The government always picks winners and losers

[Dans La Lune]

I was debating with a hilariously deluded person who said that he is not a beneficiary of Trumpism because he disagrees with Trump using the fed to pick winners and losers.

The government always picks winners and losers, and in a society where corporate influence is pervasive in government and in a corrupt political system (with bribery being legal), these winners are almost exclusively corporations. The winners are never the average citizen, unless you believe that winning is receiving the 'trickle down' of enormous wealth accruing within the top 1%.

In short:

- Government is foundational to modern society.

- Money is a function of government.

- Money is how power is allocated in the current model of society.

- Taxation is how power is distributed by the government.

Thus:

- The top 1% of the population owning 32% of the wealth in America is by design, in a government that is heavily influenced by corporations.

The question really isn't big government, versus small government, versus no government. The question is do you want a government for the rich, where power is allocated to the top 1% of the population, or a government that represents the middle class, and tries to provide a path to the middle class for the poor. Not communism, not even socialism. Just a functioning democracy where the people (not money) decides where power is allocated.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was debating with a hilariously deluded person who said that he is not a beneficiary of Trumpism because he disagrees with Trump using the fed to pick winners and losers.

The government always picks winners and losers, and in a society where corporate influence is pervasive in government and in a corrupt political system (with bribery being legal), these winners are almost exclusively corporations. The winners are never the average citizen, unless you believe that winning is receiving the 'trickle down' of enormous wealth accruing within the top 1%.

In short:

- Government is foundational to modern society.

- Money is a function of government.

- Money is how power is allocated in the current model of society.

- Taxation is how power is distributed by the government.

Thus:

- The top 1% of the population owning 32% of the wealth in America is by design, in a government that is heavily influenced by corporations.

The question really isn't big government, versus small government, versus no government. The question is do you want a government for the rich, where power is allocated to the top 1% of the population, or a government that represents the middle class, and tries to provide a path to the middle class for the poor. Not communism, not even socialism. Just a functioning democracy where the people (not money) decides where power is allocated.

Hmm… how would government power be allocated and/or distributed without (tax) money?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Hmm… how would government power be allocated and/or distributed without (tax) money?

I don't understand the question. You'll need to expand.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Hmm… how would government power be allocated and/or distributed without (tax) money?

I've read some pretty wacky proposals. For example, banning all monetary donations and lobbying, but each citizen gets, say, 50 Freedom Bux they can distribute to any political cause or candidate they want which translates to real money for that candidate/cause. I see a few issues with such a system but that's one example I've heard.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't understand the question. You'll need to expand.

I had bolded the relevant parts of your OP. Perhaps, I did not understand your proposed changes to tax (power allocation and distribution) policy.

 

[element94]

We don't need to be attacking the government. We need to attack the individuals using the government solely for their own nefarious gain to the detriment of the rest. We also need to attack those in government helping anyone from outside doing the same thing. It's much easier to be successful in a mano-a-mano situation versus attacking an institution.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I had bolded the relevant parts of your OP. Perhaps, I did not understand your proposed changes to tax (power allocation and distribution) policy.

Still not sure what your question is. Corporations are using their power to coopt democracy. Bribery is legal. This is not a theory.

I'm not proposing a change in the tax system in this post. I'm saying the government always picks winners and losers. Either the people win or corporations win. It is a zero sum game, as the people reclaiming power means that corporations must lose power. There is a balance to be had, and that balance is to be determined by the people, not the modern day pharaohs.

Currently the corporations are writing the rules due to their influence (stranglehold) on government and the political system.

How did it get this way? The conservative movement made it their agenda since the 1970s to turn government power over to corporations. Beyond abortion, beyond LGBTQ discrimination, this has been the primary goal of the conservative movement. The conservative SCOTUS judges are first and foremost corporate tools.

Whenever a conservative or libertarian say they want less government, less regulation; what they mean is that they more corporate control, with more benefits, resources and power flowing to an increasing minority of the population.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Still not sure what your question is. Corporations are using their power to coopt democracy. Bribery is legal. This is not a theory.

I'm not proposing a change in the tax system in this post. I'm saying the government always picks winners and losers. Either the people win or corporations win. It is a zero sum game, as the people reclaiming power means that corporations must lose power. There is a balance to be had, and that balance is to be determined by the people, not the modern day pharaohs.

Currently the corporations are writing the rules due to their influence (stranglehold) on government and the political system.

How did it get this way? The conservative movement made it their agenda since the 1970s to turn government power over to corporations. Beyond abortion, beyond LGBTQ discrimination, this has been the primary goal of the conservative movement. The conservative SCOTUS judges are first and foremost corporate tools.

Whenever a conservative or libertarian say they want less government, less regulation; what they mean is that they more corporate control, with more benefits, resources and power flowing to an increasing minority of the population.

I agree that the donor class (not limited to corporations) has acquired a great deal of power. However, that power to corrupt does not exist in a vacuum - it requires the active participation of elected officials.

The electorate bears most of the blame as they refuse to either remove these corrupt politicians during the primary election or dare to vote for a candidate from the *gasp* ‘wrong’ political party in the general election.

The last that I read, all but about 41 of our 435 US House members are in ‘safe’ congressional districts - meaning that (typically) over 90% of them will get re-elected should they seek another term. Since this pay to play scheme to get ‘special’ legislative treatment is a bipartisan practice, it is likely to remain ‘business as usual’ and/or get worse so long as the electorate allows it to continue.

 

[Elmo]

I agree that the donor class (not limited to corporations) has acquired a great deal of power. However, that power to corrupt does not exist in a vacuum - it requires the active participation of elected officials.

The electorate bears most of the blame as they refuse to either remove these corrupt politicians during the primary election or dare to vote for a candidate from the *gasp* ‘wrong’ political party in the general election.

The last that I read, all but about 41 of our 435 US House members are in ‘safe’ congressional districts - meaning that (typically) over 90% of them will get re-elected should they seek another term. Since this pay to play scheme to get ‘special’ legislative treatment is a bipartisan practice, it is likely to remain ‘business as usual’ and/or get worse so long as the electorate allows it to continue.

I agree with most of that, but I think it oversimplifies things to blame the electorate so much. Much of the corruption that has already taken place actively impedes the electorate's ABILITY to fix things. Just one example: gerrymandering from both sides allows the corrupt politicians to pick their voters, which is directly taking power away from the electorate.

Obviously voters still have a lot of responsibility, but our ability to change things is slowly being eroded. Eventually we'll fall off a cliff and lose it completely.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree with most of that, but I think it oversimplifies things to blame the electorate so much. Much of the corruption that has already taken place actively impedes the electorate's ABILITY to fix things. Just one example: gerrymandering from both sides allows the corrupt politicians to pick their voters, which is directly taking power away from the electorate.

Obviously voters still have a lot of responsibility, but our ability to change things is slowly being eroded. Eventually we'll fall off a cliff and lose it completely.

I disagree that gerrymandering is the key. IMHO, the key is in convincing the electorate that the other party is evil - meanwhile the bipartisan effort (agreement?) to increase federal government power (along with crony capitalism) and the myth that we can borrow our (and/or print) way to prosperity continues. After all, if (when?) Austerity Day comes the rich and powerful can simply move to greener pastures.

 

[Elmo]

I disagree that gerrymandering is the key. IMHO, the key is in convincing the electorate that the other party is evil

I didn't really mean to imply that gerrymandering is key. More like one of many examples of the power of the electorate being eroded. My point is that if such trends continue far enough, it won't matter what the electorate is convinced of. The (legal) tools available to us will be too weak to make any practical change. The violent radicals on both sides probably think we've already reached this point, which is how they justify their violence. I disagree with them, but they won't be wrong forever...

meanwhile the bipartisan effort (agreement?) to increase federal government power (along with crony capitalism) and the myth that we can borrow our (and/or print) way to prosperity continues. After all, if (when?) Austerity Day comes the rich and powerful can simply move to greener pastures.

I disagree with your characterization of federal government power and crony capitalism as being in the same category. I think there's a common conservative notion that hamstringing the federal government at every opportunity is the path to freedom. But that ignores that corporate oppression will very quickly fill in any gap left by a weak government. There has to be a balance with government strong enough to reign in the worst abuses.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I didn't really mean to imply that gerrymandering is key. More like one of many examples of the power of the electorate being eroded. My point is that if such trends continue far enough, it won't matter what the electorate is convinced of. The tools available to us will be too weak to make any practical change.


I disagree with your characterization of federal government power and crony capitalism as being in the same category. I think there's a common conservative notion that hamstringing the federal government at every opportunity is the path to freedom. But that ignores that corporate oppression will very quickly fill in any gap left by a weak government. There has to be a balance with government strong enough to reign in the worst abuses.

I guess we just see things differently. For example, many see the continuous expansion of federal “safety net” (and other income redistribution) programs as helping the common and/or less wealthy people. I see those programs as simply reducing the pressure on ‘job creators’ to raise wages and/or ‘fringe’ benefits - after all, whatever is paid for (or made unnecessary by) these “free” federal benefit programs decreases the demand for higher wages.

That also applies to the concept of itemized federal income tax (FIT) deductions. An identical $10K itemized FIT deduction amount gets someone in the 15% FIT bracket a $1.5K federal subsidy, yet gets someone in the 35% FIT bracket a $3.5K federal subsidy.

The lame idea to raise the SALT FIT deduction cap from $10K to $80K is also a tax break for “the rich”. Assuming a 10% (of gross annual income) SALT burden, that would help only those who make more than $100K/year and up to $800K/year - as well as the previously noted anomaly where an identical FIT itemized deduction amount get’s a far greater federal subsidy as one’s annual income (thus their top marginal FIT rate) rises.

 

[Elmo]

I guess we just see things differently. For example, many see the continuous expansion of federal “safety net” (and other income redistribution) programs as helping the common and/or less wealthy people. I see those programs as simply reducing the pressure on ‘job creators’ to raise wages and/or ‘fringe’ benefits - after all, whatever is paid for (or made unnecessary by) these “free” federal benefit programs decreases the demand for higher wages.

Yeah, we definitely see things differently. I don't think the existence of a "safety net" has a very large impact on wages. Wal-Mart might pay slightly more out of necessity if the safety net didn't exist, but I'm pretty confident their workers would be worse off overall. I base this on the fact that historically large corporations were very good at forcing workers to put up with terrible conditions. Especially before safety nets.

That also applies to the concept of itemized federal income tax (FIT) deductions. An identical $10K itemized FIT deduction amount gets someone in the 15% FIT bracket a $1.5K federal subsidy, yet gets someone in the 35% FIT bracket a $3.5K federal subsidy.

The lame idea to raise the SALT FIT deduction cap from $10K to $80K is also a tax break for “the rich”. Assuming a 10% (of gross annual income) SALT burden, that would help only those who make more than $100K/year and up to $800K/year - as well as the previously noted anomaly where an identical FIT itemized deduction amount get’s a far greater federal subsidy as one’s annual income (thus their top marginal FIT rate) rises.

Yeah, there's lots of stupidity in the tax code. Sorry to sort of dismiss this conversation, but these are obviously very complicated topics and I don't really have time to do them justice right now