The Iowa Caucus results should make everyone love Roth IRAs

[Yaeger]

I'm pretty strong conservative/libertarian leaning, but this attitude is fairly naive. I agree completely that my success is largely the result of my actions.

However, the opportunities I have been blessed with in my lifetime so far? I had no responsibility for those. Did I choose where I was born? Did I choose to be born into a family where my parents stayed together? Where financial stability was part of my childhood? Did I choose my intelligence? What about my health (I was in children's hospitals often as a kid for relatively minor things - there are children there who were not blessed with the health I was)? Did I choose to have been lucky when I was younger and not end up doing drugs, or otherwise ruining my life? Why was I born with a more frugal nature compared to others my age?

Was I personally responsible for creating these opportunities for myself? Of course not, it would be ridiculous to presume I divinely intervened on behalf of baby-ender and predetermined those things. I could just as easily been born in an inner-city environment where I would have had none of the opportunity I have had in my life. Or in rural Africa where statistically speaking I wouldn't even be alive still. You could argue my parents created some of those opportunities, but realistically if we are talking about entitlement to the benefits of my personal labor - it still doesn't matter as I didn't do that myself.

The fact is, my ability to have success through my actions is the result of many things I had no control over, no ability to influence, and opportunities I was blessed with. To act otherwise is completely naive.

There are clearly people who have had those opportunities and squandered them, but for me to act like I'm a self made person entirely and anyone who makes $10k/year [who grew up in an inner city environment, with deadbeat parents] has gotten themselves into their situation, so the government should benefit me and punish them? That gets trickier from a moral perspective.

The minute you recognize what you "earned" vs how you were born into your opportunity, it becomes easier to see taxes not as oppression. It is more gray. The conservative/Democrat/Republican differences in approach to resolving this societally are different, but the notion we are entirely self-made and therefore entitled to the entirety of the results of our personal labor because we earned all of it ourselves is completely naive.

If we allow ourselves to be entitled to the portion which is directly and solely our responsibility (ie if we were born in different circumstances, our success that would remain), that percentage would probably be a much lower percentage than nearly everyone thinks.

I don't disagree with the fact that we are a result of our environment. That's a fact that I don't dispute. I disagree with the amorphous 'society' that everyone seems to default to when defending their stance. Society is made up of individuals. To default to the old Adam Smith economics ideal that an individual pursuing their own interests is in line with attending to the needs of society. Even the economist John Maynard Keynes acknowledged that: "I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." Basically, the 'invisible hand' is the idea that society is best served by allowing individuals within a society maximum economic freedom. That people within a society will act to maximize their happiness or utility. The same is true with Milton Friedman.

Secondly, taxation IS a form of oppression. It always has been, it always will be. It supports and limits everything you do in life, Federal taxation more so. That was the entire reason for the small federal government for most of US history. That's the whole reason for protecting our labor, property follow the same principle as John Lockes statement "[E]very man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."

Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, understood that "[t]here is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful."  And by equal extension, the most powerful ought to be the peer of the humblest, and receive the same protection.  Harlan might as easily have said that our Constitution is wage-blind. To deny one class equal protection of their property because of their success is logically no different from denying a different class an equal protection of liberty because of their color.

I think the first step should be acknowledging that society is wrong, that we shouldn't be burdening a class in our society to bear the majority of the social burden. That we all need to provide an equal share in providing common services. When people suggest "You owe society who supported you" what they really mean is "You owe the taxpayers that supported you, specifically the rich, who provided the vast majority of support." The poor didn't fork over proportional amounts so I could get an education, so why does supporting 'society' go from the people that did towards the people who didn't support me? That's flawed logic.

[Bucksandreds]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

[2lazy2retire]

From crazy dude above

"When people suggest "You owe society who supported you" what they really mean is "You owe the taxpayers that supported you, specifically the rich, who provided the vast majority of support."

So in your opinion you owe nothing to the people who contribute the least to the tax pool?, the same people on who's work and spend a lot of the wealth was created in this country - remove all those who pay little or no federal tax ( I think Romney put it at 49%) and explain what kind of economy/society we would have.

[Eric]

So far we've learned that taxation is both theft and oppression.  It's a wonder how anyone holding those views can even get out of bed in the morning.  I mean, life must be utterly terrible when you go through it viewing yourself as a constant victim.  I sincerely hope you can find peace.  It must be a terrible existence. 

[Veritasvosliberabit]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

[Bucksandreds]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

In comparison to the rest of the world, yes. The 50's and 60's were our zenith.  America was at it's peak in terms of the overall quality of life compared to the average person on earth. Trying to equate segregation or nuclear threat to economic equality would be very foolish on your part.

[Yaeger]

From crazy dude above

"When people suggest "You owe society who supported you" what they really mean is "You owe the taxpayers that supported you, specifically the rich, who provided the vast majority of support."

So in your opinion you owe nothing to the people who contribute the least to the tax pool?, the same people on who's work and spend a lot of the wealth was created in this country - remove all those who pay little or no federal tax ( I think Romney put it at 49%) and explain what kind of economy/society we would have.

I didn't say nothing, but a proportional amount to the taxes they have paid to support society. That's the whole argument though. Justifying taxation to help society because society helped you is complete BS, don't lie to me and tell me that I 'owe' the poor. I CHOOSE to help the poor, I don't need to be forced to help the poor. It's charitable and kind to give your own money to help the needy. That's kindness, that's sacrifice. You're NOT moral, kind, or charitable if you force others to pay more than you're willing to. Don't pretend like raising taxes on the rich is a moral argument, it's not.

By the way, my stance isn't to say "F the poor!" just because I don't support using taxes to throw money at them, hoping it'll solve poverty. I'm (personally) fine paying taxes if it achieved something productive. However, Social Security, healthcare, anti-poverty programs are all failures.

[rocketpj]

Just a little history lesson for those giving tax cuts a bad rap, in the 1920’s a77% top tax rate was cut down to 25% in the 1920’s, or as they are sometimes called; the roaring twenties. Following these cuts, that decade did indeed roar. Even with inflation factored in, the real GDP of the 1920 decade grew by 45% and the personal income level rose 29%.

I feel obliged to point out that the 20s roared in the stock market in large part because of economic collapse elsewhere - notably Europe.  A lot of 'big money' fled to the US in that period as they were going through a sovereign debt crisis.  The massive bubble in the US in that period was not because of tax cuts, it was because governments elsewhere were defaulting on their debts.  (Sound familiar?)

And In 1961, tax revenues were $94 billion dollars; but just a short 7 years later in 1968 after JFK cutting the top tax rate from 90 to 70; federal revenues grew to $153 billion which is an increase of 62%. Yes, that’s right. A decrease of tax rates caused an increase of over 50 percent in federal revenues.

It's worth noting that Johnson combined that tax cut with some large domestic spending issues, such as Medicare.  Can't attribute it all to the tax cut.

I don’t think I have to put anything up on the Reagan tax cuts and the George W. Bush tax cuts also increased revenues.

Do you mean the two presidents who incurred the most government debt in history to date (respectively).  Obama has exceeded them since, but both of those two laid on MASSIVE debt loads, Reagan in the context if very high interest no less.  I make no statement about what they spent it on (STAR WARS, Iraq, other foolishness), but neither of them left their country in better shape when their terms ended.  And no, Reagan didn't beat the Soviets, they did that all by themselves.

The problem is always the size and growth of government because it has no accountability and voting for a democratic socialist like Bernie is going to make your roth ira at greater risk to eventually be taxed because he’s going to put the growth of government on hyperdrive and it's going to need more money resources.

Well, maybe.  But not necessarily.  He's looking to cut some expenses dramatically while increasing others.  It's a more complex notion than you are expressing.  Personally I think he'll be taken out by a sniper or an 'accident' before they let him take the oath, so it's a moot point.

Any social system that is sufficiently large is going to have efficiency issues.  The US government is no exception, though anything can change.  I am on the outside looking in from a country that has single payer healthcare, lower taxes than you guys and spends less per capita for better outcomes.  It can be done better for cheaper.  But that might mean upsetting some very major players.

[nereo]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

In comparison to the rest of the world, yes. The 50's and 60's were our zenith.  America was at it's peak in terms of the overall quality of life compared to the average person on earth. Trying to equate segregation or nuclear threat to economic equality would be very foolish on your part.

This sentiment baffles me.  Why should we evaluate our country relative to how good (or bad) things were in the rest of the world.  It reminds me of the sentiment "we sucked, but at least they sucked more". 
Absolute progress is what we should be concerned with.  I could care less if the gap between our standard of living and the rest of the world's narrowed, as long as ours was increasing.  Suppose over the next two generations the average American's life expectancy, happiness, wages, etc all increase, but so do those of people in China - should we somehow be sad??  Or rejoice that we are all better off?

I'm don't want America to "win" if it's just because the rest of the world has gone to crap and we're doing only slightly less bad.

[Jack]

fiscal policy reaches deeply into the lives of average citizens, so I think it is a fair thing to focus on as a voter.

Sure, it's important.  I didn't mean to suggest anyone should ignore it.

But I instantly toss aside all matters related to fiscal policy when our government starts trampling basic human rights.  What good is sound policy if you're putting people in concentration camps, or assassinating citizens without due process, or denying the right to marry or own property or work or have children?  Some things are more important than money.

Money can come back to bite you in the ass, in the long run.  An insolvent government is a temporary government, and social collapse probably leads to the loss of a bunch of those rights that I think are more important than budgets.  But in the short term, abrogating those rights is a much more immediate threat and I would gladly vote to incur debt, even with all of it's potential future problems, than sit quietly while our immediate rights and  freedoms are destroyed.

So when Schaefer Light says he cares about money more than people, I see at work the same twisted logic that lets people murder for profit, or a car company skimp on a part that endangers their customers, or a trader destroy lives by shilling credit default swaps, or an oil company blow out a deepwater well because they couldn't be bothered to follow safety protocols.  People have to matter more than money.

Well said!

The USA is not putting people in concentration camps, or executing citizens without due process,

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

That's the whole reason for protecting our labor, property follow the same principle as John Lockes statement "[E]very man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."

This is a very good point. Consider, though, that many of the "establishment" candidates -- both Republican and Democrat -- are actively working to destroy the property of our labor through their support of things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the whole fucking thing is all about endowing fictional "corporate persons" with rights above and beyond those of natural persons). While all the bread-and-circuses voters are busy being distracted by irrelevant shit like health care and immigration, The Party is busily taking away basic rights such as the ability to have grievances addressed in court (as opposed to by a biased corporate arbitrator) or to participate in a class-action, or even the right to own property itself. You think you own your computer? Or your car? Or increasing proportions of your other material possessions? Nope! Because they contain copyrighted computer code, you only "license" them and you are only "free" to use them because the manufacturer allowed you to -- and again, all establishment politicians are in full and enthusiastic support of it! Already we're beginning to see the consequences, where companies use that leverage to enable rent-seeking (examples: Netflix, Microsoft Office 365, Amazon Prime and its ability to do things like retroactively delete 1984 from Kindles, all other forms of DRM in general). And if you want to opt out, too bad -- you can't. You end up signing contracts of adhesion just to be able to function in society; opting out would require living like the Amish, or the Unibomber.

You were using that quote to complain about taxation, but taxation is irrelevant when the very concept of ownership of property by natural persons is abolished and everyone becomes a serf, subject to the whims of their feudal corporate lords.

In principle, maximizing freedom letting people keep the property of their own labor by minimizing taxation is good, but the problem is that once that property becomes too concentrated then it turns into political power, and that political power gets abused to make everyone who comes later less free because the rules get skewed against them. Counterintuitively, redistributing wealth (even via "evil" taxation) is necessary to maintain society and improve freedom, because the people at the bottom of a very unequal society don't have enough power to maintain the fair rule of law.

[Yaeger]

In principle, maximizing freedom letting people keep the property of their own labor by minimizing taxation is good, but the problem is that once that property becomes too concentrated then it turns into political power, and that political power gets abused to make everyone who comes later less free because the rules get skewed against them. Counterintuitively, redistributing wealth (even via "evil" taxation) is necessary to maintain society and improve freedom, because the people at the bottom of a very unequal society don't have enough power to maintain the fair rule of law.

We're arguing in a circle. Everything you described explains the danger of allowing government the ability to 'sell things for votes'. When you as a voter think Bernie Sanders has the right idea of "regulating wall street", you're really just playing into the hands of the lobbyists. Who are the experts in business and the economy? Politicians (lawyers for the most part).. or expert lobbyists, Goliaths in their field, who they use to write legislation? Think about it, the only REAL threat to big business or a big bank is competition. When a company like Google helps write regulations or laws that restrict businesses or adds some sort of compliance cost, it has a larger impact on their smaller competitors. They WANT government to interfere in the economy. The large companies benefit from a narrative that businesses are evil and the government needs to 'break up banks' or 'regulate wall street'.

If you want to prevent crony capitalism get the government out of the economy. Corporations could throw as much money as they wanted at the political process, it wouldn't accomplish anything if the federal government didn't have the ability to interfere with the economy.

[Bucksandreds]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

In comparison to the rest of the world, yes. The 50's and 60's were our zenith.  America was at it's peak in terms of the overall quality of life compared to the average person on earth. Trying to equate segregation or nuclear threat to economic equality would be very foolish on your part.

This sentiment baffles me.  Why should we evaluate our country relative to how good (or bad) things were in the rest of the world.  It reminds me of the sentiment "we sucked, but at least they sucked more". 
Absolute progress is what we should be concerned with.  I could care less if the gap between our standard of living and the rest of the world's narrowed, as long as ours was increasing.  Suppose over the next two generations the average American's life expectancy, happiness, wages, etc all increase, but so do those of people in China - should we somehow be sad??  Or rejoice that we are all better off?

I'm don't want America to "win" if it's just because the rest of the world has gone to crap and we're doing only slightly less bad.

If other countries could gain so much relative to us, including other developed ones, what potential did we squander? No one would want the U.S. to be the best if it meant poverty for all. The point, which you're conveniently missing is that we have progressed far less than many other countries over the last 50 years. Those developed countries have tended to have a smaller gap between rich and poor than we do.

[Jack]

In principle, maximizing freedom letting people keep the property of their own labor by minimizing taxation is good, but the problem is that once that property becomes too concentrated then it turns into political power, and that political power gets abused to make everyone who comes later less free because the rules get skewed against them. Counterintuitively, redistributing wealth (even via "evil" taxation) is necessary to maintain society and improve freedom, because the people at the bottom of a very unequal society don't have enough power to maintain the fair rule of law.

We're arguing in a circle. Everything you described explains the danger of allowing government the ability to 'sell things for votes'. When you as a voter think Bernie Sanders has the right idea of "regulating wall street", you're really just playing into the hands of the lobbyists. Who are the experts in business and the economy? Politicians (lawyers for the most part).. or expert lobbyists, Goliaths in their field, who they use to write legislation? Think about it, the only REAL threat to big business or a big bank is competition. When a company like Google helps write regulations or laws that restrict businesses or adds some sort of compliance cost, it has a larger impact on their smaller competitors. They WANT government to interfere in the economy. The large companies benefit from a narrative that businesses are evil and the government needs to 'break up banks' or 'regulate wall street'.

If you want to prevent crony capitalism get the government out of the economy. Corporations could throw as much money as they wanted at the political process, it wouldn't accomplish anything if the federal government didn't have the ability to interfere with the economy.

The concept of a "corporation" itself is government interference in the free market. If you want to end that interference, abolish "limited liability" and special preferential tax treatment for corporations, and make the owners of companies personally and criminally liable for any misconduct done in their name.

If you don't like that, then you favor government regulation -- and at that point, we're merely arguing about which regulations are most appropriate and advantageous for society.

[Yaeger]

In principle, maximizing freedom letting people keep the property of their own labor by minimizing taxation is good, but the problem is that once that property becomes too concentrated then it turns into political power, and that political power gets abused to make everyone who comes later less free because the rules get skewed against them. Counterintuitively, redistributing wealth (even via "evil" taxation) is necessary to maintain society and improve freedom, because the people at the bottom of a very unequal society don't have enough power to maintain the fair rule of law.

We're arguing in a circle. Everything you described explains the danger of allowing government the ability to 'sell things for votes'. When you as a voter think Bernie Sanders has the right idea of "regulating wall street", you're really just playing into the hands of the lobbyists. Who are the experts in business and the economy? Politicians (lawyers for the most part).. or expert lobbyists, Goliaths in their field, who they use to write legislation? Think about it, the only REAL threat to big business or a big bank is competition. When a company like Google helps write regulations or laws that restrict businesses or adds some sort of compliance cost, it has a larger impact on their smaller competitors. They WANT government to interfere in the economy. The large companies benefit from a narrative that businesses are evil and the government needs to 'break up banks' or 'regulate wall street'.

If you want to prevent crony capitalism get the government out of the economy. Corporations could throw as much money as they wanted at the political process, it wouldn't accomplish anything if the federal government didn't have the ability to interfere with the economy.

The concept of a "corporation" itself is government interference in the free market. If you want to end that interference, abolish "limited liability" and special preferential tax treatment for corporations, and make the owners of companies personally and criminally liable for any misconduct done in their name.

If you don't like that, then you favor government regulation -- and at that point, we're merely arguing about which regulations are most appropriate and advantageous for society.

I think we need to eliminate corporate tax altogether, along with eliminating the concept of a corporation. Only individual income should be taxed. Special treatment for tax includes providing healthcare to employees, so I guess it depends on where you stand. Corporate tax is merely used as leverage to encourage corporations to do things the government wants.

I don't think you understand how ownership works with shares though. If you have an index fund, you're a part owner in hundreds and thousands of companies. As of 2016, Apple has 5.5 Billion shares outstanding, meaning there are probably millions, hundreds of millions, of owners.

[nereo]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

In comparison to the rest of the world, yes. The 50's and 60's were our zenith.  America was at it's peak in terms of the overall quality of life compared to the average person on earth. Trying to equate segregation or nuclear threat to economic equality would be very foolish on your part.

This sentiment baffles me.  Why should we evaluate our country relative to how good (or bad) things were in the rest of the world.  It reminds me of the sentiment "we sucked, but at least they sucked more". 
Absolute progress is what we should be concerned with.  I could care less if the gap between our standard of living and the rest of the world's narrowed, as long as ours was increasing.  Suppose over the next two generations the average American's life expectancy, happiness, wages, etc all increase, but so do those of people in China - should we somehow be sad??  Or rejoice that we are all better off?

I'm don't want America to "win" if it's just because the rest of the world has gone to crap and we're doing only slightly less bad.

If other countries could gain so much relative to us, including other developed ones, what potential did we squander? No one would want the U.S. to be the best if it meant poverty for all. The point, which you're conveniently missing is that we have progressed far less than many other countries over the last 50 years. Those developed countries have tended to have a smaller gap between rich and poor than we do.

We should HOPE that the developing world has far greater gains than we do; they have much further to come.  What I reject is your notion that failure to progress has to be measured by the relative gains of others, or that a difference necessarily means we've squandered our potential.  To be sure we could still be doing a lot better, but you explicitly made the point that our Zenith was in the 50s & 60s because we were so far ahead of so many other nations.   We've still managed to make some incredible gains by almost every quantifiable metric. 

[Jack]

The concept of a "corporation" itself is government interference in the free market. If you want to end that interference, abolish "limited liability" and special preferential tax treatment for corporations, and make the owners of companies personally and criminally liable for any misconduct done in their name.

If you don't like that, then you favor government regulation -- and at that point, we're merely arguing about which regulations are most appropriate and advantageous for society.

I think we need to eliminate corporate tax altogether, along with eliminating the concept of a corporation. Only individual income should be taxed. Special treatment for tax includes providing healthcare to employees, so I guess it depends on where you stand. Corporate tax is merely used as leverage to encourage corporations to do things the government wants.

I don't think you understand how ownership works with shares though. If you have an index fund, you're a part owner in hundreds and thousands of companies. As of 2016, Apple has 5.5 Billion shares outstanding, meaning there are probably millions, hundreds of millions, of owners.

I understand how ownership works with shares: the limited-liability nature of incorporation means that my worst-case liability for e.g. the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is that the fraction of my VTSAX that represents BP might go to zero, as opposed to me being hauled into court and bankrupted by fishermen claiming that I'm personally (as owner of the company) responsible for destroying their livelihood.

What I understand -- and what you apparently don't -- is that I owe something to society in return for that privilege! Nobody has a "natural right" to be insulated from the consequences of their actions; by creating the concept of corporations, government establishes a social contract that the corporation will act in the public interest. 'Having your cake and eating it too' -- that is, having limited liability without any responsibility for the common good -- is unfair and unjust.

[FINate]

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

Oh pleeease, really now! Guantanamo is not a concentration camp. It has had less than 1000 detainees, and they aren't there because of ethnicity, minority status, or even religion. They were/are enemy combatants from irregular warfare, with unclear legal status and largely without precedent (though I suppose the Nuremberg trials from WWII may have some similarities). I agree it is not an ideal situation, but there is no great answer to this since there was no way these cases could have been tried in a civilian court of law. Even Obama has struggled to find a good solution to this.

A similar thing applies to the drone killings. These are targeting enemy combatants in lawless areas. It's not like we can get the local authorities to arrest these people and then extradite them. And a legal framework exists, albeit not a transparent one,  for reviewing each of these cases. Again, not ideal, but better than letting these people operate with impunity in areas beyond the reach of regular law enforcement.

[Jack]

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

Oh pleeease, really now! Guantanamo is not a concentration camp. It has had less than 1000 detainees, and they aren't there because of ethnicity, minority status, or even religion. They were/are enemy combatants from irregular warfare, with unclear legal status and largely without precedent (though I suppose the Nuremberg trials from WWII may have some similarities). I agree it is not an ideal situation, but there is no great answer to this since there was no way these cases could have been tried in a civilian court of law. Even Obama has struggled to find a good solution to this.

A similar thing applies to the drone killings. These are targeting enemy combatants in lawless areas. It's not like we can get the local authorities to arrest these people and then extradite them. And a legal framework exists, albeit not a transparent one,  for reviewing each of these cases. Again, not ideal, but better than letting these people operate with impunity in areas beyond the reach of regular law enforcement.

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

[Yaeger]

I understand how ownership works with shares: the limited-liability nature of incorporation means that my worst-case liability for e.g. the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is that the fraction of my VTSAX that represents BP might go to zero, as opposed to me being hauled into court and bankrupted by fishermen claiming that I'm personally (as owner of the company) responsible for destroying their livelihood.

What I understand -- and what you apparently don't -- is that I owe something to society in return for that privilege! Nobody has a "natural right" to be insulated from the consequences of their actions; by creating the concept of corporations, government establishes a social contract that the corporation will act in the public interest. 'Having your cake and eating it too' -- that is, having limited liability without any responsibility for the common good -- is unfair and unjust.

I don't think I ever said that people need to be shielded, or insulated, from the consequences of their actions. However, 'owing' something to society implies that there is no net benefit to having a corporation like Apple here in the US. That the jobs, economic prosperity, and opportunity provided by a company can be completely disregarded. In fact, the reason we call these guys 'producers', just that term, is that they give far more to society than they consume. It's companies like this that grow the economy, increase everyone's economic prosperity and they do all of that through voluntary exchange. People willingly give them money for their products. People tend to the focus on the 'evil' of corporations and completely disregard any positive contributions to society.

So no, I don't feel like they owe society for that privilege. Corporations are citizens, people in our society. They're nothing more than average citizens working together and that shouldn't cause you to think they owe more than any other citizen in our country. Implying that a group of citizens has a greater share of responsibility for the 'common good', just because they choose to pool their resources, is unfair and unjust.

[FINate]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Telecaster]

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

Oh pleeease, really now! Guantanamo is not a concentration camp. It has had less than 1000 detainees, and they aren't there because of ethnicity, minority status, or even religion. They were/are enemy combatants from irregular warfare, with unclear legal status and largely without precedent (though I suppose the Nuremberg trials from WWII may have some similarities). I agree it is not an ideal situation, but there is no great answer to this since there was no way these cases could have been tried in a civilian court of law. Even Obama has struggled to find a good solution to this.

Oh please yourself.  Either 1) these people are regular criminals, in which case we have a legal way to deal with them, or 2) they war criminals, in which case we have a legal way to deal with them, or 3) they are prisoners or war, in which case we have a legal way to deal with them. 

The only reason a problem arose is because of complete cowardice on our part.  And no other reason. 

[beltim]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

[FINate]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

Unless those other people are making war against us. This is not as black and white as some people want to believe. Our constitution doesn't even extend to members of the military in the same way as the general population, let alone foreign enemies. Otherwise the ability of the US to wage war would be severely limited.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

[beltim]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

Unless those other people are making war against us. This is not as black and white as some people want to believe. Our constitution doesn't even extend to members of the military in the same way as the general population, let alone foreign enemies. Otherwise the ability of the US to wage war would be severely limited.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

[nereo]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

Unless those other people are making war against us. This is not as black and white as some people want to believe. Our constitution doesn't even extend to members of the military in the same way as the general population, let alone foreign enemies. Otherwise the ability of the US to wage war would be severely limited.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

So..... ROTH IRAs...   

[Yaeger]

So..... ROTH IRAs...

Tax rates are historically low and are unlikely to be so low in the future for the young today. Use the Roth!

On the other hand, nothing is stopping the government from reneging on their promise to exempt Roth withdrawals from taxation so maybe Traditional IRAs are the way to go.

Who knows.

[beltim]

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

So..... ROTH IRAs...

I am pro Roth IRAs.  I don't think Bernie Sanders' performance in Iowa's Democratic Caucus means that tax policy will shift dramatically to the left in the future, making a Roth IRA better for people in the 25 and 28% tax bracket.  Sanders vs. Clinton among millennial voters isn't even the relevant comparison - it should be millennials voting for Sanders compared to millennials voting for candidates who want to drastically reduce taxes and spending.

[nereo]

So..... ROTH IRAs...

On the other hand, nothing is stopping the government from reneging on their promise to exempt Roth withdrawals from taxation so maybe Traditional IRAs are the way to go.

I've always wondered how likely this scenario is.  Obviously it would generate a ton of political ill-will, but... is it even legal? If the SHTF could/would a future cash-strapped congress tap the future trillions in ROTH accounts?

I tend to doubt it, but it's always in the back of my mind.

[Yaeger]

So..... ROTH IRAs...

On the other hand, nothing is stopping the government from reneging on their promise to exempt Roth withdrawals from taxation so maybe Traditional IRAs are the way to go.

I've always wondered how likely this scenario is.  Obviously it would generate a ton of political ill-will, but... is it even legal? If the SHTF could/would a future cash-strapped congress tap the future trillions in ROTH accounts?

I tend to doubt it, but it's always in the back of my mind.

It's not unheard of. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 made 85% of Social Security benefits subject to income taxation for incomes over a certain amount. It's entirely possible that you see some means-testing on tax-advantaged retirement accounts in the future. Why should you benefit from tax-free Roth withdrawals if you're making over 80k in retirement? Other people need that money more.

[nereo]

So..... ROTH IRAs...

On the other hand, nothing is stopping the government from reneging on their promise to exempt Roth withdrawals from taxation so maybe Traditional IRAs are the way to go.

I've always wondered how likely this scenario is.  Obviously it would generate a ton of political ill-will, but... is it even legal? If the SHTF could/would a future cash-strapped congress tap the future trillions in ROTH accounts?

I tend to doubt it, but it's always in the back of my mind.

It's not unheard of. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 made 85% of Social Security benefits subject to income taxation for incomes over a certain amount. It's entirely possible that you see some means-testing on tax-advantaged retirement accounts in the future. Why should you benefit from tax-free Roth withdrawals if you're making over 80k in retirement? Other people need that money more.

I'm guessing this question was meant to be rhetorical, but I think the knee-jerk response would be: because that money was already taxed and the earnings were promised to be tax free?

[FINate]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

Unless those other people are making war against us. This is not as black and white as some people want to believe. Our constitution doesn't even extend to members of the military in the same way as the general population, let alone foreign enemies. Otherwise the ability of the US to wage war would be severely limited.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

I agree that the detainees should have their day in court, or be released. What's not black and white is how we engage in an asymmetric fight, and things such as how we do drone strikes. In some areas we simply cannot go in and make arrests. For example, the strike that killed Bin Laden - there was no chance in hell that Pakistan was going to arrest and extradite him. Two presidents from opposing parties have struggled with these issues, both are smart with smart advisors. If it was all black and white then these would have been resolved long ago.

In any case, I stand by my original point that Guantanamo != concentration camp. And the drone strikes are not equivalent to government violation of civil rights since these target people who are making war on the US from areas without law-enforcement or other reasonable means to capture them.

[ender]

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

So..... ROTH IRAs...

I am pro Roth IRAs.  I don't think Bernie Sanders' performance in Iowa's Democratic Caucus means that tax policy will shift dramatically to the left in the future, making a Roth IRA better for people in the 25 and 28% tax bracket. 

Man, Roth IRAs seem to be the most misunderstood thing in the entire world.

This is only true if your marginal rate in retirement that you have to withdraw ALL of this money at is at least 25/28%.

For anyone who is on this forum and planning an early retirement, Roth is only a preferred option if you already have a marginal tax rate of close to 0%. For nearly all of us, the immediate tax savings are almost assuredly better than any savings in retirement. The main exception might be if you have a significant mandatory and taxable pension which forces you into the 25/28% tax brackets in retirement anyways and you are in your late 40s/50s already.

The "but what if gov increases taxes in future!!" counterargument nonsense ignores the fact that for anyone here most/all IRA money will be withdrawn at what are currently nearly poverty levels of income. Yes, if the government starts taxing IRAs for people withdrawing $30k-40k a year at marginal rates of 30% then you've "lost" this gamble. But seriously - this would completely screw over so many people that it's not something I think anyone here should worry about.

I think it's a completely rational belief (fact?) that the 30% immediate tax incentive anyone paying 25/28% (or more) marginal rates now will be better than the average tax rate the money will be withdrawn at in the future. The alternative is taxing the poorest Americans at insane percentages, taxing retirement income at insane rats (which will screw people who don't plan for retirement over), or making retirement taxation means tested (and again most of us will be low comparatively for this anyways). None of these seem likely at all, when compared to believing that if taxes increase in the future they will increase for people making considerably more than $40k/year.

[nereo]

For anyone who is on this forum and planning an early retirement, Roth is only a preferred option if you have a bunch of kids and already have a marginal tax rate of 0%.

Ender - just curious... what do the number of kids have to do with it? 

[ender]

For anyone who is on this forum and planning an early retirement, Roth is only a preferred option if you have a bunch of kids and already have a marginal tax rate of 0%.

Ender - just curious... what do the number of kids have to do with it?

most folks here make way too much to get to a 0% marginal rate without a bunch of kids ;)

[beltim]

There are no such things as "enemy combatants," or "lawless areas." The Bill of Rights affirms natural rights inherent to all persons, and restricts the actions of the US government worldwide. Moreover, there are only two categories of prisoners: criminals and prisoners of war. You can either apply criminal law or the Geneve Conventions; you don't get any other choice!

Government disregard of the rule of law is an infinitely bigger threat to me, you, or any other citizen than a terrorist could ever be.

If you don't believe that there are lawless areas in the world where irregular fighters (non-uniformed combatants) are not abiding by the Geneve Conventions while also actively conspiring to carry out attacks on the US and the West then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and we have nothing else to discuss. We will have to agree to disagree.

Other people being lawless is no excuse for us violating our own laws, treaties, and morals.

Unless those other people are making war against us. This is not as black and white as some people want to believe. Our constitution doesn't even extend to members of the military in the same way as the general population, let alone foreign enemies. Otherwise the ability of the US to wage war would be severely limited.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rights+of+Service+Members

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

I agree that the detainees should have their day in court, or be released.

I was mostly referring to this rather than asymmetric warfare.  But I don't understand how you reconcile that statement with your next statement:

In any case, I stand by my original point that Guantanamo != concentration camp.

[nereo]

For anyone who is on this forum and planning an early retirement, Roth is only a preferred option if you have a bunch of kids and already have a marginal tax rate of 0%.

Ender - just curious... what do the number of kids have to do with it?

most folks here make way too much to get to a 0% marginal rate without a bunch of kids ;)

Gotcha.  So kids aren't actually a requirement, just a means to a (near) 0% marginal rate.  I thought I was missing something dealing with inheretance, or....

[FINate]

I was mostly referring to this rather than asymmetric warfare.  But I don't understand how you reconcile that statement with your next statement:

In any case, I stand by my original point that Guantanamo != concentration camp.

I was responding to Jack on the following subthread

The USA is not putting people in concentration camps, or executing citizens without due process,

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

Edit: To be clear, I don't consider it a concentration camp because it is/was used to detain a small (relatively speaking) number of combatants, whereas concentration camps are used to detain non-combatants. I guess it depends on how you define the term (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration-camp)

[beltim]

It's pretty black and white.  If we're waging war, then we need to hold our military to our laws and the treaties that we've signed.  It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't.

So..... ROTH IRAs...

I am pro Roth IRAs.  I don't think Bernie Sanders' performance in Iowa's Democratic Caucus means that tax policy will shift dramatically to the left in the future, making a Roth IRA better for people in the 25 and 28% tax bracket. 

Man, Roth IRAs seem to be the most misunderstood thing in the entire world.

This is only true if your marginal rate in retirement that you have to withdraw ALL of this money at is at least 25/28%.

My statement might have been confusing - but I was disagreeing with the OP, and agree with almost everything you said.  Perhaps it would have been better formatted as: I don't think Bernie Sanders' performance in Iowa's Democratic Caucus means that:
 [tax policy will shift dramatically to the left in the future, making a Roth IRA better for people in the 25 and 28% tax bracket.] 

For anyone who is on this forum and planning an early retirement, Roth is only a preferred option if you have a bunch of kids and already have a marginal tax rate of 0%.

I didn't take the OP to be restricting his statement to early retirees.  If you broaden who you're talking about, there are plenty of people who should contribute to Roth IRAs at some point.  Unfortunately, there's no neat way to simplify the calculation of maximizing retirement income - any of the "standard advice" will give you a local minimum but fails to find a global minimum for many circumstances.

[beltim]

I was mostly referring to this rather than asymmetric warfare.  But I don't understand how you reconcile that statement with your next statement:

In any case, I stand by my original point that Guantanamo != concentration camp.

I was responding to Jack on the following subthread

The USA is not putting people in concentration camps, or executing citizens without due process,

How sure are you about that? Between the continued existence of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and drone killings of citizens, I think your statement is factually inaccurate.

Right.   My point is that abducting and detaining people, without ever charging them for a crime or giving them a chance to leave, is functionally equivalent to concentration camps.  If you prefer "internment camps" I wouldn't have an argument with that language either.

[tmoneyearlyretiree]

Mustachians would tend to have higher than average tax deferred retirement balances, unless we all retire early and spend way fewer years building them than other people do. The RMDs start out small but grow pretty large later in life. If that balance is over a million, which for a lot of people I bet it would be, you have to start emptying >10% of the balance a year later in 80s/90s. that alone would put you in a higher tax bracket.

Another thing I'm wondering is do you put your money in Roth 401k accounts over saving in taxable where you dont feel guilty about touching it early. If his cap gains / div tax plan gained broader acceptance that could be very painful for a lot of the people on this forum who would've been better off having everything in a Roth account and just paying the tax on earnings when you need the money

[Telecaster]

Another thing I'm wondering is do you put your money in Roth 401k accounts over saving in taxable where you dont feel guilty about touching it early.  If his cap gains / div tax plan gained broader acceptance that could be very painful for a lot of the people on this forum who would've been better off having everything in a Roth account and just paying the tax on earnings when you need the money

And there are about a billion other things that could be very painful for a lot of people on this forum.  This is still in the "wildly hypothetical" category.

[nereo]

Mustachians would tend to have higher than average tax deferred retirement balances, unless we all retire early and spend way fewer years building them than other people do. The RMDs start out small but grow pretty large later in life. If that balance is over a million, which for a lot of people I bet it would be, you have to start emptying >10% of the balance a year later in 80s/90s. that alone would put you in a higher tax bracket.

what?  why?  I'm not following your logic here.  There's a lot of things that I can't plan very well for, but I'm pretty good at estimating what my age will be on any given year.  So - why not plan accordingly?

Another thing I'm wondering is do you put your money in Roth 401k accounts over saving in taxable where you dont feel guilty about touching it early. If his cap gains / div tax plan gained broader acceptance that could be very painful for a lot of the people on this forum who would've been better off having everything in a Roth account and just paying the tax on earnings when you need the money

You shouldn't let emotions dictate your decisions, and you certainly shouldn't feel guilty drawing from one account vs another.  Again, I don't understand your logic here.
Also - (besides this being wildly hypothetical as Telecaster said) - it's a bit of a stretch to assume you'd have been 'better off' having everything in a ROTH account.  Given that health care can make up the vast majority of octogenarian's budgets, a universal single-payer health system might mean expenses of just a few $k/year.  Not to mention that you can convert money from one kind to another at any time and in any amount that makes sense to you.

[ender]

Mustachians would tend to have higher than average tax deferred retirement balances, unless we all retire early and spend way fewer years building them than other people do. The RMDs start out small but grow pretty large later in life. If that balance is over a million, which for a lot of people I bet it would be, you have to start emptying >10% of the balance a year later in 80s/90s. that alone would put you in a higher tax bracket.

Another thing I'm wondering is do you put your money in Roth 401k accounts over saving in taxable where you dont feel guilty about touching it early. If his cap gains / div tax plan gained broader acceptance that could be very painful for a lot of the people on this forum who would've been better off having everything in a Roth account and just paying the tax on earnings when you need the money

Having this "problem" means your ER worked out absolutely perfectly (other than perhaps starting too late).

And of course if you are comparing "Roth IRA vs taxable account" the Roth IRA is often better. If you aren't going to max out the IRA space, there is compelling reasons to do that prior to taxable. But there are less compelling reasons to do Roth  over deductible 401k/IRA contributions.

[Veritasvosliberabit]

I only care about fiscal issues, and on those I tend to agree with conservatives a helluva lot more

Wow.

Okay first off, conservatives certainly haven't been any better on fiscal issues than liberals, despite all the rhetoric you hear.  Reagan started to balloon our debt to fight communism, and every President since, including three terms of Bushes, has followed that pattern of low taxes and high spending that has created our current budget deficits.

Second, I'm astonished anyone would actually say "I only care about fiscal issues" out loud.  Like you'd seriously rather live in a world with a balanced budget but we still have slavery?  Fuck that noise, man.  Money is an artificial construct but civil rights is like the defining characteristic of civilized societies.  Government exists for the sole purpose of making our lives better, and how well balanced its budget looks seems a lot less important to me than how much better it can make our lives.  The budget is only a concern if it starts to impact government's ability to make our lives better, which so far hasn't happened.

Equality is more important than dollars, and hearing anyone say otherwise strikes me as literally evil.  Like dark side of the force kicking puppies Hitler on a bad day kind of evil.  Money is a thing, a tool, an idea we came up with in order to make our lives better.  We shouldn't sacrifice making a better life in the service of the tools used to make a better life.

Not to mention that social issues have an effect on fiscal issues.  Social policies determine whether, for example, women are allowed to work, allowed to have children while working, allowed to leave an abusive husband (and have some employability so that leaving is possible), etc. Social policies determine whether people have adequate access to education, so that they can grow up and get a good job and pay taxes while complaining that the government is taxing them to death. Etc.

It is easy to think you don't care about social issues if you have benefitted enough from social policies that they are largely invisible to you unless you are trying to see them.

If social issues have an effect on fiscal issues, why does the Left keeping telling me the best economic period for the country was the 1950s?  Are you saying we should go back to government-enforced racism?  Higher levels of KKK support? Segregated schools? Outcast the LGTB community?  The best economic period in the country (according the Left) was when women generally stayed home to take care of the kids.  Should we go back to that?

[Veritasvosliberabit]

Enough everyone with old dead people's quotes.  All everyone is doing here is using dead people's opinion to bolster their own.  Taxes are necessary but the level that's necessary is just opinion.  I tend to think that this country was at it's best when their was less separation between rich and poor and I think that the facts back up my opinion.  We are living in a time in the U.S. with an historically large chasm between rich and poor. I'm not going to put fancy quotes up or provide you with the figures as a simple google search will provide you with a plethora of info to consume.  I will ask, if my hypothesis of when America was at it's best is true, how do we get closer to that condition if not by taxing the rich?

Just to clarify:  You're saying "this country was at it's best" in the 1950s?

In comparison to the rest of the world, yes. The 50's and 60's were our zenith.  America was at it's peak in terms of the overall quality of life compared to the average person on earth. Trying to equate segregation or nuclear threat to economic equality would be very foolish on your part.

Trying to say that the US was economically at its "zenith" in the 1950s and 1960s because of government-enforced fiscal equality measures would be equally foolish.  The US was basically the lone victor of WW2.  Yes, the UK won - at the expense of their entire economy.  The Soviet Union won as well, but then retreated into their communist shell.  The US was literally the only one left standing, and everyone owed us money.  It wasn't the 90% tax rates that made us powerful, it was the fact that we were the biggest economy, experienced 0% devastation from the war, and we were pretty much the only ones left.  When the rest of the capitalist world started catching up, our relative power starting declining.

[sol]

If social issues have an effect on fiscal issues, why does the Left keeping telling me the best economic period for the country was the 1950s?

I have never heard anyone from either side of the spectrum claim that the 1950s were the best econoic period for the country.  I have heard liberals (like Bernie Sanders) point to the 1950s as evidence that higher marginal tax rates on the super wealthy are unlikely to be catastrophic, and I have heard conservatives (like Donald Trump) point to the 1950s that returning to those social policies you mentioned is unlikely to be catastrophic.

In both cases, I think the appeal of the 50s is just that they represent a nostalgic vision of bygone youth for the Boomer generation, which now constitutes the voting majority of senior citizens.  But of the two extremes, I think it's the conservatives who lionize those times.  They're the ones who claim to want to "make America great again".

[Veritasvosliberabit]

the power of government to redistribute based on a subjective view of 'fairness' via taxation. When you're voting, you're voting for violence. You're voting to have men with guns threaten other citizens with force, or jail, to financially support your interests.

We've addressed this "taxation is theft at gunpoint" argument here many times before, but maybe you're new?  Let me reiterate the standard response everyone on the forum already knows.

Taxes are not your money.  They are the cost of providing the framework under which you can create wealth, and they are owed in the future to pay for the benefits you have already received in the past.  Your public education, your power grid, your transportation infrastructure, your food supply, your clean water, your vaccines, your internet, your security, all of the things that make modern life possible are funded for the public good with public money, and we pay back that debt with taxes on the wealth we get to create as a result of those things having been created for us in the past.

I know there is a vocal minority, mostly self-entitled white men, who feel that all government is tyranny and that the IRS is the mafia.  But the truth is that the IRS are just accountants, public servants who want us to be able to continue to provide future generations with food and water and power and security.  They do not want to steal from you, they want you to gratefully say thank you for all of the benefits you have been granted by living in a first world democracy.  Had you been born in Somalia or North Korea you would pay no taxes, and you would not have received those benefits, and your children would be doomed to exactly the kind of poverty and despair that you fantasize about imposing on all of us with this "taxes are theft" bullshit.

Government is the extension of the people.  We vote for them, they represent our interests, and they ensure that we get what we want from the system.  Government cannot steal from you because the government is you.  We're not "voting for violence" when we elect leaders, we're voting for people we believe will provide us the services we desire, and if they don't then we vote for someone else.  This whole thing is voluntary, there is no gunpoint, and you are free to leave the system at any time you like by moving to another country that does not impose taxes.  Whatever "interests" are served are our interests.  What redistribution there is is done with our consent, deliberately, because it is what we as a society have democratically decided is the most moral thing to do, and the best thing for our nation.  You are free to disagree with it, you are free to rail against it, but don't misconstrue the voluntary arrangement you have chosen to live under as some sort of forced arrangement.  There is no tyrant.

You have benefited enormously, maybe show a little gratitude instead of so much hate.

Hate?  I think a lot of us just don't understand the dichotomy of those like you that preach that taxes are part of society, that it is our duty as citizens, that "government is extension of the people", and therefore higher taxes = better....

...and then these same people (you) literally spend hours figuring out how to lower your personal tax rate.  And these same people give advice on forums on how other people can minimize their tax bill, or how to best jigger their personal taxes to take advantage of Obamacare subsidies. 

Personally, I believe some taxes are necessary; I don't think many people here are arguing for anarchy.   We're just sick of hearing the same tired platitudes about how arguing against any type of tax increases makes us horrible people and bad citizens, or that social issues should come before fiscal issues.  Socially, this country is at the best point it's ever been in it's short history, and it has nothing to do with fiscal policy.

[JLee]

But only if they/we actually vote!  That is the crux of the problem here! 
Over the last several Presidential elections, voters in their 50s and 60s (baby boomers) were 50% more likely to vote than those in their 20s. 2012 actually had a worse voter turnout of people aged 19-24 then they did in 2008 or 2004, which isn't encouraging.

I want more people from all demographics to vote.  I think that's when our democracy functions best.  But until millennials can show that they/we can turn out to vote in numbers even close to baby boomers they/we will have less power as a voting block.
http://ck37.com/sites/ck37.com/files/voter-registration-and-turnout-1996-2008_0.png

Also, let's not ignore the other elephant in the room - campaign financing.  Which demographic is providing more funding?

There in lies the rub though - in a lot of cases people forget to shift the data to account for aging demographics. Saying that 20% of 18 to 24 demographic voted in 2008 is meaningless unless you now shift those ages to the 26 to 32 demographic where we now start to see the historical 50% voter turn out assumptions. In other-words, remember that a lot of the people that voted in 2008 are now in their late twenties or early thirties and a whole new cohort of votes that haven't participated in a presidential election without an incumbent are in that block now.

Right - and I'm not one forgetting the shift in demographics.  Those 18-24 year olds who had such poor voter turnout are indeed now 26-32.  What's making you think that they will suddenly vote in historically record numbers?  What makes you think the demographic that is newly available to vote in this election (18-22) will be different from every other election? 
Or looking at the other side of the coin - what makes you think that baby boomers will suddenly drop from their >75% voter participation rate?  If anything, history indicates that the challenging party gets a boost when there's no incumbent running.  That means a boost to the conservative voters, who tend to be much older.

Feel free to PM me in November and I will happily eat a slice of humble pie if I am wrong, but I'm deeply skeptical that millenials will vote in larger numbers (in absolute terms, not even in %) than their older counterparts.  I absolutely want to see 70%+ participation rates from younger individuals.

It may just be the people in my social circle being more vocal than some, but my general impression is that the younger demographic is rallying - I would not be surprised to see record turnout for the next election. Time will tell. :)