EPTOn December 07 2012 05:04 Souma wrote:
^ lol.
Tea party leader resigned. Who's gonna step up?
^ lol.
Tea party leader resigned. Who's gonna step up?
Cruz.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 26
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Cruz. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
 | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
What I'm saying is that the political reality seems to clash with the ideological demands of the base. This is true amongst liberals too. Isn't it reasonable to expect both parties will disappoint their base somewhat in the interest of actually governing instead of holding the country hostage? Quick note on dynamic scoring: I know you made a comment about baseline budgeting but dynamic scoring is the other side of the coin, There is certainly some validity to it but nailing down the models that reflect reality is very difficult. Some discussion on it: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/greg_mankiws_ab.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/dynamic-tax-scoring.html http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/10/john-cochrane-is-being-very-misleading.html What I would really like to see sometime after unemployment is below 7%is a carbon tax aimed at deficit reduction. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/10/121210taco_talk_kolbert Thoughts? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
all the geniuses from cato and heritage have produced what exactly? the debt ceiling issue is just entirely a nightmare of their own making. congrats guys. the bond market isn't being propped up by the vigilance of debt ceiling watchmen. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 07 2012 05:30 TheFrankOne wrote: @ Danglers: What I don't understand is how you can expect any compromise to happen if Republicans will not back down on any sort of tax increases. I also disagree with your stance on taxes being too high, corporate tax rates are one thing and deficit neutral changes to the tax code aimed at reducing loopholes is fine too. Overall though, trying to achieve a balanced budget while cutting taxes seems impossible. What I'm saying is that the political reality seems to clash with the ideological demands of the base. This is true amongst liberals too. Isn't it reasonable to expect both parties will disappoint their base somewhat in the interest of actually governing instead of holding the country hostage? Quick note on dynamic scoring: I know you made a comment about baseline budgeting but dynamic scoring is the other side of the coin, There is certainly some validity to it but nailing down the models that reflect reality is very difficult. Some discussion on it: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/greg_mankiws_ab.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/dynamic-tax-scoring.html http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/10/john-cochrane-is-being-very-misleading.html What I would really like to see sometime after unemployment is below 7%is a carbon tax aimed at deficit reduction. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/10/121210taco_talk_kolbert Thoughts? I'm having a little trouble understanding you in light of what I wrote. Real spending cuts have been few and far between, tax increases, particularly those disproportionately affecting the rich, and the steady march of increasing regulation have been plentiful and widespread. Spending increases constitute a core part of the tax and spend, pork-barrel culture in Washington. Consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, promising to keep unemployment below 8%, as well as Dodd-Frank, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Consider also the regulations from numerous government agencies hurting the coal and oil industries, mentioned in the debates more than once. Companies are seeing their costs skyrocket, and all we get for compromise are temporary tax cuts set to expire, temporary budget deals that lower costs like doc-fix, and others. I'm saying Republicans are known to their base for being the worst negotiators in the country, giving away the farm at every turn. The tax increases stay when passed, the spending cuts fade away. Obama's compromise? No spending cuts, no entitlement reforms, no compromise on rates. Yes, that is the new era of compromise. One side gets what it wants. Well, if Democrats do want to play ball, my advice to Republicans is wait for entitlement reform to be put on the table, if the president wants to stop just talking and start doing on spending cuts. I mean, please, the President talks about reforms like they were just spending cuts by another names? It's fee increases. Ending wars I'm already ending? Spending cuts! Put in 600Billion in new spending, while cutting 400Billion of old? That's a spending cut compromise too. Some compromises are just giving away the farm. That's perfectly normal when you control both houses. All this smoke and mirrors stuff masks what isn't really a compromise at all. Boehner, who long ago lost my support, occasionally delivers some gems. “If we gave the President $1.6 trillion of new money, what do you think he’d do with it?” Boehner asked. “He’d spend it.” On dynamic scoring, I'll have to spend some more time reading about it to really give my thoughts. My current problem is with the size of projected budget increases just being consider the natural thing to do, such that cutting a scheduled growth of 6% to 5% is so and so billion dollars of spending cuts. So if this has a chance to be the OMB's new way of mapping agency budget increases I'll take a look. For carbon taxes, I really just see these being passed straight on to consumers in the form of higher product and energy costs. I'd like to see a reduction in old and outdated nuclear energy regulations, and start fresh with new ones for safety. A gradual replacement of coal and natural gas fuels combined with policies designed around economic growth to fund ongoing research into industry reforms is the start. In my opinion, it's a wide and complex issue considering the growth of the economies of India and China and their contributions to worldwide CO2 emissions. A tax increase on companies that by their business produce carbon dioxide gas would mean much pain on the American citizen and a decrease in growth and increase in unemployment. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-5-2012/a-beacon-of-hope | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 07 2012 07:29 Danglars wrote: For carbon taxes, I really just see these being passed straight on to consumers in the form of higher product and energy costs. \ Why is this a bad thing? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 07 2012 05:04 Souma wrote: ^ lol. Tea party leader resigned. Who's gonna step up? This is interesting. I wonder how this will affect fundraising. DeMint was a HUUUUUUUGE reason there are so many well-funded lunatic conservatives in primaries. I wonder if he'll lose some of that clout with this new position? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
It then becomes a tax on the poor. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
ok, so let's redistribute some wealth and help them pay for it. edit: and living wage | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
We just implemented a carbon tax in Australia; the basic premise was that it is meant to be revenue neutral - i.e. tax revenues are used to offset increased costs to the public. In Australia if you were earning under $80k you get a tax break; plus there were tax breaks for families etc. It is pretty clear to see the main increase has been in electricity prices (18% increase this year, 8% attributed to the carbon tax), it is hard to calculate if the subsidies offset the increase. As anecdotal evidence, I earn $30k a year working part time and after the tax break I ended up being something like $10 a month better off after the carbon tax. The fundamental idea is that they need to be revenue neutral to avoid taxing the low/middle class for actions of big polluters | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
then again, we should have known better after the readiness to spend for wars and space lasers. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 07 2012 13:48 sam!zdat wrote: ok, so let's redistribute some wealth and help them pay for it. edit: and living wage Yeah, already we're deep down the rabbit hole. We increase costs for major industries, like electric companies and gas companies and fertilizer companies (food prices) and car companies. The CEOs and Board Members don't swallow the cost, they pass it on to consumers. People ill equipped to pay higher gas, electricity, food, and new cars shoulder this cost. If another spending package is passed to give more money (even, say, a negative income tax similar to US EITC) to the poor or lower middle tax, is this again financed by the rich? Well, now they are fine buying one less yacht or going on one less coastal vacation. But the man at the yacht factory is laid off and hotel and spa workers at popular destination spots also lose their jobs. If a company generates much carbon dioxide, he may downsize his support staff and demand more out of his remaining workers, laying off in a climate where its tough to find a job. I say all this just to illustrate that carbon taxes are not burned by the companies, they really just end up being born by the workers and consumers. And, of course, the fact that China, India, and other developing countries cannot afford or are not willing to reduce their carbon footprint at the cost of their economic development. There is always a cost, and no real simple solutions that have nice side effects like serving to balance the budget at very little cost. You gotta look at the competing plans and how plentiful their effects which are desirable, and then the costs that get us there. I've heard carbon taxes, cap and trade, or very hands off (let the future ill effects cause their cost in population and prices) and can't really put myself in any of their camps. I do, at any rate, want a healthy enough economy to finance research into undiscovered technologies that make all this easier to do. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
(of course this is in equilibrium talk, it still takes distinct events of price raising for the price rise to occur. for stuff like basic utilities their prices are already regulated so as to limit profit taking and you'll see a pretty direct translation of cost into price rise) in the case of consumer energy, it will lead to consumers favoring doing less of the things that cost more money, such as driving. it will also encourage energy saving measures. cheap energy can lead to very inefficient energy usage, often to the detriment of both the environment and the energy user (by making capital investment in energy efficiency unnecessary). it is a well known problem in china and some parts of long island. And, of course, the fact that China, India, and other developing countries cannot afford or are not willing to reduce their carbon footprint at the cost of their economic development. countries are not omniscient about the path of development, they can be stuck in a loop of sort without intending to do so. china subsidizes electricity for export manufacturers, and also has a lot of subsidized coal (with severe environmental effects that are passed onto the public) power. this has led to their manufacturing being energy inefficient and not having any incentive to move onto more efficient processes (which leads to a virtuous cycle of technological development and higher quality goods, as opposed to merely competing on cost) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!" I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 08 2012 01:39 sam!zdat wrote: I just feel like if you are going to go around pretending that markets reflect some sort of rational utility calculus for civilization, you have got to input cost data into the system. Right now the market doesn't get any information about costs of carbon emissions, so even if I believed in this hidden hand stuff, I wouldn't believe that it was working in this case. I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!" I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out. Or do you want a tax code that someone with a college degree can sort of comprehend? We keep on this pace much longer and you'll require a tax lawyer to do your taxes... It's one or the other. You can't have the cake and eat it too. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the various tax credits and such accumulate because the working class kind of needs them to stay afloat. on the other end of the spectrum, those with access to high priced accountants can tailor their income in such a way as to minimize taxation. to get a handle on this, people write increasingly complicated tax code to prevent the latest generation of tax evasion. no credit for guessing which party favors which kind of complication. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 08 2012 03:22 oneofthem wrote: i think simplifying the tax code is really something everyone wants to do, but it is politically tangled. two ways a tax code gets complicated are various tax subsidies, as well as tax code gaming driven loopholes. the various tax credits and such accumulate because the working class kind of needs them to stay afloat. on the other end of the spectrum, those with access to high priced accountants can tailor their income in such a way as to minimize taxation. to get a handle on this, people write increasingly complicated tax code to prevent the latest generation of tax evasion. no credit for guessing which party favors which kind of complication. Ironically, it's the opposite of what you'd expect. republican policies are actually much simpler in tax code, while democratic policies are very taxing on the system (pun wasn't intended, but i'll let it go). The reason for this is that Democrats tend to LOVE subsidies for pet projects (think green energy, promoting 'healthy' foods, promoting certain policies that would be inefficient otherwise, etc.), which complicates the tax code significantly. Republicans actually promote simpler tax codes, although one could argue they are less "fair". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
revenue loss from the top end kind of tax code complexity, particularly vague valuation of appreciating asset transfers and such, is significant in that the lost revenue has to be made up from somewhere else, at least politically speaking. | ||
| ||
