2020 US Election (Part Two)

[amadeus]

@Phrossack, that comic is terrible. Even keeping contemporary civil rights legislation in place, I doubt you or any left-leaning person would want to return to the fifties for governance.

 

[Hrothbern]

@Phrossack, that comic is terrible. Even keeping contemporary civil rights legislation in place, I doubt you or any left-leaning person would want to return to the fifties for governance.

You mean because of the racism shown and ofc the many other discriminations not shown ?

Or other aspects like authoritarianism ?

 

[amadeus]

@Hrothbern, I mean things like the top tax rate at 91%. Would you believe me if I said that the top 1% of tax earners pay about the same percentage of taxes (as all revenue collected) today as they did back in the fifties?

I’ve had my amadeus tax challenge for a while now. I will agree to let anyone on this forum set the marginal rates to whatever they want, as long as they agree to give me control over deduction schedules.

 

[Estebonrober]

@Hrothbern, I mean things like the top tax rate at 91%. Would you believe me if I said that the top 1% of tax earners pay about the same percentage of taxes (as all revenue collected) today as they did back in the fifties?

I’ve had my amadeus tax challenge for a while now. I will agree to let anyone on this forum set the marginal rates to whatever they want, as long as they agree to give me control over deduction schedules.

This is a lie, they pay at least 20% less of what they paid throughout the 50s. That is a big chunk especially considering their vastly larger hold of the economy in the 20s. Also these numbers only look at the top 1% who derive most of their income from investments which had preferred status back then as it does now, so the income tax rate itself as a measure is not a complete picture. Finally you should really look at say the top 10-20% of earners in both periods because at this point we need to raise more on those earners and not jsut the 1% if we are going to make headway on infrastructure and social investments in the near future.

 

[amadeus]

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html

@Estebonrober, these are the links I got. I’ve only looked into it for about 10 minutes tonight when I was walking to the supermarket.

Point is, whatever you want to collect at 91% or 70% isn’t going to be either.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then your post as written makes little sense. What ideologies are you talking about? Why do the parties need to balance one another out?

What planet are you from that you think being a dick makes me want to spend more effort on explaining myself?

Moderator Action: Be civil, please. --LM

 

[Samson]

But also while fracking is bad for the environment, it is still better than coal.

I do not think this is a given. Methane is a stronger global warming gas than CO2, 80 times as strong if you only consider the 1st 20 years. This means you do not need to leak much to make it worse, and we do leak a lot, "fracking operations leak, vent, or flare between 2 and 6 percent of the gas produced".

 

[Estebonrober]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-10-31/taxes-werent-more-progressive-in-the-1950s

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html

My sources which agree with your main point, that they did not pay an effective tax rate of 70 or w/e %, but that they did pay ~43% which is 7% more then now and actually much more then that considering I think effective is right around 20%. So it was effectively dramatically higher. Which brings me about to the reason why I call your point a lie. It is a fudging of stats that is used to argue that raising rates on the wealthy will not have nay effect and we should not bother. This is insidious to the social contract on multiple levels.

 

[EgonSpengler]

From what I'm reading this morning, Guthrie was up in Trump's face last night. Still doesn't make me want to watch it, but good for her.

 

[Zardnaar]

Tax is complicated though. Personally I think 40-50% is the upper limit of what you can realistically charge and collect.

I think Russian serfs paid the highest effective tax rate ever. Could be 95% iirc.

Our tax rate tops out at 33% but there's no capital gains on property's.

I don't think the higher the number is better but what's taxed and how.

 

[Samson]

I don't think the higher the number is better but what's taxed and how.

The critical question is who.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, Capitalism has led to some very bad outcomes. But you haven't given a single positive example of a socialist/communist economy that works. It is like saying democracy is bad, and listing the same stuff. Well, what is the alternative? Autocracy of some stripe? Which is even worse, and fails to deliver any of the positive attributes.

Even if socialism was a viable alternative, the system forces are too strong to allow it to take hold. Look how much had to be dumped on Russia for their revolution to take hold, and other nations in Europe which were similarily stretched to the breaking point, managed to contain the revolutions. And that was in the day of rifles, not drones.

But the system forces are not a monolith and many actors with power, do want to see a more equitable society and one that does tackle real problems. Many billionaires and multi-millionaires spend big on progressive causes. The choice is backing socialism (which hasn't proved itself a viable alternative) and being a permanent minority. Or backing a Progressive Capitalism, which has a track record of working and has a real shot at a real electoral majority. The choice seems very clear to me.

A cartoonish division between "socialism" and "capitalism" leads to bad analysis. Shocker.
I disagree that any billionaires really want to see a more equitable society. Just look at how Bill Gates responded to Elizabeth Warren's very modest wealth tax proposal.

But in any case, all the so-called capitalist countries are demonstrations that socialism can work, because all of them have incorporated socialist policies and institutions without which they would be 19th-century-style social hellscapes. The rich are trying to undo all that if they can.

 

[amadeus]

@Estebonrober, I’m not ignoring your post here but it’s midnight and I don’t have the energy to go through to find the specific data points.

What I would be looking at is: effective federal personal income taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners. Now how you would adjust that for incomes if there has been a disparate growth in the top incomes relative to the rest of the population, I’m not sure what is the best metric to use because of what you suggest in how incomes are so derived through capital gains, etc.

I still feel that no matter the data it moves away from the point that ultimately those top income-earners at that time did not pay those high marginal rates, so it’s kind of political voodoo works in saying that people under Eisenhower paid in an egregiously higher share than they do presently, especially what with how deduction schedules and tax law changed over time.

Whatever the case, a silly and deceptive comic not worth the time.

 

[Lexicus]

I still feel that no matter the data it moves away from the point that ultimately those top income-earners at that time did not pay those high marginal rates, so it’s kind of political voodoo works in saying that people under Eisenhower paid in an egregiously higher share than they do presently, especially what with how deduction schedules and tax law changed over time.

I suspect that in the 1950s deductions did a much better job of actually encouraging productive activities and investments than they do now. But I can't find any good history of deductions (everything I can find is basically tax advice about how to deduct more income, for the first several pages of google results).

 

[Lexicus]

The way to kill fracking is to invest heavily in renewables and nuclear. Not ban it, without a plan.

Fracking, gas-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, and so on ought to be taxed so heavily that they are not viable. Banning them outright is unnecessary.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Fracking, gas-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, and so on ought to be taxed so heavily that they are not viable. Banning them outright is unnecessary.

Getting rid of taxes is much easier to campaign against than getting rid of subsidies. Maybe heavily subsidizing renewables might be a better approach than heavily taxing fossil fuels.

 

[amadeus]

I suspect that in the 1950s deductions did a much better job of actually encouraging productive activities and investments than they do now. But I can't find any good history of deductions (everything I can find is basically tax advice about how to deduct more income, for the first several pages of google results).

As a very general principle I don’t find it productive to have a tax code where armies of skilled labor are eaten up both in the tax-avoision procedure and the pursuing of compliance.

It’s one of the reasons I think the corporate income tax ought to be scrapped altogether and replaced (if the revenue collection is necessary) with something that results in less inefficient usage of available labor.

 

[Lexicus]

Getting rid of taxes is much easier to campaign against than getting rid of subsidies. Maybe heavily subsidizing renewables might be a better approach than heavily taxing fossil fuels.

Why not bolth?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why not bolth?

Because then you have fossil fuel industries lobbying against you to get rid of all the "excessive taxation" and "crippling big government regulation". Its much harder for them to lobby for the government to "stop paying wind/solar farm workers so much", or "stop giving people tax credits for putting up solar panels".

 

[Sommerswerd]

From what I'm reading this morning, Guthrie was up in Trump's face last night. Still doesn't make me want to watch it, but good for her.

I didn't watch either, but I've checked out the highlights. Trump would have been better off in a regular debate format. This was more like an interview, so he had less room to avoid the questions, ramble, change the subject, obfuscate, etc.

Biden is obviously still trying to dance around the Court-packing question, but he allowed himself to get cornered on it. He committed to giving an answer "before the people vote", which is clearly already too late, since 15 million of us have already cast our vote. But even putting that aside, he's now guaranteed that every time he gets in front of the press from now on, they are going to relentlessly push him to make good on his promise to disclose his stance on Court-packing.

What he should have said, point blank, is "Look I'm not answering that, because the answer depends on a lot of things that may or may not happen before I take office, assuming I'm elected. So stop asking me that because I'm not going to answer, period." That would have allowed everyone voting for him to project whatever answer they wanted onto his response.