a sustainable economy where wealthy people still exists and poor people can still consume the wealthy folks' goods, what's the problem?

It's lazy because it doesn't address or solve the "problem" that created the income inequality to begin with.

It's short-sighted because it has dire unintended consequences. History has shown this, too.

And then there's the ethical question of whether it is right or wrong. In my view, it's legalized "stealing". I know that sounds dramatic, but I bet you'd agree, if you had worked hard to build wealth and then were told it was going to be taken from you and given to others, to be "fair".

If you haven't seen it, may I humbly recommend the movie "Atlas Shrugged". It's a B movie based on an old Ayn Rand book, and regardless your political leanings, I think it provides some good food for thought on the role of government and income inequality.

MaverickLaunch said:
It's lazy because it doesn't address or solve the "problem" that created the income inequality to begin with.

Sure it does. By progressively taxing the wealthiest, they pay a higher share of the economy's/society's "cost" than others. This seems, at least at face value, to create an economic environment that allows wealthy people to continue to be wealthy, while still allowing the vast majority of consumers to pump money into the economic ecosystem.

By contrast, if wealth continues, as it has in the US (and elsewhere, to a lesser extent), to accumulate in the hands of the wealthiest minority, there will eventually be none left over for the consumers to pump into the economic ecosystem. Hence, the economy collapses, leaving only the wealthiest able to survive.

It's short-sighted because it has dire unintended consequences.

Such as?

We've seen what happens when wealth and/or power accumulates into the hands of a select few. The results are almost universally sub-optimal.

...I bet you'd agree, if you had worked hard to build wealth and then were told it was going to be taken from you and given to others, to be "fair".

Nope, not at all. I'd want to promote the most sustainable economy possible, so that I could continue to gain wealth. While I might gain said wealth at a slower rate, at least that gain wouldn't have an obvious end to it. Seems like a win-win to me.

If you haven't seen it, may I humbly recommend the movie "Atlas Shrugged".

I'm familiar with it. It's a fine piece of fiction. :)

FIrst of all, taxation is a necessary evil. Taxation exists for the sole purpose of funding the operation of the Government, providing it with the revenue required for the Government to carry out its essential functions.

Any other use of taxation is improper. Not only is it improper, it interferes with the proper functioning of a market-based economy.

See, when a market is permitted to operate in a normal fashion, it tends to reach points of equilibrium. The market is an amoral system which requires that there be an adequate supply of producers and consumers, which means that a well-regulated* market will trend towards a self-sustaining system. It is interference with the system which causes systemic failures. The bubble-and-bust cycle, the housing crash, the lending meltdown, the explosion of health care costs...these are not really market failures, as they are so often portrayed; instead they are the predictable results when well-meaning people fiddle with the markets and mess up the regulatory systems, changing the incentives so that the market cannot function properly.

Markets depend on incentives, and the incentives that will generate a well-functioning market tend to be those incentives that follow naturally from a well functioning market. It seems silly to even have to say it: a well-functioning market begets a well functioning market. That's not to say there is no role for government to play; government exists in this country largely because the market demands it. The problem comes when government ham-handedly tries to "fix" the marketplace and the marketplace responds in ways that the government didn't expect. Such as creating an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. Or running wild when certain rules are put into place and crashing unexpectedly when others are employed.

Now here's where things get a bit tricky: To understand how a market is regulated, you have to understand that it absolutely depends on a working feedback loop. Risk, profit, and loss are the primary control and feedback mechanisms for any market. Profit is an incentive, loss is a disincentive, and risk is a modulating factor. One of the worst things that a government can do to a market is to arbitrarily remove risk, as that removes moderation from the system and allows it to run away. After all, what kinds of high-profit risks are you going to take if you know you cannot lose?

My point is this...and here's where that asterisk comes in...not exactly a footnote in this case...for any of this to make sense, you have to understand that there is a difference between "regulation" and "rules". Governments are all about imposing rules. Sometimes the rules make sense, and essentially enforce proper, ethical behavior, and basically provide a mechanism to make sure that all players in a market are operating with the same basic set of principles...that is, a mechanism for enforcing honest behavior. But more often than not, the rules are about creating artificial incentives and penalties, creating mechanisms that interfere with normal risk and reward patterns in an effort to direct a market that is generally self-directing. Regulation, on the other hand, is a natural result of negative feedback. When an activity results in a loss, the market demands less of that activity; activity resulting in profit, then, gets rewarded. When the rules short-circuit that feedback-driven regulation...for instance, by making profitable an activity that the market otherwise would not reward, or by making unprofitable an activity that the market would otherwise encourage...the interference can have disastrous consequences.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(How did I do, GoBucks89?)

* IMPORTANT: "Regulation" here is used in the engineering sense. It's not the same as "rules" and is isn't the same as what "regulators" love to do! In fact, it is often quite the opposite!

--DCAjr

MaverickLaunch said:

It's short-sighted because it has dire unintended consequences.

djDaemon said:

Such as?

See Rideman's post. He said it so much more intelligently, and eloquently, than I could have.

I'm familiar with it. It's a fine piece of fiction. :)

Yes, it is fiction, but I think the portrayal of what our society would look like, given massive government involvement in our lives, should be setting off all manner of alarm bells in our minds. It does for me, anyway.

I could provide a fact-based, real-world example of how government regulation had a very negative unintended consequence for me personally, in my business, if that would make it more helpful for you to understand?

Oh, and Rideman wins the challenge (from my perspective anyway), and not just because I happen to agree with what he said. Very rational and well-written. Thanks!

MaverickLaunch said:
See Rideman's post. He said it so much more intelligently, and eloquently, than I could have.

I don't see where he touched on progressive taxation.

Yes, it is fiction, but I think the portrayal of what our society would look like, given massive government involvement in our lives...

And I think Nineteen Eighty Four provides a portrayal of what our society would look like under an oligarchy (which is what capitalism, left to its own devices, creates).

I could provide a fact-based, real-world example of how government regulation had a very negative unintended consequence for me...

I'm not really discussing regulation. My response to you was focused on progressive taxation.

Well it's clear that nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this subject, right? So why don't we just agree to disagree.

Yes.