EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3527
| 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 03 2016 14:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So who in the Clinton camp will fall on their sword for this embarrassing fuck up. I wonder. I don't understand the question. Clinton has clearly focused her strategy on showing that Sanders is using dishonest campaign tactics recently. They are going to milk every ounce of material out of what happened in Nevada. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23230 Posts
One things clear Losing the lead in WI and losing 20+ points in NY has Hillary&co worried. Love how none of the registration changes seem to bother you guys though. On April 03 2016 14:38 Ghanburighan wrote: I don't understand the question. Clinton has clearly focused her strategy on showing that Sanders is using dishonest campaign tactics recently. They are going to milk every ounce of material out of what happened in Nevada. This was a failure of the Clinton campaign. Caucuses don't decide the presidential nominee winner, they decide precinct delegates. These delegates function much like they do at the convention level. Clinton supporters didn't show up so she lost. It could theoretically reverse itself at the next convention. Probably wont, but it could. Welcome to American democracy. I don't think it was as clear cut that there was anything wrong done by the campaign, or that Clinton's camp isn't covering up it's own mistakes/misbehavior. Here was the response from Bernie's camp. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 03 2016 14:09 ticklishmusic wrote: im pretty ok with the GOTV part, except i would like to know what went on with the chair who got removed today for leaking contact info for hillary's supporters and the message that went out about not needing to show up. looks pretty sketchy to me i hear a lot of the 600 alts are getting removed from the lists as well b/c they're not actually registered democrats, oops doubling down on oil and gas donations and squabbling over NY debates, latest chapter in bernie "totally running a clean campaign" sanders' book. i've gone from liking the dude to "well if he wins i guess i'll vote for him b/c it's kind of my duty to" and a lot of hillary supporters i've talked to feel the same way. lol i don't see it as a duty to vote for bernie. the executive office is one where he'll do the least amount of good but most amount of damage. the president has pretty expansive tariff power, high capacity to renege on various fp dealings and aggressive driving of regulatory agencies. i don't see the people in charge of the sanders campaign behaving responsibly with these powers, and the downside is pretty high. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23230 Posts
Sounds like it was Hillary supporters and Michelle White (Clinton campaign in NV) who were doing sketchy stuff. Trying to implement some last minute changes to favor Hillary at the credential committee. Right now it sounds like taking playground antics to our political process. Apparently even a Hillary supporter sat in protest as well. Appears that the spin is actually coming out of the Hillary camp to try to make this about Sanders. But to answer the question Stealth posted it sounds like it's going to be Michelle White. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23230 Posts
On April 03 2016 15:16 oneofthem wrote: lol just lol, bernie campaign would call GH a neutral election observer. Are you really going to argue the neutrality of election officials? Who do you really think has more loyal supporters across democratic official positions who we can point at as being less than neutral. I doubt Hillary supporters would be supporting them saying the person getting removed was getting shafted if this was really some nefarious play from Bernie's camp. Hillary's camp was just trying to get ahead of this because it appears the bad info was actually distributed to Bernie supporters not Hillary supporters it just didn't work lol. On April 03 2016 15:22 Ghanburighan wrote: GH there was only one post between you calling out people posting sketchy reporting and you posting a sketchy report. Please, for the love of God, stop. You do you and I'll do me. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i need to stop responding to you | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23230 Posts
On April 03 2016 15:44 oneofthem wrote: the 'official' was removed for events already explained above. read. i need to stop responding to you Where's that? | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 03 2016 05:41 Lord Tolkien wrote: 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. What exactly is your goal? VAT and income tax increases (also) at the lower brackets will be devastating with the current american income and wealth inequality. The poor are already hurting (even though they pay 0 income tax), so adding on their burden that they can't deal with will help whom? Your proposal of eliminating corporate income taxes also will not have the desired outcome. Corporations are currently in the grand scheme of things not investing, as we are so close to deflation, and (global) demand is still not recovered. Even though investing would already decrease their tax liability and if taxation was an actual issue it would promote this beaviour, not hording cash as corporations are doing now. The place where a corporation has its name plague on a mail box has relatively little bearing on where they perform their economic activity, returning that plague (and 2 boxes full of filings and general paperwork) from Ireland will not make them hire more people in the US, there is 0 connection or mechanism there that would do that. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28667 Posts
Like, if you factor in income of top 10% in the US compared to the other 90%, and you look at percentage of total taxation paid by those 10% compared to the other 90%, then the top 10% in the US contribute a bigger share of taxation than they have of the income. I'm not sure it applies to every level (like if you compared top 1 or top 0.1%, maybe you get different numbers), but for the top 10%, the US was significantly more progressive in terms of taxation than most European countries. Yet, it is also has a significantly bigger problem with wealth inequality. Personally I feel that taxation and redistribution is not a good way of accomplishing a more equitable society - what you want is significantly higher wages for low paying jobs. But like, mostly every western country except for the US has a VAT. In Norway, it's between 25% and 8% depending on product. Sweden and Denmark are two of the countries in the EU with the biggest VAT. These three are also three of the most equitable countries anywhere in the world. Even though the VAT is obviously regressive, it basically, to me, seems like the only way to actually achieve the taxation levels necessary for public services to be sufficiently good for there to not be a fully self-replicating class division. I do think that the US actually has taken it to such extremes that some degree of actual wealth redistribution is necessary- and I think a high estate tax, or downright wealth tax for the super wealthy - is the only way to go about this. However I think in general, this is not how you want to model your society, because it has adverse effects in creating moochers and societal division. For a unified society, you need everyone to contribute - then you need salary levels for the lowest tier to actually be sufficiently high for them to be able to pay taxes from it, because otherwise you foster the type of attitudes that makes Romney's 47% comment occur. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The problem with the VAT is that it hits the poor harder and is significantly more hassle to collect. If you want to make it more fair and except some goods from VAT (food, medicine) you increase the hassle manifold. Furthermore, you can't reach European levels of sales taxes quickly as introducing a 15 percent tax overnight will cause economic chaos, and it's mostly sme's that are hurt. You could instead expand excise duty goods. Some countries do sugar taxes but that's much too complex and integrated to be viable. But I'm sure there are items that are harmful and final products. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28667 Posts
Of course stuff has to be gradual though, you can't just add a 25% tax on some products, that could destroy industries, but shrinking production of sugar and tobacco while increasing production of vegetables, which telegraphed future excise duty taxes can contribute to, that sounds purely beneficial. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The problem they found was that an excise tax on top of custom duties is illegal as it favours local producers. So Finland will scrap theirs in 2017. So, while it sounds great, you venture into the world of agri-trade and that always becomes messy. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 03 2016 21:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: I largely agree with Lord Tolkien, although I'm not sure how plausible it is for the US. But the data I've seen backs it up. JohnnyB linked some reports a thousand pages back which showcased how the US has a significantly more progressive taxation than many European countries. Like, if you factor in income of top 10% in the US compared to the other 90%, and you look at percentage of total taxation paid by those 10% compared to the other 90%, then the top 10% in the US contribute a bigger share of taxation than they have of the income. I'm not sure it applies to every level (like if you compared top 1 or top 0.1%, maybe you get different numbers), but for the top 10%, the US was significantly more progressive in terms of taxation than most European countries. Yet, it is also has a significantly bigger problem with wealth inequality. It's a fraud in some way. What happen is that you have increasing inequalities, so the system is getting more and more progressive by itself as most of rich pay more, because they're richer, and most of the poor pay less, because they're poorer (relatively speaking). Don't forget the IRS needs a room full of computers just to evaluate the income taxation of someone like Bill Gates (according to him). ![[image loading]](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/timworstall/files/2015/01/irs.jpg) As for the taxation system in itself, the US has had a progressive income tax (with higher marginal taxation rate, especially for higher income) historically, but nowadays it is almost irrelevant. The problem is that richest do not pay their taxes, or at least not as they should, so the taxation does not play its role in preventing the increasing inequalities (due to rather complex matter, with financial assets being less taxed than other type of capital and fiscal heaven being everywhere). In this regard, most of Tolkien's point of view is basically false : there are tons on data proving that a progressive system, and a better welfare does indeed not only reduce poverty but also inequalities. + Show Spoiler + In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 96.7 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3.3 percent. The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent). http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 I totally agree with you about wage vs taxation / redistribution. But wage are not set by the state... And taxation and fiscality should never be studied separatively from state spending and their effect on the production. The exemple on the taxation on sugar, or on books in France is good for that : by changing relative price you change consumption choices, pushing people to consume more goods A than B (and producers to produce more A than B). This should be really investigated in regards to our energy production and consumption, or for food production. By the way, Trump telling it like it is (I do not agree with everything, but it's not false, which is already impressive for Trump) : "I think we’re sitting on an economic bubble. A financial bubble... We’re not at 5 percent unemployment. We’re at a number that’s probably into the 20s if you look at the real number. That was a number that was devised, statistically devised to make politicians – and in particular presidents – look good. And I wouldn’t be getting the kind of massive crowds that I’m getting if the number was a real number." "I’m talking about a bubble where you go into a very massive recession. Hopefully not worse than that, but a very massive recession. Look, we have money that’s so cheap right now. And if I want to borrow money, I can borrow all the money I want. But I’m rich... If somebody is a great, wonderful person, going to employ lots of people, a really talented businessperson, wants to borrow money, but they’re not rich? They have no chance... Is it a good time to invest now? "Oh, I think it’s a terrible time right now... because the dollar's so strong... You have – think of it – you have cheap money that nobody can get unless you’re rich. You have the regulators are running the banks. Not the guys that are being paid $50 million a year to run the banks. I mean, when you look at many of your friends that are running banks that are being paid $40 and $50 million, yeah, they’re not running the banks. The regulators are running the banks. You have a situation where you have an inflated stock market. It started to deflate, but then it went back up again. Usually that’s a bad sign. That’s a sign of things to come." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-02/trump-country-headed-massive-recession-its-terrible-time-invest-stocks | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6209 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28667 Posts
I just don't see how significantly increasing income tax percentage for top tax brackets makes much of a real difference because the ones who make the most aren't paying income taxes, and in terms of income taxes the american system already is fairly progressive - especially seeing how many people don't pay any taxes at all. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On April 03 2016 22:13 WhiteDog wrote: It's a fraud in some way. What happen is that you have increasing inequalities, so the system is getting more and more progressive by itself as most of rich pay more, because they're richer, and most of the poor pay less, because they're poorer (relatively speaking). Don't forget the IRS needs a room full of computers just to evaluate the income taxation of someone like Bill Gates (according to him). As for the taxation system in itself, the US has had a progressive income tax (with higher marginal taxation rate, especially for higher income) historically, but nowadays it is almost irrelevant. The problem is that richest do not pay their taxes, or at least not as they should, so the taxation does not play its role in preventing the increasing inequalities (due to rather complex matter, with financial assets being less taxed than other type of capital and fiscal heaven being everywhere). In this regard, most of Tolkien's point of view is basically false : there are tons on data proving that a progressive system, and a better welfare does indeed not only reduce poverty but also inequalities. + Show Spoiler + In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 96.7 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3.3 percent. The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent). http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 I totally agree with you about wage vs taxation / redistribution. But wage are not set by the state... And taxation and fiscality should never be studied separatively from state spending and their effect on the production. The exemple on the taxation on sugar, or on books in France is good for that : by changing relative price you change consumption choices, pushing people to consume more goods A than B (and producers to produce more A than B). This should be really investigated in regards to our energy production and consumption, or for food production. By the way, Trump telling it like it is (I do not agree with everything, but it's not false, which is already impressive for Trump) : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-02/trump-country-headed-massive-recession-its-terrible-time-invest-stocks I'm a bit lost, when you say it's a fraud, are you talking about the US-Europe comparison Drone mentioned? The rest of your post is about the US only. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 03 2016 22:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: Whitedog thank you for that, always appreciate your economic input. But is it not the case that for americans between the top 1% and top 10% they actually do pay their taxes, and quite high numbers? Like, the loopholes are mostly employed only by the people who are in the top 1% or even higher? I just don't see how significantly increasing income tax percentage for top tax brackets makes much of a real difference because the ones who make the most aren't paying income taxes, and in terms of income taxes the american system already is fairly progressive - especially seeing how many people don't pay any taxes at all. Yes, the US actually do better than most in making sure people actually pay their taxes, and the loopholes mostly touch the top 1% (that account, by themselves, for around 20 % of the total revenu catched through the income tax...). I don't think increasing income tax percentage would do any good too in today's world (increasing marginal income rate is another matter), it's just that this very extreme vision that the income tax does not do any good in regards to inequalities is a false assumption : if you compare the US to any other nation that tax more (in France, the marginal taxation rate on income above 150 000 € is 45 %), inequalities are always less. The problem nowadays is that the relationship between income and capital is so thin and complicated that it does not mean much : many capital assets are so liquid that they could be considered as money (and actually are by the central reserve when they evaluate the monetary supply). Adding a taxation on capital assets (or increasing taxation on capital income), like you suggested, would be a good thing. All our fiscality is completly flawed anyway, it's like a huge pile of taxation and reform one after the other, so much that there are tons of things that are not taxed or too taxed, and nobody really understand the effectiveness of all that. It's, in my opinion, half of the seduction that the flat tax have on people : it is easy to understand and read its effectiveness, even if it's a bad idea. On April 03 2016 22:51 Sbrubbles wrote: I'm a bit lost, when you say it's a fraud, are you talking about the US-Europe comparison Drone mentioned? The rest of your post is about the US only. No the fraud is the very right wing idea that the US is "more progressive" and that it has no effect. The progressivity as seen by the number is largely an effect of the high income inequality of the US. The US used to have a more progressive taxation system historically, and it used to be one of the most egalitarian occidental society, but this history has been forgotten. One of Piketty's most important graph (in the Capital in the XXIth century) : ![[image loading]](http://radioopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Income-tax-rates.png) Quick question, which country in those four (US, Germany, UK and France) has had a better result in terms of poverty and inequalities since the crisis ? Public economy is not my forte so I have some trouble expressing myself, this part of economy is so boring. | ||
| ||
