No. Give people what they want and need to survive and thrive and then say "Look at the results! Are you working?! Yes! Upwardly mobile?! Yes! Financially secure? Hopeful for the futuer and for you and your children to succeed?! Chicken-in-every-pot... and so on... etc.? Yes, Yes Yes!... What's more fiscally responsible than that?!?"
Let the Republicans reply "But the DEEEEEEBT!!! The Deficiiiiiit!!!" to a resounding chorus of boos.
That was just Vox's tool, Warren had nothing to do with that afaik. That is just so you can play around with it, it is not trying to claim that making policy is that easy. My point in bringing it up was just that the policy can be a lot simpler if you're not operating on a stakeholder model for producing policy that weights equally the desire of the rich to pay little or no taxes with the desire of poor uninsured people to be able to get healthcare.
Now I'm intrigued though. What forms of wealth are you more interested in collecting on? Bearing in mind that any imbalance is going to push the rich, who are usually better equipped to shift from one form to another, towards the forms that are less taxed. It's really easy for a tax to wind up missing the target completely and burying people who it was intended to help.
My preference is to just bring back the estate tax, tighten it by adding a comparable gift tax so it can't be so easily dodged, and crank it up to effectively melt every silver spoon in the country.
I would be fine with this too. I really want marginal rates with brackets that go up from, say, 5% of estates above $10 million to 90 or 95% of estates above $1 billion.
No. Give people what they want and need to survive and thrive and then say "Look at the results! Are you working?! Yes! Upwardly mobile?! Yes! Financially secure? Hopeful for the futuer and for you and your children to succeed?! Chicken-in-every-pot... and so on... etc.? Yes, Yes Yes!... What's more fiscally responsible than that?!?"
Let the Republicans reply "But the DEEEEEEBT!!! The Deficiiiiiit!!!" to a resounding chorus of boos.
There are literally dozens of countries in the world today that have a wealth tax, but you're trying to tell me that it's impossible to implement one in the United States? I just can't take that seriously. For example I'm curious, where do you think the folks at Vox got the numbers they plugged into their wealth tax calculator thing? How do they know how much revenue the various rates and brackets would yield, and what percentage of households would be subject to the tax?
Granted that those numbers are likely estimates and not precise, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. They aren't just being made up. My point is that a lot of the actual resources and information you need to implement a wealth tax are already available. I also favor general reforms that make it far more difficult to hide assets and activities using anonymizing shell companies, incidentally.
It absolutely is a "right-wing" framing to believe that the federal government relies on tax money to fund stuff. I mean, it was an idea literally invented by conservatives to make left-wing policies look technically impossible. Here is Paul Samuelson saying exactly that:
You don't lecture people about how they're wrong: this is where "framing" comes in. There are some "framing" ideas already floating around in MMT-friendly spaces; personally I'd be interested to see the results of the application of real public-relations/"strategic" technical know-how to this question. Much as I would like to see the vaunted Democratic Party policy experts take a crack at the wealth tax.
I no longer understand what you're actually advocating for. Are you saying you want universal social benefits that are just called 'reparations'?
Honestly the only worthwhile answer to those who question the value of socialism is, "look at Western Europe, Australia, and Canada". Despite mostly having per capita GDP well below that of the US their masses enjoy a better quality of life by almost any other measure.
People who say we can't do stuff like VAT or wealth taxes, or even other basics like universal healthcare are just the best. In 2016 Canada's per capita GDP was ~$45K and the US ~$57K (IMF figures, don't care if they are rough estimates; they illustrate the point link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_economies).
Not only could the US fund UHC by copying Canada's program exactly (they also need to deliver care to remote, rural residents) they could also cut every man, woman, and child in the US a $12K check, to boot. Just for funsies. Go buy yourself something nice.
If a Democrat wants to take a crack at the wealth tax the only thing they need to say on the campaign trail is, "I promise you I will do everything in my power to ensure our wealthiest citizens pay their fair share of taxes." The how is completely irrelevant to well over 98% of the audience. That stuff is for nerds.
Back to the supposed subject of the thread, UVa has a new article out on the 2020 Electoral college. They are starting from a near dead heat--244 vs 248 with 46 tossup votes. The tossups break down to four states--PA, AZ, WI, NH plus a portion of Maine. Trump won three of those four and the Maine vote. http://crystalball.centerforpolitic...es/the-2020-electoral-college-our-first-look/
People who say we can't do stuff like VAT or wealth taxes, or even other basics like universal healthcare are just the best. In 2016 Canada's per capita GDP was ~$45K and the US ~$57K (IMF figures, don't care if they are rough estimates; they illustrate the point link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_economies).
Not only could the US fund UHC by copying Canada's program exactly (they also need to deliver care to remote, rural residents) they could also cut every man, woman, and child in the US a $12K check, to boot. Just for funsies. Go buy yourself something nice.
Why do you think it follows that the US could adopt canada's healthcare system and cut a 12K check to every man, women, and child from the premise that the US has a $12K higher GDP per capita than Canada? There seems to be... a lot of confusion packed in there.
It absolutely is a "right-wing" framing to believe that the federal government relies on tax money to fund stuff. I mean, it was an idea literally invented by conservatives to make left-wing policies look technically impossible. Here is Paul Samuelson saying exactly that:
Who is still hammering home the importance of a perfectly balanced budget any more? That's not what I'm talking about, people were disabused of that notion a long time ago. I'm talking about the importance of stressing that large new spending is being accompanied by large new taxes, on account of the deficit. It should be brought up, frequently, to put people at ease and reassure them that we aren't rushing into stuff like a jobs guarantee (which will actually be inflationary without taxes to offset) without "paying for it."
If it makes you feel better, just think of "paying for it" as meaning "collecting additional taxes such that inflation remains low."
I'm advocating for universal basic wealth in the form of baby bonds, through which African-Americans receive an amount of wealth higher than the universal, basic amount. The additional money is part of a larger package of "reparations" aimed at leveling the playing fields in housing and education.
No. Give people what they want and need to survive and thrive and then say "Look at the results! Are you working?! Yes! Upwardly mobile?! Yes! Financially secure? Hopeful for the futuer and for you and your children to succeed?! Chicken-in-every-pot... and so on... etc.? Yes, Yes Yes!... What's more fiscally responsible than that?!?"
But you need to rally public support and pass the thing first. That includes buy-in from reticent center-left and right types who actually buy into the whole "fiscal responsibility" thing.
There's nothing wrong with employing a little salesmanship here. Whatever it takes. "You're just promoting ideas that originated with right-wing ghouls." Who. Cares. It's basically virtue signaling to gain trust. Ignore people's feelings about budgeting at your own peril.
There's nothing wrong with employing a little salesmanship here. Whatever it takes. "You're just promoting ideas that originated with right-wing ghouls." Who. Cares. It's basically virtue signaling to gain trust. Ignore people's feelings about budgeting at your own peril.
In case it was unclear: my position on the actual policy issue is that the deficit is currently too small. The entire point here is that the hegemonic narrative about budget deficits is designed to make progressive policy impossible, and that is all it accomplishes. At the end of the day if too many people are too concerned about the budget deficit to pass your progressive policy then we've failed to effectively counter the hegemonic narrative and we lost.
I also find this a remarkably cynical position to take. Say one thing and do another. Lie to people to gain their trust. I ain't down with that.
I'm advocating for universal basic wealth in the form of baby bonds, through which African-Americans receive an amount of wealth higher than the universal, basic amount.
Then you are talking about two different things: a universal social benefit and a race-based benefit that will apply only to black people. In which case my objections do apply, and the government will assuredly need to devise a formal system for adjudicating people's claims about their racial group.
Why do you think it follows that the US could adopt canada's healthcare system and cut a 12K check to every man, women, and child from the premise that the US has a $12K higher GDP per capita than Canada? There seems to be... a lot of confusion packed in there.
GDP is national income, so use taxes to collect all the money required to implement UHC and cut the checks. Spending is always equal to income, so you wouldn't even see any serious deleterious effects on GDP even in the near term.
It's a right wing myth that high tax rates stifle growth. If anything they encourage it due to the power of government spending.
Edit - If the US went a step further, and adopted a UK-style National Health Service it could serve as an employer of last resort and literally be an almost limitless job creation engine if leveraged properly.
GDP is national income, so use taxes to collect all the money required to implement UHC and cut the checks. Spending is always equal to income, so you wouldn't even see any serious deleterious effects on GDP even in the near term.
It's a right wing myth that high tax rates stifle growth. If anything they encourage it due to the power of government spending.
Edit - If the US went a step further, and adopted a UK-style National Health Service it could serve as an employer of last resort and literally be an almost limitless job creation engine if leveraged properly.
Collecting taxes (which isn't necessary for government spending) and cutting checks to everyone is a way to redistribute wealth. You could do this regardless of what your GDP is. Whether or not you tax or simply poof the money will change how drastic the redistribution is, and now much inflation you create. The effect it would have on GDP is debatable, but yes there are any who argue that lower income people will spend more so such a move would be good for the economy. You also have to consider how that alters the incentives and options of those running businesses.
In 2012 as I was campaigning for Obama I discovered that federal spending as a percentage of GDP had climbed consistently under Republican administrations, and declined under Democratic administrations. I also discovered that deficits grew much faster under Republican administrations. I was pretty well flabbergasted by these facts, because Republican voters don't go looking for the actual information any more than the average Democratic voter does. Truthfully, when I took to referencing those facts other people who were campaigning for Obama were usually just as surprised as the opposition was. The fact is that the GOP has monopolized the fiscal responsibility appearance issue.
It was more a response to the "lied into a foreign war by a Republican administration, and the GOP congress refuses to investigate" reality that was becoming more apparent by the day. Very similar to current circumstances actually, though the incident crime has changed.
Funny how you make a post that is obviously intended to be ridiculous, and yet it isn't as ridiculous as J's post that was intended to be taken seriously.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
