Lion of the Blogosphere

How the rich make life worse for the rest of us

with 86 comments

In the NY Times, a “Big City” column about an 11-unit brownstone in Brooklyn Heights being converted into a single $18 million-dollar mansion.

Libertarian types often say, “how does it hurt you if some other guy gets rich?” Well here is an example. Eleven families of more modest means are prevented from living in a desirable neighborhood because of a single rich family.

It would be better if the rich paid higher taxes so they didn’t have enough money to do these types of things. And I’d give 10-to-1 odds that the family who will purchase this mansion are voting for Hillary on Tuesday, Hillary whose campaign platform includes raising taxes on the rich.

It’s high time that Republicans stop being the party of low taxes on the rich now that the rich aren’t even voting Republican.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 6, 2016 at 11:27 am

86 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. These brownstones were originally single family homes, so they’re sort of returning to their original function.

    Also these 11 units and multiple units generally in brownstones aren’t usually families, right? They tend to be apartments for singles, couples, and roommates.

    Tom

    November 6, 2016 at 11:45 am

    • right- by this class warfare philosophy the middle class are really the problem because this brownstone could be further subdivided into 22 units for lower class people which would make even more people happy.

      Lion of the Turambar

      November 6, 2016 at 1:05 pm

  2. Lion’s crushing on the Clintons is one of the odd little subtexts that gives this blog the layers of ambiguity one looks for in great literature.

    Gozo

    November 6, 2016 at 11:49 am

  3. Back to panic on NeoGaf after triumphalism last night. They realize they are going to be blown out in NC and it has shaken their confidence.

    Yesterday they were pounding their chests over the long voting line at that Latino supermarket. The reality is that no matter how many Latinos voted yesterday, Dems still ended up lagging their 2012 margin in NV by 2000 votes.

    IBD now has Trump leading again.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 6, 2016 at 11:51 am

    • “Dems still ended up lagging their 2012 margin in NV by 2000 votes.”

      Sorry, but could you explain what you mean here? In 2012 Obama beat Romney by 100,000 votes in Clark county. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/nevada/

      What if Trump does 50% better than Romney this year, so what?

      Marty

      November 6, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      • 2012 EV in NV: 48k more D ballots than R
        2016 EV in NV: 46k more D ballots than R

        I agree that looking at EV in isolation means that Crooked Hillary will easily win NV, and that is the reason that I am predicting a Hillary victory there in spite of the polls, but I was referring to the EV total as evidence that the supposed Latino tsunami that was going to bury Trump has not had much impact. Latino turnout is way up and yet D’s still have less of an edge than they did in 2012 EV.

        If Trump loses, it won’t be because of some imaginary Latino tsunami.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 6, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      • Today’s Yougov poll of Florida has Trump winning 34% of Florida’s Hispanics (Romney won 39% in 2012) and the state tied overall at 45%-45%. It looks like the Cubans are keeping Trump’s margins among Hispanics reasonable.

        I agree that looking at EV in isolation means that Crooked Hillary will easily win NV,

        Trump is winning Nevada independents by ~20%.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 6, 2016 at 3:05 pm

      • Independents are not the same as No Party Affiliation. Romney won self described Independents by 5 nationally. Kerry won self described Independents by 1.

        Self described independent status is correlated with NPA, but we don’t know how close the correlation is either overall or for state to state.

        PPD has Trump winning 42% of FL hispanics and has them at 18 percent of the electorate. Has Trump winning by 3. If we plug YouGov’s FL hispanic numbers into PPD’s latest FL poll, the PPD poll would be recalibrated as having a .1 lead for Trump.

        I have to admit, the YouGov #s are more believable. If PPD is overestimating Latino Trump votes by 8 points nationally, then their topline numbers need to be adjusted from giving Trump a 0.7% edge to giving him a 1 point deficit. Of course, with so many 3rd party and undecided he could overcome that.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 6, 2016 at 7:24 pm

      • Independents are not the same as No Party Affiliation. Romney won self described Independents by 5 nationally. Kerry won self described Independents by 1.

        Why break NPA’s out from Independents? You are just double counting them.

        Pollsters usually group every voter not registered as a Republican or Democrat as an Independent. Since NPA’s are already being included within the overall set of Independents there is no reason to double count them.

        Especially when Trump is winning Independents overall by double digits, so why worry about NPAs as a subset of Independents?

        If we plug YouGov’s FL hispanic numbers into PPD’s latest FL poll, the PPD poll would be recalibrated as having a .1 lead for Trump.

        Assuming the PPD has the correct proportion of Hispanics to overall voters.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 6, 2016 at 11:55 pm

  4. The challenge is how to progressively tax the rich without penalizing their incentives to get rich and to use their riches for benefit of all. This might be over your head but give it a crack: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WIdVnQEWdYgYYly9iKkesWCVhfINvbtwuVq2GMOxMbw/edit?usp=sharing

    Luke Lea (@lukelea)

    November 6, 2016 at 11:58 am

    • Value transference on Wall Street (which is probably how the future $18 million-dollar mansion owner made his money) doesn’t benefit all.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 6, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    • Tax collection as per Ferguson’s cash nexus, isn’t just about incentivising people to do stuff. Taxes have to be practical like

      1. Taxes that are politically palpable
      2. Taxes that stop negative externalities
      3. Taxes that simplify compliance and bureaucracy

      An expenditure tax is worth investigating. And it looks like a fair formula (although the spreadsheet calcs are off, unless I’m misinterpreting something)

      But it runs into the philosophical problem that

      (a) The rich suffer diminishing returns on expenditure – there’s only so many Aston Martins and so on you buy a year. Whereas the poor spend a much bigger % of income/wealth store. So the poor would pay much more than the rich to the exchequer/treasury.
      (b) Doesn’t change the rentier situation of assets giving passive wealth to the rich and therefore not needing to work/inheritances.
      (c) probably more complex to administer as private sales and dark pools would be set up in the same way black markets operate in most third world countries
      (d) does insurance count as an expenditure? If so, why not derivatives?

      The Philosopher

      November 6, 2016 at 1:47 pm

      • “The rich suffer diminishing returns on expenditure – there’s only so many Aston Martins and so on you buy a year”

        Meh. Aston Martins (and Ferraris, Lamborghinis, etc.) are for poseurs. If you’re really rich you get a Konigsegg.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        November 6, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    • Almost all the super-rich make their money from unproductive value transference. Rather than trying to limit the income they derive from their positions with tax policy, we should limit their ability to hold value transference positions by enacting government policies that support the productive over the value transferers — government support for labor unions, worker co-ops to challenge managerial corporations, etc.

      chairman

      November 6, 2016 at 6:41 pm

      • Right. That’ll work. Where has this policy been implemented and been shown to be effective? I’m sure there would be some negative, unintended consequences you haven’t considered. How about the Feds just stay out of the private sector? Where’s the constitutional authority for your new laws? Why should the government, which is supposed to be for the impartial benefit of all citizens, support labor unions or worker co-ops rather than “managerial corporations”? How do you plan to run a corporation without managers, by the way? The job of the Federal government is to enforce the law, print money, and defend the country, not to favor and empower one group of citizens over another.

        Robert the Wise

        November 6, 2016 at 11:51 pm

      • Where has this policy been implemented and been shown to be effective?

        Most of the rest of the developed world? Just because you’re screwing yourself over doesn’t make what you’re saying principled and intelligent. Hate to break it to you.

        Magnavox

        November 7, 2016 at 10:46 am

  5. The solution to this is to replace the income tax with a fixed asset tax, first residence exempt. You want the rich to invest in productive enterprise. You do not want them to invest in fixed, limited assets that prices them out of the range of the rest of us.

    Abelard Lindsey

    November 6, 2016 at 12:32 pm

  6. Yes, when resources are limited, people compete for them, and the richer win. Say buying Mona Lisa, yeah, you’ll need money for that because many people would want it and they drive the price up. But the issue here is that resources have to be “limited”. For Ivy league undergrads for kids they are limited at a few thousand, maybe 10k per year. That’s a big limit. Trump doesn’t have 10k kids per year. So the competition here is at the upper middle class level, top 1-5% mostly, not the rich.

    There are 3 million apartments in NYC, and the competition for them it’s not the rich, it’s the middle and upper middle classes. Or it should be. The main problem in NYC is that some people are given advantages, which are rather unfair and that reduces the number of apartments. These big give-aways are:
    1. many forms of rent stabilization which allows old locals to get subsidized prices.
    2. complicated tax code, which allows for paying little to no tax in certain situations. An empty lot is an example here. You pay low taxes, but you buy it just to sell it in the future, with no intention of building something on it.
    3. tax code to benefit pied-a-terre’s. If your residence is upstate and you own in NYC you don’t pay income tax like the regular NYC residents. This is close to 4%, which is huge.
    4. other small give-aways: free parking on the streets? It’s funny that you can have $10-$20 per hour parking next to free street parking. LOL Why would you have free parking in a city that’s so densely packed?

    Zack

    November 6, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    • “Why would you have free parking in a city that’s so densely packed?”

      Prole voters with cars demand free parking.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 6, 2016 at 12:51 pm

      • “Prole voters with cars demand free parking.”

        Exactly. But if you were to design the city, you would give such a big square footage freely for parking. Seriously, only low (or rich) income people can afford a personal car. The low income people park on the street and if they have a part-time or no job, they just move the car. The rich just pay the $500 a month for a garage. The middle class and everybody loses because the space is used in an unproductive manner: narrower streets, more glut, more congestion, more waste of time in traffic.

        Zack

        November 6, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    • 1) As a Native New Yorker I like rent stabilization. It benefits me and it benefits my friends who’ve been a long time.

      It can also benefit people who move here with the intention if living here for decades. I don’t care that the people who are coming to NYC for college or for a few after school have to pay more. Localization is better then globalization.

      3) There ought to be an extra tax on 2nd homes in NYC. One of the few things I agree with DiBlasio about.

      4) I support LESS parking on the streets but if we are going to have parking I don’t mind free. Otherwise we are just helping out the upperclass.

      Jimi

      November 6, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      • Yes, as a native NYer you’d like the legislation that heavily benefits you. But that doesn’t make it ethical or efficient. These apartments taken by the people that pay less (or a lot less), can be used by people who pay more, and generally those people would be taking more advantage of the opportunities NYC has to offer, work wise, thus making NYC even more of an economic power engine. Further, these rent stabilized/controlled units are pushing the prices for the non-stabilized unites, which makes it harder for the people who moved to NYC for jobs. This is why NYC middle class is pushed out. But even the benefit to the locals is actually questionable. While they get something for free, in the short term it’s clearly a benefit for them. But this “benefit” also ties them to the apartment and that has negative consequences. For example, if one has a rent controlled apartment he’d a lot less likely to look for opportunities in other places, thus missed opportunities. NYC is not for every body, ie, some industries are underrepresented, say tech. Moreover, some of these apartments are tied to the income of the resident, and I have friends who wouldn’t pursue some careers because that would push them out of their rent controlled apartment. This is good for them short term, but long term it’s not clear at all. This reminds me of the people stuck in some union jobs, where they can’t switch jobs without losing the pension, so in effect the union which is supposed to help them squashes their long term opportunities.

        Zack

        November 6, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      • I used to live in a rent stabilized unit in Astor Place. You’re mistaken to think people who pay more in rent are more industrious. I had some idle neighbors under the age 30 who were independently wealthy, because of their parents.

        JS

        November 6, 2016 at 7:29 pm

      • @ Zack

        You have to be a real chump to throw money away on a $3K + for an apt in Manhattan. Even Warren Buffet thinks so!

        NYC would be an economic powerhouse with pricey renters?

        Even with the already sky high rents, Manhattan still looks like a sh#thole, and much of the food options could be better. NYC barely ranks high in quality of life, despite 20 years into its aggressive cleansing of undesirables. The only reason why Manhattan is desirable… A mind boggling of variety at your fingertips.

        JS

        November 6, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    • Let the government have a blind auction for Ivy League, or at least SYPH, admittance. Only those who bid to pay the highest taxes, in a lump sum, get admitted. And all black prospects, I guess.

      Glengarry

      November 6, 2016 at 4:35 pm

  7. But the root cause of the neighborhood’s being desirable is that lots of other SWPLs want to live there.

    Hermes

    November 6, 2016 at 1:12 pm

  8. We want the rich to finance stuff like the development of fusion power, space colonization, and the cure for aging. We don’t want them to bid up the prices of fixed, finite assets such as real estate in desirable places and what not. We should have a tax system that reflects these objectives.

    And whoever thought it was rational to tax productive enterprise? Societies get less of what they tax and more of what they subsidize.

    Abelard Lindsey

    November 6, 2016 at 1:19 pm

  9. Mate, you’d sold all your stock and now you are dripping with envy of brownstone owners and marathon runners? Why don’t you just do your thing and be happy? Like wishing for a marathon runners to die, please……

    Yakov

    November 6, 2016 at 1:25 pm

  10. Sure you’re not letting your own experience color your views? Not everyone lives in New York City, Washington DC or San Francisco.

    Dain

    November 6, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    • Anything outside of the Northeast and Left Coast is pauper land.

      JS

      November 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm

      • Anything = Anyplace

        JS

        November 6, 2016 at 11:51 pm

  11. If I reformed the tax code I would:

    1. Land Value Tax – land can’t be sent offshore to the Caymans, easy to measure, taxed as per quantum and quality of land (as reflected by market prices).
    2. Make corporate tax graduated like income, to help small businesses compete v corporations.
    3. Remove debt as a tax deductible to remove leverage in the system and ease the Minsky problem
    4. Tax evasion punished with additional 30% in situ surcharge tax on any future earnings of any type because jail in a min security white collar jail is easy to serve with millions waiting in Bermuda.
    5. Tax on carbon, transfats, sugar and anything else that causes obesity.
    6. Reduce income taxes
    7. Hilary’s idea for a holding period mandated cap gains tax is a good idea.
    8. So is her inheritance tax proposals
    9. Lobbyists should be publicly executed.
    10. Grove r Norquist should be forced not to use any government assets or services. We can start by not letting any police call to his house, removing an emergency medical care for his family and forcing him to inspect all food, medicine, financial products and vehicles/electronics he buys straight from the factory for hazards.

    The Philosopher

    November 6, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    • Also boil the Koch/Peterson/Heritage cucks in tar.

      The Philosopher

      November 6, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    • I think the tax code should be reduced to the following.

      Replace ALL taxes with a flat sales tax and a progressive wealth tax. That way all money is taxed whether one spends it or saves it. But wealth is taxed progressively so people can’t accumulate ridiculous amounts of money. Someone should have to work hard in order to remain a multibillionaire.

      There should also be a negative income tax to replace welfare, food stamps, social security, medicare and every other government program. Not enough for someone to live a middle class lifestyle. But enough to squeak by if they’re frugal and have a roommate.

      destructure

      November 6, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    • Bermuda? Have you heard of FATCA, my good man?

      Glengarry

      November 6, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      • Yes and it doesn’t work. Otherwise 1/3 of the world’s wealth would have come onshore.

        People don’t have bank accounts in Bermuda for the sightseeing or quality customer service.

        The Philosopher

        November 7, 2016 at 4:51 am

  12. Trump is billionnaire, married with top model slovenian, MBA wharton, used to dance at club 54, was in reality TV etc. and is supposed anti-system. There is something weird in that story . Who knows ? The only way to discover if it’s true is that he wins this election .

    Bruno from Paris

    November 6, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    • Trump has those things because he’s rich not because he’s connected. His money may have bought him influence. But the influence is a result of being rich not the other way around.

      destructure

      November 6, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    • Trump doesn’t have an MBA. He did 2 years of undergrad at Fordham before transferring to Wharton to finish his undergrad degree. Melania’s nice but I don’t think she was a top model or anything.

      Tom

      November 6, 2016 at 4:03 pm

      • Lots of top models have done worse than Melania. Any of the old “super models” who did better than a luxury real estate billionaire, a big family and all that?

        Glengarry

        November 6, 2016 at 4:43 pm

      • stephanie seymour is married to a billionaire.

        james n.s.w

        November 6, 2016 at 5:37 pm

      • There are top models married to billionaires and similarly wealthy men. Most top models could probably marry billionaires if they wanted to, but there are other factors that come into play like age. Most billionaires are older men, and some top models would rather marry a younger athlete or movie star than a billionaire. Melania has one child with Donald. I don’t think she’s going to have more.

        Tom

        November 6, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    • DJT does not have an MBA.

      Lowe

      November 6, 2016 at 4:37 pm

  13. “Well here is an example. Eleven families of more modest means are prevented from living in a desirable neighborhood because of a single rich family.”

    The problem here is not that someone bought a brownstone but that there is a housing shortage. The solution is not to penalize the rich guy but to build more houses. Now you say people are being denied the opportunity to live in a nicer neighborhood. Well, I’m being denied the opportunity to live in Buckingham palace. If only Queen Elizabeth would turn her palace into apartments I could live next to royalty! But, seriously, those families will just move into other apartments with people of similar class and means. Water finds it’s own level, bro.

    “It would be better if the rich paid higher taxes so they didn’t have enough money to do these types of things. And I’d give 10-to-1 odds that the family who will purchase this mansion are voting for Hillary on Tuesday, “

    I don’t care if rich people buy a brownstone. But I do care if they use their wealth to support anti-American candidates and policies. You’re probably right about them supporting Hillary who is anti-American and hates ordinary Americans. So I’m willing to punish them even though I don’t care about the brownstone.

    “It’s high time that Republicans stop being the party of low taxes on the rich now that the rich aren’t even voting Republican.”

    My initial reaction is to agree. However, not every rich person is a Democrat. What you have to ask is — Will the supporting higher taxes make rich leftists support the GOP? Or will it merely chase away rich conservatives who already vote GOP?

    destructure

    November 6, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    • And over 1/3 of the population of NYC is foreign-born. If we hadn’t had all this useless, destructive immigration over the past 30 years… goodbye housing shortage.

      Hermes

      November 6, 2016 at 4:41 pm

  14. Big news ….

    Bruno from Paris

    November 6, 2016 at 3:33 pm

  15. FBI bailed out.

    They must have threatened Comey or blackmailed him.

    For him to reopen the investigation and then close it saying “the result is the same”, even though Weiner having the emails marked ‘classified’ is against the law is hilarious. Comey looks like a fool to both sides and has embarrassed the FBI’s reputation deeply.

    He should have been a man and resigned.

    The Philosopher

    November 6, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    • Well that’s not exactly what happened is it, ‘Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton’, and weren’t those conclusions basically she’s a lying thieving whore and a reasonable person would conclude the “justice” department is unlikely to do anything about that?
      I agree with that hippy styxhexenhammer666, if anything, nobody in their right mind doesn’t think she’s corrupt as all get out and now, nobody can blame the FBI for her crushing defeat.
      St Michael….

      2 Minute Alpha

      November 6, 2016 at 7:28 pm

  16. I used to live in a rural seaside area which was very nice and largely crime free. Until ultra-rich people discovered it and started moving in with armies of lower class laborers.

    fortaleza84

    November 6, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    • That’s pretty interesting, I would love to hear more.

      Samson J.

      November 6, 2016 at 7:54 pm

  17. The rich also make life worse for us by buying politicians. That’s a really good reason to tax the hell out of them. So they can’t use their money against us politically.

    Dave

    November 6, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    • Teddy Roosevelt made this point over a 100 years ago before he introduced the estate tax.

      If there’s enormous inequality you get a banana republic. Because the rich control the politicians, media, military and courts against the people.

      America is going to become like its southern neighbours. All because Reagan and Bush gave trillions to aristocrats. Reagan’s economic ‘boom’ was Volcker lowering rates, not the tax cuts which ended up in the Caymans.

      Citizens United is the death knell. The judges were bought off themselves. The Clinton Foundation a sordid Kafkaesque satire where even Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia and who knows, maybe even North Korea bribe to control US policy.

      Ahahahaha. Could you have imagined a simple tax cut could do all this?! Teddy Roosevelt did. 3rd best ever president.

      The Philosopher

      November 7, 2016 at 5:03 am

  18. This Comey thing — how much more banana republic can you get? Leftist Twitter and the media are all barking about this latest surprise exoneration. Will it stop Trump’s momentum in it’s tracks and bring things back to Hillary +6?

    I don’t think so. She may get a small bump but, frankly, there isn’t enough time. For starters, today, most people are watching football and/or enjoying their lives. Tomorrow the media and political talk shows will go into overdrive. They will have to deal with Trump’s spin (“the system is rigged”). Then Tuesday arrives and, it’s showtime. This is a terrible break for Trump but I really don’t think there’s sufficient time for the press and Hillary’s allies to untangle the narrative. I’ll make my final prediction tomorrow.

    SWPL2

    November 6, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    • She may get a small bump but, frankly, there isn’t enough time. For starters, today, most people are watching football and/or enjoying their lives. Tomorrow the media and political talk shows will go into overdrive.

      Potentially, Comey’s latest announcement hurts her: It comes too late to change more than a very small percentage of early votes and his credibility is toast with both Democrats and Republicans.

      Meanwhile, Independents, who after hearing the media try to discredit Comey for a week, will head to the voting booths in 30 hours with the words “Clinton”, “Emails”, and “FBI” in the forefront of their minds and without giving the media enough time to spin all of this confusion as somehow good for Clinton.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 6, 2016 at 7:57 pm

  19. Envy of the rich is not an American trait.

    Yakov

    November 6, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    • You should envy the Satmar Haredim. They are “poor” and they get to live in affordable housing next to the Hipsters in Williamsburg.

      JS

      November 6, 2016 at 7:22 pm

      • They live in different parts of Williamsburg.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 6, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      • Mate, I’m not sure whom you are addressing, but I don’t envy anybody, least if all Satmar Chassidim.

        Lion, when are you finally going to use the correct comparative for of the adjective ‘bad’? It’s painfull.

        Yakov

        November 6, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    • It may be the most American trait. Greed and envy are what motivate people to become rich.

      Lowe

      November 6, 2016 at 8:59 pm

      • Apparently, most proles are not greedy nor many of them are ambitious. If they were, the South and the Midwest wouldn’t be in the shape they are in today.

        JS

        November 7, 2016 at 8:47 am

      • @ JS

        The South and Midwest are the way they are because the ambitious leave. That’s what I did.

        You lived in NYC previously. I imagine you weren’t born there.

        Lowe

        November 7, 2016 at 11:27 am

      • That’s correct. I was born in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. I came to NYC during my teens.

        JS

        November 7, 2016 at 5:17 pm

  20. it’s an everything trait. everybody is envious of the rich; americans jsut idolise *and* envy the rich at the same time. australians and people from the u.k just hate the rich.

    james n.s.w

    November 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    • Greed is a trait shared by Americans, envy is not. When someone buys an 18 million house, Americans don’t whish that the government should’ve taken the money instead. And Americans don’t whish that athletes should die while competing. These feelings are truly sick.

      Lion, for the second time: the rich don’t make life ‘worst’ or ‘best’.

      Yakov

      November 7, 2016 at 1:32 am

  21. Is this really supposed to be a serious post? I’m not sure how many living units there are in New York City: I’ll guess 4 million (pop around 10 million, right?) Am I supposed to be upset that a rich guy recently reduced that number to 3,999,989? I assume you are being ironic with this post.

    anonymousse

    anonymousse

    November 6, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    • It’s no joke; the Lion is driven by envy and hatred of “the rich” as much as any Democrat. Remember, the alt right is identity politics for white people, and it has the exact same philosophy as that of black activists or feminists or gay activists: “The government should be strong and it should use that strength to redistribute wealth from the rich to me, and to humiliate those who have wronged me.”

      Gozo

      November 6, 2016 at 10:58 pm

      • What’s wrong with getting justice against those who wronged you?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 6, 2016 at 11:25 pm

      • Nothing is wrong with seeking justice for a material wrong from those who actually harmed you. But your wanting to punish some guy who allegedly hurt you by buying a house is as irrational as blacks wanting reparations for slavery from people alive today who had nothing to do with slavery that ended in the 19th century, and as unjust as government affirmative action and quotas for women and special privileges for gays which distort the market and interfere with innocent people’s property rights and rights of free association.

        Gozo

        November 7, 2016 at 7:13 am

  22. The Democrats tend to get their money from the Jewish rich while the gentile rich tends to support the Republicans. You can’t lump the rich together all in one group.

    Joe Walker

    November 6, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    • That used to be the case, but this election the gentile rich hate Trump just as much as the Jewish rich.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 6, 2016 at 10:32 pm

      • It doesn’t matter to most of us whom the wealthy support, because both political parties are SWAYED BY THE RICH.

        Mayor de Dumbio wanted an affordable housing site for his beloved NAMs on the Upper East Side, and the building process was set to take place, yet it was terminated, because a prestigious private school paid him a lot of money so they can build another department on the site.

        JS

        November 7, 2016 at 9:50 am

  23. I made myself $10K richer today when I sold my boat. Like they say, “the two happiest days in the life of a boater is the day he buys the boat and the day he sells the boat!” I’m going to try to save 50% of my income over the next couple of years. It’s getting down to the home stretch; not many more work years to go if I want to retire at a reasonably early age.

    E. Rekshun

    November 6, 2016 at 9:36 pm

  24. It would be better if the rich paid higher taxes so they didn’t have enough money to do these types of things.

    Yes, but who defines “rich”?

    It would be even better if the tax code eliminated non-profit status.

    E. Rekshun

    November 6, 2016 at 9:46 pm

  25. The rich living in big(ish) houses does not make life whose for the rest of us. City planners imposing excessive and unreasonable restrictions on what can be built where is what makes housing scarce.

    Peregrino Nuzkwamia

    November 7, 2016 at 12:05 am

    • You do understand that people tend to like where they live, and not want it to end up like, say, Singapore? There have to be restrictions, unless you actively like living in those Japanese pod hotels.

      You can argue that the planning system has become the plaything of the rich and powerful, and I agree. But too many conservatives act like any planning restrictions are violations of human rights.

      Jesse

      November 7, 2016 at 8:52 am

  26. The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn’t account for the rich who vote Republican BECAUSE of low taxes. We know many rich people vote Democrat but if Republicans became the high tax party, it would lose the support of the rich who stick around for the low taxes. Whether that’d make a meaningful difference is up in the air. It seems unlikely that Republicans would attract new voters if they changed their tax policy but I’m not sure. If more new voters flock to Repubs than the rich Repubs lose, it might be worth it. Another factor to take into account is campaign contributions. Changing tax policy would probably mean less donor money.

    Lolyer

    November 7, 2016 at 12:29 am

  27. Lion, I believe you mean wealth or estate tax, not income tax? Income tax hikes would actually only decrease mobility due to the ways in which the rich make money (inheritance; capital gains).

    anon

    November 7, 2016 at 1:21 am

  28. Raising taxes only works if the government is inclined to tax the people who can afford to pay. These dirty crooks like Hillary Rotten won’t ever really tax the rich. Why else would she be getting the Billionaire Boys Club to support her? That clown Warren Buffet must be senile if he actually expects anybody to really believe he has any interest in paying higher taxes. Try again you old fool. These idiots have no real income. They get all their dough from non-productive Capital Gains. Old boy Warren gets his mad money from Stock. If you want to squeeze the undersized nuts of these old fools, you need to hike Capital Gains, until Warren dines at a Chinese Buffet. If you’re worried about farmers you can just convert small family businesses into income tax categories and drop their bill low, by soaking unproductive geezers like Warren. His supposed genius for Stocks is more like insider deals and cozy relationships with political whores. He usually pays pennies on the dollar for Blue Chip Stocks. Its these kind of insider deals that should have this old fool spending the rest of his short life at Cell Block X in Club Fed.
    When you see clowns like Zuckerberg making money for nothing, there’s something rotten on Wall Street. Those reports of Billions of ad dollars for a website nobody likes anymore stinks like old fish you forgot to put on ice. Fakebook hasn’t been cool since Blackberries were popular. All the cool kids have abandoned that crappy Cyber-Hellhole. That timeline feature is really nasty, and you really cannot shut it off. If you really want to see pics of boring old people living dull lives, you need to get a life. Those uninterruptable feeds of wedding photos and kids pics is why Slide Projectors used to be instruments of torture. The only news I want posted on my abandoned Timeline is news of Zuckerberg taking a swandive off the New World Trade Building because Fakebook collapsed like Myspace.

    Joshua Sinistar

    November 7, 2016 at 2:36 am

  29. Drudge has been headlining: “Obama ‘encourages illegals to vote'” for the past 12 hours.

    If you watch even the highly edited video, the Hispanic woman who asks Obama about voting says she is a U.S. citizen. Her fear is that her voting will somehow arouse the federal government to look into all the illegals she and her family are harboring. But Obama never suggests illegals should vote.

    Mark Caplan

    November 7, 2016 at 8:02 am

    • Yes, the right wing is sometimes guilty of intentionally deceptive journalism.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 7, 2016 at 9:18 am

      • I have not watched the latest O’Keefe project Veritas videos but if he has genuinely damning evidence against her campaign he only has himself to blame that noone takes any of his videos seriously.

        Magnavox

        November 7, 2016 at 10:41 am

  30. How about a transaction tax? It might put some manners on the high frequency traders.

    Jesse

    November 7, 2016 at 8:49 am

  31. now that the rich aren’t even voting Republican.

    You’ve been saying that for years and years and I really wish you would come up with some actual conclsuive evidence. Shouldn’t be too hard.

    Magnavox

    November 7, 2016 at 10:36 am

  32. O/T but related to NYC: The greatest city in the world is home to the some of the most psychological disturbed people in the world.

    A crazy black woman shoves a White woman (who lived in Astoria) into the subway tracks and gets crushed by the incoming subway.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914392/Woman-taken-custody-shoving-woman-death-moving-train-Times-Square-subway-station.html

    It’s prole to ride the subways, because wealthy people in NYC take cabs to get around.

    JS

    November 8, 2016 at 11:32 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: