I'm glad you brought up the VA home-loan benefit! According to the new MAGA vision, the VA will have those benefits cut or eliminated entirely. I spent 23 years in the Army with 3 combat deployments and I have definitely benefited from the benefits:
*BA, MA, PhD via the G.I. Bill
*Full healthcare at Truman VA hospital
*VA guaranteed home loan
*60% disability payments
*Retirement pension payments
Of course, many who served fewer years or weren't deployed have received less, but they still receive a lot of help.
These MAGAt miscreants want to gratuitously celebrate their ideas of the "American Heroes", but yet renege on our deserved benefits. They seem to be pushing for some sort of mercenary army. History tells us that would be a mistake.
With trump and musk making Krushev's 1956 dreams come true for putin, our only hope of ever having another election is for our service members to uphold the Constitution and not comply when martial law is declared and they're told to roll tanks into American streets to prevent anymore elections.
Our tax system has been manipulated to ensure that wealth is not taxed. Trump hides his income behind sub-S corporations, hence he pays essentially no taxes, and this dodge is widely emulated. If you work for a salary, you have no choice. Taxes are withheld from your salary.
A good start toward a level playing field would rework our tax system to ensure that wealth is not sheltered and the wealthy pay their fair share.
Thank you. I've never seen it explained like this, and the analysis is stunning. It makes complete sense. And also thank you for the statement about Federal employees. As one who worked for the Dept of Interior for 30 years, we worked constantly to improve speed and efficiency - in my case the efficiency of systems like payroll and personnel processing. It's not as straightforward as people may believe. Thank you.
An excellent, cogent analysis -- but not a simple one. I was briefly an econ major and try hard to keep up, and yet I found myself skimming. Part of the problem is financial literacy of course, but even worse, we're none of us schooled at reading complicated texts online. The graphs are terrific and even more helpful with the analysis, but an online format is inevitably a problem. I'd much prefer to see you on a stage with these graphs behind you, even if that means moving to Missouri before your next campaign. Seriously, though, I think you're among the half dozen most serious Democratic candidates, and I'm grateful (if concerned) that you don't simplify your arguments or condescend to your audience. Thanks.
Oh my goodness. What an eye opener your post was. And it hits the nail squarely on the head concerning taxation. I'm what would be considered solid middle class, and I'm quite willing to pay my "fair share" to make sure that city, county, state, and federal governments operate efficiently to provide services to me and my neighbors.
Alternative proposals in addition to the obvious imposition of very high taxes on wealth (oes anyone need even $1,000,000 a year?) and confiscatory estate taxes (the English nobility did it to itself in the 19th century) are needed. My pet idea deals with securities, specifically shares in corporations. All public corporations would be taxed on the basis of outstanding shares at the end of each year, and the tax would be in corporate shares--say the equivalent of 3% of outstanding shares--delivered to an IRA sort of fund for every child born in the following year. An absolute proscription on corporate buy-backs would be vital. Privately held corporations would pay a cash amount based on the corporation's book value at year end (probably buttressed by some savage rules on accountants' work).
Such a program would have the obvious additional benefit of providing a mechanism for an inter-generational transfer of wealth.
Corey booker has talked about baby bonds which is akin to what you're talking about. Don't know the funding source but it's a concept that has been discussed.
Yes, but they were talking chicken feed. ($5,000) I unfortunately forgot to talk dollars. My guide for the amount would be 10% down payment on a current median priced house plus 4 year tuition at a state university. Thomas Piketty suggests $150,000. The idea is to have the funds invested to provide an equivalent amount after 20 years of inflation. "The American Dream," what Jefferson referred to as "the pursuit of happiness," was originally underwritten by the government by seizing Indian land and making it available to settlers at little or no cost. Until the end of the 19th century the primary function of the federal government was "pacifying" Indians to provide land.
Your real issue is not with compound interest. In the manner you've explained compound interest, it is just a trade between two agents, one who prefers has excess funds now and is willing to lend them and the other who has a current need. In this sense, compound interest is just a "price" for borrowing or lending and it occurs in one form or another even in subsisentce communities. It is an exchange that works to the benefit of both participating agents.
The real issue is the bi-modal spread of US wealth, which you do show clearly. This has gotten worse since, approximately, Reagan years, and it gets worse almost each year (except, arguably, Clinton years) and always gets worse with each new trickle-down Republican tax cut. What I find difficult to believe about it is that wealthy Americans should see it, and they should know that as the wealth disparity grows, the middle class declines in numbers. And it is the middle class that buys the goods and services of organizations owned and managed by the wealthy. Declining middle class, means declining purchases of the goods and services of the wealthy--and the wealthy loose too, eventually. We only need to look at any developing country to see what happens: bi-polar income distribution, but the developing country wealthy survive by saving their increasing wealth in a few economies like the US. What happens when the US purchasing ability (of the middle class) declines--and even the US is eventually no longer a good savings location for anyone's (US included) wealthy?
Been saying so since Smiley-Ron days. Let's return to the 94% marginal tax rate of 1944 CE & add a stiff inheritance levy of 85%, a la Brits in 1945 under Atlee.
Thanks for pointing out, although not explicitly, that it is the Republiscum sin of preaching that life is inherently a zero-sum game -- for me to win, or even stay even, somebody else HAS to lose ... and it had better not be one of the "have-mores," as George W. Bush labelled them -- with which we, individually and particularly as a society, have to contend. His father, of course, quite accurately labelled it "voodoo economics" -- until he became Ronny Rotten's running mate.
Historically, the traditional American approach, which the traditional Democratic party has championed, has been to strive not to divvy up the existing pot, but to make the pot bigger. Which can't happen by just let some people skim off the top and accumulate resources doing no realistic good to anyone, including the owners. One example from the relatively recent past was the hoarding by Mitt Romney (remember him? 2012 Presidential candidate, inheritor of a decent-size fortune, expanded by a career of asset-stripping of companies for fun and profit) of a quarter-BILLION dollars in "investments" off-shore, doing no apparent good to anybody including his family.
How to point out, effectively, including to the MAGA, who realistically may be a lost cause:
The Trump/Project 2025 plan, already being put in place, is to swindle Americans who have been contributing to our "entitlements" of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid from our very first paychecks out of our entitlements in order to pay for more and bigger tax breaks for billionaires and the U.S. and foreign owners of large corporations who no longer have to exert even the effort of depositing their dividend and interest checks.
Hey Lucas, Not sure what your bandwidth looks like, but if you have the ability to hold a town-hall since the republicans are now refusing to, I would travel from KC to attend. I want to grow our community and fight against this corruption plaguing our country and state!
What we need is an excess wealth tax in addition to the other taxes, income, sale, property, etc.
The purpose of this is to prevent excessive indirect contributions to political candidates and parties in amounts that can buy political power for unelected taxpayers. A system that allows a few wealthy people to buy political influence is a bad idea.
I'm a boomer but don't assume all of us did well. If you came from a low income family, didn't marry, and worked in the public sector, you didn't do that well.
A lot depends on where you live. I live in the Bay Area, which is very expensive, but I cooked out of the low cost cook book most of the time (macaroni and cheese from scratch, salad, oranges apples or bananas). Sigh...
So, What are ya gonna do about it? There's not much i can do. I voted democrat and they all made stupid choices and decisions and lost to a wannabe mob boss. Not that Democrats are any better... well maybe a little, but still very little,
If there is a revolution, I will vigorously participate for sure. I think most of us would like to see some heads roll. But barring that, I just vote and pay taxes so rich assholes don't have to.
In my opinion, billionaires are the ones creating the messages that we all talk about. Billionaire Democrats and billionaire Republicans work with Democrat and Republican political strategists and party leaders to create and deliver the message.
The republicans do it much better. But the messages benefit the billionaires. We need to take the billionaires out of politics. Maybe that is what a revolution is.
Lucas,
I'm glad you brought up the VA home-loan benefit! According to the new MAGA vision, the VA will have those benefits cut or eliminated entirely. I spent 23 years in the Army with 3 combat deployments and I have definitely benefited from the benefits:
*BA, MA, PhD via the G.I. Bill
*Full healthcare at Truman VA hospital
*VA guaranteed home loan
*60% disability payments
*Retirement pension payments
Of course, many who served fewer years or weren't deployed have received less, but they still receive a lot of help.
These MAGAt miscreants want to gratuitously celebrate their ideas of the "American Heroes", but yet renege on our deserved benefits. They seem to be pushing for some sort of mercenary army. History tells us that would be a mistake.
Thank you for your service, and please keep calling them out!
With trump and musk making Krushev's 1956 dreams come true for putin, our only hope of ever having another election is for our service members to uphold the Constitution and not comply when martial law is declared and they're told to roll tanks into American streets to prevent anymore elections.
Our tax system has been manipulated to ensure that wealth is not taxed. Trump hides his income behind sub-S corporations, hence he pays essentially no taxes, and this dodge is widely emulated. If you work for a salary, you have no choice. Taxes are withheld from your salary.
A good start toward a level playing field would rework our tax system to ensure that wealth is not sheltered and the wealthy pay their fair share.
Thank you. I've never seen it explained like this, and the analysis is stunning. It makes complete sense. And also thank you for the statement about Federal employees. As one who worked for the Dept of Interior for 30 years, we worked constantly to improve speed and efficiency - in my case the efficiency of systems like payroll and personnel processing. It's not as straightforward as people may believe. Thank you.
An excellent, cogent analysis -- but not a simple one. I was briefly an econ major and try hard to keep up, and yet I found myself skimming. Part of the problem is financial literacy of course, but even worse, we're none of us schooled at reading complicated texts online. The graphs are terrific and even more helpful with the analysis, but an online format is inevitably a problem. I'd much prefer to see you on a stage with these graphs behind you, even if that means moving to Missouri before your next campaign. Seriously, though, I think you're among the half dozen most serious Democratic candidates, and I'm grateful (if concerned) that you don't simplify your arguments or condescend to your audience. Thanks.
Oh my goodness. What an eye opener your post was. And it hits the nail squarely on the head concerning taxation. I'm what would be considered solid middle class, and I'm quite willing to pay my "fair share" to make sure that city, county, state, and federal governments operate efficiently to provide services to me and my neighbors.
Keep up the good work.
Alternative proposals in addition to the obvious imposition of very high taxes on wealth (oes anyone need even $1,000,000 a year?) and confiscatory estate taxes (the English nobility did it to itself in the 19th century) are needed. My pet idea deals with securities, specifically shares in corporations. All public corporations would be taxed on the basis of outstanding shares at the end of each year, and the tax would be in corporate shares--say the equivalent of 3% of outstanding shares--delivered to an IRA sort of fund for every child born in the following year. An absolute proscription on corporate buy-backs would be vital. Privately held corporations would pay a cash amount based on the corporation's book value at year end (probably buttressed by some savage rules on accountants' work).
Such a program would have the obvious additional benefit of providing a mechanism for an inter-generational transfer of wealth.
Love it when people share their ideas on here. Thanks, Dick!
Corey booker has talked about baby bonds which is akin to what you're talking about. Don't know the funding source but it's a concept that has been discussed.
Yes, but they were talking chicken feed. ($5,000) I unfortunately forgot to talk dollars. My guide for the amount would be 10% down payment on a current median priced house plus 4 year tuition at a state university. Thomas Piketty suggests $150,000. The idea is to have the funds invested to provide an equivalent amount after 20 years of inflation. "The American Dream," what Jefferson referred to as "the pursuit of happiness," was originally underwritten by the government by seizing Indian land and making it available to settlers at little or no cost. Until the end of the 19th century the primary function of the federal government was "pacifying" Indians to provide land.
Yes, but at $1,000 it can't make any real difference.
Your real issue is not with compound interest. In the manner you've explained compound interest, it is just a trade between two agents, one who prefers has excess funds now and is willing to lend them and the other who has a current need. In this sense, compound interest is just a "price" for borrowing or lending and it occurs in one form or another even in subsisentce communities. It is an exchange that works to the benefit of both participating agents.
The real issue is the bi-modal spread of US wealth, which you do show clearly. This has gotten worse since, approximately, Reagan years, and it gets worse almost each year (except, arguably, Clinton years) and always gets worse with each new trickle-down Republican tax cut. What I find difficult to believe about it is that wealthy Americans should see it, and they should know that as the wealth disparity grows, the middle class declines in numbers. And it is the middle class that buys the goods and services of organizations owned and managed by the wealthy. Declining middle class, means declining purchases of the goods and services of the wealthy--and the wealthy loose too, eventually. We only need to look at any developing country to see what happens: bi-polar income distribution, but the developing country wealthy survive by saving their increasing wealth in a few economies like the US. What happens when the US purchasing ability (of the middle class) declines--and even the US is eventually no longer a good savings location for anyone's (US included) wealthy?
Been saying so since Smiley-Ron days. Let's return to the 94% marginal tax rate of 1944 CE & add a stiff inheritance levy of 85%, a la Brits in 1945 under Atlee.
Thanks for pointing out, although not explicitly, that it is the Republiscum sin of preaching that life is inherently a zero-sum game -- for me to win, or even stay even, somebody else HAS to lose ... and it had better not be one of the "have-mores," as George W. Bush labelled them -- with which we, individually and particularly as a society, have to contend. His father, of course, quite accurately labelled it "voodoo economics" -- until he became Ronny Rotten's running mate.
Historically, the traditional American approach, which the traditional Democratic party has championed, has been to strive not to divvy up the existing pot, but to make the pot bigger. Which can't happen by just let some people skim off the top and accumulate resources doing no realistic good to anyone, including the owners. One example from the relatively recent past was the hoarding by Mitt Romney (remember him? 2012 Presidential candidate, inheritor of a decent-size fortune, expanded by a career of asset-stripping of companies for fun and profit) of a quarter-BILLION dollars in "investments" off-shore, doing no apparent good to anybody including his family.
How to point out, effectively, including to the MAGA, who realistically may be a lost cause:
The Trump/Project 2025 plan, already being put in place, is to swindle Americans who have been contributing to our "entitlements" of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid from our very first paychecks out of our entitlements in order to pay for more and bigger tax breaks for billionaires and the U.S. and foreign owners of large corporations who no longer have to exert even the effort of depositing their dividend and interest checks.
Hey Lucas, Not sure what your bandwidth looks like, but if you have the ability to hold a town-hall since the republicans are now refusing to, I would travel from KC to attend. I want to grow our community and fight against this corruption plaguing our country and state!
Lucas, Please keep the information coming. I so appreciate you.
And don't get discouraged. I'm looking for a Lucas come back and will certainly vote for you again!
What we need is an excess wealth tax in addition to the other taxes, income, sale, property, etc.
The purpose of this is to prevent excessive indirect contributions to political candidates and parties in amounts that can buy political power for unelected taxpayers. A system that allows a few wealthy people to buy political influence is a bad idea.
I'm a boomer but don't assume all of us did well. If you came from a low income family, didn't marry, and worked in the public sector, you didn't do that well.
That said SUPER post!
A lot depends on where you live. I live in the Bay Area, which is very expensive, but I cooked out of the low cost cook book most of the time (macaroni and cheese from scratch, salad, oranges apples or bananas). Sigh...
So, What are ya gonna do about it? There's not much i can do. I voted democrat and they all made stupid choices and decisions and lost to a wannabe mob boss. Not that Democrats are any better... well maybe a little, but still very little,
If there is a revolution, I will vigorously participate for sure. I think most of us would like to see some heads roll. But barring that, I just vote and pay taxes so rich assholes don't have to.
In my opinion, billionaires are the ones creating the messages that we all talk about. Billionaire Democrats and billionaire Republicans work with Democrat and Republican political strategists and party leaders to create and deliver the message.
The republicans do it much better. But the messages benefit the billionaires. We need to take the billionaires out of politics. Maybe that is what a revolution is.
https://portal.ct.gov/ott/debt-management/ct-baby-bonds.
I knew somebody had a baby bonds program.
Great read.
Just wanted to point out 56 (average home buyer today) is Gen X, not boomer.
Unfortunately, to get to a median of 56 you need an awful lot of people over 56 buying homes!
The buying at that age is a retirement home. Smaller and probably in a s different location. Everyone moved to be near the grandkids.
True. As a GXer myself, some of my generation were able to follow the boomers’ lead, but many were the first casualties of the boomers.
correct
Lucas,
If you run again, I will campaign for you. I've never done that for anyone before. But, Missouri and America needs someone like you in the Senate.