|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website
So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment?
The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"?
Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue.
|
On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue.
Is this satirical? I feel like this is pure sarcasm through and through. And if you're serious, have you not looked at experts are saying those "tax cuts" will actually do? Have you also not read that people who gave up looking for work aren't being counted in those "employment gains"?
Serious question here. Are you real?
|
On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue.
Isn't that pretty similar to this EU law regarding Societas Europaea companies?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FRN/TXT/?uri=celex:32001L0086
Germany has run variants of that for decades.
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Worker_participation_-_Germany#Company_level
|
United States43971 Posts
On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue.
Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now?
|
On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now?
Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out".
I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly.
I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it.
|
On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue.
Count me out of that list. Only reason I have an official job now as opposed to before is because I could no longer afford to continue the setup that I had been working with. My company hiring is also not a sign of growth because we sell the shit that other companies can't, so we get their stuff when they cut their losses or fold up.
It's also a job that I will be quitting as soon as I can find a replacement, because they can't even afford to give me consistent hours at a rate that would rival Wal-Mart. Nobody in the entire store works full time - so nobody is getting benefits. Not even the managers.
If that's not economic rot, I don't know what is.
|
United States43971 Posts
On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it.
No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does.
The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation.
You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical.
What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a welfare check from the gov, this isn't me calling cutting taxes a handout, this is actually how it really works in the real world which is something that people who pay taxes in the US know about).
Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes".
|
On August 16 2018 12:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Is this satirical? I feel like this is pure sarcasm through and through. And if you're serious, have you not looked at experts are saying those "tax cuts" will actually do? Have you also not read that people who gave up looking for work aren't being counted in those "employment gains"? Serious question here. Are you real?
Wrong.
Seriously, stop denying reality.
You can oppose Trump without opposing reality and good stuff, like low unemployment, specially for minorities.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/01/may-jobs-report-shows-economy-in-full-throttle/
|
On August 16 2018 13:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it. No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does. The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation. You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical. What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a check from the gov). Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes".
Yes I am a firm believer in personal liberty and responsability.
Only a person who believes in neither, as you seem to be the case, would consider that the government taxing people and then giving back that money in services is the same as people keeping their original money because they are "mathematically identical" in the absolute sense.
This is my last post here for a while, arguing with what is a democrat-leftist echo chamber is too tiring; I have no idea how xDaunt has such patience.
I will post the claim that Trump gets re-elected on 2020, and will come back to cheer though.
Regards
|
United States43971 Posts
On August 16 2018 13:20 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:14 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it. No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does. The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation. You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical. What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a check from the gov). Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes". Yes I am a firm believer in personal liberty and responsability. Only a person who believes in neither, as you seem to be the case, would consider that the government taxing people and then giving back that money in services is the same as people keeping their original money because they are "mathematically identical" in the absolute sense.
You're not understanding.
If I give the government $10 in taxes, and then the government spends my $10 and then prints an additional $10 and gives that to me then that is a handout and bad fiscal policy.
If I give the government $0 in taxes and then the government prints $10 and spends it then that is the exact same transaction.
Dollars are fungible. $10-$10 = $0 = $0. Can you not see that?
|
On August 16 2018 12:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Is this satirical? I feel like this is pure sarcasm through and through. And if you're serious, have you not looked at experts are saying those "tax cuts" will actually do? Have you also not read that people who gave up looking for work aren't being counted in those "employment gains"?
That was a key talking point of the 2016 Trump campaign, that the unemployment rate is flawed, now whatever your shared criticism of the metric is the rules for calculating it as far as I know haven't changed. It may not be "real" or mean what people think it means but it's still not backwards; lower is better, relatively. Anyway the BLS breaks down jobs added and lost by industry, which they are tasked with measuring specifically.
|
On August 16 2018 13:20 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:14 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it. No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does. The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation. You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical. What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a check from the gov). Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes". Yes I am a firm believer in personal liberty and responsability. Only a person who believes in neither, as you seem to be the case, would consider that the government taxing people and then giving back that money in services is the same as people keeping their original money because they are "mathematically identical" in the absolute sense. This is my last post here for a while, arguing with what is a democrat-leftist echo chamber is too tiring; I have no idea how xDaunt has such patience. I will post the claim that Trump gets re-elected on 2020, and will come back to cheer though. Regards
I would say this site is mostly centrist. The US doesn't really have a notable left wing when looking at it from an European point of view.
|
I do love the brand of right wing kids come in, post some aggressively uninformed nonsense and peace out calling us all stupid before they risk learning anything.
|
United States43971 Posts
Any taxpaying adult in America could explain that refundable tax credits aren’t tax cuts, they’re handouts that happen at tax time. It’s not any kind of rhetorical trick or argument, it’s just how means tested government welfare works. Tax time is a convenient time for you to report how many kids you have to the gov and for them to send you a check for each one. It doesn’t lower your taxes beyond the government saying “you already owe us some money so we’ll take that out first”. If you owe no taxes you still get the full amount.
The tax code has always been used for welfare and handouts, it’s just how it works in the US. The argument that a tax cut can’t be welfare displays a total ignorance of actually paying taxes.
|
There is a notable difference between the government spending too much and the government demanding not enough taxes though, it's who benefits from the free stuff. I suspect anti-tax people have no problem with receiving things for free, they just want to be the ones receiving the stuff and they don't view themselves as the "losers" who would receive them through welfare.
|
5930 Posts
On August 16 2018 14:17 Nebuchad wrote:
There is a notable difference between the government spending too much and the government demanding not enough taxes though, it's who benefits from the free stuff. I suspect anti-tax people have no problem with receiving things for free, they just want to be the ones receiving the stuff and they don't view themselves as the "losers" who would receive them through welfare.
Its like those Ohio steelworkers who love the tariffs, because its making America great again, but want their Russian-owned steel mill to be exempted from the tariffs because "they use American workers so they're real Americans unlike those Chinese steel mills across the street that use people who don't always speak English."
Most anti-tax proponents hate taxes and welfare because "lazy people abuse the system" but never say anything about middle and upper class welfare like first home buyer grants, negative gearing, school vouchers because the same people benefit immensely from these things. You don't need to suspect anything, have you heard a wealthy Republican (or really, home owning politician) talk about eliminating negative gearing because the country needs to reduce its deficit?
|
Netherlands6273 Posts
On August 16 2018 13:01 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Isn't that pretty similar to this EU law regarding Societas Europaea companies? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FRN/TXT/?uri=celex:32001L0086Germany has run variants of that for decades. https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Worker_participation_-_Germany#Company_level
Yet it also causes great inefficiency (thyssenkrup for example) because these conglomerates can never downsize and regulatory capture by companies (see VW diesel scandal which didn't really have any consequences in Europe). The much simpler and better solution is to let companies compete again instead of allowing nearly every industry to become more concentrated through mergers and acquisitions.
|
On August 16 2018 13:27 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:20 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:14 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it. No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does. The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation. You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical. What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a check from the gov). Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes". Yes I am a firm believer in personal liberty and responsability. Only a person who believes in neither, as you seem to be the case, would consider that the government taxing people and then giving back that money in services is the same as people keeping their original money because they are "mathematically identical" in the absolute sense. This is my last post here for a while, arguing with what is a democrat-leftist echo chamber is too tiring; I have no idea how xDaunt has such patience. I will post the claim that Trump gets re-elected on 2020, and will come back to cheer though. Regards I would say this site is mostly centrist. The US doesn't really have a notable left wing when looking at it from an European point of view.
It is, however most people here are against Trump and his policies, making it look like a "leftist echochamber" to anyone who is trying to defend him. They just fail to realise that you don't have to be left leaning to be against Trump and the current state of the GoP.
|
On August 16 2018 13:27 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 13:20 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:14 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 13:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Those tax cuts are just corporate welfare, printing money and running up the deficit to reward political supporters. You'd never support it if someone you perceived to be on the left did it, but you're apparently okay with fiscal irresponsibility and handouts now? Only a leftist would call cutting taxes "a hand out". I'm always in favor of tax cuts. That's what being a right winger is mostly. I'm still waiting on cutting the government size though. Don't think Trump will do it. No, anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility does. The handout is the public services and spending that are still being handed out without the associated tax obligation. You need to remember that money is fungible. The default situation is that we give the government $X of our money, the government gives us $X of services. There is absolutely no difference between us giving the government $X and getting $X of services + $5 cash (a handout) and us giving the government $X-5 in taxes and receiving $X of services. They're mathematically identical. What is happening is that the government is printing money in order and distributing it in the form of tax relief (and incidentally in the US the tax code is actually one of the things used for handouts which you'd know if you knew things, a lot of payments to needy families happen through "tax cuts" in excess of total tax obligation so that the actual tax owed turns negative (EITC, child tax credit, AOTC etc) resulting in a "tax refund" that is effectively a check from the gov). Also there is far, far more to being on the right wing that blindly cutting taxes at every opportunity. It's an entire political philosophy, not a magic 8 ball which always returns "cut taxes". Yes I am a firm believer in personal liberty and responsability. Only a person who believes in neither, as you seem to be the case, would consider that the government taxing people and then giving back that money in services is the same as people keeping their original money because they are "mathematically identical" in the absolute sense. This is my last post here for a while, arguing with what is a democrat-leftist echo chamber is too tiring; I have no idea how xDaunt has such patience. I will post the claim that Trump gets re-elected on 2020, and will come back to cheer though. Regards I would say this site is mostly centrist. The US doesn't really have a notable left wing when looking at it from an European point of view.
The US political axis is fucked, though. Our centrists are their version of a raging, frothing-at-the-mouth marxist. It's bad enough that they pretty much have to do mental gymnastics currently to say that left wing policies are simply implausible and impractical and can never work, while pretending that the entirety of Europe - most of whose most successful nations are leftish to quite left wing - simply doesn't exist and consistently proves that such policies work fine.
Not to mention gotunk's entire diatribe here is based on forgetting that nobody literally nobody said Trump's rampaging corporate cuts wouldn't be a short term benefit. The criticism was that the tax cuts to the middle and lower classes had expiry dates and the corporate class ones don't, meaning that after a decade, I think it was, the corporations will still be swimming in it and the lower classes will be worse off than ever with even less of a chance of doing something about it, and the increased likelihood that programs that benefit those classes will be slashed to pay for the corporate tax cuts, which Ryan has already floated.
That and adding to the deficit, which I thought Republicans wanted to reduce, not increase? Or is that a misunderstanding on my part?
|
On August 16 2018 13:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2018 12:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2018 12:44 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 16 2018 06:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality.
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community.” In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And that’s what Warren wants to change. Warren came out with a plan for overhauling corporate governance. It requires corporations above a certain size ($1 billion in revenue) to give 40% of board seats to employees, which would likely result in more money going to employees and being reinvested in the business rather than being spent on dividends and stock buybacks. I've criticized Warren a fair bit for her grandstanding, but this is the best and most substantive stuff that's come from her in some time. The numbers/ implementation need some tuning, but I actually really like the concept, which mirrors the system in place in Germany. The $1 billion revenue threshold can be gamed pretty easily for one. I'm also not sold on the 40% of board seats. Maybe some sort of preferential tax or other regulatory treatment for corporations who give their employees a voice would be better than an outright law. There are a couple other bits which I really like, such as requiring board (so including the employee reps) and shareholder approval for political expenditures, which would effectively neuter Citizen's United. Vox ArticleSummary from Warren's website So the solution to the inequality problem is turning it into a poverty problem by massively crashing the stock market, peoples savings and skyrocketing unemployment? The government is not directly doing it, but this magical thing called economic growth has allowed 4 million people to join the work force since certain presidential election. And this other thing called "tax cuts" has allowed many other million workers to keep more of their money and get company benefits, while helping with that economic growth thing. Maybe keep doing that instead of crashing the economy in pursuit of "equality"? Why is inequality a problem again? I thought poverty was the issue. Is this satirical? I feel like this is pure sarcasm through and through. And if you're serious, have you not looked at experts are saying those "tax cuts" will actually do? Have you also not read that people who gave up looking for work aren't being counted in those "employment gains"? That was a key talking point of the 2016 Trump campaign, that the unemployment rate is flawed, now whatever your shared criticism of the metric is the rules for calculating it as far as I know haven't changed. It may not be "real" or mean what people think it means but it's still not backwards; lower is better, relatively. Anyway the BLS breaks down jobs added and lost by industry, which they are tasked with measuring specifically.
I get the BLS report every time it is released. I know what they do. I'm talking about people who have just given up. Have dropped out completely. The jobs being made in construction or certain service industries are to be expected, never really getting rid of those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
