Is Supply Side a way to force Austerity in Kansas? (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

Capitalism creates such lop sided market distributions, liberatarianism would collapse 9 times out of 10

Interesting. Without conflating "libertarianism" with "anarchy", as "Libertarianism" means sharply defined and restricted government, such as what we had for the first century and a half or so of our existence, can you provide this overwhelming list of historical examples?

I mean, I can list places that have gone pretty low-government; Hong Kong, etc, and they seem to be doing pretty well.....

Not to mention government regulation on business is good

No, it can be good. It can also be bad. Saying government regulation on business is good is like saying the government having an unaccountable secret police is good. It can be used to catch spies. It can also be used to round up political opponents of the administration. Historically it has often done the latter.

the hyperbole of a libertarian paradise of Somalia is kind of a stretch but, also slightly accurate, IMO.

:shrug: then you aren't very familiar with libertarianism, and are confusing it with Anarchy.

It seems (respectfully) that you are also somewhat ignorant on Somalia, which does not look at all like:

No government regulation, no government run healthcare, guns everywhere and anywhere, and you can do whatever you want.

Because instead, Somalia is dominated by overlapping and competing forms of governance. Clan-based, region based, nation based, and Islamist based. If you believe there is no regulations people have to follow, wander into an area dominated by Al Shabaab and start broadcasting Christian radio. If you think you can do whatever you want, wander into the backlands and violate Tribal Code. You will quickly (and brutally) discover how incorrect you were.

Simply because the nation-state level government is only somewhat effective at projecting force within its borders does not mean no governance is occurring. It simply means that governance is coming from other entities.

 

[JasperL]

:shrug: I'm in favor of (careful) dynamic scoring. I simply also think that it's possible for people to estimate revenue wrong.

I am too (agnostic or ambivalent really), but "dynamic scoring" doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. Brownback and his supporters thought the tax plan would be a significant boost to the economy, which would significantly boost income tax receipts over the so-called expert economists' projections, and they were wrong. Turns out tax rates are a minor driver of economic activity. Who knew, except the economists?

Kansas results are why I don't really care much one way or the other about 'dynamic scoring.' In the hands of actual economists, dynamic scoring just won't make very much difference to the revenue estimates. The first order effect is to transfer dollars from government to the private sector, which IS more productive with the money, but not by all that much in the big picture, in large part because lots of the tax cuts that would have been spent 100% by government will just be saved by wealthy taxpayers, and transferred to Wall Street in the form of stocks or bonds. The only other way to boost revenues is if businesses or people moved there, and it's likely or at least plausible that few to no businesses saw the serial cluster-F in Kansas and banked a big location decision on the rates remaining in place.... And even if handled better, the positive changes would be over long periods of time and therefore very gradual, not big noticeable boosts.

As an aside, the still unbelievable part of the plan was taking tax rates on pass through income to 0.0%. Turns out Kansas did, apparently, see lots of new business formations - all those C corps rushing to form S Corps or LLCs, and employees rearranging their affairs to be taxed as sole proprietors or LLCs! Got to take advantage of that 0% rate!

 

[Winston]

Interesting. Without conflating "libertarianism" with "anarchy", as "Libertarianism" means sharply defined and restricted government, such as what we had for the first century and a half or so of our existence, can you provide this overwhelming list of historical examples?

I mean, I can list places that have gone pretty low-government; Hong Kong, etc, and they seem to be doing pretty well.....

Truthfully, I know of little real world examples of libertarianism, and have a rudimentary grasp on libertarianism itself. They want to return to the Articles of Confederation? Or, reverse the FDR years, in order to constrain the interpretation of the elastic clause.

No, it can be good. It can also be bad. Saying government regulation on business is good is like saying the government having an unaccountable secret police is good. It can be used to catch spies. It can also be used to round up political opponents of the administration. Historically it has often done the latter.

I support regulation generally, I know regulation has become a boogeyman but, I believe that regulation has done some great things. I like that cars are mandated to have seat belts. I like that companies aren't allowed to dump toxic sludge into rivers. Taking care of people and the planet is more important than the impact on a company's bottom line. So, while a regulation that costs the oil industry say 200 million dollars a year, but prevents X tons of fracking waste water from going into a lake/river, to me preserving the lake/river is invaluable. Because the industry execs have a vested interest in saving them money, while I have a vested interest in protecting the environment which contains the people. To me, it's a noble fight that I am on the right side of. But, I do agree as with anything, the topic has nuance, and counter-examples.

:shrug: then you aren't very familiar with libertarianism, and are confusing it with Anarchy.

It seems (respectfully) that you are also somewhat ignorant on Somalia, which does not look at all like:



Because instead, Somalia is dominated by overlapping and competing forms of governance. Clan-based, region based, nation based, and Islamist based. If you believe there is no regulations people have to follow, wander into an area dominated by Al Shabaab and start broadcasting Christian radio. If you think you can do whatever you want, wander into the backlands and violate Tribal Code. You will quickly (and brutally) discover how incorrect you were.

Simply because the nation-state level government is only somewhat effective at projecting force within its borders does not mean no governance is occurring. It simply means that governance is coming from other entities.

It's just my opinion that libertarianism would unleash capitalism to wreak havoc on whatever society it established itself in. The comparison I made to Somalia was more tongue-in-cheek than serious debate. I think you can draw comparisons, and it's a cheap way to poke fun at libertarians. Don't like taxes and government regulation? Try Somalia, they don't have any of that.

I think Somalia is actually facing real peril and danger, and has a lot more to worry about than top marginal rates, or the government snooping around private business.

 

[jet57]

The money is the property of the rich. The government isn't giving away money to the rich. The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Maybe then as a kid, you should have been thrown out into the street for your education.

 

[fmw]

Then why didn't Kansas just cut all the "evil librul" spending and flourish in a new golden age?

Politicians are very poor financial managers.

Moreover, why don't low tax, low regulation countries, like in Africa, experience this alleged economic boom?

There is no wealth that could trickle down.

 

[Mach]

And you know of an alternative?

Yes, that's the entire point. Make taxes actually progressive, especially on the *very*high end, figure out how to better regulate the finance industry as a whole (it's useful but not at anything close to the current size/profit margins, it's a blight), and through that fund more education and health care.
There is something to be said for wanting the EU to spend more on the military, if they value the same things we value, so that we can ramp down our military spending some, and invest that back into something more productive or to lower taxes even).

The argument can be made until we are singling out people at such a high rate as to basically just being in the guise of government stealing their plunder/power and claiming it our own.

Strawman, we're nowhere near this. Right now the ultra-rich, who have most of the income in the U.S., and most of the net work (total wealth/capital), pay a lower tax rate. Plunder indeed.

Except the biggest impact has time and time again to be on the in-betweens: doctors, lawyers, small-bustiness owners not the 0.01%.
Yes the 0.01% get the most back from tax breaks but they also have the least to lose on higher as they can pivot their objective to government policy and act in proxy. The other 0.99% of the 1% though are just capped in their ambitions and ability to build the framework to be the next 0.01%.

The biggest impact is on the (top 1% minus the ultra-wealthy)!?! This is why anyone can see your argument is weak. The poor doctors and attorneys, so crippled by our system that affords them some of the highest incomes/quality of life in all of human history. The only thing that slows down attorney's/doctors is that they are in a service business that's hard to scale, that's a structural issue, not a failure of our government. Small business owners have no such limitations, it's all in the mind. Swing big, miss and file bankruptcy, or hit and become wealthy. It's how it's always been.

In what universe? Government has become so big their priories shifts from these things to fight geopolitical conflicts for the 0.01% masters who get that influence by how much they pay into the pot.

Nonsense. Most of government expenditures end up back in our hands. Social Protection, Healthcare, Education, VA benefits, make up well over half, that's right off the top.
Military is obscenely large, maybe Trump is right we should expect the world to spend more on their military budgets, so we can spend a little more on education in the U.S.
Government spending gets spent on jobs and income and valuable services, the notion that it means "big unhealthy government" is absurd.

Because we’ve given the state that much power that those 13 men can consolidate it.

So stop voting Republican.

 

[Absentglare]

Politicians are very poor financial managers.



There is no wealth that could trickle down.

You must be confused. Why would the politicians not pass the full plan? Your argument that republicans are incompetent isn't a valid defense- do you understand why?

Ah- no rich people in Africa! That's what you think the problem is? That could be the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

 

[Conaeolos]

Right now the ultra-rich, who have most of the income in the U.S., and most of the net work (total wealth/capital), pay a lower tax rate.

First, you think that is who you tax when when you create higher rates on the tax brackets? The ultra-rich (very high net worth individuals)

Second, your statement is illogical since the ultra-rich have incomes multiple factors higher than average of course they pay lower tax rates. Those smaller fractions still pay and subsidize most of the total tax revenue. I believe the ratio is the 1% pay about 50% of total tax revenue.

The biggest impact is on the (top 1% minus the ultra-wealthy)!?! This is why anyone can see your argument is weak. The poor doctors and attorneys, so crippled by our system that affords them some of the highest incomes/quality of life in all of human history.

I am sorry you have little sympathy for the reality 1/100 hardworking high skilled Americans face, but where we diverge is not a matter of sympathy its a matter of economic opportunity.

The ultra-rich can rightfully be singled out as power brokers in society. We’ve always had them and so has everyone else. A major factor in the social progress of the United States, industrial revolution, Information Age and war recovery was a powerful improving force of people moving up and down the economic ladder. There was real economic pressure to remain relevant within the market. The ultra rich don’t simply hold all the wealth and set all the rules because there are competing powers and new upstarts all the time.

This dynamic pressure does not come from the government or from safety nets. It comes from the sons and daughters of families investing in their children who have the ability to generate massive amounts of new income. I underline income since that is what you are proposing to tax: income.

Person A inherits $100,000,000 from mommy and daddy and makes 10% off his holdings: taxed on $10,000,000
Person B inherits $10,000,000 from mommy and daddy and makes 1100% off his holdings: taxed on $100,000,000

Who does it impact more? Who does it benefit?

BTW person A is the wealthy person with political influence. So that $110,000,000 government is influenced by him alone.

Most of government expenditures end up back in our hands

I am talking in terms of trends and you are talking in terms of a certain reading of reality.

I see this as the questions of what the two direction lead to down the line:
- Getting more or staying punitive on the highest tax brackets (it has short term advantages)
- We lower the burden overall

Federally we have a public deficit of about 25% and unfunded liabilities are currently estimated at near $127 trillion ~ so question do you think the US budget is an accurate reflection of spending on these areas for any degree of time? Or do you think we may have to do more impact with less money either way?

So stop voting Republican.

Just because I think we need a healthcare safety net and the republicans can’t get a good plan together doesn’t mean I think the democratic raising taxes to throw more money at a broken system or worse yet trying to pull a Canada is the solution - let alone better.

A reduction in the the current disaster is frankly needed and hopeful someone somewhere will come to the table with something reasonable.

 

[Mach]

First, you think that is who you tax when when you create higher rates on the tax brackets? The ultra-rich (very high net worth individuals)

I clearly stated capital gains. And yes, between capital gains and higher income tax brackets, people who earned more, would pay more in taxes. It might even get to where it's actually a progressive tax...

Second, your statement is illogical since the ultra-rich have incomes multiple factors higher than average of course they pay lower tax rates. Those smaller fractions still pay and subsidize most of the total tax revenue. I believe the ratio is the 1% pay about 50% of total tax revenue.

You're just in error:
A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.

Yes, the tax RATE should be progressive, based on what I'm suggesting, when you factor in gains. Nothing illogical about it, it actually matches the definition of a progressive tax.
Again, why? Because capitalists enjoy relatively few limitations on their power/freedoms in the marketplace. Few unions, few workers rights (see Europe), relatively few regulations...we compensate that by letting the successful ones re-invest back in the economy via taxes.

I am sorry you have little sympathy for the reality 1/100 hardworking high skilled Americans face, but where we diverge is not a matter of sympathy its a matter of economic opportunity.

Sorry, you're wrong in every meaningful way. First, I'm in that group, and I did it with small businesses, and I know first hand how big corporation lobbyists get regulation exemptions for themselves, leaving small business to fend for itself...win/win for them, less competition and less regulation. And healthcare is just as bad for small business compared to big business.

But we're talking progressive tax rates. And you should know that small business is taxed on its profits. If you reinvest into jobs or business growth, that's not taxed...it has no significant effect on that growth, if anything perhaps it's incentive to keep it invested and not taken out as profit for a small business.

Furthermore, why would I suggest higher taxes on someone making $200K-$400K? They probably pay a high tax rate already (close to 39% on the last bracket). There is a HUGE range of people beyond that, in the $1M, $10M, $100M ranges of "income", that don't even pay 39% due to gains, they pay maybe 20%. This will only help the have-nots, and small business, who will all have access to either lower tax rates or better education/healthcare/retirement income. The OPPOSITE of what you claim.

The ultra rich don’t simply hold all the wealth and set all the rules because there are competing powers and new upstarts all the time.

Sure, they have 99% of the cards, they don't hold them all. Really important caveat you have there.

Person A inherits $100,000,000 from mommy and daddy and makes 10% off his holdings: taxed on $10,000,000
Person B inherits $10,000,000 from mommy and daddy and makes 1100% off his holdings: taxed on $100,000,000
Who does it impact more? Who does it benefit?

So you think a wealth tax is good to have too? I didn't think you'd go there, I figured an actual progressive income tax would have been the middle ground.

I see this as the questions of what the two direction lead to down the line:
- Getting more or staying punitive on the highest tax brackets (it has short term advantages)
- We lower the burden overall

No, progressive taxes is what I'm suggesting.
And "punitive" is a pejorative that has no place here. LIFE is punitive, it will kill you, alone, in a relatively short amount of time. Taxes on the wealthy in a society that allows the wealthy to build enormous personal wealth with few regulations, is good for society, not punitive.

democratic raising taxes to throw more money

You're stuck in partisan land. Raising and lowering taxes has no relevance to good/bad, it's how, how much, why, and what it's used for, that would determine a "reasonable" way to label it as good or bad.
And yes, the system is broken, we have few unions, near unbridled economic freedom, and instead of actually paying progressive tax rates to compensate, we have regressive taxes for the ultra-wealthy, compounded by their lopsided influence on government. As seen in the current Republican health care backroom dealings with lobbyists, excluding the public, just as a matter of current events. (it happens all the time). Big energy too, they are always one of the first at the feed trough.

 

[KLATTU]

I cle

You're stuck in partisan land. Raising and lowering taxes has no relevance to good/bad, it's how, how much, why, and what it's used for, that would determine a "reasonable" way to label it as good or bad.
Ah.

Yes. Precisely. Exactly.

Just as one example. A) tax rate is 70% and is cut to 60%
B) tax rate is 40% and is raised to 50%

Which would you prefer -the tax cut or the tax increase?

 

[Henrin]

And "punitive" is a pejorative that has no place here. LIFE is punitive, it will kill you, alone, in a relatively short amount of time. Taxes on the wealthy in a society that allows the wealthy to build enormous personal wealth with few regulations, is good for society, not punitive.

There is over a million regulations. Care to me how that is a "few" regulations? When exactly do you start calling the country heavily regulated? Does the country need a billion regulations before you say, wow, that is a lot of regulations?

 

[FieldTheorist]

The money is the property of the rich.

No it isn't. Try arguing that money you owe in taxes is your property and therefore something you give away at your own discretion to the government. My personal advice is that if you don't like jail, I don't advise it.

The government isn't giving away money to the rich.

By definition it is. If the government gets X amount of tax dollars this year, and then decides to give Y of it back to rich which they were under no obligation to do, they are by the very basic rules of English "giving away money to the rich." That's literally what the linguistic definition of "giving away" means.

The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Yes, institutions require capital to continue functioning. The nice thing about living in civilization is that a set of institutions have already been formed which make your life and the lives of people around you better, which includes public institutions (the government) that you pay into in order to be a part of this society. And you aren't forced to pay any of this money. You can renounce your citizenship and never pay a single tax again.

Oh, you're never going to do that? Is that because you actually personally enjoy these institutions which directly lead to functioning economies and industries (including the jobs you've presumably had), access to consumer goods from these markets, safety and shelter provided by these institutions, and so forth? Oh, yeah, that's right. You want all of the things that society pays for, you just don't want to pay for it yourself. Yeah, there's a name for that.


PS: What I love about right-wing libertarians is that they're totally okay with private institutions issuing brutally totalitarian decrees and having totally unaccountable command structures, but the democratically elected government that at least nominally has public consent... That's the most horrible of all institutions. Yeah, whatever, man. Your philosophy is just so clever.

 

[Mach]

There is over a million regulations. Care to me how that is a "few" regulations? When exactly do you start calling the country heavily regulated? Does the country need a billion regulations before you say, wow, that is a lot of regulations?

Henrin, the complexity of reality I think is beyond your comfort level. In any given industry, if you intend to run a business, you have to be aware of some. And you pareto them, there are important ones, and ones that are "largely taken care of and not risky".
The regulations grow in number and significance as your good/service grows in potential harm to society. So if you intend to release a new drug that could kill millions of people, yes Henrin, you'll need to jump through a lot of hoops before you get approval.

If you plan on starting a typical small business, it's simply not that burdensome. And if health care is taken off small business's plate with a flat insurance tax, it will be even less of a burden.

 

[fmw]

You must be confused. Why would the politicians not pass the full plan? Your argument that republicans are incompetent isn't a valid defense- do you understand why?

I didn't say republicans are incompetent. I said politicians are bad financial managers.

Ah- no rich people in Africa! That's what you think the problem is? That could be the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

An insult is not an effective debate tactic.

 

[Henrin]

Henrin, the complexity of reality I think is beyond your comfort level. In any given industry, if you intend to run a business, you have to be aware of some. And you pareto them, there are important ones, and ones that are "largely taken care of and not risky".
The regulations grow in number and significance as your good/service grows in potential harm to society. So if you intend to release a new drug that could kill millions of people, yes Henrin, you'll need to jump through a lot of hoops before you get approval.

If you plan on starting a typical small business, it's simply not that burdensome. And if health care is taken off small business's plate with a flat insurance tax, it will be even less of a burden.

So do you think a million regulations is a lot or what?

 

[Mach]

So do you think a million regulations is a lot or what?

In a million different areas of interest? No, it would be 1:1. I can keep track of one thing, can you?
The divisor is what matters, and we're talking about the regulations of the largest economy in the known universe. If that scale is too big for you, stick to small stuff Henrin.

 

[Henrin]

In a million different areas of interest? No, it would be 1:1. I can keep track of one thing, can you?
The divisor is what matters, and we're talking about the regulations of the largest economy in the known universe. If that scale is too big for you, stick to small stuff Henrin.

So what do you use to support your argument that the economy has few regulations? The word "few" speaks towards the number of regulations and I doubt anyone would call a million "a few".

 

[Conaeolos]

I clearly stated capital gains. And yes, between capital gains and higher income tax brackets, people who earned more, would pay more in taxes. It might even get to where it's actually a progressive tax…

Okay…let me clarify here what you are saying:
So your issue is that income from capital gains which is already taxed by corporate tax first should be more tied to a progressive rate? If so, how did you personally structure your small business that such a change would not result in a very high rate of taxation on you when you add the corporate tax to the captain gains tax?

Yes, the tax RATE should be progressive, based on what I'm suggesting, when you factor in gains. Nothing illogical about it, it actually matches the definition of a progressive tax.
Again, why? Because capitalists enjoy relatively few limitations on their power/freedoms in the marketplace. Few unions, few workers rights (see Europe), relatively few regulations...we compensate that by letting the successful ones re-invest back in the economy via taxes.

Umm, yes my argument is against your suggestion that the principles of progressive taxation justifies increases or keeping current tax rates are better compared to tax cuts. So it is illogical in arguing tax paid in terms of a rate alone (since I have not agreed progressive is best) as even smaller rates still pull in significantly more total tax revenue even without a progressive rate. I am aware of what you mean when you say progressive taxation. I don’t think the concept doesn’t have it place in good taxation policy but it is not a means to justify tax increases or further prevent tax reductions in and of itself.

Okay, investment in the economy is investment in the economy. Taxes are for the regulation of state services which yes can impact the economy but that is very different from investment there in. So no I do not accept the premise “taxes are just a re-investment back into the economy”. What if our government decided it wanted to hand out huge portions of it money in foreign aid…is that reinvestment? What about if its massive debt had interest payment to foreign governments? What about a war?

I agree that our current government maintains a pretty good infrastructure and social cohesion that requires tax revenues and that those with the most benefits (top 1%) are the ones with the means and opportunity to pay significantly toward its maintenance. I do not accept however the idea that just because they have the means gives the state the right to acquire huge swaths of those resources. The government must be held accountable for its spending and I suggest it one way to do that is to starve the money waste out by not taxing over a certain percentage. Yes you'll probably have to levy to kill some debts created by shortfall but debt can be handled a heck of a lot easier then consecutive public deficits solved with increased taxation which lowers you ability to levy and does not stave out the money waste.

you should know that small business is taxed on its profits. If you reinvest into jobs or business growth, that's not taxed...it has no significant effect on that growth, if anything perhaps it's incentive to keep it invested and not taken out as profit for a small business.

Okay fair but you must also know one may want to extract that into new ventures as the cash cows of today are the losers of tomorrow. Why the penalty there? What about if you have a medical problem and need huge amount of your capital?

There is a HUGE range of people beyond that, in the $1M, $10M, $100M ranges of "income", that don't even pay 39% due to gains, they pay maybe 20%.

Maybe because we are talking about a ridiculous amount of tax revenue even at 20%.

This will only help the have-nots, and small business, who will all have access to either lower tax rates or better education/healthcare/retirement income.

Because it simply not true…you know what helps workers: jobs. Small business: customers. You know what causes lower tax rates: thrifty governments.

If you think it stops with big boys - you haven't looked at the numbers.

 

[Conaeolos]

Sure, they have 99% of the cards, they don't hold them all. Really important caveat you have there.

Give it time. Democracy can easily fall if the freedoms that allow it are not maintained.

So you think a wealth tax is good to have too?

The point was to show the ultra-rich aren’t not the one pushing lower taxes — they are indifferent and benefit both ways: an attack on the 1% is an attack on new money and economic mobility not the ultra-rich.

Taxes on the wealthy in a society that allows the wealthy to build enormous personal wealth with few regulations, is good for society, not punitive.

Horse feathers. Obsessive taxes on the wealthy concentrates power within the strata of that wealth.

Raising and lowering taxes has no relevance to good/bad, it's how, how much, why, and what it's used for, that would determine a "reasonable" way to label it as good or bad.

And my sentiment that at this time the democrats plan is to throw new tax revenue at a broken health plan that basically wastes those dollars is in that vein.

Show me a viable health plan - I’ll review your new taxes…except you know there is no room for them, as we are massively overspending already and there has to be huge cuts all around that need to happen first as even if we got to budget we are still massively overtaxed as past governments shifted the bill to the future. If we levied the rich or sold national assets today we could easily kill 20 trillion in debt. Continue this inability to address overspending and overtaxing though you breed a future where we can't.

 

[Henrin]

No it isn't. Try arguing that money you owe in taxes is your property and therefore something you give away at your own discretion to the government. My personal advice is that if you don't like jail, I don't advise it.

Yes, it is. The government steals the money, so naturally they have no claims to it.

By definition it is. If the government gets X amount of tax dollars this year, and then decides to give Y of it back to rich which they were under no obligation to do, they are by the very basic rules of English "giving away money to the rich." That's literally what the linguistic definition of "giving away" means.

It is never the governments money. The government doesn't have property claims to what they stole.

Yes, institutions require capital to continue functioning. The nice thing about living in civilization is that a set of institutions have already been formed which make your life and the lives of people around you better, which includes public institutions (the government) that you pay into in order to be a part of this society. And you aren't forced to pay any of this money. You can renounce your citizenship and never pay a single tax again.

And I never consented to the institution so their concern over capital is of no concern of mine. Regardless however, a just institution doesn't force payment on services people didn't ask for. And I don't pay the government to part of society. In fact, I don't pay anyone to be part of society since I'm part of society by default.

Oh, you're never going to do that? Is that because you actually personally enjoy these institutions which directly lead to functioning economies and industries (including the jobs you've presumably had), access to consumer goods from these markets, safety and shelter provided by these institutions, and so forth? Oh, yeah, that's right. You want all of the things that society pays for, you just don't want to pay for it yourself. Yeah, there's a name for that.

No, because the government wouldn't back off on anything if I did. It would be one thing if they would in fact treat me like a separate entity if I renounced, but they won't, so it's not worth the effort.

PS: What I love about right-wing libertarians is that they're totally okay with private institutions issuing brutally totalitarian decrees and having totally unaccountable command structures, but the democratically elected government that at least nominally has public consent... That's the most horrible of all institutions. Yeah, whatever, man. Your philosophy is just so clever.

The government is accountable to someone then? Who is the government accountable too? Oh right, the government is accountable to the government. Several unaccountable entities v. one. That's some hard choices you offer.

 

[Mach]

So what do you use to support your argument that the economy has few regulations? The word "few" speaks towards the number of regulations and I doubt anyone would call a million "a few".

Experience and data, what are you using? Be specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index
United States Economy: Population, GDP, Unemployment, Inflation, Spending

 

[Mach]

The point was to show the ultra-rich aren’t not the one pushing lower taxes — they are indifferent and benefit both ways: an attack on the 1% is an attack on new money and economic mobility not the ultra-rich.

Who is pushing for Trump, a billionaire, with a cabinet of billionaires, to suggest his tax proposal that cuts the taxes on the wealthy in at least 4-5 ways (income, cap gains, estate, corporate, etc.)?
Maybe the poor people in his cabinet are hiding behind the scenes making them do it!? You're too much!

And my sentiment that at this time the democrats plan is to throw new tax revenue at a broken health plan that basically wastes those dollars is in that vein.

Oh, those evil democrats, they are gonna make establish a real progressive tax for the ultra-rich....they must be stopped!!

Show me a viable health plan - I’ll review your new taxes…except you know there is no room for them.

Sure, sure, there is no room in that 22% effective Tax rate the ultra-wealthy, who have nearly all the wealthy in the entire nation...to pay more. No room at all, nothing to see here people. 40% is the top "bracket", why can't the pay 40% effectively? Crazy I know...

 

[iguanaman]

Oh. So it's really just about hating and getting revenge against people who disagree with us. When you present it as an honest choice between whether or not one wishes to take part in the social governing contract, you don't actually mean it.

Okay.




It's not. Words have meaning and those are important.



It is not what happened. The Very Poor are on Medicaid. The GOP shifted the current subsidy system to a tax credit based system, which has the result of giving some people more in benefits and some people less in benefits than what they received under the earlier program. In that way, it is very similar to Obamacare itself, which resulted in some people paying less for healthcare, and others paying far more, and still others not having access at all.



That is correct. Taxation is coercive and extractive in nature, but it is required for governance. Coercing people and taking less from them is generally a good thing, except when it comes at a greater cost (for example, the inability to provide basic security from invasion or theft). Generally these are tragedies of the commons.



:shrug: the "20 million kicked off Medicaid" is a myth. The CBO didn't say 20 million people would be kicked off Medicaid. It said that it magic alternative universe land, in the future, more states than have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare would expand Medicaid under Obamacare, and that the result of the freeze in the expansion is that 20 million people less are pushed onto Medicaid's rolls. No one is "kicked off". Others simply don't join, because their states haven't expanded it.

LOL So you don't think that cutting $800 Billion in Federal aid to the States from Medicaid will result in anybody being kicked off? Who is going to make up that difference? Certainly not the States.

 

[Henrin]

Experience and data, what are you using? Be specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index

That's just a comparison between countries of something I didn't even ask for.

United States Economy: Population, GDP, Unemployment, Inflation, Spending

Another useless comparison between countries and not what I asked for.

 

[Mach]

Yes, it is. The government steals the money, so naturally they have no claims to it.

Then by that reasoning, the capitalist steals the labor from the workers.

The reality is, that they legally have a right to it.
Just as you legally have a right to strong-arm employees into low wages, fire anyone mentioning organizing, etc., because you hold all the negotiating power.