4 ms·

1. Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. 2. Your link to Brooking

by greedo 5y ago

1. Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. 2. Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. 3. Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income. By underfunding the IRS, we're leaving money on the table. That's what the rich want, and since they largely control Congress, that's what they get. 4. If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960. So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years. But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. The other party sees the Government as a solution to many problems that are simply too large for individuals to solve.

ch4s3 5y ago
> Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. You're arguing against conventional political wisdom wrt the US, so I think the onus is on you to provide a better argument than sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. > Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. Your original comment was that loans to for profit colleges were the cause of bad education. I'm pointing out that they account for a tiny fraction of all degrees. You aren't making an argument here that shows the margins driving overall outcomes. The loan amounts aren't really relevant to the quality, or at least you aren't making that argument. I actually don't think the federal government should be in the lending game for education. It's too indirect and creates perverse incentives. > Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" Yes, federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have vacillated between 14% and 19% since 1944 averaging around 17%. Grover Norquist's Tax Reform Act in '85 was followed by a 5 year uptick in federal tax receipts. Countries that capture more tax as a percentage of GDP do so through VAT. > A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income The top 50% of earners pay 97% of federal income taxes in the US, which is the vast majority of federal revenue. That is definitionally a progressive tax scheme, in fact the most progressive globally by any measure. To argue otherwise is to deny basic confirmable facts. If your argument is about the 400 wealthiest families in America, then that's something else entirely, but it doesn't make the tax regime regressive. > If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960 You're looking at a measure that only starts after WWII, and probably in those early years excluded racial minorities. > So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. This isn't an argument, it's jus reductio ad absurdum and misrepresents my argument about the cultural and historical roots of skepticism of government. > The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years Can you blame anyone for being upset about Vietnam, Watergate, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? > But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. I think it's pretty clear that both political parties have been behind some rotten shit since Vietnam. Both parties were in favor of the drug war, needless foreign adventurism, the bungling of trade liberalization, and a raft of other stupid things. I would argue that both parties see government as a cudgel to bludgeon their adversaries with, and not as a tool with witch to achieve social good. As far as I can tell they're both obsessed with fighting culture war battles and have very little interest in the practical concerns of governance.
- greedo 5y ago
  The only reason that income tax is the primary source of revenue is because of the cap on payroll taxes that allows the rich to avoid paying as much as the middle class.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    Payroll tax is basically just secondary income tax. Other OECD nations don’t really do that, it’s an artifact of our wacky welfare system.
    - greedo 5y ago
      It primarily funds Social Security. How is that part of "our wacky welfare system?" If you consider it a secondary income tax, then it really shows how regressive our tax system is since the rich don't pay the same rate.
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        It’s a tiny portion of federal revenue, which as pointed out and cited is predominantly funded by income tax. It also doesn’t straightforwardly find Social Security. It funds a portion of pay outs to current recipients, something like ~90%, with the rest coming from general funds. That portion is decreasing as demographics shift. It’s sort of a weird cash transfer program that’s presented as some sort of lock box. We could lift the cap to make SS more solvent past the 2040s, but it would still be a small portion of federal revenue compared to income tax which is highly progressive. I don’t understand how you’re even arguing that income tax isn’t highly progressive here, every tax expert and economist disagrees with you. It’s just basic accounting. Most federal revenue is from income tax and most of it comes from the top quintile of income earners.
        greedo 5y ago
        "tiny portion of federal revenue?" It's 36% of all Federal revenue. It used to constitute almost 80% of Federal revenue in the 40's/50's, but the cap has made its contributions drop. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/PolicyBasics_WhereDoFederalTaxRevsComeFrom_08-20-12.pdf https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/PolicyB... The Federal income tax is progressive, but only if you ignore that the payroll taxes are highly regressive income taxes. When you look at them as a whole, it's readily apparent that the overall Federal income tax system is regressive.
nostromo 5y ago
> That's what the rich want, and since they largely control Congress, that's what they get. Your argument isn't self-consistent. You're arguing both that: 1. the federal government is a competent force for good and should be strengthened. 2. the federal government is corrupt and controlled by the rich. The only way this is a consistent argument is if you're a plutocrat.
- greedo 5y ago
  The Federal government CAN be a force for good and should be strengthened, but it also suffers from corruption and outsized influence from the rich. Por que no los dos?

by greedo 5y ago

ch4s3 5y ago

> Govt Reps get elected for a lot of things. Maintaining our roads, bridges and infrastructure are always buzzwords during elections. You're arguing against conventional political wisdom wrt the US, so I think the onus is on you to provide a better argument than sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. > Your link to Brookings just reinforces the issue. For profit schools account for 10% of students, borrow more often compared to public school students, and borrow more money. The Fed link shows that these students default more; they also are higher in pure dollar terms when it comes to Pell grants and Stafford loans. There's no good defense for profit schools. Your original comment was that loans to for profit colleges were the cause of bad education. I'm pointing out that they account for a tiny fraction of all degrees. You aren't making an argument here that shows the margins driving overall outcomes. The loan amounts aren't really relevant to the quality, or at least you aren't making that argument. I actually don't think the federal government should be in the lending game for education. It's too indirect and creates perverse incentives. > Our tax to GDP has been constant for decades. Wow. I guess that wouldn't coincide with the Republican and Grover Norquist's efforts to "drown the baby in the bath tub?" Yes, federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have vacillated between 14% and 19% since 1944 averaging around 17%. Grover Norquist's Tax Reform Act in '85 was followed by a 5 year uptick in federal tax receipts. Countries that capture more tax as a percentage of GDP do so through VAT. > A tax code can be "progressive" in theory while in practice it's regressive since the wealthy can shelter so much of their income The top 50% of earners pay 97% of federal income taxes in the US, which is the vast majority of federal revenue. That is definitionally a progressive tax scheme, in fact the most progressive globally by any measure. To argue otherwise is to deny basic confirmable facts. If your argument is about the 400 wealthiest families in America, then that's something else entirely, but it doesn't make the tax regime regressive. > If you look at trust in government, it was in the mid 70% range up until 1960 You're looking at a measure that only starts after WWII, and probably in those early years excluded racial minorities. > So obviously all the people in 1950 were so scarred by how poorly the British Parliament treated us in the 1700s. This isn't an argument, it's jus reductio ad absurdum and misrepresents my argument about the cultural and historical roots of skepticism of government. > The drop in trust dropped during the Vietnam War when both parties continually lied to the American people, and since then has hovered in the 30% range for 40 years Can you blame anyone for being upset about Vietnam, Watergate, and the Cuban Missile Crisis? > But it's pretty clear that one party has had a platform for over 40 years to diminish the accomplishments of the Federal Government (except the Military), to starve it of funds, to politicize it's agencies. I think it's pretty clear that both political parties have been behind some rotten shit since Vietnam. Both parties were in favor of the drug war, needless foreign adventurism, the bungling of trade liberalization, and a raft of other stupid things. I would argue that both parties see government as a cudgel to bludgeon their adversaries with, and not as a tool with witch to achieve social good. As far as I can tell they're both obsessed with fighting culture war battles and have very little interest in the practical concerns of governance.

greedo 5y ago
The only reason that income tax is the primary source of revenue is because of the cap on payroll taxes that allows the rich to avoid paying as much as the middle class.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  Payroll tax is basically just secondary income tax. Other OECD nations don’t really do that, it’s an artifact of our wacky welfare system.
  - greedo 5y ago
    It primarily funds Social Security. How is that part of "our wacky welfare system?" If you consider it a secondary income tax, then it really shows how regressive our tax system is since the rich don't pay the same rate.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      It’s a tiny portion of federal revenue, which as pointed out and cited is predominantly funded by income tax. It also doesn’t straightforwardly find Social Security. It funds a portion of pay outs to current recipients, something like ~90%, with the rest coming from general funds. That portion is decreasing as demographics shift. It’s sort of a weird cash transfer program that’s presented as some sort of lock box. We could lift the cap to make SS more solvent past the 2040s, but it would still be a small portion of federal revenue compared to income tax which is highly progressive. I don’t understand how you’re even arguing that income tax isn’t highly progressive here, every tax expert and economist disagrees with you. It’s just basic accounting. Most federal revenue is from income tax and most of it comes from the top quintile of income earners.
      - greedo 5y ago
        "tiny portion of federal revenue?" It's 36% of all Federal revenue. It used to constitute almost 80% of Federal revenue in the 40's/50's, but the cap has made its contributions drop. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/PolicyBasics_WhereDoFederalTaxRevsComeFrom_08-20-12.pdf https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/PolicyB... The Federal income tax is progressive, but only if you ignore that the payroll taxes are highly regressive income taxes. When you look at them as a whole, it's readily apparent that the overall Federal income tax system is regressive.

nostromo 5y ago

> That's what the rich want, and since they largely control Congress, that's what they get. Your argument isn't self-consistent. You're arguing both that: 1. the federal government is a competent force for good and should be strengthened. 2. the federal government is corrupt and controlled by the rich. The only way this is a consistent argument is if you're a plutocrat.

greedo 5y ago
The Federal government CAN be a force for good and should be strengthened, but it also suffers from corruption and outsized influence from the rich. Por que no los dos?