Comments on: The Surreal Life, Campaign Edition http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mike http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47341 Mike Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:20:45 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47341 Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don't. That small group that doesn't think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to "buy" the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute. Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.

]]> By: Mike http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47340 Mike Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:20:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47340 Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don't. That small group that doesn't think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to "buy" the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute. Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.

]]> By: Mike http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47339 Mike Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:20:22 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47339 Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don't. That small group that doesn't think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to "buy" the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute. Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.

]]> By: Bill http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47338 Bill Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:33:14 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47338 "What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control?" Why does this matter if it was legally attained/earned? "And does 'fair' = 'pays the same percentage as everybody else?'" Why not? "is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? " The "Trust Fund Kid" argument is an appeal to emotion. Having said that, if her father legally attained the wealth then yes, it is fair. “What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control?”

Why does this matter if it was legally attained/earned?

“And does ‘fair’ = ‘pays the same percentage as everybody else?’”

Why not?

“is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? ”

The “Trust Fund Kid” argument is an appeal to emotion. Having said that, if her father legally attained the wealth then yes, it is fair.

]]> By: Sam B. http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47337 Sam B. Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:43:06 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47337 Bill, That depends. What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control? What percentage of income do they acrete to every year? And does "fair" = "pays the same percentage as everybody else?" I mean, ultimately, is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? The fairness argument, while valid, is both more complicated than "pays 40%" and has more aspects than merely percentage paid. FWIW. Bill,

That depends. What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control? What percentage of income do they acrete to every year? And does “fair” = “pays the same percentage as everybody else?” I mean, ultimately, is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? The fairness argument, while valid, is both more complicated than “pays 40%” and has more aspects than merely percentage paid. FWIW.

]]> By: Maryland Conservatarian http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47336 Maryland Conservatarian Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:43:02 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47336 "...while the other wants to give those making over $2.87 million per year an additional $269,364 annually." When you write "give" do you mean similar to an Earned Income Credit, where people are actually given additional money or do you mean it in the modern-day liberal/progressive sense whereby a tax rate cut (or not initiating a tax rate increase) is portrayed as a subsidy by the government just because it doesn't take as much of a person's money as it did previously. ...now if you want to discuss truly taxing wealth (vice income or production) with, say, an excise tax on the idle rich - i.e. Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, or John Kerry... “…while the other wants to give those making over $2.87 million per year an additional $269,364 annually.”

When you write “give” do you mean similar to an Earned Income Credit, where people are actually given additional money or do you mean it in the modern-day liberal/progressive sense whereby a tax rate cut (or not initiating a tax rate increase) is portrayed as a subsidy by the government just because it doesn’t take as much of a person’s money as it did previously.

…now if you want to discuss truly taxing wealth (vice income or production) with, say, an excise tax on the idle rich – i.e. Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, or John Kerry…

]]> By: Bill http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/silenced_by_sar.html/comment-page-1#comment-47335 Bill Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:53:03 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/the-surreal-life-campaign-edition.html#comment-47335 "one candidate wants the wealthiest to pay a fair share" Hmmm...The top 1% currently pays 40% of federal income taxes. Is that "fair"? “one candidate wants the wealthiest to pay a fair share”

Hmmm…The top 1% currently pays 40% of federal income taxes. Is that “fair”?

]]>