US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5159

On September 27 2016 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe it's finally today. September 26, 2016, the day the presidential election ended.

This election has been hugely about character. They've built personas independently and I really think the two clashing is going to be decisive. I really have no idea what will happen.

On September 27 2016 04:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:


You're kinda commenting on several different things here imo, and not really arguing against what I wrote, but you still bring up several topics I find interesting.. Pretty long post incoming!

Firstly, I never commented on what I think top tax brackets should be. I don't actually have a theoretical roof here, it depends on how society currently looks. But to comment on your specific scenarios; it's my impression that the very wealthy Americans are not making their wealth through regular income, and capital gains are taxed at either 28%, 25% or 20% depending on source of revenue. So the 39.6% doesn't really apply.

Secondly, how high taxation levels need to be imo depends on how unequal income levels are. I do by no means object to some people making more than other people. I do however believe that income disparities in the US have grown to levels that are both unjust (in the sense that no CEO works 600 times as hard as an entry level worker and does not deserve that type of hyper-inflated income) and societally dangerous. (My impression is that countries with a GINI-coefficient, (a measurement of how equitably wealth is distributed) of around 30 perform better by most metrics than countries where the GINI-coefficient is above 40, since 1970, the US has gone from 37 to 45, while Norway went from 37 to 25. There's nothing god-given or natural about the current rate of top-heavy wealth and income-allocation you see in the US.

Then, while I believe that taxation is one of the possible ways you might try to reverse this trend, I don't think it's the only possible avenue, and it is not my preferred route. I'd like to see more employee-ownership of companies (comes with a whole host of other benefits) and smaller differences in income rather than increased taxation, but I'd much rather have increased taxation for the top levels than a continued rise in wealth and income disparity.

But on the topic of various taxes; taxes have two purposes imo. One, to provide government with revenue (obviously). How much revenue government needs is up for debate, and I can totally get by the idea that the US can get by without funding some public programs that we in Norway need to fund. For example, there is no way Norway can have a vibrant cultural scene without some government funding, because our market is not big enough to sustain anything but the most popular artists on their own. This is not an issue for the US, because your market is significantly bigger. This can be extended to some other areas of society as well- the US is so big that there are several areas where public and private competition can actually exist, whereas in Norway, we're often looking at either a public or a private monopoly. (transportation and energy are two examples that come to mind. ) So if you wanna argue that the US should have a lower taxation level than Norway, I'm totally on board with that - there's also the difference in mentality of whether government should be a cradle-to-grave caretaker or whether it should allow you to be your own agent causing your own success or failure, I also totally accept this difference. In addition however, and this once again hinges on how unequal society is in terms of already allocated wealth and current income disparities - I view taxes as a possible way of redistribution. In Norway, this is not that important (our gini-coefficient is 25 - while there's a handful of billionaires I would be fine with not being billionaires, they don't represent a societal threat), but in the US, I think you really, really need some redistribution because you do have a problem with rising poverty and inequality.

And then we get to the various types of taxation. Sales tax, I agree. We have that in Norway. My impression is that it's mostly just a way of masking the true taxation levels. It's totally regressive however, a poor person has to pay the same 70 cents or whatever for each loaf of bread as a rich person does, and they eat pretty similar amounts. Income taxes would however have to increase drastically if we got rid of sales taxes - but I'd support that. Alcohol, tobacco (also gasoline and sugar) are taxes I'm positive towards because they are geared towards curtailing a form of consumption regarded as societally negative, as well as ideally providing revenue geared specifically towards dealing with damage from those sources. (like, tobacco is taxed and all that money goes to fund health care specific to smokers/ anti-smoking campaigns, that way you really get the impression that smokers actually pay for the extra costs they impose on society, and there can be less moral judgment of their actions).

But then there's the estate tax. My impression is that virtually everyone everywhere claims to be meritocratic. To me, true meritocracy is very difficult to combine with different children having vastly different opportunities in life - for true meritocracy, all children would need to start at an equal footing. When some children start with $50 million and others start with nothing, that is obviously not the case. Equally obviously, the ideal of all children starting at an equal footing would be in conflict with the ideal of parents doing all they can to give their children the best lives they can give them, which is why a balance has to be found, and I think this balance is well accomplished through creating a high cutoff (thus all parents know that if they provide their children with enough wealth to succeed, their children will get this wealth, but similarly, children should not be left with enough money for them to live perversely lavish lives that they themselves have made 0 contributions towards - that is anti-meritocratic). Being born by a wealthy parent is no accomplishment.

Frankly, at least on principle, I prefer the idea of quite low income taxes so that people who work hard and are brilliant (and lucky) can attain quite vast riches through their own lifetimes through their own efforts- I'm just really opposed to the idea of someone three generations down the line still being rich as fuck because of those efforts from their great great grandfather. Aristocracy and dynasty-formation are fundamentally unjust, imo, and where the US is right now, I can't see these being successfully combated without estate tax. It doesn't have to be a permanent tax, but I think it's temporarily necessary, and from a redistribution point of view, it's the best, least regressive form of taxation.

(Just an addendum, when I talk about redistribution, I don't mean that rich people should be taxed and poor people should be given money. I mean that rich people should be taxed and that more public jobs should get higher pay so public workers become more competent and public education and health care becomes as good as private education and health care because I think once again, true meritocracy hinges on equal opportunities, and that starts with a functional educational system for everyone, and continues with health care being served independently of personal wealth.