Media Endorsements of Presidential Candidates

[Tino]

Yet, we've legislated that we can pursue life, liberty and happiness, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's same rights. I argue that hoarding one's wealth and keeping it in the family does a disservice to those receiving that inheritance.

About half the country would argue that abortions do a disservice to those receiving the abortion, both mother and child. But I support the right of abortion because I believe complex questions are ultimately up to the individual most effected. Likewise I would leave this question up to the inheritee and inheritor.

Also, let's pick on the Waltons this time (founding family of Wal*Mart, worth somewhere in the ballpark of $7 billion), how much better would the public school system of Arkansas be if Sam had left much of his fortune to the betterment of the public schools of his home state? And by extension, how many children and families would have benefited from this generosity?
How many kids one has is a very different matter than what one should do with one's wealth upon death. Progeny is not wealth, though some love their wealth (or pursuit thereof) more than their progeny. Once a person amasses a certain level of wealth, it's simply ridiculous, greedy, and inhuman to not help those less fortunate.

I believe in the right of ownership of wealth, whether that wealth is in the form of money, children, real estate, artwork, intellectual content, health or anything else that is valued. I don't agree that government should be able to look at a citizen and just decide you've got too much of something other people want, and take it away.

---

Are you being willfully ignorant or dishonest?

I've explained my reasoning already.

As far as I know, there aren't multiple ideas of what this term means. The theory of trickle down economics is that there's a direct inverse correlation between the tax rates on the richest segment of society and the economic activity they create in the form of job growth, economic expansion and even tax revenue. Taxing them more, according to the theory, causes the economy to contract as the "job creators" pull back from investing in the economy while taxing them less has the opposite effect.

I haven't seen anyone offer a plan that fits this simple description, and it would depend on the state of the economy.

I think there is widespread agreement that raising taxes during a weak economy will not increase revenues by more than it loses due to slower economic growth. To my recollection, even Obama agrees on that point.

If the economy is booming, which it was due to a one-time dot com boom during Clinton's term, raising tax rates will raise revenues due just to momentum. Lowering taxes would be unnecessary since other forces will limit growth (for example a very low unemployment rate).

Romney's focus is on jobs. His plan is to raise revenues by having more people with jobs (who can then pay taxes) and more people with higher-paying jobs who will pay more in taxes. More jobs will come from more favorable tax rates that encourage investment and hiring. As I described above, Romney keeps the high-incomers paying the same amount of taxes by eliminating deductions that don't relate to slowing the economy.

If your approach to understanding complex economic plans is simply to label them all as "trickle down" and discard them, you're going to continue to be confused about what is actually being proposed.