US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1305

The historical record, however, suggests that taxing the wealthiest does have an important, but different, consequence: making the wealthy vested in the common good. In fact, taxing the wealthy was crucial for the emergence of representative government itself.

Based on an original database of about 600 members of the English nobility between 1200 and 1350, my research shows the remarkable scale of the obligations, both fiscal and military, that the wealthiest in England owed to their crown. Unlike their French or Spanish counterparts, who were typically exempted from fiscal duties, the English nobility bore a heavy burden on both fronts. Almost all were obliged to perform military service and more than 30 percent had their estates confiscated over unfulfilled obligations to the crown, whether temporarily or permanently. Between 20 and 40 percent were in debt to the crown, usually for overdue taxes...

It is unsurprising, therefore, that at least 75 percent of the nobility attended parliament. Two separate forces pushed them. First, because the government was forcing nobles to loan it money, these nobles supported the government’s ability to raise taxes from other sectors of society, so that the government could pay the nobles back. Loans are serviced by taxes, and one of the biggest obstacles to taxation is that local elites will resist it; but once these people are vested in the government and in its ability to tax, they enable that capacity to grow—or at least their resistance weakens...

The second force pushing the rich to hold the government accountable is that when they are forced to pay high taxes, they feel compelled to monitor the government’s actions and check how their money is spent. Where the rich are not vested in public affairs through high contributions, they are less likely to use their bargaining powers to bring change.

The point of this history for today is not that modern governments should force the wealthy to loan them money or confiscate their property if they fail to meet their obligations (although it might not be a bad idea to require wealthy citizens to serve in the military).

But it does suggest that “taxing the rich” can actually help democracy. When the government is strong enough to impose a substantial obligation on the richest people, they are inclined to lobby the government to ensure those funds are efficiently spent. This is quite different than the pattern that mostly occurs today, where the wealthy lobby the government for tax breaks or private interests—and the state is too weak or too unwilling to resist.

On September 21 2014 20:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The teaching of Common Core to students isn't really as scary, controversial, or revolutionary as the press seems to suggest. The main problems are: additional standardized testing has been implemented to test the effectiveness of CC (which wastes time for both the teachers and the students, although it should be noted that annoying and ineffective standardized tests long predate the CC), test scores haven't particularly increased, and all the media focus on CC has distracted much of the country from the biggest *real* problem in American education: a lack of equity for our schools and communities. That being said, the curricula implemented by CC is pretty much no different than what was being taught in each state anyway. Not much has really changed in terms of instruction or curriculum. Teachers have to jump through a few more peripheral hoops to comply with new politics (which is always a pain in the ass), but at least they're mostly teaching the same things they've always taught.

On September 21 2014 22:08 Acrofales wrote:
Why are you singling out Bill Gates' lobbying efforts? His are no different from the oil industry, the Koch brothers or any other person or organization buying influence in Washington to push through laws they care about.

At least in Gates' case there's the possibility of altruism, which makes it slightly better than most lobbying efforts.

However, how much influence you can buy through lobbying seems like an incredibly bad argument against higher taxes for the rich...

On September 21 2014 23:05 IgnE wrote:
No it's not related. If Bill Gates had a wealth tax levied against him he wouldn't have the money lying around to fund the common core. The federal government, whom you presumably want in this situation to do the deciding, contrary to most of your other positions, would have more money and more influence. This is a completely bunk causal theory here. Bill Gates is not a vassal risking life and ruin to come to his liege lord's rescue in 1300. Nor is American democracy set up like a feudal parliament.

On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote:

But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.

See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s.

On September 21 2014 20:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


The teaching of Common Core to students isn't really as scary, controversial, or revolutionary as the press seems to suggest. The main problems are: additional standardized testing has been implemented to test the effectiveness of CC (which wastes time for both the teachers and the students, although it should be noted that annoying and ineffective standardized tests long predate the CC), test scores haven't particularly increased, and all the media focus on CC has distracted much of the country from the biggest *real* problem in American education: a lack of equity for our schools and communities. That being said, the curricula implemented by CC is pretty much no different than what was being taught in each state anyway. Not much has really changed in terms of instruction or curriculum. Teachers have to jump through a few more peripheral hoops to comply with new politics (which is always a pain in the ass), but at least they're mostly teaching the same content they've always taught.

On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote:

But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.

See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s.

On September 22 2014 02:43 farvacola wrote:
In supporting a position that testing is ok in general, citing the testing/funding dynamic in MA is not exactly apropos. This would not be the first time that you've referenced MA's educational or public service infrastructure as though it is typical enough to warrant extrapolation, and yet again, I expect a surprised response in the face of the suggestion that Massachusetts is an outlier in many, many ways.

On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote:
The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement.

@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts.

On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:



Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education.

I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations?