"Independent"

[PozBearWI]

Certainly local politics have the most direct impact on our home lives.  (local "politician" myself if elected to local office makes me that).  I also work our polling place when I am not on the ballot myself.  I have yet to figure out why it is the local elections that get super low turnout.  Around here, 10% on some.   Rarely as much as 20%.  

[tobetrained]

@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?

[tobetrained]

8 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

my perception is Trump and his current cabinet/inner circle represent  people "who in the US [who] feels differently."  i think the "over reach" is much more extreme than typically happens in our election cycles.  i also think the result is their support base is shrinking the more they try to implement their particular 'agendas." The current administration seems way less responsive to the majority of Americans  and the 'group' they represent is presenting as much smaller and more extreme.   The "groups" i reference in my first paragraph vary in size and membership. i think the political sides you reference also have smaller sub groups (on both sides) and the more 'extreme' (meaning fewer identify  with them), the smaller the group. i think the current "group" is extreme to the point of wanting to thwart and undermine the democratic process vs just wanting to win within that system.

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]

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

@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!

 

 i'll be vulnerable a guess that we agree that trickledown economics doesn't work the way its proponents assert?

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

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.

 

It was and is (and was) reasonable to me that income disparity has a cause.  It may be as simple as the point you are trying to get across   using the article you cite may be over my head. i think i maybe too simplistic (and macro) terms myself. The point i'm trying to make is i see the cause of income disparity as from a point we both hit on earlier: "greed."  And,  immediately i pause because what may constitute "greed" for me, may not constitute "greed" for another. i'm going to come back to this and connect "greed" with another term being used in our exchange.  But, to me, the vid i shared on "who had it better,"  demonstrates income disparity as a reflection of greed. The money and growth are there, 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. There have always been the three levels, but for many years, they all benefitted pretty equally from  overall national economic growth. 

 

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

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).

Well, collectively.   If it was just me buying from Amazon, the success would be much less. It seems to me, we can point to any large successful company and make the same statement, and we might be able to demonstrate that everyone, in some way, is a "people like you."  If one drives or takes any fossil fuel vehicle anywhere, they are supporting oil company successs, and the examples are without end. It becomes a question of degree, no? The organic farmer that we buy from locally may buy the packaging they use for the honey they produce at WalMart (the "affordability problem" you note) or the diesel for their tractor from Exxon, or___________. The trail seems endless? 

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

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?

i do not believe there is something as absolute as a "solution to the problem" of what i think of as less than ideal individual behavior. And i'm a  believer that asshat is not a permanent condition, but a moment by moment choice we can all make. But that gets into the weeds, i know.  

i said i'd return to the factor of "greed," because i thing its connected to how one defines "success."  Looking at the 2025 tax brackets, the percentage of taxes paid on "income earned" goes from 10% to 37% if "earned income" exceeds $626k. Does everyone making >$626k pay 37% in taxes?  Not implying that the tax rates are right or fair, but thinking lower and middle class people pay a larger percentage of their earnings than the Musks of this world.  In terms of left over income, who experiences the larger penalty for success, or conversely has less incentive to 'succeed?"   At what level of income or wealth does one stop experiencing an inability to purchase enough. Is greed a matter of perspective? Is "rich?"  

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?"  

i think the other side of the picture is the challenges of agreeing on what our tax dollars are spent on. 

i need to eat dinner 🙂

 

[Pozzible]

34 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

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?  

 

That’s not how marginal rates work, is it? As I understand it, the person making $49k would only pay 12% on the first $38k. They’d pay $22% on the income above $48k.