The Babylon Bee is a site that describes itself as "Christian Satire." The author (Adam 4d) also has a Facebook Page and another online site, and he often pokes fun not only at his fellow believers, but also our curious system of govt and politics as well.

His content is cleverly crafted, often well-researched, and written with a style and wit that is often lacking in the typical online grunting and gnashing of teeth that surround sensitive topics. He spares no one....Republicans and Democrats alike get their due time under the lens of hyperbole.

In the spirit of levity, I present, for your amusement, this topic on the latest round of tax cuts... Enjoy.

babylonbee.com/news/irs-still-waiting-for-liberals-to-voluntarily-mail-their-refund-checks-back/

Sid you are the one who is callously assuming they are not donating to their own chosen charity for the poor.

So true, David...so true.

I know the progressives out there love and want to help poor people more than me. It is evident--clearly--by the way they often vote to have rich people donate lavish sums of their money to causes they support via a progressive tax rate on income taxes.

Heck, if I had half the moral gumption of your average progressive, I would immediately seize ownership of all excess real estate owned by land lords, sell them, and give those proceeds to the poor. That would definitely establish me as a generous person.

I define excess real estate as anyone who has more units than me...or nicer units than mine...

Maybe, if I keep up the good work, one day I'll rise to the level of heartfelt devotion to the well-being of the less fortunate by voting to tax Roth IRAs distributions of anyone who earns more than $100,000 per year. But that's a vast leap for someone so parsimonious as I am presently.

I guess you'll just have to start with denying police officers to rent your houses to save room for the poor.

Again, so true, so true.

Actually, I never had denied police, or lawyers, or anyone based on profession... but what I COULD do is vote to pass a law that limits the amount of rent anyone can charge. That would help make more housing available for the poor. Also, I could vote to pass a law that says if anyone makes more than 5x the rent (waivers available for up to 10 the rent, if they're registered to the Democratic Party or are a single mom who might swing that way one day), they are not eligible to rent those houses under those laws. Man....just sitting here thinking about it makes all these great ideas bubble to the surface. I'm sure progressives have thought about these long before me...they're much more generous than I am, after all. But for me, it's like the second Age of Enlightenment. Galileo, Erasmus, and Kepler...eat your hearts out!

Sid, let me respond this way. I am a capitalist on the front end (the actual markets, companies and customers), a socialist on the back end (individual income). The simple explanation is that there is only 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year. It is simply luck for anyone to be making 2 or 3 std dev above the mean income. Thus high progressive tax rates on individual (not corporate) income is merely a tax on being lucky, not a tax on hard work.

Because there are only 24 hrs in a 365 days in a year, and because competition naturally limits profit

Once again, I find myself humbled. There cannot be any explanation other than luck for those who earn these obscene levels of income: 2 deviations above the median!

Talent? No!

Insight? Certainly not!

Creativity? Balderdash!

Risk taking? Puh-leese!

We cannot waste our time on these and other such drivel as organizational skills, leadership, entrepreneurial spirit, and motivational capacity. Luck is the only explanation. We were born in America, in the mid to late 20th Century. Sheer luck of the historical & demographic draw. No need to reward such happenstance with pay that is too far above the median.

Let us then find the median income of all Americans. Anyone who makes 2 standard deviations or more above the median shall be subject to a 100% tax rate on every $ above that rate, to be redistributed to all those who make less, dollar for dollar.

One small complication: once we make sure no one is allowed to keep more than 2 standard deviation above the current median income, we will see some selfish people who used to be allowed to keep more of their income either reduce or eliminate a lot of the work they do. No doubt these are the pompous conservatives and libertarians. As their incomes fall from just under 2 standard deviations of the current median income, we will see the median income drop further, at which point it will be time to reassess again. Which could result in further lack of drive to excel...I dunno.

We can easily address this complication. We will do 1-2 reassessments of median income per year. Eventually, it will balance out at whatever level the mass of people decide is worth doing, as luck will no longer play a factor in reward for work. We will all work the number of hours and to the degree of difficulty we believe we ought to for the pay we receive, all of which are governed by our new generosity laws.

I will probably sell my rentals, quit my corp IT job, and take a position as a whopper-flopper. No sense enduring irate tenants or working weekends and nights organizing rehabs, scouring for deals, and trouble-shooting vast Info Tech networks. I'll let someone else deal with that. I want to punch in at 11 am and out at 7 pm...let someone else deal with the mess, the book keeping, the inventory checking, the hiring and firing of employees, etc. As far as being on call 24/7 as a land lord / IT person? Hah, no more of that for ol' S i d!

This new system will be one where no one has to feel bad about being unlucky. And no one has to feel guilty about being too lucky. We will have achieved what was spoken of in the words of the prophet..."all [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others" -George Orwell

So Sid, should you not earn $1MM a year by the time you're 70, can we assume you lack Talent, Insight, Creativity?

And Risk taking is the definition of luck.

"people who used to be allowed to keep more of their income either reduce or eliminate a lot of the work they do"

Isn't that one of the first points in "Perpetual Income"? That you can work hard, but you won't become wealthy just working hard. Your handyguy works hard--- but he's not necessarily wealthy. My tenants work hard-- but they still struggle. We're limited in the number of hours that we're physically capable of working. And that's why so many of us have gravitated towards real estate... because the houses work for us while we eat, while we sleep, while we spend time with our families...

But it took a lot of hard work to get to that point where we get to reap the benefits. While we're putting in five or six hours after we've clocked out of our day jobs, the people around us are watching tv. While we're spending our money on lumber and drywall and 100 gallons of paint and riding around in a 20-year-old pickup truck, the people around us are spending money on Disney World and cruises and Europe and $70k cars. But we put in that work towards our future... just like we may have put in 4 or 6 or 8 years' worth of hard academic work to graduate with a degree that opens more lucrative doors than just a high school diploma.

The median household income in the United States was $59k in 2016. But $59k isn't going to get you a cardboard box in San Francisco or Boston. The median household income in my town was $25k when I moved here (it may be $30k now), so earning $59k is still a very comfortable lifestyle here! I gross about that for every ten houses I own... but if I own 20 or 30 houses, does bringing in $120-$180k mean that I'm lucky, rather than we worked darn hard?

Deanna, $200k is a far far far far far far cry from $1mm. Do you think you can get to $1mm a year by the time you are 70? Was it because you didn't work hard enough? Should have put in another 6 hours a day?

Deanna and NE....you're obviously missing the point David is trying to make. There is no other possibly explanation than sheer luck for someone who makes 2 standard deviations above the current median income in America. I realize that the median is the middle point of incomes, and therefore is higher than it would be due to people who make more than that, but c'mon...are you seriously going to believe in such things as talent, creativity, determination, skill-level, and other such "factors" determine who should get more money?

I don't know about you, but I'm about to have an Epiphany. The solution to all our woes is to realize that some are lucky, some are not, and divvy up the proceeds. It's really that simple. Why can't you all see that...huh? Huh! HUUH!

Next thing you know you'll be advocating for outmoded concepts such as freedom of speech, when it's obvious that because some speakers are better than others, that's just lucky so they shouldn't be allowed to speak so that other less able speakers are able to pepper us with their ideas, even if they are less organized, somewhat less compelling, not quite as interesting, and such. We should be forced to listen only to speakers who are approximately twice as good as the graduate of the median middle school English class, which is about as far as the bulk of Americans ever receive instruction in public speaking.

Yes... we were married for 9 years before we had our first. I would totally be happy to add a third to our family, but DH is worried about college for the two that we have. And then I sub over at the high school, and it's sad and frustrating to hear the students talking amongst themselves... "Oh, so-and-so's pregnant." "Is she going to keep it?" etc. so very casually... :(

I had seen the part that had gone:

"It is simply luck for anyone to be making 2 or 3 std dev above the median income."

"if roll over tax brackets were implemented, the high incomes you earn in your twilight years from the hard work in earlier years"

It's patently obvious to me that older people always make more than younger people. Mark Zuckerberg might be the ONE exception....maybe Bill Gates...Steve Jobs...then there's that 30-year old RE agent in my town who cleared $500K last year...that's gotta be the only 4 people...

Anyway, regardless of my anecdotal evidence, the bottom line is older people make more money than younger people, so it's always more advantageous to pay higher tax rates earlier on when making less money and in return pay lower tax rates when you're older and earning more income...which would result in higher tax revenues for the Govt...and the ability to fund more benefit to society as a whole...which is after all our goal here...to have more money to be more generous... ????

Sid , are we then to conclude because you don't make $1mm a year, you lack talent, creativity, determination, and skill?

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about old vs young people. My response about twilight years was to Deanna's discussion about the hard work put in early for later rewards.

Do you have a specific complaint about why roll-over tax brackets are not fair or would not work? Why should someone like a surgeon who works for little or no pay for 15-20 years not be able to use the lower and middle brackets from that time?

It's not "luck" that forced me to apply myself to make good grades, study hard, work hard in college, think creatively, take risks, make sacrifices, work long hours, absorb as much experience and knowledge as I could get my hands on, not do drugs, nor get anyone pregnant before marriage.

"are we then to conclude because you don't make $1mm a year, you lack talent, creativity, determination, and skill?"

Absolutely not! That would be crazy talk, am I right? It is clear that anyone who makes $1mm a year must do so from luck and luck alone.

CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Luck. He (I feel comfortable assuming the CEO's gender in this patriarchal society of ours) was born a male to upper income parents and had perks and privileges of Ivy League education. I could steer to ship just as well if I hadn't been born to lower middle class Mid-Westerners. It's certainly not that I lack talent in grasping multi-dimensional market analytics. I'm sure the guy I drove by yesterday planting Fiber cable into the ground could do just as well also.

Most NBA players? Luck. They all had good genetics and all attended tops schools with the best coaches. Any street b-ball player in a low-income Bronx hood could out play Jordan or Shaq in their prime. Luck also explains how Larry Bird was able to compete without having the .... um, proper genetics. Call me ambitious, but if I just picked up a ball now I'd say 5...maybe 6 months and I'd be ready to step onto the court.

Successful business owners? Luck again. No one can devise a plan to create a widget B and sell 1 million per year at a profit of $1 per widget based on talent, insight, drive, and combining a diverse sets of features into their widget that makes it more preferable to existing widget A. Market research? Intuition? Engineering/design skills? Business savvy? Luck, luck, luck...probably they had parents who had businesses already so that explains why they were able to be successful.

Next thing you know someone will start talking nonsense like Adam Smith and his "invisible hand." Yeah, like there are ghosts are driving the market. That plain stupid-stition for you.

Nope, I think we're speaking eye-to-eye on this. There are no straw men to be found. Never did like "The Wizard of Oz" all that much. Those flying monkeys scare me.

I've had a great time in today's discussion, but sadly I must bid adieu and ride off into the sunset. In closing...I leave this, just to be sure my and Mr. Adam 4d's meaning as established in the initial post are not lost or misconstrued...

sat·ire pronounced:ÈsaÌt+(Y)r - noun

"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize an idea's stupidity or people's vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

All the Best,

S i d (a.k.a. "J. Swift, Esq")

.

I have been very lucky in my life. First and foremost I was lucky to be born into my family! That sort of set me up for life. A smart dad who cared about his family and always encouraged us at whatever we chose to do for work, and a very frugal mom who taught us the value of a dollar.

I made some very very very very very very very foolish choices in my younger life, but with family behind you to help pick you back up when you fall down, you have a chance.

Then I was lucky to eventually meet a like-minded person whom I worked well with in general...to partner with and to marry. Sheer luck.

Hey Sid[MO] and David[MI]

Pmh...I truly didn't intend to respond to this thread again, but please...re-read my first post carefully, and then also the last 5-6 lines of my last post. And if all else fails, check out RP's comment above...he gets it.

Great Saturday morning read with coffee. Thanks!

I love the Babylon Bee's satire! Unfortunately, every time I see one of their posts shared on Facebook, at least one person thinks that it it real. So if I share a post, like you, I preface it with - "this is funny satire!"

SID, thank you for sharing!

I signed up for the letter and can’t wait to read more.

As for the lucky part... it is some luck and some work.

David. I am one of those physicians with an income at or near the top 1%. I can assure you, that my achieving this level of income had nothing to do with luck. More like giving up the decade of my 20s to learn my craft in 80 + hour weeks.

Thankfully, I was able to charge all of my $300,000 tuition on my ‘White Male Privilege Card” issued to me at birth.