Shared publicly  - 
 
What about redistributing GPAs?

A few points: First, I assume Carthage College is actually on the conservative side, seeing it's affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America . . . I would also love to see this video at Berkeley, etc.

Next, one interviewee sees through the ruse and says something like, "But there are no tax breaks for the downtrodden in wealth distribution!" Excuse me? Last time I checked, something like 50% of Americans pay $0 in federal income tax. I would call that a "tax break" . . .

At the end of the day, I really like the underlying message: How is it "fair" to take money away from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who failed to earn it? If those who earned it choose to redistribute their own wealth, then, by all means. Of course, I'm sure someone will counter, "But Mitt Romney didn't earn his wealth, his father did!" Well, good on him (his dad). So, why does his father's success deserve to be ripped from his family and redistributed to non-family members by faceless bureaucrats? As for whether Mitt actually did nothing to earn his own money, here's some lengthy analysis from politifact (you might want to cut straight to the "ruling"): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

As a parting thought, I want to pose a research question to you who have read this far: What did the original constitution say about income tax and how much later did what it said change?
1
Cougar Abogado's profile photomatt wartell's profile photo
4 comments
 
Thanks for commenting, Matt. What's the breakdown of the principal thesis statement? "The majority of households who pay no income tax still pay net taxes to the IRS." I.e., how much net tax does this majority pay to the IRS, on an individual basis and as a percent of gross income?

By the way, I'm intrigued how the article notes the top 20% pays over 50% of (I assume federal) income taxes.

By the way, I enjoy the Washington Post (of all publications)'s conclusion on how effective wealth redistribution via the "Buffet rule" would prove (simply scroll to the end if short on time): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-correct-stat-on-the-buffett-rule/2012/04/23/gIQAJ4NzcT_blog.html

Also, I would love to get a response to the rest of what I said. Thanks, again.
 
The principal thesis is that to make statements about Federal Income Tax as if it represented the total Federal tax burden on individuals is disingenuous bookkeeping which looks great on a bumper sticker and has been exploited for political ends but is an unhelpful fiction.

If you were not able to glean that from the year-old article, I suspect you are arguing from an ideological position which I have no prospect of countering as data are mostly irrelevant in that realm.

Peace.
 
I appreciate the peaceful insights, Matt, thanks.

I also enjoy the irony of this conclusion: "I suspect you are arguing from an ideological position which I have no prospect of countering as data are mostly irrelevant in that realm." What's the relevant data on the Buffet rule? How effective would it be? How long would the government run on the fruits of its fairness?

As long as we're talking about disingenuous bumper stickers, let's take a look in the ideological mirror.

All the best.
Add a comment...