Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I understand what you want to do by invoking Reagan. I just find it odd given his efforts to whack the top marginal rate from 71 to 50 to 28 over the course of his presidency. It may have been that the period from 1982 to 1986 was prosperous and that can stand on its own, but deliberately affixing Reagan to the argument for a high top marginal rate is co-opting a conservative icon to justify 50% when it is quite clear that conservative icon wanted (and got) something much lower.

I introduced data into the conversation. You made a passing reference to the availability of big data without introduce an iota. If you have countervailing or more complete data you wish to introduce, feel free. The original issue was top income tax marginal rate and Palin-Cortez's nonsensical 70% top marginal rate (to pay for her Green New Deal). The reference to Reagan was specifically about top income tax marginal rate. The data I provided (and which is easily accessible) is about marginal tax rates and shares of income/taxes paid by various percentiles. The data on Reagan and his tax cuts is there for all to see.

If the target moves to broader tax policy then fine. If you don't want to examine tax policy in a vacuum the fine. But that's not the point you were making.

[hack]

If we should be specific about how to refer to Reagan we should be specific about how to refer to data. You didn't introduce data, therefore -- you shared a conclusion based on data you haven't shared and that doesn't necessarily address the initial argument.

I agree that as you've applied skepticism to what I am saying and as I have applied skepticism to what you are saying that we've escalated into a much broader argument. Either way works for me. If we want to keep it to the original reference, I'm fine to go back even further. Reagan is convenient enough, but two things have fallen in the post-war period: GDP growth rate, and the top marginal tax rate. You and I both know that that limits the discussion to a twitter level of depth, but this is a country where people still believe the argument that corporations and rich people will flee elsewhere if rates rise. So maybe on the campaign trail it's a good idea to be talking every day about how GDP growth has fallen along with marginal tax rates over the past 70 years, so it's time to yank up the rates again.

I think there is a harm overall in those kinds of discussions from the extremes and using extremely simplified concepts and numbers. That's what generates dumb ideas like the Green New Deal. We don't need a huge conceptual thing like that, and it's harmful to even talk about it when it has no chance of passing. Especially when bankers and investors will tell you that all you need to do is tweak a few dozen regulations and you've unleashed a green economy anyways.

[crashcourse]

the American dream isn't a 50 % tax

You work your ass off for 25 years so you can get to the point of being wealthy

only to have the tax rates absorb everything you worked for under soclistic policies

anyway snl was pretty good and this hits the nail on the head in a lot of ways

https://youtu.be/ATTMB4gH3sU

music grpoup reminded me of a combo of rush and and a young jagger--they actually were pretty good

[Jeff Buchanan]

Getting back to the point ..... AOC says, in an off the cuff manner and in response to questions from various media types, "how are you going to pay for all this,"she responds by raising taxes on the rich or some watered down version of that which is less offensive. Make no mistake, AOC is a Socialist who fundamentally wants income redistribution accomplished as a matter of tax policy.

How does she get there? With incrementalism ..... so, she starts blasting away, as the media darling she is, with what amounts to unattainable leftist ideas that have no chance of being implemented through Congressional legislation. Then she finds coalitions who are willing to do something, say raise the marginal rate to 45% - pronouncing in the process this is less that what Regan did (even though that's not accurate) - and Congress passes something to make this happen. It is exactly how Obama fashioned the ACA and, to Trump's credit, he's fought to get rid of that asinine program. But you go back to Tom Dashel's quest for Universal Heatlh Care - no way that was going to fly. But, incrementalism.

I go back to the point I made. AOC and her colleagues are speaking in dangerous terms in candy coated language that is going to sound not good enough to hard line leftists but very nice to younger voters who see this shit as good. Socialists get elected and boom ....... a little bit at a time.

[froot loops]

[hack]

You're damn right, Jeff -- she wants to redistribute income. Isn't hiding it. If you think that's a bad thing, you should ask yourself why some of the most redistributive periods in history were also the most prosperous. You should ask yourself whether you are being skeptical in the best possible way here.

[Kapture1]

Unbelievable how out the left is becoming. I remember the good ole days when they pretended they weren't fucking communists.

[Kapture1]

jnuw3U7l.jpg

[iam416]

[iam416]

[iam416]

[hack]

I don't know about that. Maybe you could make that case, but it wouldn't mean much on the bottom line, because you continue to work with half the numbers. Which you very well may know. The starting point isn't the bottom line -- your net pay. It's the top line -- your gross pay. The ratio of CEO salary to worker salary has gone from $20 to $1 to $300. If you are interested in an actual full analysis, bring on the data. So, bottom line, if I were to treat the numbers with the same care and respect you are, the fact remains true that in the post-war era -- the modern in which this economy is said to have begun -- I still get to say that GDP has fallen in step with the top marginal tax rate. Do you want to drop your apples/oranges approach and dig in? Go ahead.

The optimal top bracket as calculated by most brand-name economists are around 73%. One can certainly pay for outcomes that lower that figure, or, do what Reason did: assume every assumption you can AND continue to repeat the fallacy that as soon as tax rate rise capital immediately picks up en masse and goes somewhere else AND account for what is --- a very loaded term here in functional economist language -- "the welfare of the rich" -- and you still get 48%. If you wanted to be even-handed and split those assumptions down the middle in pursuit of ideological neutrality, you're somewhere in the low 60% range. https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/...ercent-top-mar

[hack]

I agree. From my perspective this discussion is better than not having one at all, but there's no question about it. The best thing to do isn't to soak the rich, so to speak. It's to soak Wall Street. Tax rates on capital gains, and the carried-interest loophole. Restore an incentive to invest in the real economy, or at least do the best you can in this era of minimal restrictions on capital flow, financial engineering and tax havens. You'd have to kneecap the economy of Delaware, and that's a lot harder. But that's ultimately where the discussion needs to go. Baby steps.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wow. In a 357-22 vote, the House passed a bill making it much more difficult for Trump (or any President) to unilaterally withdrawal from NATO. Even with dozens of abstentions, that's well more than they need to override a veto. The Senate version of the bill would require Trump to get permission from the Senate before cancelling the treaty.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...pport-for-nato

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/...tions-1.565580

[iam416]