Trump Seeks Tax Hike on Wealthy Earning $2.5 Million or More

[dobieg]

Of course this was just another con job by Trump to appeal to his base.

He floats the popular idea of increasing taxes on the wealthy publicly. Then when he is twisting arms and threatening holdouts to get House Republicans to do what he actually wants the result is nowhere to be seen, nor is he complaining about it.

The result is just the same as always take from the poor and give to the rich like Trump, Musk and their buddies.

If Trump really wanted a tax increase on the wealthy that’s what we would have.

*shrug*

Can't really argue with that.

 

[Variant]

If Trump really wanted a tax increase on the wealthy that’s what we would have.

If Trump wanted that Republicans probably would stand up to him.

 

[George50]

If Trump wanted that Republicans probably would stand up to him.

You might be right since tax reductions are a big part of what Republican’s wealthy donors are paying for. Regardless of that Trump saying he wants to increase tax rates for the wealthy is just another con.

 

[craig]

You might be right since tax reductions are a big part of what Republican’s wealthy donors are paying for. Regardless of that Trump saying he wants to increase tax rates for the wealthy is just another con.

It is what demagogues always do. They promise bread but just give you a circus.

 

[justoneman]

you're agreeing with that stupid post? lol

No I am agreeing with his accurate post.

 

[Greenbeard]

No I am agreeing with his accurate post.

The taxing-the-rich thing was fake. Trump's bill very much didn't do that.

 

[eohrnberger]

No one earns their wealth these days. No one. Not you. Not me. Not anybody.
. . .

Sorry, but there's no agreement from me on this point.

. . .
Societies earn wealth. Individuals do not.

I think you are wrong on this point, and I don't think you are accurate here.

I was talking about you and people who think like you. You do not know or understand what freedom is and what earning is. You work, no doubt. But that is not the same thing.

Still more disagreement.

No one is confiscating anything. If no one earns their wealth, then by definition, it cannot be confiscation. Societies generate and earn wealth; societies have the first claim on it. Individuals after that.

Then, clearly, we are not working with a common set of definitions for these words.

Well...I wouldn't do such a thing (i.e. grant myself loopholes). But perhaps I'm a rarity,

Any help he had is, in this way of thinking, adequately and fully compensated by whatever contract he had with those helpers. If that's true, he should be able to build exactly the same wealth in any social context--but clearly, he could not do so. Ergo, the conservative counterpoint is false and Obama was correct--Musk did not build that himself. Society built it; he benefits from it. That's the problem.

In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't. See undue credit statement above.

I'm sure you don't, but you're just wrong, as you should realize by the fact that you have no substantive reply--"don't want to" doesn't qualify as substantive.

Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.

Once again, the "life isn't fair" response...see previous replies. Anyway, I'm after far more than drafting legislation. The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought. That's nothing that's going to happen in my lifetime. My old boss example is just one drawn from my own life that illustrates the issue with the current regimes of conception.

You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.

. . .
That doesn't explain what you mean, so I'll ask again. When you're talking about government power, do you mean power within laws or outside of laws? If outside, then any government already meets that definition, so it's hard to figure out what your complaint could be. If within laws, then your claim is obviously false. Laws can be written that give government the power to give but not the power to take.

See needing to govern the least prior.

Not if you change how money works at the most fundamental level.

Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."

There wouldn't be anything to hide.

'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.

 

[eohrnberger]

When you say "managed," it sounds like you're agreeing with my view but just insisting on name changes. What is different about managed capitalism as compared to a mixed economy?

The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.
See needing to govern the least prior.

As one would expect, since happiness is subjective. This would be another of those issues that is at the heart of Western civilization but that really needs a re-think. Merely because something is objective (which term loses a lot of clarity the more you think about it--you should read Thomas Nagel's book The View from Nowhere on this topic. It's a real eye-opener, and Nagel is a fantastically clear writer) doesn't mean it is somehow not real. Happiness is subjective, but it's also vastly important, and quite real. Psychologists and sociologists have developed ways to measure it.

Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?

Sure--most legislation these days, and for a long time, is written by center-right folks, which is as close to the political/economic left that we tend to get in this country right now, and of course, such legislation won't do much good and will just lead to unintended consequences.

LOL. Nice try at flipping the script, but I don't believe your assertion that "most legislation" "is written by center-right folks". I think it closer to reality that the entrenched, unidentified, unaccountable politically left leaning regulators are the ones writing the legislation, for all real and practical purposes.

though progressives generally strike me as fairly principled people

LOL. That's a laugh.
The same people who proffered 'Defund the police', No Cash bail, progressive DAs releasing violent criminals to continue their crimes, these people as fairly principled'?
I think not.

who have interest in money only to the extent it is necessary to survive. If I were suddenly given a huge fortune, I'd give most of it away. I have before.

Well good on you, I suppose.

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant.

It is an example of when progressives gain political power, and what they do with that political power.
Now, this isn't limited to any single political faction on the spectrum, but we are discussing progressives.
That said, it appears that progressives are the most prone to using their political power in this way.

There were essentially no regulations on industry from the 1850s through about 1932--what did exist in that realm was basically local zoning laws, and even those were few and far between. Once industry became regulated and we built social safety nets, then we had a mixed economy, and it is at that point that your statistics start showing people coming out of poverty.

No one is purporting to go back to no regulations on industry such as the time frame you are citing.
It is clear that a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. It is further clear that everyone has their own opinions on where this balance point is in the spectrum. Some are far more left leaning, and other are far more right leaning.

I'll further add that the government which is required to govern the least, governs the best. Government regulations should be concise, clear, inexpensive and easy to comply with and demonstrate compliance with. I'd further add that if there are fringe cases, of which there will always be, that rather than to address the few fringe cases, regulations should leave well enough alone.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's not an opinion. My view is demonstrable. See experiment proposed in previous post. Or try another one: I'm sure you recall the "you didn't build that" furor from a decade and a half ago--a remark made by Obama. His point was that any business owner had massive help from society that is unrecognized in our current economic scheme. The counterpoint came soon enough: lots of business owners came along and said "hell yes, we did build that"--the claim being that they built what they have all on their own. Did they? I don't think so. Pick any successful business person you like, and radically change the social context, and see what happens. Take someone like Elon Musk, rewind the clock on him so that he's, say, 15 years old, and plop him down in the middle of 8th century Italy. Let the clock run. Does he build the same fortune again? Does he build electric vehicles and 400 billion dollars worth of wealth and private airplanes and other such stuff for himself?

Obama's dismissing of the individual’s role in navigating challenges, taking risks, and creating value. For example, a business owner who invests personal savings, works long hours, and innovates to meet market demands is the primary driver of their success. While infrastructure like roads or public education (funded by taxes, including those paid by businesses) provides a foundation, it is the individual’s initiative that transforms these resources into a successful enterprise. Obama’s comment inverts this relationship, giving undue credit to government.

Obviously not. But why not--he should be able to, if the conservative claim is correct. That claim, again, was that someone like Elon Musk built his wealth all by himself.

Shifting goal posts. I never took the position that 'Musk built his wealth all by himself'. This is a unrealistic position that you've assigned to me, one which I haven't taken.

Any help he had is, in this way of thinking, adequately and fully compensated by whatever contract he had with those helpers. If that's true, he should be able to build exactly the same wealth in any social context--but clearly, he could not do so. Ergo, the conservative counterpoint is false and Obama was correct--Musk did not build that himself. Society built it; he benefits from it. That's the problem.

In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't. See undue credit statement above.

I'm sure you don't, but you're just wrong, as you should realize by the fact that you have no substantive reply--"don't want to" doesn't qualify as substantive.

Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.

Once again, the "life isn't fair" response...see previous replies. Anyway, I'm after far more than drafting legislation. The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought. That's nothing that's going to happen in my lifetime. My old boss example is just one drawn from my own life that illustrates the issue with the current regimes of conception.

You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.

That you are free to think these things doesn't mean that you are in the least correct or accurate about them.

. . .
That doesn't explain what you mean, so I'll ask again. When you're talking about government power, do you mean power within laws or outside of laws? If outside, then any government already meets that definition, so it's hard to figure out what your complaint could be. If within laws, then your claim is obviously false. Laws can be written that give government the power to give but not the power to take.

See needing to govern the least prior.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not if you change how money works at the most fundamental level.

Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."

There wouldn't be anything to hide.

'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.

When you say "managed," it sounds like you're agreeing with my view but just insisting on name changes. What is different about managed capitalism as compared to a mixed economy?

The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.
See needing to govern the least prior.

As one would expect, since happiness is subjective. This would be another of those issues that is at the heart of Western civilization but that really needs a re-think. Merely because something is objective (which term loses a lot of clarity the more you think about it--you should read Thomas Nagel's book The View from Nowhere on this topic. It's a real eye-opener, and Nagel is a fantastically clear writer) doesn't mean it is somehow not real. Happiness is subjective, but it's also vastly important, and quite real. Psychologists and sociologists have developed ways to measure it.

Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?

Sure--most legislation these days, and for a long time, is written by center-right folks, which is as close to the political/economic left that we tend to get in this country right now, and of course, such legislation won't do much good and will just lead to unintended consequences.

LOL. Nice try at flipping the script, but I don't believe your assertion that "most legislation" "is written by center-right folks". I think it closer to reality that the entrenched, unidentified, unaccountable regulators are the ones writing the legislation, for all real and practical purposes.

 

[ashurbanipal]

In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't.

Actually, no. I don't make that mistake. It is possible for government to not represent society--our own government is a prime example. Since I'm pursuing a complete re-thinking of the very foundations of Western civilization, there's every reason to rethink how to constitute a government and how to ensure that it will represent society better. I get the impression you think I'm talking about doing a few things different here or there--passing a law that reworks how employment works, or institutes UBI, or some such, on top of our existing framework. That's not going to work.

Our system is doomed. It'll take a while to fully unravel, but history is clear on this point. What we're seeing today has happened, in various guises, numerous times over the last (roughly) 3500 years. I'm working on the principles that will (hopefully) come after, when it is time to pick ourselves back up from the ashes.

That said, of course, we could devote ourselves now to such principles (not necessarily mine, though I would put forward the ones I'm thinking over), and skip the death and terror step that has come after every glorious empire loses its power, possibly leading to a genuine renewal, but I don't think we will do that. We are too fragmented.

Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.

I don't recall you citing any examples. The last time progressives had power (in this country) was the 1940s, with a brief resurgence in the 1960s, though then it was rather diluted and mixed down.

You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.

Can you provide an example of bossing people about by a progressive that doesn't lead to an overall increase of freedom (i.e. by legislation--not by simple argument in the public space, which is and should be open to anyone. That is, not by, say, a progressive merely saying to someone "hey, you shouldn't do that, and here's why", but by writing and enforcing a law)? Progressives want to reign in the power of employers, for example, in order to increase the freedom of employees, who are far more numerous.

Actually, I'm not a fan of the proliferation of rules and laws that we have. If I were formulating a new Constitution, I'd first require that it be completely re-written every fifty years (or sooner if certain conditions are met) with the proviso that certain personal rights are never to be violated--that is, a core of rules that would resemble the Bill of Rights would be primary and never re-written, but everything else re-written every fifty years, though there would be an option for delegates to just continue what we had been doing. I'd also require that laws be reduced if it becomes the case that you need specialists in certain areas of law. If you need specialists of law, generally, that's fine--laws need to be roughly that complex and numerous. But if you need a specialist in, say, copyright law, and another in rules of evidence, and another in energy law, and so on, there are too many laws and too much complexity.

Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."

Yes, clearly...though money is more universal than western civilization.

'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.

No--I don't mean the phrase "nothing to hide" in the way that most people use it. I mean, literally, there would be nothing in existence in this context that could be hidden. Literally, the thing you're thinking of as people wanting to hide would not exist. It'd be like someone trying to hide a four-sided triangle--there's no such thing to hide in the first place.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.

Still not super-clear. The reforms of the 1940s were inspired by socialist reformers. If you manage capitalism from some central authority, that's a socialist modification--i.e. a mixed economy, one in which principles of capitalism and socialism are at work.

Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?

Plenty of academics are more "sleeves up" than you might think. I'm one. I work in the academy now, but have previously worked in a corporate career, and had my own successful consulting business before I gave it all up and decided to go into education.

Nice try at flipping the script, but I don't believe your assertion that "most legislation" "is written by center-right folks". I think it closer to reality that the entrenched, unidentified, unaccountable politically left leaning regulators are the ones writing the legislation, for all real and practical purposes.

Not really. See, e.g.:

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scroll down to the section on the United States (the subsection starts with "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement") and read away. Seems to be well-documented and fairly thorough.

The same people who proffered 'Defund the police', No Cash bail, progressive DAs releasing violent criminals to continue their crimes, these people as fairly principled'?

Most of those programs are not well understood. Defund the Police movement was, I grant, branded horribly. But the proponents of the program were not looking to disband police departments or some such--they were looking for reforms like sending trained social workers or psychologists out to deal with, say, autistic individuals who were having a moment, rather than police officers who lack the understanding to deal with such people. They were also after more community programs that would reduce the incidence of crime in the first place--and yes, the funding for such would come from police funding, but then, if there's less crime, we shouldn't need as many police officers. Similarly, if the police don't have to respond to incidents of mentally ill people causing some trouble, we shouldn't need as many officers.

Now, can you tell me that those specific ideas are bad ideas?

It is an example of when progressives gain political power, and what they do with that political power.

OK. I think you'll find most progressives did not support, and do not support, any administration using the IRS to go after a political opponent--though most progressives would also want to see the actual evidence that such is the case. As I understand it, both the FBI and the DOJ investigated and found that what happened was explained either by misunderstanding or institutional inertia.

Raising taxes on the wealthy absolutely is a progressive agenda item; I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a bad thing, though.

No one is purporting to go back to no regulations on industry such as the time frame you are citing.

Oh, I think there are quite a few who are. Lauren Boebert is on record wanting to completely do away with the EPA and the ATF. Peter Thiel regularly puts forward much more extreme deregulation proposals and rhetoric.

I'll further add that the government which is required to govern the least, governs the best. Government regulations should be concise, clear, inexpensive and easy to comply with and demonstrate compliance with. I'd further add that if there are fringe cases, of which there will always be, that rather than to address the few fringe cases, regulations should leave well enough alone.

It's not obvious that the government that governs least governs best. Thomas Jefferson thought so, but he doesn't make a good case for it. I would agree that governments that trample basic rights are bad governments. I also agree with what you say about fringe cases, but in an even more general way: we've become too dependent on the exact wording of laws, rather than people grasping the intent of those laws. We should re-think the procedures by which courts and regulatory agencies interpret laws in light of this problem.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Obama's dismissing of the individual’s role in navigating challenges, taking risks, and creating value. For example, a business owner who invests personal savings, works long hours, and innovates to meet market demands is the primary driver of their success. While infrastructure like roads or public education (funded by taxes, including those paid by businesses) provides a foundation, it is the individual’s initiative that transforms these resources into a successful enterprise. Obama’s comment inverts this relationship, giving undue credit to government.


Shifting goal posts. I never took the position that 'Musk built his wealth all by himself'. This is a unrealistic position that you've assigned to me, one which I haven't taken.


In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't. See undue credit statement above.


Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.


You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.

That you are free to think these things doesn't mean that you are in the least correct or accurate about them.


See needing to govern the least prior.

I'll have to respond to the other two of your posts (the one above included) tomorrow or Monday--I've got meetings the rest of today.

 

[eohrnberger]

Actually, no. I don't make that mistake. It is possible for government to not represent society--our own government is a prime example. Since I'm pursuing a complete re-thinking of the very foundations of Western civilization, there's every reason to rethink how to constitute a government and how to ensure that it will represent society better. I get the impression you think I'm talking about doing a few things different here or there--passing a law that reworks how employment works, or institutes UBI, or some such, on top of our existing framework. That's not going to work.

Do please proceed with your 'complete re-thinking of the very foundations of Western civilization', and see how many people you can con into supporting your progressive utopia. This has historically failed time and again, as you point out in your own post below (1940's, 1960's), with the claim that 'It wasn't progressive enough'.

Our system is doomed. It'll take a while to fully unravel, but history is clear on this point. What we're seeing today has happened, in various guises, numerous times over the last (roughly) 3500 years. I'm working on the principles that will (hopefully) come after, when it is time to pick ourselves back up from the ashes.

The ashes of Western civilization, if they occur, would be caused by progressivism, not saved by progressivism.

That said, of course, we could devote ourselves now to such principles (not necessarily mine, though I would put forward the ones I'm thinking over), and skip the death and terror step that has come after every glorious empire loses its power, possibly leading to a genuine renewal, but I don't think we will do that. We are too fragmented.

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't recall you citing any examples. The last time progressives had power (in this country) was the 1940s, with a brief resurgence in the 1960s, though then it was rather diluted and mixed down.

Can you provide an example of bossing people about by a progressive that doesn't lead to an overall increase of freedom (i.e. by legislation--not by simple argument in the public space, which is and should be open to anyone. That is, not by, say, a progressive merely saying to someone "hey, you shouldn't do that, and here's why", but by writing and enforcing a law)? Progressives want to reign in the power of employers, for example, in order to increase the freedom of employees, who are far more numerous.

So insular in your progressive thinking that you can't even imagine that this is the case?
Here, let me help you.

Green New Deal (H.Res. 109, 2019, Reintroduced 2021)​

Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Proposition Agenda (2024); The New Yorker (2021, “The Green New Deal’s Evolution”)​

Link: progressives.house.gov; www.newyorker.com​

“Bossing” Element: The proposal mandates sweeping changes to energy use, transportation, and infrastructure, requiring businesses and individuals to comply with strict emissions standards and retrofit mandates. For example, it calls for “upgrading all existing buildings” to meet energy efficiency standards, which critics argue imposes costly requirements on property owners. The Heritage Foundation (2021) estimates compliance costs at $10 trillion over a decade, with mandates limiting consumer choice (e.g., banning gas-powered vehicles).

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics

There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political...

www.heritage.org

Medicare for All Act (H.R. 1976, 2021, Reintroduced 2023)​

Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Promise (2022); NPR (2021, “More Democrats Embrace Progressive Label”),
Link: progressives.house.gov; www.npr.org​

“Bossing” Element: The bill eliminates private health insurance options, requiring individuals and employers to join a government system. It imposes federal price controls on pharmaceuticals and mandates provider compliance with government-set rates, limiting market-based healthcare choices. The Heritage Foundation (2023) estimates a $32 trillion cost over a decade, with mandatory tax increases. Critics argue it forces patients into a one-size-fits-all system, reducing autonomy over medical decisions.

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics

There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political...

www.heritage.org

​

 

[eohrnberger]

(Continued)

Consumer Data Tax (Nevada Assembly Bill 421, 2023)
Source: Prosperity Now, States at Work: Shining Examples of Progressive Legislation in 2023 (2023)
Link: prosperitynow.org
Description:​

• Proposed in Nevada’s state legislature, this bill would impose a tax on companies collecting consumer data (e.g., tech firms like Google, Meta). It mandates data collectors to register with the state, report data collection practices, and pay taxes based on data volume, aiming to fund public services.

“Bossing” Element: The bill requires companies to comply with new reporting and tax obligations, potentially passing costs to consumers. It imposes government oversight on private data practices, which critics like the National Taxpayers Union (2023) argue stifles innovation and burdens small tech startups. Individuals face indirect control through potential privacy disclosures or increased service costs.​

Universal Basic Income for Transition Age Youth (Maryland House Bill 108, 2023)
Source: Prosperity Now, States at Work: Shining Examples of Progressive Legislation in 2023 (2023)
Link: prosperitynow.org
Description:​

• Proposed in Maryland, this bill would provide $1,000 monthly payments to youth aging out of foster care. It mandates state oversight of recipients’ eligibility and compliance, requiring regular reporting to maintain payments.

“Bossing” Element: The bill imposes bureaucratic oversight on vulnerable youth, requiring them to navigate state monitoring to access funds. Critics argue it creates dependency and micromanages recipients’ lives, with the Tax Foundation (2023) noting administrative costs could exceed benefits. It also mandates state budget reallocations, potentially raising taxes.​

Actually, I'm not a fan of the proliferation of rules and laws that we have. If I were formulating a new Constitution, I'd first require that it be completely re-written every fifty years (or sooner if certain conditions are met) with the proviso that certain personal rights are never to be violated--that is, a core of rules that would resemble the Bill of Rights would be primary and never re-written, but everything else re-written every fifty years, though there would be an option for delegates to just continue what we had been doing. I'd also require that laws be reduced if it becomes the case that you need specialists in certain areas of law. If you need specialists of law, generally, that's fine--laws need to be roughly that complex and numerous. But if you need a specialist in, say, copyright law, and another in rules of evidence, and another in energy law, and so on, there are too many laws and too much complexity.


Yes, clearly...though money is more universal than western civilization.


No--I don't mean the phrase "nothing to hide" in the way that most people use it. I mean, literally, there would be nothing in existence in this context that could be hidden. Literally, the thing you're thinking of as people wanting to hide would not exist. It'd be like someone trying to hide a four-sided triangle--there's no such thing to hide in the first place.

 

[eohrnberger]

Still not super-clear. The reforms of the 1940s were inspired by socialist reformers. If you manage capitalism from some central authority, that's a socialist modification--i.e. a mixed economy, one in which principles of capitalism and socialism are at work.


Plenty of academics are more "sleeves up" than you might think. I'm one. I work in the academy now, but have previously worked in a corporate career, and had my own successful consulting business before I gave it all up and decided to go into education.


Not really. See, e.g.:

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scroll down to the section on the United States (the subsection starts with "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement") and read away. Seems to be well-documented and fairly thorough.

A single counter example doesn't establish the norm.

Most of those programs are not well understood. Defund the Police movement was, I grant, branded horribly. But the proponents of the program were not looking to disband police departments

No, they were. See the video of them doing so for yourself.

or some such--they were looking for reforms like sending trained social workers or psychologists out to deal with, say, autistic individuals who were having a moment, rather than police officers who lack the understanding to deal with such people.

This position / explanation / excuse only adopted after the blowback, so backpedaling from a clearly unpopular position which was taken.

How clueless those progressives in taking the 'defund the police' stance in the first place. Same with the no cash bail, as well as the progressive DAs which Soros help get elected, nothing but bad public policy prescriptions from the progressives.

They were also after more community programs that would reduce the incidence of crime in the first place--and yes, the funding for such would come from police funding, but then, if there's less crime, we shouldn't need as many police officers. Similarly, if the police don't have to respond to incidents of mentally ill people causing some trouble, we shouldn't need as many officers.

Now, can you tell me that those specific ideas are bad ideas?

Here you are defending those specific bad ideas, and then you ask for them, as if they weren't pointed out, as if those bad ideas didn't happen.

 

[eohrnberger]

OK. I think you'll find most progressives did not support, and do not support, any administration using the IRS to go after a political opponent--though most progressives would also want to see the actual evidence that such is the case. As I understand it, both the FBI and the DOJ investigated and found that what happened was explained either by misunderstanding or institutional inertia.

If you call it 'institutional inertia', I'd revise it to progressive 'institutional inertia'.

Raising taxes on the wealthy absolutely is a progressive agenda item; I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a bad thing, though.

The US tax code has been claimed as already the most progressive on Earth.

“America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least.”
Publisher: The Washington Post
Author: Dylan Matthews
Publication Date: April 5, 2013
Link: www.washingtonpost.com

​

Summary:

• The article cites a 2008 OECD report showing that the U.S. tax code is the most progressive among developed nations, with the top 10% of earners paying 45.1% of taxes (vs. 31.6% OECD average), despite earning a larger share of income. It compares the U.S. to countries like Sweden, where the rich pay taxes proportional to their income share, arguing the U.S. system is more progressive in taxing high earners.
• Evidence: The OECD data (2008) indicates the U.S. collects the largest share of household taxes from the richest 10%, with a concentration coefficient showing high progressivity. The article notes low tax rates for middle-income households and no national VAT (unlike Europe’s regressive consumption taxes) enhance progressivity.

And here you are demanding yet more.
Perhaps what is more needed is more publicization and a closer examination of what all this US tax payer money is being spent on?
Oh right. That'd be what DOGE has been tasked with. The response from the left has been predictable, deny, divert, distract, and run a smear campaign. I guess the left loves their fraud, waste and abuse of tax payer monies, well, that's expected, considering the leftist priorities which are being spent on, making the left's NGO buddies running those NGO's rich, at tax payer expense.

Spending other people's money.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”​

― Margaret Thatcher​

Spot on.

Oh, I think there are quite a few who are. Lauren Boebert is on record wanting to completely do away with the EPA and the ATF. Peter Thiel regularly puts forward much more extreme deregulation proposals and rhetoric.

It's not obvious that the government that governs least governs best.

What you are saying is that it's not obvious to you.

Thomas Jefferson thought so, but he doesn't make a good case for it.

You are declaring someone else's argument for what you don't want and don't agree with as a 'bad case'?
Oh the irony.
I could go around and make my arguments look allot better than what they are just by simply declaring all arguments from the opposition aren't 'a good case'.

I would agree that governments that trample basic rights are bad governments. I also agree with what you say about fringe cases, but in an even more general way: we've become too dependent on the exact wording of laws, rather than people grasping the intent of those laws. We should re-think the procedures by which courts and regulatory agencies interpret laws in light of this problem.

 

[ncguy]

No I am agreeing with his accurate post.

Lol.

 

[justoneman]

Lol.

...His extremely accurate post.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The taxing-the-rich thing was fake. Trump's bill very much didn't do that.

beat me to it, it is like the graphs on what level of wealth people believe the 0.1% have and what the reality is.