45 ms·

I will end with a story from a book I read a few years ago. Talk is cheap. Rather than end on a touch-and-feely note, I'd much prefer that he get back to the

by drugme 8y ago

I will end with a story from a book I read a few years ago. Talk is cheap. Rather than end on a touch-and-feely note, I'd much prefer that he get back to the core question: Instead of merely stating that he is a "fan" of things like Basic Income and (truly) universal education (not to mention at least having a hope of dealing in some reasonable way with climate change) -- The question to ask is: which progressive taxation measures, specifically, is he willing to publicly endorse as a means (almost certainly the only viable means) of attaining these goals? Hard numbers, please. If it isn't AOC's particular step function -- "75 percent on all income above 10 million" -- then which progressive taxation schemes would he be in favor of -- and be willing to publicly and state as much? The question of whether we "allow" billionaires or not is, to some extent, a semantic dodge. What matters is that, at the end of the day, in order to achieve any of these goals -- we pretty much have to "soak the rich" (in addition to ending corporate tax evasion and related measures). It follows from Occam's Razor and any level-headed assessment of all the ethical and economic factors involved. The only questions are when (to which we already know the answer: as soon as humanly possible) and how exactly. So again, it all comes down to hard numbers: Which progressive taxations is he willing to support? And what's the best way to get them implemented in time to avert further carnage and social disintegration -- that is, as soon as humanly possible? (AOC = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

beaconstudios 8y ago
he said in the article that he doesn't think higher taxes are the solution - that the government itself needs to be improved if additional programs are to be introduced.
- drugme 8y ago
  Without any arguments or evidence that this would either (1) be attainable or (2) actually free up enough cash to fund all the good stuff he (claims to) support.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    2) applies to progressive taxation as well. There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. There are myriad things that can go wrong: loss of investment pools harming the economy, disincentivising entrepreneurialism, the wealthy moving abroad, the actual collectable amount being less than you'd expect (because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies), the actual cost of these social programs being higher than you'd expect, etc etc. Not that I want to shit all over the idea, it could equally work really well (I have no idea what the outcome would be), but a lot of the time these ideas don't receive the clear-headed analysis they deserve because they're ideological rather than logical in nature (taxation from the left, government efficiency from the right). I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.
    - drugme 8y ago
      There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually there's a lot of historical evidence to the effect that, when taxes are more progressive -- income inequality is less severe, affordable housing gets built and infrastructure is better maintained. And not only that: because we're "all in this together", society tends to work more cohesively and deal better with external threats, like say, WW2 (compared to the nosedive into nativism and paranoia we're experience right now, in the face of comparatively lesser threats). Source: U.S. history since the beginning of the corporate era (1880s or so).
      - pcstl 8y ago
        That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.

by drugme 8y ago

beaconstudios 8y ago

he said in the article that he doesn't think higher taxes are the solution - that the government itself needs to be improved if additional programs are to be introduced.

drugme 8y ago
Without any arguments or evidence that this would either (1) be attainable or (2) actually free up enough cash to fund all the good stuff he (claims to) support.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  2) applies to progressive taxation as well. There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. There are myriad things that can go wrong: loss of investment pools harming the economy, disincentivising entrepreneurialism, the wealthy moving abroad, the actual collectable amount being less than you'd expect (because "wealth" is a very fuzzy concept in modern economies), the actual cost of these social programs being higher than you'd expect, etc etc. Not that I want to shit all over the idea, it could equally work really well (I have no idea what the outcome would be), but a lot of the time these ideas don't receive the clear-headed analysis they deserve because they're ideological rather than logical in nature (taxation from the left, government efficiency from the right). I'd love it if we could pool all the ideas for ways to raise the minimum living standard, experiment with them and compare the results in a scientific way rather than just having two sides shouting at each other that their way is better.
  - drugme 8y ago
    There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually there's a lot of historical evidence to the effect that, when taxes are more progressive -- income inequality is less severe, affordable housing gets built and infrastructure is better maintained. And not only that: because we're "all in this together", society tends to work more cohesively and deal better with external threats, like say, WW2 (compared to the nosedive into nativism and paranoia we're experience right now, in the face of comparatively lesser threats). Source: U.S. history since the beginning of the corporate era (1880s or so).
    - pcstl 8y ago
      That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.