THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
Politics has changed so much in just the past eight years, I think she could go straight from the House to succesfully winning the nomination for President.
She's already a superstar within her party.
If anything running sooner rather than later would help her more than waiting until some new 'superstar' takes her place.
AOC is unelectable in the broader New York State, at least not now.
The electorate needs to move further to the left and AOC needs to have way better messaging discipline when she diverges (which she will need to) from her progressive base.
The first condition will take time. The second condition just isn’t in her because she’s a believer in the left wing cause.
With all due respect, the pained attempts at separating Social Democrat from Socialist are idiotic.
AOC calls herself a Democratic Socialist, not Social Democrat. Parse that difference if you want.
They're just words, not ideologies:
- Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains "basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That's what democratic socialism means in 2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”
- "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all…some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health" is from Friedrich Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom"
I haven't heard anything about her wanting to seize the means but I'll wait for Victor's input
They're just words, not ideologies:
- Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains "basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That's what democratic socialism means in 2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”
- "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all…some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health" is from Friedrich Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom"
I haven't heard anything about her wanting to seize the means but I'll wait for Victor's input
AOC proposed marginal income tax rates of 70% for very high incomes (iirc over 10m/year). That would be higher than anywhere in the first world.
For reference Sanders medicare for all (+ other increases in welfare) plan during outlined during 2016 primaries only required 52% as the maximum income rate threshold.
Remember this is federal only, state is on top of that.
So for taxation AOC is to the significant left of Sanders and to the left of all European countries.
AOC proposed marginal income tax rates of 70% for very high incomes (iirc over 10m/year). That would be higher than anywhere in the first world.For reference Sanders medicare for all (+ other increases in welfare) plan during outlined during 2016 primaries only required 52% as the maximum income rate threshold.Remember this is federal only, state is on top of that.So for taxati
That top rate is there to reduce CEO compensation, not redistribution because in the aggregate it's not much, relative to the number of poor hhs. Even their Piketty acknowledges that:
A rate of 80 percent applied to incomes above $500,000 or $1 million a year would not bring the government much in the way of revenue, because it would quickly fulfill its objective: to drastically reduce remuneration at this level but without reducing the productivity of the US economy, so that pay would rise at lower levels. In order for the government to obtain the revenues it sorely needs to develop the meager US social state and invest more in health and education (while reducing the federal deficit), taxes would also have to be raised on incomes lower in the distribution (for example, by imposing rates of 50 or 60 percent on incomes above $200,000). (Piketty. Capital in the Twenty-First Century)
Sanders was more union-ish to accomplish the same. But at the end of the day, it's taxes on those making over $200K where the redistribution to help the poor comes from. Because when we're dealing with large segments of the population it becomes less about income redistribution and more about consumption redistribution.
Little dated, numbers have gone up but the basic distribution is about the same. Point being, they need to go after the large aggregate stacks because that's where the redistribution of consumption would come from.
Never gonna happen but I'd like to see executive salary limited to a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee salary and stock compensation mandated for all employees.
Never gonna happen but I'd like to see executive salary limited to a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee salary and stock compensation mandated for all employees.
You know what that would cause, if it happens yes? let's say it happens like you wrote.
Now amazon stops employing the people in it's warehouses, and spins off a diffeerent company that deals with the warehouses which rents work from a third company that supplies the workers.
You aren't going to increase the lower salaries (which i suppose is what you would like to achieve). You are just pushing companies to restructure and only officially employ very high level employees directly, with everyone else at 1 (or more as necessary to elude the law) step away from the "official company".
I mean i am not talking hypotethicals. Public unions in Italy managed to achieve something like you ask for , for public services. Result is hospitals borrow co-op workers for the most menial jobs, so the lowest "official employee" is like a mid level administrative one. The cleaner, the guy who drives the ambulance and so on aren't hospital employees anymore.
He obviously meant as in no loopholes ideal stuff.
Lucy you have so no filter/nuance, you are in desperate need of a gotcha, a win a any price.
Give us a fkn break ma dood.
He obviously meant as in no loopholes ideal stuff.
Lucy you have so no filter/nuance, you are in desperate need of a gotcha, a win a any price.
Give us a fkn break ma dood.
Weez, i answer you not to convince you of anything (you just troll) but because it's a topic of general interest.
There is no "gotcha", the point is that A LOT OF STUFF (including stuff i'd like on paper) CANNOT BE DONE because in practice it's too easy to elude, and/or impossible to enforce ok?
That's a crucial element you should ALWAYS consider everytime you propose any policy no matter your intentions. You need a criminal mind to think like the people who will gain by avoiding your rules, them multiply that by thusands of experts spending their entire working hours exclusively to **** with your rule (if your rule is intended to be used against rich people).
Unless the policy can stand automatically with ease any on paper objection and example of dodging, you shouldn't even bother trying to implement it.
An example of a policy i would like but is unfeasible in most cases, a land value tax instead of property taxes. Ie a tax only on the value of the land itself, not of everything you built (or bought when already built) on it. The basic georgian approach.
Problem is, it cannot be done because separating the 2 values creates frictions so insane, and options to game the tax so numerous, it simply fails in practice.
Now that you learnt something you can go back to trolling everything i write in bad faith
Wtf most of your ideas couldn't be done in practice, and yet you don't see any problem with that.
Wtf most of your ideas couldn't be done in practice, and yet you don't see any problem with that.
I literally list real life examples of all the policies i defend asking to be implemented so ... no.
0 tolerance for crimes has been applied a lot of times in many places. Widespread use of the death penalty, the same. Massive state welfare is recent (i do acknowledge the political difficulty of cutting it: but biggerboat did the same with his proposal and i played the "as if" as normal), we lived for centuries in societies without it.
Universal democracy is very recent, we lived for centuries with no , or limited franchise.
Removing all tariffs and making it unconstitutional to have any with no exception is extremely easy to do. Same as it is to implement actual body rights (hard politically, easy in practical sense), just a complete ban on the state being allowed to ever tell adults what they can consume, produce, sell, do to their body or pay others to do to their bodies.
And so on and on. What exactly do i propose to implement as actual policy that can't be done in practice because it's easy to avoid / elude / dodge, or because it's technically unfeasible?
Luciom speak about government as if people were better like 100+ years ago….
Why luciom ideas never or become been stopped being implemented if they were so « successful » is a better question ?
I mean strange from a « libertarian » guy like luciom, believing in the theory of efficient market hypothesis shouldnt be apply in any other field like politics and democratic system , but just for markets .
Never gonna happen but I'd like to see executive salary limited to a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee salary and stock compensation mandated for all employees.
I'd like to see a 1) selective VAT targeting higher income consumption with the tax revenue going to low-income. Basically something like a Saks tax. The idea being to incentivize capital towards producing fewer Rolex and more Timex. And 2) a tax code to incentivize corporate profits to invest in human productivity and production efficiency and penalize it for retaining earnings or seeking returns in capital markets. I think that would accomplish the classical liberal goal of a fair society.
The above is essentially how our economy worked right after WWII, through the 50s and into the 60s. People seemed to like it. They were getting ahead, their job skills were increasing, upward mobility for themselves and their children and the overt lifestyle effects of the workers wasn't so much a tale of two cities.
That can happen again.
I'd like to see a 1) selective VAT targeting higher income consumption with the tax revenue going to low-income. Basically something like a Saks tax. The idea being to incentivize capital towards producing fewer Rolex and more Timex. And 2) a tax code to incentivize corporate profits to invest in human productivity and production efficiency and penalize it for retaining earning
2)... just happened lol. you can accrue investment expenses as costs immediately thanks to the BBB.
2)... just happened lol. you can accrue investment expenses as costs immediately thanks to the BBB.
No... part of 2 happened -- effectively the same part as the last time he was in office. And just like that time without the other side of the coin - the penalizing - guess where capital will seek it's return? see the rest of 2. And if you want evidence, just look at the markets.
Never gonna happen but I'd like to see executive salary limited to a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee salary and stock compensation mandated for all employees.
Obviously this .
To believe otherwise just means u don’t believe mis allocation of capital is a thing .
And don’t understand what the real economy actually is shrug .
Dig into it and you'll realize this is bullshit. It only helps people with a significant income outside if ss. The people this is talking about aren't paying any taxes anyway. Total bullshit propaganda
You're not wrong, but this same argument applies in most cases of the internet talking about raising taxes on poor people and single moms, too. They get it all back and then some every April, which is why the ghetto is filled with predatory advertising campaigns from every hole in the wall that sells cars, shoes, and furniture around that time of the year.
The worst of them all is the popup tax clinics that will give you an advance on your refund. God forbid you have to wait an entire 10 days for the government to mail you a check or deposit electronically, these guys will just charge you 15% and you get the rest TODAY!
So, every time someone posts another soundbite or tweet from some democrat complaining about the evil republicans raising income taxes on the poors, I hope you'll be in there pointing out the "total bullshit propaganda."
I see the moderation dial has been set to, "Not even pretending anymore."
Hit 'em with your best shot. If TV and movies have taught me nothing, it's that Italians have some spicy insults.
Luciom just said, "no u" but I was actually referring to the stupid goat****er comment.
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive on account of having to walk on eggshells for more than a decade, but I don't think I'd get away with that one.
You're not wrong, but this same argument applies in most cases of the internet talking about raising taxes on poor people and single moms, too. They get it all back and then some every April, which is why the ghetto is filled with predatory advertising campaigns from every hole in the wall that sells cars, shoes, and furniture around that time of the year. The worst of them a
The difference is this notification came directly from the social security administration.
The difference is this notification came directly from the social security administration.
Whose purpose is to administer the rules, not propagandize.
No takes on the gambling only allowed to deduct 90% losses aspect of the BBB?
I don't know how much it'll be enforced (my guess is not much) but it is definitely a big deal if Govt chooses to enforce it in any real way
