Walt Palmer (poacher) is proof that wealth does not trickle down and that the rich are undertaxed.

[tenderfoot]

If he has the means to clip the earth's most endangered species, he can pay higher taxes without suffering much.

If there's one thing to come out of all of this, hopefully it will shine a spotlight on that. Though, I doubt the topic will be brought up outside of here.

Thank you for listening.

[restorefreedom]

1. i said something similar in a different thread yesterday

if he can afford 50k to kill a defenseless animal (and he has done this numerous times), while children go hungry, schools crumble, and people can not afford their cancer medicine, he is not being taxed enough.

if this isn't a good argument of the obscene wealth and income inequality in this country, i don't know what is.

[Democrats_win]

2. Ironically, they complain about today's already low tax rate.

It's time for the rich, like Trump and the Koch's to STFU and pay their taxes which should be increased substantially.

[hill2016]

3. huh?

by your argument nobody ever no matter how rich should ever have $50k to splurge?

What if someone wants to spend $50k on a wedding. Is that excessive?

[tenderfoot]

4. Your concern has been duly noted.

Enjoy your stay.

[hill2016]

17. I was pointing out

the logical gaps in your reasoning.

You're saying that this is proof that taxes need to be raised on the rich. Does that mean that as long as people have $50k to splurge on anything taxes have to be raised?

[Springslips]

65. No. I made the same point in another board.

It is 50-grand to spend on something so frivolous. It is not a wedding, or a car, or down payment on a house, or college. You pay 50-grand on a hunt when you flushed with cash. You pay 50-grand for that then you can easily pay more in taxes, pay your employees more, ect. That's the missing piece that makes it logical.

[Skittles]

72. how about this

that rich, conservative COWARD spent $50,000 to do something ILLEGAL

[dumbcat]

115. Newbies aren't allowed to do that

Listen and learn, Grasshopper, and don't even think about telling your oldsters about logic or reasoning. You are being watched.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. Yeah, 50K for a wedding is excessive.

It's a splurge just like big game hunting.

[hill2016]

15. well

http://www.cnbc.com/2013/05/26/8-Ways-to-Cut-Wedding-Costs-Without-Looking-Cheap.html

[quote]
The average cost of a wedding is as high as $28,400 by one estimate, and close to $26,000 by another. And depending on where you live, like the Big Apple, average costs can top $70,000. That's higher than the median American household income.[/quote]

[Gormy Cuss]

24. So you agree, 50K is excessive.

However, you may not be aware how skewed that "average cost" cited by CNN really is. From a Slate article:

But even accounting for regional variation, these numbers seem exorbitant. And the New York number is positively Gatsby-esque. My fiancée and I always knew we were not particularly well-off by Empire State standards, but we couldn’t believe that our fellow Manhattanites were shelling out a sum that exceeds our combined annual salaries on a single decadent day’s worth of nuptial festivities....



The first problem with the figure is what statisticians call selection bias. One of the most extensive surveys, and perhaps the most widely cited, is the “Real Weddings Study” conducted each year by TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com. (It’s the sole source for the Reuters and CNN Money stories, among others.) They survey some 20,000 brides per annum, an impressive figure. But all of them are drawn from the sites’ own online membership, surely a more gung-ho group than the brides who don’t sign up for wedding websites, let alone those who lack regular Internet access. Similarly, Brides magazine’s “American Wedding Study” draws solely from that glossy Condé Nast publication’s subscribers and website visitors. So before they do a single calculation, the big wedding studies have excluded the poorest and the most low-key couples from their samples. This isn’t intentional, but it skews the results nonetheless.

And the people publishing this tripe either lack a basic knowledge of statistics ("average" = mean, not median) or they publish the mean as a marketing ploy for wedding vendors:

Apologies to those for whom this is basic knowledge, but the distinction apparently eludes not only the media but some of the people responsible for the surveys. I asked Rebecca Dolgin, editor in chief of TheKnot.com, via email why the Real Weddings Study publishes the average cost but never the median. She began by making a valid point, which is that the study is not intended to give couples a barometer for how much they should spend but rather to give the industry a sense of how much couples are spending. More on that in a moment. But then she added, “If the average cost in a given area is, let’s say, $35,000, that’s just it—an average. Half of couples spend less than the average and half spend more.” No, no, no. Half of couples spend less than the median and half spend more.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/weddings/2013/06/average_wedding_cost_published_numbers_on_the_price_of_a_wedding_are_totally.2.html

[BeanMusical]

86. +1

[CreekDog]

7. of all of Mrs. Clinton's supporters that I know and have known

you're the first I've heard refer to her as "Hill".

oh, plenty of people have referred to her that way, just haven't heard any supporters do so.

[Ilios Meows]

16. That's what Limbaugh used to call her back in the '90s.

It's a pretty common 'pet name' among his base audience.

[CreekDog]

18. yeah, i'm waiting for that one to slip and call her "Billary"

[Ilios Meows]

25. LOL. I remember that one!

[pintobean]

64. Then what?

[CreekDog]

78. then you'll chime in to tell everyone I was right

?v=1339988248

[BeanMusical]

87. Lol!

[hill2016]

20. I happen to like

her among all the candidates for President.

She's the most serious candidate and has the most executive level experience.

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. 50k for a wedding? Good gawd almighty that's obscene.

As obscene as spending it to blast some poor animal away? No, but obscene nonetheless.

[haele]

79. depends if you're also flying relatives in, because they can't afford to be there otherwise.

One of my co-workers is spending close to that for a budget wedding that would normally cost around $20K, but they wanted to get the three sets of grandparents and one set of parents from back east out, and put them (and a few other relatives who could afford tickets to the wedding) up for a week here in Southern California for a bit of a treat. Except for a grandfather who had been in the military, none of those relatives had ever been more than 50 miles from the home they were born in, and certainly couldn't afford the trip. An extra $15 - $20K, but they felt it would be worth it for the sake of family.

There's all sorts of different reasons for a wedding to cost $50K, but then again, a $50K wedding is totally different than a $50K vanity vacation trip for one person.

Haele

[Syzygy321]

84. Wait - think about it

50 grand for a wedding - and who does that money go to?

It supports a florist company, a photographer, three hard working musicians, the VFW hall (or whatever venue gets rented), a few chefs, and twenty catering workers who have bills to pay and kids to raise like everyone else.

Expensive weddings spread wealth. I'm all for them.

When I was younger, my hubby wanted us to have a housekeeper come by. I said, "what kind of people have we become, that we're too fancy to sweep our own floors?". He said, "we've got money, and people need money. Housekeepers want jobs." He won. I couldn't argue with that.

[DFW]

91. I don't know what ours cost, but it must have been obscene

My brother and I had a double wedding, and our wives are from different continents (we are American, my wife is German, and his is Japanese). As many of our friends and relatives couldn't afford to pay their way to the United States (Washington, DC), where we celebrated our wedding, we paid for them to fly in, and paid for their accommodations. Our parents in the States paid for the ceremony and reception afterwards. I don't know what that cost either.

My elder daughter worked for some New York caterers while she was in college. They catered Jewish weddings in the city, and she said those things cost upward of $200,000, and the leftovers could have fed (and did, often enough) entire homeless shelters for a night. Sounded crazy to me, but hey, if they want to spread the wealth around like that, it's their choice.

[City Lights]

10. This douche has gone on many obscenely expensive trophy hunts.

Paying more in taxes isn't going to hurt little Wally.

[JI7]

19. no.the point is they CAN afford to pay higher taxes

And aren't at risk of losing their home or business our whatever fake stories put out by anti tax types

[CreekDog]

21. depends: do they live in Manhattan?

or are they a Brooklynite?

[Duppers]

26. ? Yeah and you'd never find a person like him Ever

Donating $50K to help the poor. Not ever.

Bye.

[Syzygy321]

90. Actually I know a guy

Who hunts big game. His daughter married a hunter in South Africa. I don't know about his charitable donations, but I know that since he is well-off he always donates free medical care to anyone who can't afford it. His whole medical froup does the same - and they work killer long hours and save more lives than i could count. Maybe the dentist does the same. How do we know?

[notadmblnd]

27. How did you come t that conclusion from what the OP wrote?

If he has the means to clip the earth's most endangered species, he can pay higher taxes without suffering much.

No where did the OP say one should not have 50k to spend. Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension class could help?

[hill2016]

36. let's examine the premise

"if someone has $50k to kill a lion, he can pay higher taxes". Ok fine, raise taxes once.
still see people spending $50k to kill lion. Ok same conclusion, raise taxes again.

this can go on for a few rounds but should this go on until nobody has $50k to spend on killing lions (or something equivalent)?

[notadmblnd]

40. That's a false equivalency and is a logical fallacy

Your above example also portrays a hasty generalization fallacy as well. Your argument is flawed.

[hill2016]

60. sorry

The OP was the one who generalized from one dentist not me.

And what's your counter-argument?

[notadmblnd]

62. Again with the reading comprehension

The op never said all Dentists. He only specified Palmer.

[hill2016]

63. huh

look at his title:

Walt Palmer (poacher) is proof that wealth does not trickle down and that the rich are undertaxed.

[Syzygy321]

92. Hi; not taking sides in this subthread

but I tried to spot the fallacy in what the prev poster wrote, and I can't figure it out. Will you explain it to me?

I know (or thought I knew) what a false equivalency is but I don't see it - the OP and the poster are both talking about the same thing, namely taxes based on disoaable income for lion-killing. A hasty generalization fallacy is a new term to me.

[hill2016]

102. me too

I was trying to figure out the false equivalency as well.

[Syzygy321]

123. Please answer. Or I am gonna die

wondering.

[Ilios Meows]

5. 50K would have built schools in Zimbabwe.

The rich aren't taxed enough in the US, nor do they donate to charity enough, given the enormous profits they've amassed in the past 30 years. When you see statistics on charitable giving, much of it is 'faith-based', which goes to pay for megachurches and overpaid pastors. There's no focus on the world outside their bubble.

[City Lights]

11. Hiya, Ilios Meows!

Welcome to DU!

[Ilios Meows]

14. Thanks!

[whathehell]

59. Oh hell, it could help a few underfunded schools here..

I absolutely agree that the rich aren't taxed enough in this country, but, as you may or may

not know, it wasn't always that way. The highest earners paid a whopping 91% tax in the 1950's,

during a Republican administration, no less. Under the JFK administration, it went down to 70% BUT

all the loopholes were closed.

Americans, by and large, are quite charitable. A recent study found that, sadly enough, the

most charitable givers at this point in time, are the poor. Faith based or not, it's still admirable.

[Syzygy321]

85. In the ideal situation

That guy's fifty grand (for his hunt) WOULD go to build a school, set aside more land for lions, send all the village girls to school, train locals as nature guides and veterinarian's assistants, and set up a farming or craft coop which would sell food or woven pith helmets or giraffe carvings (at sky-high prices) to the rich foreigners who want to see lions. I am not saying that IS what happened to his money, but that's how it ought to work.

[Ms. Yertle]

9. Yes, because

ALL money belongs to the government, and they should only give us enough for government-approved expenditures.

[tenderfoot]

23. Your slip is totally showing

hope your pizza is delivered sooner rather than later.

[byronius]

75. Oh to hear that knock at the door, the driver standing there with a steaming box --

Well said, Foot Of Tenderness.

[notadmblnd]

28. Are you part of the one percent?

[Ms. Yertle]

32. No, I'm not

But I don't have a problem with doctors, dentists, and other professionals making lots of $$$. Nor do I have a problem with them spending however much they want on whatever they want.

What happened to Cecil was outrageous, a hideous tragedy, and I hope this Palmer guy is prosecuted si ways to Sunday over it. But it has nothing to do with not being taxed enough.

[notadmblnd]

33. Are you saying that the rich already pay enough taxes?

Are you worried that you will be rich one day and have to pay more taxes than you do already?

You are aware that it is an exclusive club and that if you are not already in it, you probably never will be.

[Ms. Yertle]

38. I think the government could manage its $$$

a whole lot better--like not spending nearly so much on wars of choice, empire building, etc.

And--I have no illusions about being wealthy. I never will be.

[notadmblnd]

44. then advocating for the rich is just merely a hobby for you?

because that is what you appear to be doing here.

[Ms. Yertle]

54. I'm not advocating for the rich

I'm advocating for people minding their own business about what other people choose to do with their $$.

[notadmblnd]

61. yes you are advocating for the rich here.

We all here are allowed to express our opinions. If you are really for advocating people mind their own business, you have no business here.

[tenderfoot]

34. I hope the 30+ year free ride the wealthy have been enjoying comes to an end.

sooner rather than later.

[Ms. Yertle]

35. Well--

how much do you think docs should be able to make before the government confiscates "excess income?" And--if you think they shouldn't be able to make more than a specified amount, why should they spend the time and energy to go into those professions?

Top heart transplant surgeons can make a couple of million bucks a year. They earn every penny, and I don't begrudge them any of it.

[tenderfoot]

39. Oh the poor put upon doctors who charge through the nose for their services.

How will they ever get by?

They can start budgeting like everyone else has to.

[Ms. Yertle]

41. I see you didn't answer my question

Why should they go into a difficult and time-consuming field if they aren't going to make more than anyone else?

[tenderfoot]

47. Some people become doctors because they actually about people.

Sadly many are there solely for profit - just like Dr. Palmer.

[Ms. Yertle]

49. Yup

So should they have to prove their empathy bona fides for admission to medical or dental school?

[tenderfoot]

50. They take an oath - so yeah.

eom

[Syzygy321]

95. I am one of those doctors :)

So feel free to ask me anything.

One thing to remember is that med school admissions are really competitive. Everyone wants the stability, money, and status of an MD degree. Knock down the salaries and it won't look too appetizing to spend four years making zero and going 150K in debt, then three-plus years working ninety hours a week for forty thou a year in residency. People will still want to be doctors I guess, but top achieves with options will probably look elsewhere for a career.

[uppityperson]

97. I am genuinely curious about a couple things

How did you find DU? Why are you here? Thanks in advance for answering.

[Syzygy321]

99. I think I stumbled across it while searching the Internet

on some topic or other. Why I am here: lifelong democrat, though I am more confused than when I was young and everything seemed black and white. And, just like to debate stuff. A lot of my current opinions don't mesh with what I read here, so I do expect to be kicked out soon enough. But I hope we can all learn and have fun for the time being.

[uppityperson]

104. DU is a big tent.

which opinions don't mesh? There are all sorts here, a wide range.

[Syzygy321]

107. Well, for example, look at this thread.

Someone here was accused of "supporting the rich" and at least two posters said they hopes she would soon get kicked out. But she wasn't rude and elsewhere I think she came out in support of luxury taxes - she just hasn't fallen in line with the "Rich people are the problem" meme.

It's like, here every statement is interpreted as having loaded ("dog whistle?&quot meanings. For example, if someone says "Sandra Bland was murdered! That cop was a racist!" that's totally accepted here. But if I answer "Those allegations are not yet upheld by evidence and therefore are unfair to the cop," this will not be taken as me simply trying to be fair but as me being a defender of racism, an enemy of civil rights, a hater of blacks, a whitewasher of cop crimes, et cetera. And an alert will follow immediately, and I think I would be evicted for racism.

Do you agree? Those are my observations of interactions here.

[Syzygy321]

118. Hah - a perfect example is

the alert I just got in this thread!

Read my alerted post: I criticized no one; I abused no one; all I did was describe my region. I am well-placed to describe it. The alerter doesn't care if my facts are true (how could he/she know if they are false, when I didn't even name the region?). I am attacked because the facts are "a Republican talking point.". Or something.

That is a problem. That is why I - Democrat though I am - will probably soon be kicked out. I don't think the tent is as big as you wish it were.

[uppityperson]

119. which post was alerted, what were jury results, remarks? Aha, this one?

it is difficult to tell what you are talking about without those. Thanks.


ETA link http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7031435

[dbackjon]

106. So if a doctor

Goes from making $800K/year while getting 9 weeks of vacation and working 30 hours a week to making $720K/year with the same work load, they are just going to quit and start managing a McDonalds?

[Syzygy321]

110. Hah, doubtful!

The doctor is still a lucky SOB and will do quite fine. (He'll grumble though. I will join you in laughing at his pain."

Someone elsewhere suggested a 100 percent income tax above 250K, which is a more problematic thing.

[dbackjon]

114. That is far too extreme

I'd be happy with a higher real tax, and a higher estate tax.


The wealthy used to give away a good portion to foundations (either that or the Government would take it). That incentive has been lost.

It now goes to keep them isolated from the masses.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. It's not about 'confiscation of excess income,' it's about taxing wealth more than we do now

because it won't hurt the rich but it will help support infrastructure and pay for social programs which ultimately benefit all including the rich.

A surgeon who earns a couple of million bucks annually can pay a couple of hundred thousand more in income tax without it affecting her/his lifestyle.

[Ms. Yertle]

48. Sure--

but if he/she wants to climb Mt. Everest or adopt 5,000 cats, or whatever, I'm not going to say it's "proof" he /she doesn't pay enough in taxes.

[notadmblnd]

51. At one time the rich were taxed a rate of 94% currently they pay no more than about 35%

you and I are currently taxed at about 25% if you think that is fair, then you are an advocate for the rich.

I mean really, how much does one really need? When one has more money than they or their children or their children's children could ever spend. Just how much do you think that they really need?

[Ms. Yertle]

52. About that 94% tax rate . . .

No one, and I mean NO ONE paid it. There were sooooooo many loopholes that literally NO ONE paid that rate.

[d_legendary1]

77. Right. And Kennedy lowered it to 70% or so

and closed all the loop holes. After that we had we had some prosperty (government wise anyway) until Regan showed up and lowered the tax rate to 35%. Now we have massive debts and deficits to show for it. Yes, the government has some debt at the time but not anyhere near the amount we have today.

[Whiskeytide]

89. Ahhh - but that was the beauty of the old tax rates ...

... that we have forgotten. Many - most? - of the "loopholes" you just referenced were designed to re-invest the wealth into our society, at least partially. You could write off building costs for a new store or plant (the economy and job availability benefited), you could write off salaries and wages paid to employees (workers benefited), you could write off product improvement costs or losses on ventures and investments (quality and R&D benefited), and on and on... The wealthy and high wage earners were forced to look for things to do with their money that would benefit them in some way while also reducing their tax liability. More often than not, the 'ways" they found had the added bonus of putting a good portion of the money and resources back into our society and infrastructure.

But now, with the rates so low, it makes more sense to the wealthy to just keep it, and invest it only in themselves. That's why we see off shore bank accounts, multiple vacation homes, $10,000 shower curtains, and absorbent sums paid to go on canned "safari" hunts. Those are symptoms of the problem.

The OP is NOT really suggesting that we tell the wealthy what to do with their money. It's pointing out that this dentist is an example of how the low tax rates have fortified personal portfolios to unprecedented levels - all at the expense of the infrastructure of our country.

[notadmblnd]

111. Did I say they paid it? I dont think so.

But you can bet money that if they didn't pay when the rate was 94%, they sure paying are'nt 35% now. Which makes me and you both paying more taxes than the rich. Still want to defend them?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

101. Nobody ever paid anything close to 91% of their income in taxes.

91% (not 94%) was the top marginal tax rate in the '50s - that is, you were taxed 94% on whatever amount exceeded the cutoff for the top bracket.

A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430.html

[Syzygy321]

93. I once had a patient - young, black, disabled -

but still working - who needed a repeat heart valve replacement and didn't have a penny, or Medicaid. The top cardiothoracic surgeon at my hospital was well known for his charitable inclinations. I called him; he did the operation for free. I am sure he lives in a big house and drives a fancy car, but being rich means he doesn't care whether he gets paid. The hospital is the same: they ate all the costs on that lady's hospital stay.

In fact, that happens a lot: people who can't pay get the same treatment as those who can, inside the hospital. (And this is a private hospital.) I am proud to be a doctor and I appreciate my good life. Thanks for your words.

[Sunlei]

29. perhaps a luxury tax of $500 on every $250,000 hunt? or a Federal tax of dollar a bullet?

people already spend $800 in ammo to fire big guns for a day of fun, is $1 a bullet the government taking all the money?

[Ms. Yertle]

43. A luxury tax would be a good thing

I just have a problem with someone telling people what they can do with their own $$.

[tenderfoot]

45. telling people what they can do with their own $$ is only okay when it involves poor people...

hence the conservative support for drug testing people on welfare.

[tosh]

53. Yes, and limiting what can be puchased with food stamps.

[Syzygy321]

98. My area has a huge drug problem -

most prevalent in small towns where a lot of people are on government assistance and high numbers are sexually active young and have babies who then draw government health insurance, WIC, etc. the drug problem is really expensive (think million-dollar hospital admissions for heart valve infections, or millions upon millions for lifelong HIV meds or hepatitis C treatment.

I met a Swede long ago who explained socialized medicine in his country: the government pays for dental care, but citizens get fined if they don't go for preventive teeth cleaning. That makes sense to me. If the government is paying for your stuff, they have an interest (and you have a civic duty) in keeping you from draining their pocketbooks with bad choices. Money isn't unlimited, and when one person takes millions, that's millions less for all the other poor folks who don't shoot up, or who use birth control responsibly.

It's a difficult situation and I don't think quips and black/white thinking can encompass all the nuances.

[Ms. Yertle]

103. I appreciate what you are saying

I think there should be some responsibility attached to--well, any kind of government funding.

[Major Nikon]

109. Results...

On Fri Jul 31, 2015, 04:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

My area has a huge drug problem -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7030871

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Drug war era/welfare = drug use lies

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 31, 2015, 04:15 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No welfare queens in Cadillacs? Does Republican propaganda violate the TOS?

[Syzygy321]

120. Please google the article

"Toll of eastern kentucky's drug epidemic: violence and heartbreak."

Is it still right wind propaganda if it is true?

Can facts be propaganda? I suppose so. But only for those who care more about spinning a message than looking for answers to real human (and political) problems

Update: since this article was written, a new Kentucky law called HB-1 has made it harder for users to get prescription painkillers from multiple prescribers. The result? Excellent! Prescription pill abuse is said to be decreasing.

Too bad heroin deaths are suddenly skyrocketing.

[treestar]

76. The OP simple said tax people that rich more

any tax at all is "telling people what to do with" that amount of money.

Some of the tax laws "tell me" I'd best put savings in an IRA and lower my adjusted gross income. The tax laws "tell you" to have a kid or pay interest on a mortgage, pay college tuition, use child care, since they give breaks to people on that stuff.

[johnp3907]

31. Actually all money DOES belong to the government.

Try printing and spending your own. You'll see.

[LanternWaste]

55. I can only imagine the convenience of possessing a mind which allows one to see in terms...

I can only imagine the convenience of possessing a mind which allows one to see in terms of never more than two possibilities.

[Ms. Yertle]

58. Yeah, me too

[byronius]

74. Your superiority is noted.

I can only imagine the convenience of distributing humblebrag snark without offering any comment of substance.

Plus, you're very popular with Ms. Yertle. Ouch.

[jeff47]

12. There's another "good thing" that comes from it.

Dentistry more-or-less follows the Republican "consumer-driven" plan for healthcare. Dental insurance is far less available, and what is available is usually far more expensive for the patient to use.

According to Republicans, that means dental costs should be contained by consumers "shopping around", while medical costs skyrocket.

Dental and medical costs have been going up at the same rate.

[Sunlei]

13. 50k is cheap for those hunts because it was a lion.They cough-up much more for endangered species.

[DirkGently]

22. The rich require exotic thrills.

There's actually some data on this out there somewhere. As people acquire more and more wealth and property, it gets harder and harder for them to feel satisfied. A trip to the park just doesn't cut it for people who "have everything."

There is a distinctly -- what did the Soviets used to call us? -- *decadent* feel to spending $50k to personally kill a rare and beautiful animal just for "fun."

[BeanMusical]

70. It's an addiction.

But they are doing far more damages to society than someone addicted to heroin.

[swilton]

30. The issue is about who inherits the earth and its biota

Are we going to let the Walter Palmer's of this world have it or will we leave it for our children and grandchildren.

[PatrynXX]

37. with the mudslinging from Planned Parenthood

going on from both extremist sides yeah ie there's more important things going on than arguing who is for abortion (I guess there are those who support abortion as a means to an end. ) I'm not. but thats OT.

getting lost in the shuffle is an earthquake that happened dead center in the USA and I haven't read a word or seen a word about it. only a headline on FB from The weather channel the day it happened again more important things.

[Ilios Meows]

67. An earthquake caused by fracking

Another off-topic comment, but again, human greed (rich corporations) destroying the environment and endangering the inhabitants of the state. OK went from less than 2 earthquakes per year to 585 per year.

[byronius]

46. Well, that's just goldang Leveler talk.

Which I happen to utterly agree with.

I tend to think of it (in a limited nationalistic way) like this -- if a single American citizen is hungry, unsheltered, has no access to good medical care or excellent public schools, then income taxes over basic comfort and security (say 250 K for the sake of an initial number) should be 99%.

One could also say that if a person has enough money to influence elections for the purpose of lowering their own tax rates or repealing essential regulation of their industries, they have WAY too much money.

99%. Until every American citizen has the basics.

Then let's extend this to the world.

It's going to happen. Electorally or through pitchforks is the question.

[Ms. Yertle]

57. If

a heart transplant surgeon can make that $250,000 in two months, why should he/she work the rest of the year?

[hill2016]

69. And why is the cut-off $250k?

Why shouldn't it be $100k?

[byronius]

116. I'm just slinging numbers out from the hip, so to speak.

Just meandering.

[byronius]

71. Because they love the work?

What about a heart transplant surgeon in the Star Trek universe? They don't get paid at all. Why would they do anything but lie around and watch TV when they don't have to?

Most people need work. Some love work. A few people hate to work, and would not do anything at all if they didn't have to. Paid or not, those are the standard human mindsets.

If that heart transplant surgeon was purely doing it for the money and wanted their taxes lowered so they could hoard far beyond their earthly needs and do things like pay to kill other beings for sport, then their first step would be to make sure that every American had basic food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. Because then the tax rate would go down.

Hoarding is a primal instinct that destroys human groupings over time. Witness our current situation. Fabulously wealthy hoarders glut themselves on cruel entertainments while just outside the gate their fellow citizens are starved, miserable and murdered.

Ever read anything about fourteenth century Europe -- the Medicis, the invention of merchant banking and international finance? We're doing it all over again. Wealth doesn't make people better -- it makes them dysfunctional, paranoid, delusional and philosophically indifferent to all other beings. It is a terrible trap, one that makes the generations that follow them more susceptible to mental illness -- that is a fact. Hoarding and gluttony are bad for everyone and everything (planet Earth), but especially for the hoarders and their children.

We're either in this together, or we're in a shark tank. Shark tanks are not only inefficient, they doom the species. Sooner or later, we'll have to figure this out or perish. I'm just leaping ahead of the curve a little bit.

Perhaps that heart transplant surgeon would earn his 250,000 and then do something he really wants to do with his life -- invent, write, act, meditate -- instead of perpetually focusing on hoarding 'biosurvival tickets' (Philip K. Dick's term for money) beyond any reasonable need.

I tend to believe we're all in this together. I also tend to believe that the universe rewards cooperation over individual competition. I also believe that the Great Leaps in technology that will make this conversation moot are probably to be found in the mind of some middle-class or poor kid from a bad neighborhood, and that we should be focusing on educating and nurturing every young mind because of this.

I certainly don't think we should be enabling sick, brutal, foolish, wasteful behavior with tax policy that was purchased for the oligarchy that gave us Citizens United. Historically, societies that lionize hoarding and permit the hoarding class to control political representation fall stagnant and perish. That is a fact. We should all be aware of that fact.

Hoarding is a disease. It has damaged our nation and our planet, perhaps irretrievably. I'm just trying to help out the lifeforms of Planet Earth, Hoarders included.

[Syzygy321]

100. You make really thoughtful points.

And I enjoyed reading them. But I think the previous point stands: once transplant surgeons pocket their 250 grand and go on an eight-month sabbatical to write poetry and hike the Appalachian Trail, a lot of sick people will be waiting a long time for their operation.

I agree that no one needs to make a million a year. It is complex, though. My ex probably makes a half mil yearly because he works like a mouse on a treadmill - but the upside is, he supports a ton of family members displaced by Mideast wars. And he creates jobs: his brother works for him (supporting a wife and 3 youngsters) and he has a landscape guy and a lady who cleans the house, and he buys furniture and condos (to rent out) every five minutes, and goes out to eat a lot and gives charity. So doesn't that mean he helps the economy?

I don't understand economics, but it seems like we need rich doctors who spend lotsa money, so other people who aren't doctors can get a slice of the pie.

[byronius]

108. Thank you for that response.

I was being somewhat facetious with my numbers -- but my point stands. Randi Rhodes once suggested that tax policy is by its very nature a tool of social policy. Working hard for security is fine; hoarding far beyond security, and using the excess to purchase political representation for the purpose of lowering one's own taxes while the large remainder of the population must scrape by working for your ex in the new Service Economy -- not fine.

I do not agree that most transplant surgeons would quit working after they reached a cut-off point; that is apocryphal. I repeat my point: most people need and/or love to work. I suspect medical professionals have an extremely high percentage of these types of people. Nonetheless, I am not suggesting that taxes remain at 99% of all income in perpetuity; just until tax revenue can be found to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide medical care to Americans who do not have such things. One Trident nuclear submarine costs less than the amount to pay for this support for ten years; the only reason we do not do so is that some very wealthy people require suffering masses to make them feel more worthy. Hoarding, as I said, is a disease; it must be extinguished. It has plagued societies since society became a thing, and in the end it always destroys the culture that it infects, poor and wealthy alike.

Your ex sounds like a hard-working person. But he probably pays less in taxes than I do, and I would prefer that he pay more, proportionately. When it comes to people that provide absolutely no value to the nation -- i.e., financial gamesters -- then the fact that they pay far less in taxes than the general population because they have purchased political representation for that express purpose is far more egregious. We should stop these practices, now, using tax policy. It is criminally stupid of us to allow it to continue.

Pay-to-play politics is near the core of this problem. We may not survive the Citizens United ruling. Allowing hyper-wealthy people to control representation is not democracy; it is plutocracy, and it is as inefficient system of governance as authoritarianism.

Google 'Medici'. Read their history. It is us.

Anyway. Back to work.

[Syzygy321]

112. Thanks. Makes sense to me.

Elsewhere, "Whiskeytide" made a point I was unaware of - that in old days rich people got tax credits for doing useful things that benefitted everyone. That sounds good.

[Syzygy321]

113. I will add that I didn't mean to

compliment my ex. He works day and night because he wants 500k a year instead of 200k a year. I find his priorities selfish and obnoxious and detrimental to the kids... But even I can see the positives.

[byronius]

117. An odd point of history to add to Whiskeytide's response --

The original corporate form was created by the Dutch, who only allowed it when language was inserted mandating that the corporation must serve the public welfare before the interests of the shareholders.

The British adopted the form with exactly the same language, and so did the Americans -- but during the 1930's, bribed politicians removed the 'public good' language entirely.

I read this in 'Gotham'. It's an awesome book.

[CreekDog]

80. I think it's kind of hard to be a good heart transplant surgeon

while taking 10 months off, in a row, per year.

[hunter]

56. I often say that the uber-wealthy ought to be taxed out of existence.

I'm guessing Palmer has many patients who have suffered greatly, had their credit ratings destroyed, just to pay their dental bills. He probably has a fantastic relationship with whatever nasty collection agency he sells his patients debts to.

Or maybe he's exclusively the dentist of wealthy assholes, like some Hollywood plastic surgeon, scanning the wallet of a patient as they first walk in the door.

Either way he's fully demonstrated he's an unethical scum-bag with too much money.

Unfortunately that sort of behavior is celebrated in the U.S.A..

Case in point: Donald Trump.

[byronius]

73. Well said.

[Taitertots]

66. His wealth compared to yours is nothing compared to...

His wealth compared to Dick Fuld, Kochs, Waltons, Trump....

Whining about skilled medical professionals being wealthy is just pettiness. Dentists earn their money and they deserve to be wealthy. If you want to be upset about something, then get about about the people that are ten thousand times richer without providing a valuable service to the community.

[Ilios Meows]

68. Do firefighters 'deserve' to earn their money?

If you're going to make the 'earn' and 'deserve' argument, then you're implying that someone's worth to society is higher than another. If we measure worth on value delivered to the community, firefighters, police, nurses, EMTs and teachers should all make the same money as dentists. But that's not the case. In America, medical professionals have to go to school longer and pay off enormous debts after school, but so do most teachers now, as advancement requires a Master's. And it's an abomination how teachers are paid in most states.

I think the OP was implying that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, and it is quite obvious in America that they don't, and the middle class and poor are paying way too much. The infrastructure and schools are crumbling precisely because there's not enough tax money to support basic services.

[Syzygy321]

81. Proof that wealth does not trickle down?

Dunno how you got there.

I have been wondering what happened to the man's fifty grand. I am no fan of trophy hunting - and this case shows the depravity of it - but can we take a breath and consider that money?

In Cecil's area, people probably make two bucks a day of they're male, or 75 cents a day if they're female. So yeah, it's pretty gross that a rich foreigner tramps in with million-dollar accessories and kills lions. But the upside (if things are done right) IS the trickle-down. The local conservation efforts need money. The local people also need money. The dentist and others like him have money they want to throw around.

If your land is poor but has wild game, and some rich jerk will pay huge money for a safari, there are advantages. Take that fifty thou and use it for land conservation. Use it to train locals as game wardens or guides - because when they make a good salary they won't have to poach. Use it to lift up girls and women with education, healthcare, and jobs - empowered women choose to have fewer kids, which means fewer hungry kids, so again, less reason to poach.

Basically, a safari is a luxury tax on the ultra-rich idiots who want bragging rights. It spreads their wealth to those who need it. It's like the rich people who climb Everest or go Eco-touring in the Galapagos: there's an ick factor (rich folks stomping through poor folks' land) and one must work to prevent exploitation and environmental damage, but it's good to get rich people spending their money in poor places.

The dentist could have bought a 50-grand diamond-studded watch, and made de Beers richer. He could have bought a private jet, and made Boeing richer. I would much rather see his money plowed into conservation.

I am sorry about Cecil. But eco-tourism is generally a good thing for developing nations and (in the long run) for their wildlife.

So - looking past emotionalism - I think there may be a role for big game hunting, if it is tightly controlled by governments, and well managed, and the rich foreigners' money goes where it is needed. More money means more protected game in the end.

[lonestarnot]

83. No no fucking role anywhere. You have the same genes.

[Syzygy321]

88. As the wildlife? Or the hunters?

The biggest threats to wildlife - especially majestic big game - are loss of habitat and poaching. Eco-tourism can alleviate both problems. I would much prefer nonviolent safaris (with photography and painting and so forth) as the mainstay. But if a billionaire will pay 500 thou to shoot an old sick lion and take its head home - and that 500 thou makes the locals rich enough to afford food and schools and eco-jobs and birth control (things we want for ourselves, yes?) and a life that doesn't depend on poaching, the whole animal population is saved. The lions win. And the local people win, too.

[lonestarnot]

121. It is pretty clear what you were touting, so why do you ask me to explain what you stated? No role

period, ever, at any fucking time. Roger that?

[Syzygy321]

122. Your hostility puzzled me

so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided "you have the same genes" might mean "we all have the same genes as wildlife...we are all cousins.".

But okay, you DID mean it in the hostile random-attack-on-me sense Sorry for doubting you.

[JHB]

82. Not just the rates, but where those rates fall...

Borrowing this from an old post of mine:

Most discussion of tax history mentions the top marginal rates of the past (91% in the 50s, 70% in the 60s and 70s, 50% through most of Reagan's presidency, etc.)

I like to highlight a different aspect: leaving aside what the rates were, where did they kick in? We live in times where people argue "are couples who make $250K 'rich'?" "Should we raise taxes on people who make over $250K? Over $500K?"

Where did these sorts of things lie in the past?

Using the inflation adjusted historical tax bracket tables from The Tax Foundation for married couples filing jointly, let's break it down a little and find out the equivalents in 2012 dollars:

1945:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 14
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 9
Top bracket affects income over: $2,551,044

1955:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 16
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 11
Top bracket affects income over: $3,426,776

1965:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 13
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 8
Top bracket affects income over: $1,457,740

1975:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 9
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 5
Top bracket affects income over: $853,509

1985:
Total number of brackets: 15
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $360,650

1995:
Total number of brackets: 5
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $386,423

2005:
Total number of brackets: 6
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $383,773

2013:
Total number of brackets: 7
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 2
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $440,876

Special Bonus Gipper edition numbers:
1988:
Total number of brackets: 2 (No, not a typo. Two brackets)
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 0
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $57,738
(There was a reason why Poppy Bush had to go back on his 'Read My Lips' line -- this rate was so low it was unsustainable (naturally, they crucified him for it). And every RWNJ wants to go back to this, or lower...)

ALL income tax progressivity for very high incomes was eliminated under Reagan, and has stayed that way ever since.

Let me repeat that last part:
ALL income tax progressivity for very high incomes was eliminated under Reagan, and has stayed that way ever since.

Look at "good old 1955": over 60% of the brackets kicked in above the equivalent of $250K, and 40% kicked in above the equivalent of $500K. Today only 2 of 7 kick in above $250K, and none above $500K (when I wrote the post it was 1 of 6 and still none). There was more progressivity in income taxes during the Roaring 20s than today.

Brackets reached up into the equivalent of millions today. (heck, between 1936 and 1941 the top bracket kicked in at (inflation-adjusted) incomes in the ballpark of $80 million). That had been eroded by inflation, but it was cut off at the ankles under Reagan.

There are plenty of details that can be argued, but the basic structure worked for people trying to get ahead. Now it works for those who already are.

And for good measure, this old one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365729#post7

...and has not been restored since.

After adjusting for inflation, before the Kennedy-era tax cuts typically over half the brackets (sometimes well over half) affected incomes over $250,000, with about 40% affecting incomes above $500,000. Inflation eroded those levels (the brackets were not indexed for inflation) until the late 70s, when the top bracket dipped those into the single digits. Reagan's tax cuts cut even those further, eliminating brackets starting at over 500K entirely. And by the end of his term, the top bracket kicked in at roughly the median income, not anything that could be considered high (BushI went back on his "read my lips" line because these were unsustainably low).

To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, it seems progressivity is for little people.





In case you're wondering why I picked 1942 as a start date, it's purely for readability, thanks to my graphics skills or lack thereof. I need to figure out how to pull off skipping some intervals, because some of those inflation-adjusted brackets reach higher. Much higher:

This isn't to say that people actually paid those rates: George Romney (Mitt's dad) had an effective income tax rate of 36.9% over the 12 years for which he disclosed his tax records. For about 2/3rds of that time was during the period of 91% top marginal rate (and he would have qualified to pay that on part of his income), and the rest was during the 70% period, but he clearly had the means to reduce his tax liabilities.

George's taxes illustrate another point: once you've got enough wealth, you can arrange your finances to lower your effective tax rate. Look at any graph of effective income tax rates for the postwar period and you'll see them going up with income... and then nosedive at the highest levels. That's part of why affluent professionals complained ( and still do) about their high taxes: They look at people with even higher incomes paying proportionately less, and see themselves as being the ones getting stuck with the check. Yes, that view leaves out a lot of things, but it's a definite motivator on who they vote for.

That's part of why I focus on the structure more than the top rates: to put the focus where it belongs the most -- on how much taxation at the highest levels has been kneecapped.

[Fawke Em]

94. Well, he's certainly been accused of "shining a spotlight" on something.

Unfortunately, it was Cecil and not how poorly the very wealthy are taxed.

[dbackjon]

105. [phone]

Let them eat lion