tobetrained

@tallslenderguy, you stated yesterday: “Is it class warfare to tax the person making $48k 12% but the person making $49k 22%? At what point does it become class warfare? While i do not believe there is a perfect answer, a straight percentage paid by all seems more equal. Maybe one step considering a ‘living wage?’” You and @Pozzible got thru progressive tax. But it’s very interesting you state that, flat tax (i.e., “straight percentage”). That’s very Republican of you! I don’t mind a progressive tax system with deductions. You said, “There are problems that cannot be fixed by us as individuals, collectively or by experts. Goes back to (i think need for) things like "grace," …“ Yes, and I added ”leadership” to that. Real leaders don’t offer simple solutions…which was my contention when discussing income inequality/disparity. On the Left, many gloss over the cause of that and go to “tax the rich” as a simple solution to their political outlook. That’s not leadership. It’s being a demagogue. But, sorry to repeat myself, we should be the first step in fixing a problem we create. Sometimes, we don’t need to go to the doctor, so to speak. You said, “i think that there was a time when "conservative" meant "dislike [of] all tax, in general." Both sides of our political parties approve of taxes because both want to spend, the distinctions are where the money is spent and who pays for it. But, at least in current times, the "conservative" assertion of being anti tax is disingenuous at best.“ Well, I’m not the defender of conservatives. But small-c conservatives generally want low taxes believing people can make the choices for themselves Ultimately, what broke the power of the nobility and Monarchy across Western societies, first by personal finance and then by thought -- the market. At a not –so-distant time, the ‘lord of the manor’ would have disciplined you and I for this very convo in his fiefdom. This being a market of thought where time spent is the currency. We would have been branded "trouble-makers." You said, “To me, the bigger consideration is social. At what point does one reach the stage of "no financial worries." …To me, a question would be, what constitutes "extreme," and some would argue that even asking the question is unfair…” I fight against these ideas somewhat vehemently, with words like fair/unfair, and others. I do not believe in moralizing wealth or lack of same. No one deserves either. I despise demagogue politicians who use these notions for popular support, populism. I challenge those who think this way to reposition the question to a global perspective. How would you feel if you personally had to pay $5k/yr into some sort of global wealth tax since the US is so wealthy. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, is well over 1billion people with a median income ~$10k/yr. In a (fictitious) Global Congress, they could join with others - through populist popular vote -- to make that happen. From their perspective, does any American deserve $80k/yr or even $40k/yr. Probably not. From their perspective, are they right? Probably. That’s not to say those with more shouldn’t pay more. But I don’t accept the idea where we “take from these people” to “give to these people.” And that’s why I jumped to “cause of the problem” and not purely “problem identification” in the context of income disparity. You posed the Q: “What are the social questions/ramifications in a social system that relies on taxation? I’d suggest this needs to be broadened before it can be answered. The concept has been around since the advent of democracy: What are our individual responsibilities to our society and what should government do to support and enforce? Government support and enforcement costs money. You posed the Q: “Whose standard of living is most impacted by taxes? This needs context. The wealthiest pay the most in absolute value per household but need government the least. The poorest pay the least to government per household but need the most from it. That plots out to some kind of “X” with an intersection that changes over time, balance – changing for better or for worse. but there’s no right answer. You posed the Qs: "Do social systems that rely on taxation benefit all equally? What constitutes benefit? “ All rely on taxation. Benefit is referential – national defense: everyone indirectly, a food program: the poorest of us directly, etc. None of these issues, though, have an absolute answer. So, is there a direction you’re going? For instance, should the government have programs dedicated to one group of people? If so, how can that be used for tyranny? Here’s are questions for you: How does a government remain solvent? Isn’t volume of taxation driven by the activities of the government, what it takes on? Regardless of needs, how do you manage capability?

@tallslenderguy I saw your last post before I have to do a a bunch of stuff today. Two quick-hits to respond before something more thorough: Re: "just blow it up" no issue from me. agree on all points. It happened, can't change the past, move on...it's a great opportunity in the future. You asked: "Would you go into some detail about what you see as "the left [getting] their way previously" that would have resulted in "Trump being in charge of so much more!" " Let's say Biden had been able to create UHC, for example. How would you feel with Trump and RFK Jr leading our national healthcare system... not just the payment of it via ACA.

I should be clearer on this part: in 80s-90s, liberals (as the the Left was then called) said the same thing re: Walmart that I am saying on Amazon (as a case study, but can be applied elsewhere). The Republican trickledown response: their cheaper prices are better for consumers and justify the loss of jobs, local-ism, and more corporate consolidation. This, in part, is what gave rise to the liberal-driven farmers' market boom of the early 90s.

@tallslenderguy you said, “ i'll be vulnerable a guess that we agree that trickledown economics doesn't work the way its proponents assert?” Trickledown economics is absolute hokum. Conceptually, to me, it has an echo of the Great Chain of Being, suggesting people “have their place” and that are “betters” created by a god. I’ll leave it to Wikipedia to describe both that "concept" and trickledown. But I don’t believe wealthy are better positioned to know how/where to innovate. Regulation and taxation can harm development and innovation, sure, but sometimes that’s perfectly fine -- if not preferred outright. The reason why I said “it’s the opposite” of what I was describing is the implication of trickledown that lower prices justify consumer spending – in fact, that was kinda your point!. 😃 My point, we should use our collective demand to DO SOMETHING about things we don’t like STARTING with their causes, NOT drift to lower prices as justification. But if those creating the problem and care about the problem aren't moved to DO something that problem by their own actions, I'm out. It's the "stop hitting yourself" argument. 😃 Everything starts with the individual in a free society. As far as the Amazon example. I wasn’t trying to personalize like it may have come across, just make it relatable. But yes, we make a vote everyday with our purchasing decisions. This is why boycotts have worked in the past, in varying contexts. In an electoral context, it’s why they say, “every vote counts.” That’s either true or false. I think it's true, collective effort can make an impact. Your right, the trail is endless. But the question is, where do you start in terms of solving a problem: by your own actions or demand someone else fix things for you? you said, “…but the smallest and richest group of people is benefiting many times more than the majority middle and lower wage earners. But it was not always that way.” Now I know where you were going. Yes, part of that is reduced manufacturing/blue collar jobs due to automation and trade, women in the workforce leading to greater separation in household incomes (dual- vs single-income homes) which has elongated household-level disparity, among others. So much in this space to discuss, …the middle 60% are at 73% of prior wealth (if memory serves) in the trend while lower and higher wealth groups have grown by ~135% or better. I think I got that right and where you were going?? Can you elaborate on your thoughts? you said, “What are the social questions/ramifications in a social system that relies on taxation? A few questions: Whose standard of living is most impacted by taxes? Do social systems that rely on taxation benefit all equally? What constitutes benefit? “ Taxation is a massive topic with varying types that hit different groups more than others. Our political parties align to whichever system/type benefits their supporters more / costs them the least. E.g., conservatives opt for consumption taxes – sales taxes, if they had to choose a type (but dislike all tax, in general). And so on. But your questions need more detail – are you assuming some type of government spending plan created by the revenue from taxes. That is, no one benefits from taxes more than others, if say, that revenue is spent on national defense – except the contractors. But I'm opposed to a targeted tax on one group or class of people to pay for a program for another group or class. It's the definition of economic class warfare... and, through history, has been used by despots, oligarchs, and monarchs to get people on their side, including ending democracy. That starts with Ancient Greece and through modern times. What flummoxes me about our politics today, if the Left had got their way previously, Trump would be in charge of so much more! And yet, no seems to stop and think about that. Or the problems a different despot-in-training could create. To paraphrase Blanche Devereaux, "I'm flummoxed, just flummoxed. Flummoxed is the only way to describe how...flummoxed I am!" As far as the election topic, we traded info on data privately. Is there a follow-up?

@Pozzible But: re money and tradition, that's what I mean by motivation. There's MORE motivation to join the two main parties...as Sanders and Trump stated in 2016. And that was intentional by the founders -- by creating a President and not allowing the Prime Minister to be head of state, re populism and checks-and-balances. If the PM were head of state, there would be motivation for splintering. You wrote: "But I’d be willing to bet that the Republican house would have been dissolved during their 8 week tantrum and absence from DC" Why? There wouldn't have been a 'no confidence' vote brought by Reps in the House... they wouldn't have voted themselves out. And Dems don't have a majority. If a faction of a "Rep-like coalition" broke away, it depends. Canada and the UK, for example, allow minority rule. In that case, Reps would have to call snap elections on themselves...which I don't think would have happened. And what would likely happen first would have been a change in leadership (which can happen here too, and did with McCarthy). But even in a change of leader scenario, not even 10% of the remaining "Rep-like coalition" group would have called on Johnson to step down from within. So, I don't see any possible change. And, even if he could have done so in a what-if scenario, why would Trump have called for it? Let's stick with the UK to articulate: Careful What You Wish For Labour has tanked since their 2024 win. Reform (MAGA-equivalent) has gained so much to not only be the leading party but, in seat estimates, are breaking outright majority rule in simulations of "if the election were held today" tests. Turn-over of government -- if that's your thing -- works both ways. Over time, Republicans would gain by it just as much as Democrats. But, like I said above, most parliamentary governments are 5 or more year terms. The average of Germany, France, and the UK is 3.5 years (thanks AI, so I didn't have to calc!!) including snap elections over last 25 years. Our House election is 2 years with Presidential, obviously, 4 years. So things are just as fast or faster, broadly. You said, "If you had a small faction of Greens, the majority wouldn’t be able to automatically prevent bringing legislation to the floor." I've never understood this argument. In my view, if the far-left can't get the moderate/center-left support on something, why would anyone on the R-side of the isle support? And the same in reverse. This argument is usually pushed by populists politicians of both left and right extremes -- it's like the 'tell'. By "bringing to the floor" and, assuming you force a vote, it's used to force others on YOUR side to vote for it or face a backlash -- and possible primary challenge. And it breaks down trust. On top of that, Pelosi brought many bills to the floor and passed them -- which just died in the Senate even with Dems leading that body as they weren't bi-partisan with ability to break 60-vote threshold/filibuster. I asked AI this Q as I remembered the Dem-on-Dem fights: In 2014, Pelosi fully passed 340 bills while the Dem-led Senate passed only 38 of them due to above reason... and Obama was in WH! I claim no correctness to the counts -- just remember the fights.

I separated this out @tallslenderguy cuz I think we're going down a dual-topic path. Whether more or less extreme, wasn't really what I was trying to get to. But yes, it's more. However, you state above "the 'group' they represent is presenting as much smaller and more extreme." This is purely a progressive-left view of the world. I don't think facts show it. I want to try and use some data to flesh out -- concepts are one thing, but here we're assuming trends and other things to support ideas. To do this, I looked over like 20 polling outfits form the last 2 weeks to find a middle ground -- I won't even use the word "average" -- which also had a lot of detail. So, YouGov has an on-going tracker for this purpose. This particular one is sponsored by The Economist. It used to have a slight R-lean, more recently it's been a slight D-lean. But neither lean was terrible for an opinion poll. These results are not that different from others I've scanned in the last 6 months. Nov 7-10 for reg voters: Trump approval: 42% Do you think the Republican Party is too extreme: yes = 48% Do you think the Democratic Party is too extreme: yes= 48% (not a typo, same) Congressional blame for shutdown: Dem=34%, Rep=36%, Both=24% We are simply in two worlds. There is no real reduction of gain for either side. It's all marginal and it's not moving. Trump's approval is down but not massively in modern terms. It's still 85% among Reps -- so what's shrinking? Remember, off-year elections are less about ideological shifts of voters and more about who turns out to vote. This hits the sitting President's party regardless of who is in the White House. But right, on gerrymandering Reps are doing a lot. And Dems are responding. But this is nothing new. Dems had the House locked up by gerrymandering throughout the late 20th century. It's actually why Reps NOW are doing what they're doing: they grew up in that era and were pissed at Dem gerrymandering, as Dems are pissed now. Example: in 1984, Reagan won the Presidential race by 59%-41% of pop vote, Dems led House with 52% of pop vote but, due to gerrymandering, took 58% of seats.

@tallslenderguy You said, "To me, the Amazon example has echos of trickle down economics?” This is an issue of words-on-a-screen vs. face-to-face. I’d bet a million billion quadrillion rupees we’d be on the same page in the latter (not necessarily in agreement, but…you know). But as for trickledown economics, I’m referencing the exact opposite! In terms of income disparity, I had over-simplified. Yes, it has effects and I didn’t intend to imply otherwise. The issue I’m trying to bring up are the causes. If you don’t grasp the cause, your solution may be ineffectual or flawed, either immediately or over time. Maybe clearer if I had said, ‘but the growth over the last decade of income disparity is, by definition, not an innate state. We need to look at the causes and not just the effects, and our role in them.’ In so doing, The fed wrote the article (I had linked above) to articulate how and where that incremental wealth was coming from by looking at corporate profits – as more profitable companies pay their employees and board members more in various compensation. Amazon being a case study of that. I’m not sure if that clears it up or if I’m restating the confusion?? Let me know. I change my bet, though, to million billion quadrillion gagillion rupees. Again, as far as trickledown economics, this is the exact opposite re: Amazon and the like. And, to your question, I’m not taking a side in this. I’m only trying to articulate a cause so if we discuss solutions, that convo has a baseline (more below). The success Amazon and the like have is driven by people like you -- and 10s of millions more like you -- who use their service. They provided you a service you want. But that has led to their participation, if not key player, in the income disparity problem (as well as the affordability problem). So, what’s a solution to the problem? Do you incentivize for better outcomes, or do you penalize success? As an example of incentive: maybe the government offers a tax credit for buying local, and purchases go through a centralized system to lower your adjusted income regardless of other deductions? Consumer spending is ~two-thirds of our economy so it’s not a ‘David v. Goliath’ issue, to use your phrase. Maybe the government creates a tax assessed to companies who have centralized employees in a few places while collecting revenue from everywhere. This would be deferred to state small business divisions, which fund/support local businesses. The businesses being assessed the tax can reduce this tax by remote or more corporate branch offices around the country or outright building more self-sustaining local businesses. This would additionally help the affordability issue by re-dispersing jobs around the country. Or do you just tax the rich? A form of populism and class warfare. Or just tax the corporation blindly – which they always pass on to the consumer anyway. I’m not saying any of those ideas are even viable. They’re just illustrative of an incentive vs. a penalty. Is it clear the difference? Incentive are about working with everyone in the context of the real world. Quite frankly, penalties are the manifestation of populist hate. You said, “i also believe we are all connected. That means i affect others, but it also means they affect me.” I agree wholeheartedly. But we need to be more holistic about what connectedness means. It’s not only our time and our words, but also our choices – which includes where we spend our money. Charities agree very much to this notion, right?

@Pozzible as privately discussed, The discrepancy here is you were referencing coalitions yesterday. So on same page now. Re: motives... but if there were strong motives, we would have that today. We don't. And nothing legal or technical prevents it. Nothing. And many districts and Senate elections have other parties run, as well as independents. But our system, in trying to avoid the populism that type of government creates, was setup for checks and balances. So, the Prime Minister is not head of state... we have a President. Our effective PM is #3, the Speaker of the House. And the House and President (as well as Senate) have different terms to limit temporary political moments from breaking balance. Also, contrary to UK parliamentary procedure, our system doesn't allow a minority government -- a Speaker needs 50%+ of member vote for the role. So, if we did break into many factions -- again, fully possible today -- then informal coalition-building could happen. I have no idea what happens if no one passes that threshold. I don't think the elected Speaker must be a sitting member of the House either, but not 100% certain on that. And we do have factions, kinda. There's only one cross-party caucus I know of today, Problem Solvers. Otherwise many others exist within parties, even though some claim to be unaligned.

I appreciated both her comments on the cause, and Dems would not admit -- 1) bring to light certain issues (she notes in the video), and 2) stand up to Trump. The latter being politicking. I wish she offered a little less hyperbole early on with people being "blindsided" by the 8 Dems who joined the vote. The public reporting on this start late Wednesday night -- I even post same in "Shut Down" thread on Thursday. No one was shocked...or should have been. To that end, I think Angus King -- a politician I listen to a lot, as mentioned elsewhere -- has some good answers as he was one of the 8. A Katie Couric interview.

@tallslenderguy To regroup, You added the issue of income disparity above. But this is an effect, not a cause. The cause is what I was trying to get to in my last post. Our collective behavior. We make choices everyday about how and where we spend money and time. Over time, those choices have funneled more and more money to fewer and fewer people. I used Amazon as the example, of many. You quoted me, “Governments role in the problem.” and continued yourself, “I think ‘we the people’ have stepped too far away from government.” To be sure, as I wasn’t quite clear form your response, I said ‘role in the problem’ and not the Regean-like “…government is problem.” You state, “but i would rather live in a democratic system than a more dictatorial one where one persuasion calls all the shots.” I’m not sure who in the US feels differently so I'm not sure what you mean. Generally, people on one side of the political isle always feel left out after they lose an election. And that feeling, coupled with the over-reach I referenced (in the other thread) of the President’s party early in their term is why the President’s party typically loses the mid-term House election, it's been by a 10-1 margin since 1980. In terms of participation, I think we’re circling similar things..maybe? In the Amazon example I referenced consumer spending choice as part of the cause of income disparity. That is, with the vast sums we spend with them, companies can pay their employees with incrementally large salaries and wealth (stock options, 401k benefits, etc). We can participate is so many things EVERY DAY with our own choices – that’s participation too. Examples: buy local products or at least just from local/regional stores/chains (reduce income disparity and rebuild local communities) and take fewer air travel trips while also driving less (environmentalism). Most people choose not to bother, even those who claim to care about those issues. So there’s an open question: if we are ”the system” (in the on-going example) shouldn’t the first effort to fix a problem come from ourselves? I’ll leave this part here and let me know if I understood you correctly. I think there’s still more on your point re: participation. I’m not sure I got your point right. And @hntnhole for Pete’s comment, I was referring to him deflecting a question with “leave it to the municipalities.” It’s a new thing I’ve heard recently from multiple Dem politicians and is the same ”leave it to the state” or “State’s rights” Republican deflection. I’m unsure how you interpreted my comment by your reply.

@Pozzible Re: Warren. Maybe. But these are worth a read if you think so. I dug these out, almost "blast from the past" articles, it's been so long. [think before following links] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/facts-on-warrens-wealth-tax-plan/ [think before following links] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/3/15/budgetary-effects-of-senator-warren-wealth-tax [think before following links] https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/wealth-tax/ More than any of the details above, none can account for ramifications of the Exit Tax. They assume legality to offer an overall estimate. There's a Constitutionality issue in the U.S. as well as -- more likely -- International Law... but I get that info from a former colleague. No idea on that myself but both are referenced in the top-line assessment online, which also details the 5th Amendment. Moreover, the Penn analysis updated their model with more feedback effects from their original findings. That is linked above. Like any good academic work, it says a lot without actually saying anything! @tallslenderguy and all, as this is an open convo, I ref'd making a decision between penalizing success and incentivizing for better outcomes. I do think Warren's falls into the former. But consider this article on same for NYC. Before you read, as a thought-test, simplify government revenue to personal income tax. What share of revenue should come from the top 1%? [think before following links] https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/even-mamdanis-new-york-needs-millionaires After reading, what happens when those people just leave, or the corporations with those jobs hire elsewhere (incl. remote)? This gets to the fear in Warren's plan represented by the Exit Tax, a key element to make the whole thing work. As with others, these are illustrative discussion points, not designed to weed-dive.

Quite a different thing, to be sure!

@Pozzible can you elaborate. When I wrote that, in my mind, I was trying to state parties in a parliamentary systems are the factions.

First, we aren't a two-party system by requirement but there no real motive for more parties. Our US House is the equivalent body to most parliaments...it's just the speaker isn't President. That dulls the need for more parties to develop. And there are variations on the theme which abound across democracies, both in governing and elections. By factionalism, probably not. Given above, we don't have 5-10 parties in each election gaining seats in the House and splintering when things get tough if there in a governing coalition, bring down the government (in many systems). Re: snap elections. After 2003 Iraq: well we had the 2004 Presidential election with full House election and ~1/3 of Senate (as always). Reps won that by 2.4pp and with 232 seat in House. For COVID, we also had the scheduled Presidential and full House election + 1/3 Senate in 2020 with Dems winning. So, effectively we did have those elections...by happenstance of timing. But the House is more regular, every 2 years -- parliaments are typically 5+ years without dissolution.. We will again in the House next year. And by a 10-1 margin since 1980, the sitting president's party loses the House in the mid-term election. So Dems are sitting pretty on that. That flipping tendency of voters is why both parties try to stuff as much as possible into their first 6-12 months in office (following Presidential elections). Australian Senate election are very interesting. You should look into those...not really directly translatable up here tho.

Well, I'm glad there were 8 Democratic Senators who are willing to put governing over politicking. Thank you to Kaine, Cortez Masto, Durbin, Hassan, King, Rosen, and Shaheen who joined Fetterman who was there all along. If this goes through, a clean ACA bill with public debate is fully reasonable.