US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1305
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 21 2014 12:55 Wolfstan wrote: Looking up tax rates in the world, at 75% France seems to be the highest of industrial nations, we could look to France to lead on inequality. I am certainly willing to have economists gather data from another jurisdiction going to a 90% tax rate, I don't want it in my region though in case it doesn't work out. The post WW2 U.S. have too many other variables that can't be reproduced muddying the data, that I have to disregard it. There's no 75% tax in France, don't believe the lies. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
The historical record, however, suggests that taxing the wealthiest does have an important, but different, consequence: making the wealthy vested in the common good. In fact, taxing the wealthy was crucial for the emergence of representative government itself. Based on an original database of about 600 members of the English nobility between 1200 and 1350, my research shows the remarkable scale of the obligations, both fiscal and military, that the wealthiest in England owed to their crown. Unlike their French or Spanish counterparts, who were typically exempted from fiscal duties, the English nobility bore a heavy burden on both fronts. Almost all were obliged to perform military service and more than 30 percent had their estates confiscated over unfulfilled obligations to the crown, whether temporarily or permanently. Between 20 and 40 percent were in debt to the crown, usually for overdue taxes... It is unsurprising, therefore, that at least 75 percent of the nobility attended parliament. Two separate forces pushed them. First, because the government was forcing nobles to loan it money, these nobles supported the government’s ability to raise taxes from other sectors of society, so that the government could pay the nobles back. Loans are serviced by taxes, and one of the biggest obstacles to taxation is that local elites will resist it; but once these people are vested in the government and in its ability to tax, they enable that capacity to grow—or at least their resistance weakens... The second force pushing the rich to hold the government accountable is that when they are forced to pay high taxes, they feel compelled to monitor the government’s actions and check how their money is spent. Where the rich are not vested in public affairs through high contributions, they are less likely to use their bargaining powers to bring change. The point of this history for today is not that modern governments should force the wealthy to loan them money or confiscate their property if they fail to meet their obligations (although it might not be a bad idea to require wealthy citizens to serve in the military). But it does suggest that “taxing the rich” can actually help democracy. When the government is strong enough to impose a substantial obligation on the richest people, they are inclined to lobby the government to ensure those funds are efficiently spent. This is quite different than the pattern that mostly occurs today, where the wealthy lobby the government for tax breaks or private interests—and the state is too weak or too unwilling to resist. I don't see many people here supporting higher taxes on the wealthy going along with this line of reasoning. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42214 Posts
On September 21 2014 14:25 coverpunch wrote: But you should note that tax rates were kept high to pay for the military-industrial complex and support the wars in Korea and Vietnam, not in the interest of fairness and equality. Traditionally the American government only raised taxes to pay for war expenses. This stuff is very "be careful what you wish for". High taxes on the wealthy comes with the cost of giving much more power and leverage to the wealthy, particularly if it is for redistributive purposes. If we're complaining about Bill Gates, we should be talking about the way he paid $200 million and rammed Common Core through the system, making faster and more significant change to the education system than anything in our lifetimes. Forcing him to pay high tax rates gives him the influence to make such changes and pushes America in the direction of an elitist, aristocratic society. EDIT: I would also note that neither Bill Gates' kids, nor President Obama's kids, goes to a school where they teach Common Core, so the elites aren't eating their own dog food. The teaching of Common Core to students isn't really as scary, controversial, or revolutionary as the press seems to suggest. The main problems are: additional standardized testing has been implemented to test the effectiveness of CC (which wastes time for both the teachers and the students, although it should be noted that annoying and ineffective standardized tests long predate the CC), test scores haven't particularly increased, and all the media focus on CC has distracted much of the country from the biggest *real* problem in American education: a lack of equity for our schools and communities. That being said, the curricula implemented by CC is pretty much no different than what was being taught in each state anyway. Not much has really changed in terms of instruction or curriculum. Teachers have to jump through a few more peripheral hoops to comply with new politics (which is always a pain in the ass), but at least they're mostly teaching the same content they've always taught. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 21 2014 20:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The teaching of Common Core to students isn't really as scary, controversial, or revolutionary as the press seems to suggest. The main problems are: additional standardized testing has been implemented to test the effectiveness of CC (which wastes time for both the teachers and the students, although it should be noted that annoying and ineffective standardized tests long predate the CC), test scores haven't particularly increased, and all the media focus on CC has distracted much of the country from the biggest *real* problem in American education: a lack of equity for our schools and communities. That being said, the curricula implemented by CC is pretty much no different than what was being taught in each state anyway. Not much has really changed in terms of instruction or curriculum. Teachers have to jump through a few more peripheral hoops to comply with new politics (which is always a pain in the ass), but at least they're mostly teaching the same things they've always taught. It isn't scary and it might indeed turn out to be a good thing. But I think it should be asked if it's better to have had Bill Gates design education reforms as opposed to the Department of Education and state boards or partisan think tanks. It seems disingenuous to me to talk about his tax bills but not his growing political activism. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42214 Posts
On September 21 2014 21:15 coverpunch wrote: It isn't scary and it might indeed turn out to be a good thing. But I think it should be asked if it's better to have had Bill Gates design education reforms as opposed to the Department of Education and state boards or partisan think tanks. It seems disingenuous to me to talk about his tax bills but not his growing political activism. Well, there actually was plenty of feedback and reform designed by experts, rather than just Bill Gates. Here is a list of just some of the education-related sources that helped put together the Common Core: Teachers, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and National Council of Teachers of English; State education chiefs, national educational commissioners, chief state school officers, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and Council of Chief State School Officers; National and international compilations and comparisons of educational statistics, including research from both the National Assessment of Education Progress and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Granted, one could speculate that these education groups may have been forced to act and vote a certain way due to financing (as most of the money is coming from Gates), but it's not like a few random idiots with no experience got in a room and designed and implemented the entire Common Core on their own (which seems to be what a lot of people believe). | ||
Acrofales
Spain17187 Posts
At least in Gates' case there's the possibility of altruism, which makes it slightly better than most lobbying efforts. However, how much influence you can buy through lobbying seems like an incredibly bad argument against higher taxes for the rich... | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 21 2014 22:08 Acrofales wrote: Why are you singling out Bill Gates' lobbying efforts? His are no different from the oil industry, the Koch brothers or any other person or organization buying influence in Washington to push through laws they care about. At least in Gates' case there's the possibility of altruism, which makes it slightly better than most lobbying efforts. However, how much influence you can buy through lobbying seems like an incredibly bad argument against higher taxes for the rich... We've been focusing on Gates for the last three pages on the issue of whether he "earned" or "deserved" his wealth and the lifestyle that goes with it, or if he relied on a "horde of poor people" to do all the work and assuming Microsoft employees (or their contractors) were not fairly compensated. As such, I brought up his lobbying efforts as part of the notion that his interest in political change is directly related to the possibility that his tax burden will increase. The efforts could be a good thing, as it could be for the Koch brothers or any other activists, but it is part of raising the relationship between the wealthy paying more taxes and caring more about politics. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 21 2014 23:05 IgnE wrote: No it's not related. If Bill Gates had a wealth tax levied against him he wouldn't have the money lying around to fund the common core. The federal government, whom you presumably want in this situation to do the deciding, contrary to most of your other positions, would have more money and more influence. This is a completely bunk causal theory here. Bill Gates is not a vassal risking life and ruin to come to his liege lord's rescue in 1300. Nor is American democracy set up like a feudal parliament. But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote: But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s. The bold part is what bothers me. Is it not pathetic as all hell to just leave the country because your taxes went up? I find it fascinating how having no national loyalty is just a given for corporations and their owners. Anyone who would just leave the country (fiscally) is a shitty American in my book. Any corporation or individual who suggests they would leave the country as opposed to paying a larger tax burden should just leave now. They obviously have no loyalty or integrity, and I wouldn't want to buy their products anyway. I probably wouldn't want them back in the country either for that matter. Economic turncoat wussies. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Also that's not the same argument that you were arguing previously. You argued that Bill Gates, who already pays low taxes, has too much influence over federal policy (re: common core), but that somehow, his influence would go up if you started taxing him more. It's nonsensical. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 21 2014 20:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The teaching of Common Core to students isn't really as scary, controversial, or revolutionary as the press seems to suggest. The main problems are: additional standardized testing has been implemented to test the effectiveness of CC (which wastes time for both the teachers and the students, although it should be noted that annoying and ineffective standardized tests long predate the CC), test scores haven't particularly increased, and all the media focus on CC has distracted much of the country from the biggest *real* problem in American education: a lack of equity for our schools and communities. That being said, the curricula implemented by CC is pretty much no different than what was being taught in each state anyway. Not much has really changed in terms of instruction or curriculum. Teachers have to jump through a few more peripheral hoops to comply with new politics (which is always a pain in the ass), but at least they're mostly teaching the same content they've always taught. Very true! From what I've read CC shouldn't really be adding on new testing - at least not much. CC testing can replace other testing requirements so the amount of testing should largely net out. As for testing in general, I have no problem with it. We've had testing here in MA before NCLB or CC became a thing and that testing has helped make MA's system work. | ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
| ||
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41101 Posts
| ||
Acrofales
Spain17187 Posts
On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote: But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s. So go all protectionist and make it expensive for money to leave the country. Here in Brazil you pay a basic 6% tax over any exchange transaction. You go on holiday abroad? 6% is levied over your spendings. Buy something in a foreign currency using your credit card? 6%. and that's not even talking about other policies that make it hard to transfer money out of the country. Do I think this is a good idea in the long run? Hell no. But if you're worried about fiscal flight, it's pretty effective. Of course, it also makes it quite unappetizing for international investors to do anything in your country, but that's another story. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 22 2014 02:43 farvacola wrote: In supporting a position that testing is ok in general, citing the testing/funding dynamic in MA is not exactly apropos. This would not be the first time that you've referenced MA's educational or public service infrastructure as though it is typical enough to warrant extrapolation, and yet again, I expect a surprised response in the face of the suggestion that Massachusetts is an outlier in many, many ways. Fair point. I see MA as just ahead of the curve, rather than an outlier. For example, many states are struggling with manufacturing jobs moving to cheaper areas. Well, MA had to deal with that too, but that was decades ago. In some ways the scars remain (abandoned mills) but to a larger degree we moved into education-dependent industries, like biotech. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote: The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement. @GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations? | ||
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations? Its simple math. Any business that has failed due to losses lower than their taxes would have not failed had their taxes been lower. Lets say I own a business. I'm losing a net $1000 a month. Taxes cost me $1500 a month. If my taxes were under $500 a month, I would be breaking even. It's never JUST taxes that drive a business to failure, but to suggest that businesses are somehow immune to the burden of taxes is just silly. | ||
| ||