|
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. |
On April 03 2016 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Not only does it kill trade but as soon as you enter food taxation and so on you're essentially enacting laws exclusively for the poor while the rich can go on consuming whatever they want. If you're going to regulate something regulate it for everybody
I think the regressive qualities of particular taxing methods are especially important to consider, as you've outlined above relative to food customs tariffs. Many non-luxury consumption-based taxing schemes face similar problems.
|
United States43739 Posts
That raises another important point that I touched on with estate taxes. There has been a movement in the last decade of Republican governors coming in promising to lower taxes and make up the difference with a bigger pie, getting huge deficits when the promised pie does not appear and then increasing stealth taxes that hit the poor the hardest, like flat sales tax increases.
Kasich is a notable example of this, replacing progressive taxes on income with flat taxes on consumption which is beyond regressive, if you earn money and invest it to get more money that's tax free, if you earn money and need to buy bread, that's taxed.
Pardon the hyperbole but there is a war happening by stealth. These things don't seem like much taken in isolation but in the last two decades the tax base has been shifting further and further from the rich. And while each change is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camels back their cumulative effect will matter.
|
On April 03 2016 03:58 KwarK wrote:
That raises another important point that I touched on with estate taxes. There has been a movement in the last decade of Republican governors coming in promising to lower taxes and make up the difference with a bigger pie, getting huge deficits when the promised pie does not appear and then increasing stealth taxes that hit the poor the hardest, like flat sales tax increases.
Kasich is a notable example of this, replacing progressive taxes on income with flat taxes on consumption which is beyond regressive, if you earn money and invest it to get more money that's tax free, if you earn money and need to buy bread, that's taxed.
Pardon the hyperbole but there is a war happening by stealth. These things don't seem like much taken in isolation but in the last two decades the tax base has been shifting further and further from the rich. And while each change is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camels back their cumulative effect will matter.
During the late 60's early 70's the tax burden was actually less for wealthy people, even with higher rates, because the money was more spread out. The high percentage of the total tax bill for wealthy people is a result of them having the majority of the money, not because of how high their tax rates are.
|
On April 03 2016 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 02:53 RvB wrote:
Does an inheritance tax actually reduce inequality at the top level though? I don't think so. Heineken is still a family company and so is Samsung and there are plenty of other examples. Like a lot of taxes that are supposed to equalize wealth and income they only do so for everyone except the top.
edit: Estate planning is pretty huge in private banking. There are ways to reduce or avoid the taxes you have to pay significantly. Or buy a politician and have them abolish the estate tax, as happened in the 2000 election. Unless you wish to argue that the tax is unimplementable the conclusion ought to be that the implementation ought to be improved, not that the tax should be ended. Whole life insurance, for example, isn't really insuring against the event and is routinely used by the rich as a way to bypass estate taxes because insurance payouts, due to being treated as simply making you whole again after suffering a loss, aren't taxed. Whole life almost certainly should be taxed, it's a shitty and shady industry built purely on that exemption and if it were ended that would be a net social good.
I've been unclear sorry. Estate planning doesn't have that much to do with estate taxes. It's planning how to tax friendly leave your assets to the next generation or when something happens to you.
Estate planning is the collection of preparation tasks that serve to manage an individual's asset base in the event of their incapacitation or death, including the bequest of assets to heirs and the settlement of estate taxes. Most estate plans are set up with the help of an attorney experienced in estate law.
www.investopedia.com
What would your proposal be to improve inheritence taxes? We already have an inheritence tax in NL and it's not actually breaking up the wealth of the super rich at all (which is why I used Heineken as an example).
edit: I agree with you that replacing progressive taxation with regressive taxation is disgusting. I am not in favour of taxing a lot at all but if you have to tax one group more than the other let the rich pay more and not the poor.
I think one of the issues with how taxation is that it's usually incredibly sloppily legislated (both the left and right are guilty of this). Often the way laws are worded is what creates the loopholes. I am confident that there are a lot of gains to be made regarding fairness in taxation by increasing the quality of legislation without actually changing the tax rates. It should also be something where the right and left can cooperate. It could make the system both fairer while also making it more simple.
|
United States43739 Posts
I have no knowledge of the NL tax system. In the US I'd start by taxing whole life insurance payouts above a certain number, say, a few mil.
|
Trade, trade, trade, consume, consume, consume, that's all liberal have in the mouth. How do you consume if you don't produce ? Taxing is a necessity if most of what you consume is produced elsewhere, to grow up a production that can withstand the competition.
I love how people like Nyxisto can put everything aside : the problem in the US (or in europe) is the high cost of basic goods ? Really ? The problem in the US (or in europe) is the lack of goods to consume ? Reallllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ?
May I remember you that before the subprime crisis, american poor were consuming 110 % of their income buying themselves house and cars that they should not be able to in normal condition. The problem is the lack of demand, the low level of wage, the lack of investment in green energy and the lack of jobs, not the price of goods at consumption.
|
we still produce, just not labour intensive goods. why would we actually want to bring that back? Services in the information economy are much better from a quality of life perspective than trying to bring the Mexican factory jobs back
|
On April 03 2016 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I have no knowledge of the NL tax system. In the US I'd start by taxing whole life insurance payouts above a certain number, say, a few mil.
It's an easy system actually. Above a certain treshold (€600k iirc) you pay 30% inheritence tax (depends on how closely related you are actually but for simplicitys sake) and that's it.
How would taxing life insurance help with inequality? Rich people aren't reliant on life insurance they can do without.
|
On April 03 2016 04:31 Nyxisto wrote:
we still produce, just not labour intensive goods. why would we actually want to bring that back?
Who are "we" ? The US have a trade deficit since twenty years, Europe is the biggest problem of the world with a HUGE trade surplus, and huge trade imbalance within it.
Some people are producing, some are consuming, that's a better way to put it. Thank god the dollars permitted the US to spend enough to prevent the whole world economy from crumbling by the way.
There is also something to be said about the way "services" behave (in terms of jobs, remuneration, etc.) in comparaison to the "industry" but that's another topic.
|
On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/
Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best.
|
United States43739 Posts
On April 03 2016 04:32 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I have no knowledge of the NL tax system. In the US I'd start by taxing whole life insurance payouts above a certain number, say, a few mil. It's an easy system actually. Above a certain treshold (€600k iirc) you pay 30% inheritence tax (depends on how closely related you are actually but for simplicitys sake) and that's it. How would taxing life insurance help with inequality? Rich people aren't reliant on life insurance they can do without.
It's a workaround. In the US you take out an indexed whole life insurance policy. Whole life isn't like conventional term insurance where you pay premiums to be covered if an event happens, in whole life the policy lasts until you are dead, it's not insuring against an uncertain future but rather against an inevitable future. You pay money in and that money is invested in things of your choosing, exactly like it would be with a brokerage account, only without capital gains taxes. You keep paying your money in until one day you die. Then the insurance company liquidates the account and gives the money to the designated beneficiary but not as an inheritance or a gift, no, this is an insurance payout and therefore it's tax free.
It's not in any sense of the word insurance, it's an estate tax workaround. They're just offering high fee products in exchange for allowing you to dodge estate tax. You can even withdraw your premiums in the form of interest free loans against the value of the policy. If your response to understanding the above isn't "wait, but that's bullshit and violates the spirit of both insurance and taxation" then you didn't understand it.
That's part of the issue with tax laws. The rich are playing with a completely different rulebook to everyone else.
|
On April 03 2016 02:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 02:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 03 2016 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:21 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 03 2016 00:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 02 2016 23:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Can some eloquent conservative explain to me how people combine the beliefs that
a) inheritance tax is wrong
b) the self-made man is the ideal
c) society benefits from people being willing to take great risks and this should be encouraged through allowing people to keep a large majority of the profits they make through making smart and risky investments
I don't have a problem with the logical foundation of either one of these statements, but I don't understand how they combine into a cohesive political point of view. Like, I understand how one's family can be considered an extension of one's self. But that doesn't go well with idealizing the self-made man - because then you acknowledge that your own success or failure is largely derived from your family. I understand how the self-made man is the ideal - there is indeed something intrinsically empowering about believing that you have the power to make life better for yourself through hard work and smart efforts. (Although I also believe it's very depressing when your starting point was so bad that hard work and smart efforts do not pay off, which is also often true. ) I also understand how some great societal improvements have happened in part due to great-minded individuals who were willing to go against the established norms and ideas and who risked everything and only reaped the rewards of their efforts many years down the line.
But how does go along with opposition to any inheritance tax? So called 'old money' is notoriously risk-averse - they are so wealthy that they do not need to take risks to have the money to do everything they want to - they simply need to preserve what they have to secure the future of themselves and the next generations and install in the next generation a similar risk-aversion. It seems to me that if you want people to make risky, society-improving investments, and you idealize people becoming wealthy and successful through their own efforts, then inheritance tax is a method of somewhat leveling the playing field so that more people will have the opportunity to become self-made success stories?
And I'm obviously not talking about a 100% inheritance tax, because indeed, the desire to provide for ones children and grandchildren is sometimes a significant motivator for people attaining significant wealth. However, I would argue that if you are left with 100% of sum below $3.5 million and 35% of money above that (which is the most radical suggestion by any politician?), then any child of a multi-millionaire is still absolutely provided for and any parent should not feel disincentived..? How does any Trumpeteer justify supporting the complete removal of inheritance tax?
In a really, really, simple way simply because we oppose taxation unless it's really necessary, wether we like it or not. Your points are related but on different realms.
First and foremost people are entlited to their money and property, so we oppose a). I actually believe in b) and dislike that people get rich without "earning it", but I understand the property right is more important than my feelings. I am WAY WAY more disgusted with people getting rich trough the government than inheritance, which is a natural consequence of big governments (Clinton Family?) c) Is just an economic explanation. The same way tobbaco taxes reduce smoking, the income tax reduces willingness to work (people on the left, somehow, are unable to make that connection). On the same token, I'm a great fan of charity. I'm also a great enemy of involuntary forced wealth distribution. Implying that non-conservatives support unnecessary taxation is awfully silly. I'm 100% sure all those here arguing in favor for inheritance taxes either consider the government spending being paid for by these taxes as necessary or at least a net gain for society. If you want to claim otherwise, no problem, but such a claim has no place in a discussion of which taxation scheme is optimal and fair. Opposing taxes means that you don't create programs just because its a good idea, that you let people and grassroots communities manage things on their own accord and you don't let big brother dictate how you live your life. What counts as necessary and needed is different from person to person. But the fact that you want to phrase things as net benefits to society vs how much governmental control should be placed in citizens shows just how much gray area is in this topic. All I'm saying is that there are two different issues here: 1) How large should government be 2) How should the government fund itself There are common points to these questions, sure, but it helps to separate them. I can, for example, ask you a question: imagine that the government is exactly the size you want it to be. It still needs to be paid for, so which do you think is better to tax: labor or inheritance? Short Answer is Labor Medium Answer requires a broader definition of labor Long Answer requires a broader definition of governmental income sources So your in favor of dynasties and stepping on the little guy. Well that explains your stance nicely.
I'm in favor of complex taxation laws and having non-tax based revenues for governmental funds. I think that taxing the rich just because they have money being given to people you don't like is not grounds for government seizure of property.
|
On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best.
So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid.
Also lolworthy
|
On April 03 2016 04:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best. So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid. Also lolworthy https://twitter.com/BernieSanderss4/status/716326514241839104
Did you read the article? Both campaigns got money from them, one got more than the other. Neither are innocent of being pandered to.
|
On April 03 2016 04:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best. So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid. Also lolworthy https://twitter.com/BernieSanderss4/status/716326514241839104 Did you read the article? Both campaigns got money from them, one got more than the other. Neither are innocent of being pandered to.
Except there's a huge difference between people registered as lobbyists for O&G now or in the recent past bundling 10's of thousands of dollars at a time and some guy who works on a rig donating $200 (nevermind she's raised many times more even if we're just using the metric for which she criticized Obama for when attacking him for taking O&G money).
The larger point about her utilizing corporate funded superPACs and getting rid of Obama's DNC contribution rules shows that it's not sincere. So far the two people her superPAC have attacked haven't even had one of their own, yet she claims it's just to compete against people who have them. It's just so ridiculous that people are still trying to pretend she's been remotely honest this campaign. It's especially hilarious when Hillary supporters try to go after Bernie for his integrity instead of even trying to defend her obviously ridiculous behavior.
|
Yeah, Hillary is basically pushing half the party towards protest voting for Trump.
She keeps whining about Bernie, when she herself has previously and is currently running a much nastier campaign.
|
On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best.
Its a bunch of semantics if the money going to your super pac is the same as donating money to your campaign. bundle that into bernie sanders story line about campaign reform and getting money out of politics you get this argument having a bit more credibility then it would standalone.
|
On April 03 2016 04:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best. So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid. Also lolworthy https://twitter.com/BernieSanderss4/status/716326514241839104 Did you read the article? Both campaigns got money from them, one got more than the other. Neither are innocent of being pandered to.
There's really no need to discuss the issue further. The Washington Post fact checking piece I posted earlier exposes the ridiculousness of the accusation (including with regards to how greenpeace counts as "oil & gas money" some of the funds going to her superpac). Sander's campaign is desperate and grasping at straws. Hopefully, when they have no other choice but to stop lying to themselves about still having a shot at the nomination, they'll stop with the dishonest smears and try to go back to running a positive campaign around a message. Sanders is still someone who deeply cares about economic inequality, and since he's not an idiot he'll end up supporting Clinton for the presidency.
|
On April 03 2016 03:58 KwarK wrote:
That raises another important point that I touched on with estate taxes. There has been a movement in the last decade of Republican governors coming in promising to lower taxes and make up the difference with a bigger pie, getting huge deficits when the promised pie does not appear and then increasing stealth taxes that hit the poor the hardest, like flat sales tax increases.
Kasich is a notable example of this, replacing progressive taxes on income with flat taxes on consumption which is beyond regressive, if you earn money and invest it to get more money that's tax free, if you earn money and need to buy bread, that's taxed.
Pardon the hyperbole but there is a war happening by stealth. These things don't seem like much taken in isolation but in the last two decades the tax base has been shifting further and further from the rich. And while each change is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camels back their cumulative effect will matter.
In regards to taxation, I am theoretically on the side of simplifying the law code and ensuring it is set up to be an efficient method of revenue generation for the government, as opposed to a means of wealth re-distribution and ensuring the welfare of the poor. Taxation, while a popular policy tool, is, really, an inefficient method of ensuring the above: better taxation be aimed at generating the revenue to fund progressive programs that actually can have an impact on reducing both the opportunity gap and abysmal social mobility we have in this country. Creating increasingly more progressive tax codes does not generate more revenue, or necessarily achieve the basic aim of equalizing incomes. The more complex the law code, the easier it is for those with means and resources (see, the wealthiest) to exploit the code and the loopholes embedded within, or to simply leave the country for greener pastures. And indeed, the best "taxes" for income generation tend to be regressive in nature.
That is not to say that we can't build a progressive tax system, only that it isn't necessarily a overly-simplistic solution, like say raising nominal taxation on the rich (which I completely agree is needed at this time [or at least to let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely]). The net effect of such raises are relatively minor in terms of revenue (partially offset by current exemptions and numerous accounting tricks) and a drop in the bucket in terms of creating either a more equitable society. One cannot consistently raise taxes on the rich and expect anything: consider, after all, the net effect of Hollande's (defunct) 75% marginal tax rate on the wealthy.
Now for specific recommendations for the United States: some of the tax proposals I would tender include the elimination of the corporate income tax (an issue Sanders is completely opposed to me on), and offsetting the budget deficit generated with a normalization of capital gains an dividends as income. One of the issues facing the United States is a high rate of corporate inversion (companies re-incorporating abroad to diminish tax burdens), in part due to the US having the highest nominal corporate income tax in the West. Doing the above has multiple purposes: addresses the corporate inversion issue, provides a strong incentive for more companies and corporations to base themselves in the United States (and generating jobs, economic activity, and ultimately income taxes), and shifts the burden of taxation away from the corporation as a whole (which grants corporations greater leeway in self-investing/expanding or raising wages/benefits, as post-tax profit was what matters [likely improving the working conditions for most employees]) while shifting the tax burden onto the wealthy investors and individuals who otherwise benefit from special dividend/capital gain rules. The net result of this would be a vastly simplified code, which reduces the loopholes that one can squirrel away income, improves the US economy, and should positively affect the wages of many US workers (and ultimately generate more tax revenue than an unreliable corporate income tax). There are a number of similar business tax reforms that go with this, but this is the crux of my business tax reform proposal.
Beyond this, there's the elimination of a number of tax breaks, some of which incredibly popular (mortgage interest rate deductions etc.), the principle of which I've already covered, the creation of a few new taxes (VAT and Cap&Trade most notably) as well as a minor/moderate raise in income tax across all brackets.
This is of course all highly unpopular, but nonetheless the policy recommendations I would posit.
EDIT:
My general problem with the discussion of estate (and gift) taxes, is that it comprises an enormously minuscule portion of US tax revenue (roughly ~0.6-0.7% total). It's pretty much meaningless in terms of revenue generation, and even repealing Bush tax cuts on it doesn't increase it by any substantial amount. We'd probably be better off economically if we ended up repealing it altogether, actually (I've not done enough research on the topic to convincingly state this, however), and save on the hassle it generates for both the government and individuals, but it's a highly politicized tax, I am aware. But again, it's pretty much meaningless.
|
On April 03 2016 05:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 04:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 04:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2016 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On April 03 2016 02:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 03 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 03 2016 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
Apparently the Hillary campaign offered 3 options for debates in NY before the primary but Bernie didn't respond. This plus deciding to die on a hill for the Greenpeace thing makes this a bad week for him I think, the media seems to be picking up on it this time too. I don't understand this story. Bernie and Clinton are saying complete opposite things. Both can not be true. But both must have some level of truth for them to not just be blatantly body slammed. So what's the deal? For Debates: Hilary tried to find agreements with Bernie for debates in NY, Bernie refused/didn't respond Now that Bernie is refusing he ups his attacks on Hilary and asks for a debate, Hilary asks him to calm down, Bernie double downs on attacks. TLDR: Hilary tried to negotiate, Bernie refused, now Bernie is trying to negotiate but does not understand what the word actually means. For the Oil Deal: Various donor groups that have given her some amount of money have been linked softly with the fossil fuels industries. Those different groups have been lumped into one group and Bernie is making an alamo move saying Hilary is almost purely in the pockets of fossil fuels. It was debunked as an outright lie but Bernie is hoping to get people riled up against his opponent using lies. TLDR: A bit of money Hilary has came from groups that, at one point, had some kind of relation to the fossil fuels industry. To Bernie that means she is in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry. Pretty sure we don't know anything for sure on the first point beacuse its a case of he said-she said and the second seems like odd semantics. I'm pretty sure its greenpeace that was acuseing hillary of it and she was the one that attacked the person asking the question. Where do you get this "alamo move" wording from? I haven't seen anything other then regular campaign talk on it. Stop shilling for Hillary and just act rationally please. Its not like its a one time thing where she gets money from the oil industry and then does nothing with it. She has an actual history of taking money from the oil lobby and then advancing their interests in government. No one is saying that lobbying is outright bribery or if she is "purely in the pockets of fossil fuels" thats just silly talk. But when she supports oil pipelines, helps mexico expand offshore drilling, and then says that she is likely to support the xl pipline she can't act surprised when Greenpeace comes around in the primary. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/Without Greenpeace the numbers is .2% with Greenpeace accusations its .8% and in the end it turns out both Hilary and Bernie are getting money from the same donors that have ties to the fossil fuel industry (Bernie is only at .04%) so what we are talking about is an argument based on less than a percent at best. So weird to watch liberals defend superPACs and lobbyists so they can attempt to preserve Hillary's credibility. Then they want us to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she did with the DNC once she gets elected. It's laughably stupid. Also lolworthy https://twitter.com/BernieSanderss4/status/716326514241839104 Did you read the article? Both campaigns got money from them, one got more than the other. Neither are innocent of being pandered to. There's really no need to discuss the issue further. The Washington Post fact checking piece I posted earlier exposes the ridiculousness of the accusation (including with regards to how greenpeace counts as "oil & gas money" some of the funds going to her superpac). Sander's campaign is desperate and grasping at straws. Hopefully, when they have no other choice but to stop lying to themselves about still having a shot at the nomination, they'll stop with the dishonest smears and try to go back to running a positive campaign around a message. Sanders is still somehow who deeply cares about economic inequality, and since he's not an idiot he'll end up supporting Clinton for the presidency.
I honestly can't believe you're still trying to pass off that WP piece as exposing the ridiculousness of the accusation. At best it exposes that her minions aren't exclusively O&G (which no one suggested) lobbyists, but they are still lobbyists, she's still using her superPACs and David Brock (who coordinates both with a superPAC and the campaign) to circumvent the finance laws she says she wants (which is just transparency, not stopping the influence) and yet still people have the audacity to suggest Bernie is the one running a negative campaign.
Her campaign is literally taking away fundraising restrictions placed on the DNC in coordination with Obama to prevent precisely what she is doing. That's who people want to defend on this...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
