Progressive Ideology

[MDlaxfan76]

I'll take a swing at that ball.

Seems to me that there are 'investments' in creating a more just opportunity society that are not mere 'wealth transfers', though indeed they are paid for mostly by those who are already wealthy. These 'investments' should ultimately pay off for all, including those who originally 'invested', by having the total pie grow through a more productive society in which a greater proportion of human capital potential is achieved.

If we evaluate those 'investments' on the basis of their efficiency in achieving such outcomes, I think we can begin to prioritize these 'wealth transfers'....and 'sell' their benefits more clearly.

On the flip side, transferring wealth directly, simply to achieve more parity, more 'fairness', may be predicted to have unintended, negative consequences, thus could be less efficient in accomplishing the actual objectives, as well as are far less palatable to those being asked to 'pay their fair share'.

If I look at the Biden infrastructure and family plan, I see a whole lot of 'investments' (yes, paid for by the more wealthy) that can indeed be justified as driving a stronger, healthier, as well as more just, economy with long term ROI.

It'd be interesting to rank those 'investments' as described above.

[Farfromgeneva]

You've been reading my posts a long time FFG and so, i'm sorry if it sounded to you like i was in some way attacking your position. Sorry. Was actually asking about how the usage of the term "wealth transfer" DOES in fact get mangled in a political way, and there were times in my yout (h/t Joe Pesci) where my post would've been written in a more flaming kinda way. Didn't think (or mean for) it to be so here.

Would like to circle back to my question to you about trickle down. Your feelings about it? Your feelings about it relative to income inequality? Is income inequality a real "thing"? When j'biden says "pay your fair share", does that get your hackles up? or does it ring true somewhat...the tax rates on upper level income earners have certainly been all over the place in recent decades...

...but at the end of the day, i agree with j'biden that the economy needs to be built up from the bottom/middle UP and THAT's where i feel that MOST of the elements of his very large infrastructure initiative are a good idea. It's an INVESTMENT in America, and i feel the economy in general will benefit YUGE-ly from it...

..

Roger that, I took it incorrectly as an assumption I was trashing all taxes.

Not to be whatever but depends on your definition of trickle down. I tend to think of it as more of a matrix than pyramid, philosophically. I would separate “trickle down” from capitalism significantly and say that I continue to believe that the best (Most optimal which would generally be in a range we might agree on with respect to distribution curve) path of allocation to society is with a very strong private set of incentives for private participants (citizens and business) vs the outcome for all if driven meaningfully by an administrative class with their own different set of incentives and payoffs.

Trickle down - failed in execution

Was it in its platonic ideal form a bad path? I still don’t think so but we will never know.

Was it sold a something it wasn’t or transparently. No

Do I want to expected allocation to society driven predominantly internally by government and political classes? Still definitely not.

Do I see a meaningful role for these groups in managing society for us? Yes. But I hold them to a far higher standard than participants who have real skin in the game. (Police and head of day HHS)

Do I think that this role should have linear and compounding growth on our society? No it should be cyclical.

Hope this clarifies

[Peter Brown]

You've been reading my posts a long time FFG and so, i'm sorry if it sounded to you like i was in some way attacking your position. Sorry. Was actually asking about how the usage of the term "wealth transfer" DOES in fact get mangled in a political way, and there were times in my yout (h/t Joe Pesci) where my post would've been written in a more flaming kinda way. Didn't think (or mean for) it to be so here.

Would like to circle back to my question to you about trickle down. Your feelings about it? Your feelings about it relative to income inequality? Is income inequality a real "thing"? When j'biden says "pay your fair share", does that get your hackles up? or does it ring true somewhat...the tax rates on upper level income earners have certainly been all over the place in recent decades...

...but at the end of the day, i agree with j'biden that the economy needs to be built up from the bottom/middle UP and THAT's where i feel that MOST of the elements of his very large infrastructure initiative are a good idea. It's an INVESTMENT in America, and i feel the economy in general will benefit YUGE-ly from it...

..

These yo-yo’s will never grasp that every day they benefit from trickle down economics.

[jhu72]

You've been reading my posts a long time FFG and so, i'm sorry if it sounded to you like i was in some way attacking your position. Sorry. Was actually asking about how the usage of the term "wealth transfer" DOES in fact get mangled in a political way, and there were times in my yout (h/t Joe Pesci) where my post would've been written in a more flaming kinda way. Didn't think (or mean for) it to be so here.

Would like to circle back to my question to you about trickle down. Your feelings about it? Your feelings about it relative to income inequality? Is income inequality a real "thing"? When j'biden says "pay your fair share", does that get your hackles up? or does it ring true somewhat...the tax rates on upper level income earners have certainly been all over the place in recent decades...

...but at the end of the day, i agree with j'biden that the economy needs to be built up from the bottom/middle UP and THAT's where i feel that MOST of the elements of his very large infrastructure initiative are a good idea. It's an INVESTMENT in America, and i feel the economy in general will benefit YUGE-ly from it...

..

These yo-yo’s will never grasp that every day they benefit from trickle down economics.

... right. 99 cents for the top 1% trickles down to 1 cent for the 99%.

[foreverlax]

You've been reading my posts a long time FFG and so, i'm sorry if it sounded to you like i was in some way attacking your position. Sorry. Was actually asking about how the usage of the term "wealth transfer" DOES in fact get mangled in a political way, and there were times in my yout (h/t Joe Pesci) where my post would've been written in a more flaming kinda way. Didn't think (or mean for) it to be so here.

Would like to circle back to my question to you about trickle down. Your feelings about it? Your feelings about it relative to income inequality? Is income inequality a real "thing"? When j'biden says "pay your fair share", does that get your hackles up? or does it ring true somewhat...the tax rates on upper level income earners have certainly been all over the place in recent decades...

...but at the end of the day, i agree with j'biden that the economy needs to be built up from the bottom/middle UP and THAT's where i feel that MOST of the elements of his very large infrastructure initiative are a good idea. It's an INVESTMENT in America, and i feel the economy in general will benefit YUGE-ly from it...

..

These yo-yo’s will never grasp that every day they benefit from trickle down economics.

Bet you're at the trough, just slurping it up....

[ggait]

These yo-yo’s will never grasp that every day they benefit from trickle down economics.

Personal incomes rose 21% in March. That is just so freaking awful for the yo-yos.

6.4% GDP growth rate in Q1.

S&P 500 up 20% since Joe was elected.

Trickle up economics >>> trickle down.

El caiman es muy stupido.

[Peter Brown]

These yo-yo’s will never grasp that every day they benefit from trickle down economics.

Personal incomes rose 21% in March. That is just so freaking awful for the yo-yos.

6.4% GDP growth rate in Q1.

S&P 500 up 20% since Joe was elected.

Trickle up economics >>> trickle down.

El caiman es muy stupido.

Area surfer catches gargantuan wave.

Gait thinks the surfer made the swell.

[ggait]

If you throw money at the top, not very much of it reaches the middle/bottom.

If you throw money at the middle/bottom, those people get richer and (as customers/consumers) spend it. Which is the largest portion (by far) of the economy. And that business activity (i.e sales by businesses) makes the stock market go up.

FYI, Joe's March rescue bill included a YUGE tax cut -- for people making $100k and under. Wall Street is loving it, even if they will have to suck up some higher cap gains taxes.

So trickle up works better than trickle down.** By a lot.

Trumpers/gators are the ones who can't tell the difference between causation and correlation. They're like roosters -- they crow; sun rises; then they think they made the sun come up.

El caiman es muy stupido.

**The problem, of course, with throwing money around is that eventually you have to pay for it. But if you are going to throw money, it is massively smarter to throw it at the bottom/middle of the economy than at the top. Which is just forking dumb.

[dislaxxic]

If you throw money at the top, not very much of it reaches the middle/bottom.

If you throw money at the middle/bottom, those people get richer and (as customers/consumers) spend it. Which is the largest portion (by far) of the economy. And that business activity (i.e sales by businesses) makes the stock market go up.

FYI, Joe's March rescue bill included a YUGE tax cut -- for people making $100k and under. Wall Street is loving it, even if they will have to suck up some higher cap gains taxes.

So trickle up works better than trickle down.** By a lot.

Trumpers/gators are the ones who can't tell the difference between causation and correlation. They're like roosters -- they crow; sun rises; then they think they made the sun come up.

El caiman es muy stupido.

**The problem, of course, with throwing money around is that eventually you have to pay for it. But if you are going to throw money, it is massively smarter to throw it at the bottom/middle of the economy than at the top. Which is just forking dumb.

+++

[Peter Brown]

If you throw money at the top, not very much of it reaches the middle/bottom.

If you throw money at the middle/bottom, those people get richer and (as customers/consumers) spend it. Which is the largest portion (by far) of the economy. And that business activity (i.e sales by businesses) makes the stock market go up.

FYI, Joe's March rescue bill included a YUGE tax cut -- for people making $100k and under. Wall Street is loving it, even if they will have to suck up some higher cap gains taxes.

So trickle up works better than trickle down.** By a lot.

Trumpers/gators are the ones who can't tell the difference between causation and correlation. They're like roosters -- they crow; sun rises; then they think they made the sun come up.

El caiman es muy stupido.

**The problem, of course, with throwing money around is that eventually you have to pay for it. But if you are going to throw money, it is massively smarter to throw it at the bottom/middle of the economy than at the top. Which is just forking dumb.

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

[ggait]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas estupido de todos!

[Farfromgeneva]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stuff stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas stupido!

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

[MDlaxfan76]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stuff stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas stupido!

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

Probably depends on what is meant by "better". Certainly the donor thinks he or she can have more involvement in targeting the impact in ways the federal government, with it's "democratic" (small d) allocation, may not target the same way. The donor may well have different priorities than the priorities of future elected officials. Both may waste the same proportion of dough, or may not. In Gates' case, Bill and Melinda and their team have been pretty darn good at risk analysis and management of their dough getting spent. Quite demanding.

The flip side of ggait's correct description, is that of course the other half of their tens of billions of wealth actually will get taxed when it gets passed down...it's not as if the gov't isn't gonna get a heck of a big chunk. Which I think the Gates' are just fine with...after all, how many billions do the kids and grandkids really need?

[ggait]

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

Sure. I mean Bill could leave it all to Harvard or Stanford, who probably don't really need the money.

But that's certainly better than giving money to the Trump Foundation, which uses tax free donations to overpay for portraits of the big guy....

[Farfromgeneva]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stuff stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas stupido!

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

Probably depends on what is meant by "better". Certainly the donor thinks he or she can have more involvement in targeting the impact in ways the federal government, with it's "democratic" (small d) allocation, may not target the same way. The donor may well have different priorities than the priorities of future elected officials. Both may waste the same proportion of dough, or may not. In Gates' case, Bill and Melinda and their team have been pretty darn good at risk analysis and management of their dough getting spent. Quite demanding.

The flip side of ggait's correct description, is that of course the other half of their tens of billions of wealth actually will get taxed when it gets passed down...it's not as if the gov't isn't gonna get a heck of a big chunk. Which I think the Gates' are just fine with...after all, how many billions do the kids and grandkids really need?

Of course only at a certain income/wealth level do folks have the ability to reject handing over the money and choosing their own priorities over the collective will as expressed by our politicians. Most people including a lot well into six figure incomes don’t have that luxury.

[lagerhead]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stuff stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas stupido!

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

Probably depends on what is meant by "better". Certainly the donor thinks he or she can have more involvement in targeting the impact in ways the federal government, with it's "democratic" (small d) allocation, may not target the same way. The donor may well have different priorities than the priorities of future elected officials. Both may waste the same proportion of dough, or may not. In Gates' case, Bill and Melinda and their team have been pretty darn good at risk analysis and management of their dough getting spent. Quite demanding.

The flip side of ggait's correct description, is that of course the other half of their tens of billions of wealth actually will get taxed when it gets passed down...it's not as if the gov't isn't gonna get a heck of a big chunk. Which I think the Gates' are just fine with...after all, how many billions do the kids and grandkids really need?

Of course only at a certain income/wealth level do folks have the ability to reject handing over the money and choosing their own priorities over the collective will as expressed by our politicians. Most people including a lot well into six figure incomes don’t have that luxury.

Mark Zuckerberg learned quickly what happens by throwing money directly at a local government problem$100mm. Newark School system spent $52mm on admin. He never offered again. Can’t imagine the grift when talking billions, I’d protect my money too.

[ggait]

Of course only at a certain income/wealth level do folks have the ability to reject handing over the money and choosing their own priorities over the collective will as expressed by our politicians. Most people including a lot well into six figure incomes don’t have that luxury.

Yup. But let's take a moment to focus on what Trump's priorities were in this area.

He doubled (from $11 to $22 million) the amount that rich guys could hand to their kids tax free. So that extra $11 million (which previously might have gone into some type of charity) instead was diverted directly into the pockets of the rich kids. And how many folks are up at that asset level?

The top 0.1%. Basically Jared, Ivanka, Junior and Eric.

That's trickle down economics on steroids.

[MDlaxfan76]

Tell Bill Gates (noted Democratic booster) to stop stuffing his estate into a tax free foundation.

Bill puts money into his foundation because otherwise his kids would have to pay gift/estate taxes to get their hands on Bill's wealth. Same goes for Warren Buffet (who put a ton of his wealth into Bill's foundation). And then Bill's foundation is forced to spend the money on stuff stupid stuff like fighting poverty and disease in the third world. Turrible!!

Trump doubled the amount rich dudes can pass to their kids tax free from $11 to $22 million. Because being able to pass "only" $11 million tax free into the pockets of Junior, Eric and Ivanka is just so freaking unfair.

El caiman es muy muy muy stupido. El mas stupido!

The only question I would have is this an indictment of public allocation of resources if one is ok with the Gates methodology Because it’s basically saying “I can do it better than the govt can”

Probably depends on what is meant by "better". Certainly the donor thinks he or she can have more involvement in targeting the impact in ways the federal government, with it's "democratic" (small d) allocation, may not target the same way. The donor may well have different priorities than the priorities of future elected officials. Both may waste the same proportion of dough, or may not. In Gates' case, Bill and Melinda and their team have been pretty darn good at risk analysis and management of their dough getting spent. Quite demanding.

The flip side of ggait's correct description, is that of course the other half of their tens of billions of wealth actually will get taxed when it gets passed down...it's not as if the gov't isn't gonna get a heck of a big chunk. Which I think the Gates' are just fine with...after all, how many billions do the kids and grandkids really need?

Of course only at a certain income/wealth level do folks have the ability to reject handing over the money and choosing their own priorities over the collective will as expressed by our politicians. Most people including a lot well into six figure incomes don’t have that luxury.

True.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pretty good review of what went wrong in Newark effort:
https://www.npr.org/2015/09/21/44218308 ... ic-schools

and by Business Insider...note, the Newark school system, nor the city, didn't get the money...a foundation did.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zu ... ker-2018-5

and by Vox: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... rk-schools

[Farfromgeneva]

In assets $22mm doesnt bother me. I wouldn’t fight a lower number but in the grand scheme of things I don’t see that number as problematic. With global central bank yields, assume you can make 3.5% long term principal protected (basically high rated life co whole life policy rates). That’s $800k/yr in income for a descendant: high but not egregious and below the $1mm threshold. $22mm total doesn’t get you into MS or GA ultra HNW program which is $15-$20mm liquid and investable as that $22 wouldn’t ever come fully liquid.

Also, I agree w you on many things but I feel like you keep wanting to steer this to Trump who we agree is a POS jerk loser who’s scammed a large chunk of the country but on a progressive ideology thread this feels like a misdirection from what I’m actually talking about..