Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 178

On November 05 2019 09:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: permits, zonings and regulations are also really important to maintain forest areas near cities and stuff like that..

Indeed and you have to consider that, thats why I said "if you want cheaper housing".... if you want cheap housing in downtown san francisco while also keeping all the tighest regulations in the world then move to planet pupuplon because thats not how things work on this planet.

As I explained rent control pumps the prices, people stop building, less housing prices raise and people bid for the hoses with payments outside of the system, pretending the black market won't happen is like making drugs illegal and thinking they will stop existing since they are illegal.

On November 05 2019 17:16 NMcNasty wrote: I saw the movie for a third time just a month ago, and you're just straight trolling here. The right wing fantasy that the financial crisis was caused by government backed real estate loans wasn't remotely a part of it. There's even a scene where a disgusted Steve Carell correctly predicts that the whole thing would be blamed on minorities which is essentially your line.

The moral hazard created by the government and the 2.28 mortgage loan is a right wing fantasy. Its a fantasy that the government would cover the losses in the event of defaults incentivizing the banks to lend irresponsibly... but Obama "quantitive easied" the banks precisely covering the losses when the housing market collapsed.


Baal: The government meddling with the housing market in 08 derisked mortgage lending, the banks and financial institutions naturally exploited this by lending like crazy since defaults posed little risk
Baal: The bubble bursted and the tax payer paid the mistakes of the banks & wallstreet, so as I said, lending had no downside, they were freerolling.
Baal: Thats why talks about bailing out student debts is awful, it creates the same moral hazard and all financial institutions are already lending like crazy since its printing money with no downside, the tax payer will pay for it.
McNasty: Why are you blaming minorities Baal?


for fucks sake whats wrong with you people?

On November 05 2019 22:17 Spitfiree wrote: The problem with lack of regulation is exactly that people act rationally, once you obtain enough power you just group up at the top and then mold the system to meet your needs and keep you and everyone else there for eternity. That way you simply get rid of any variance in terms of status And Lemon I haven't downloaded what you linked, but its literally all based on Kahneman and Tversky's work so what are you talking about :D

Hey! I wrote over half of that between 10pm and 6am while watching Big Game on Stars what do you want from me :D
Was actually fun running the endowment effect trial

And I did before they were cool hahaha
back then there was no thinking fast and slow and the public didn't know about them yet, now that's mainstream shit xD

On November 05 2019 19:57 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On November 05 2019 17:03 Santafairy wrote: >omg santafairy you idiot they would just hide wealth in subsidiaries >omg santafairy you idiot you wouldn't dodge tax by investing It's all so tiresome also, if children have wealth they obviously pay their own taxes No your net is say $3bn you pay 6% of the $2bn you transfer that to 2 parties on paper each now has NW or $1bn none of the parties pays any wealth tax EDIT: 2% ABOVE 50mill sorry man just look at how it works examples where they tried it and why it failed and you'll see how ridiculous 6% wealth tax sounds

not trying to defend any individual plan here especially someone like warren

but if you just go "the rich are untaxable" then what's the point of having a government

also it still sounds absurd to me. just give several people a billion dollars to avoid paying a couple hundred million? or fine lower the threshold so more rich people are taxed, problem solved

Again you keep talking in ideology not specific policy

I am specifically saying how wealth tax at 6% is absurd
even lower % has been abolished in Europe and India recently because of the enforcement nightmare

India had 1% and "productive assets" like shares, securities, mutual funds and fixed deposits were exempt and still it was abolished because of the trouble enforcing it. Warren wants something way WAYYY more radical.

I like to do a one time huge (graded) tax on wealth as well as raking up most of the unused capital hoarded by these super monopolies and conglomerates, while rebalancing the economy and setting up normal regulations. if the taxpayer can bail out the banks the banks should be able to bail out the country.

if annual wealth tax is so hard to enforce you should crank up the rate to make sure the revenue is substantial no?

this is why Trump got elected even though he had fuckall governing experiences and shouldn't be anywhere near the office without at least e.g. a term as a governor.
And why Warren is in the lead on bullshit populist policies like this

People in the twitter era react to buzzwords instead of actual merits and practicality of policies


As to how to tax rich + corporations
fuck if I know what's right
you start with tiered VAT is what I'd say

here I was thinking we could talk about the world without someone mentioning trump for a page

"politicians are all talk, no action" - governor trump

yeah that would've really helped his entire appeal as a candidate. he was elected BECAUSE he had no governing experience. were you paying any attention at all?

On November 06 2019 08:09 Santafairy wrote: I like to do a one time huge (graded) tax on wealth as well as raking up most of the unused capital hoarded by these super monopolies and conglomerates, while rebalancing the economy and setting up normal regulations. if the taxpayer can bail out the banks the banks should be able to bail out the country. if annual wealth tax is so hard to enforce you should crank up the rate to make sure the revenue is substantial no?

Capital is taxed indirectly through inflation every year (avg about 3% in US), the FED to finance the government's programs prints about 3% of the total USD physical and digital circulating in the world diluting its purchase power in an equal measure.

For this very reason really wealthy people rarely hoard capital and rather have it sitting in non-depreciating assets (stocks, real state, etc), which is the reason why inflation sucks, because its a regressive tax, affecting more the poor and especially the middle class (with savings but not enogh money to buy assets/stocks).

That being said there are strong arguments for inflation, a stable or deflationary currency gains value as production naturally grows, so its an incentive to actually hoard money since its purchasing power increases in an equal measure to the PIB.

--------

No, cranking up the % of tax to compensate for tax evasion is awful, it would encourage more evasion and it would severely hurt the honest people who don't evade the tax.

There are much better ways to tax effectively but sadly the tax-code is broken because of lobbying, before trying to tax the rich the lobbying system has to stop and parties should be funded by taxes, now that is a campaign people should get behind stop the rich from buying the state, end lobbying instead of these retarded proposal by pseudo socialist dimwits.

There's a problem with that also Baal
-Instead of rich people buying politicians through lobbying you put some sort of ban on that, and instead parties get money from the state for size of base etc.

You allow the billionaires to take their money and run directly, start "movements". You make the situation you're trying to solve even worse


This literally happened in my country, our PM is a billionaire with higher net worth than Trump, in a country of 10m people...
He spent shitloads on marketing, populist messages and now has huge influence over laws that impact his companies directly. (we don't have a dualist system so 25% of the vote as the biggest party can net you the government if you find coalition partners. And because you always get money from state if you run a successful party there's always been many of them and the parliament is fragmented)

I can't pretend to know what the solutions are

using tiered VAT to tax corporations' revenues instead of letting them do the shenanigans with profit and offshore accounts seems like a no-brainer widely used everywhere

EDIT: my theory also is that this is a big reason for the success of US so far though...instead of syphoning away VAT on every product you tax profits, forcing them to re-invest into capital and growth to avoid tax, creating jobs etc. But when they earn just way too much I suppose it's time to halt the growth a bit in lieu of curbing down on their power.

Then fight against the shenanigans used already with loopholes etc.

And that 6% wealth tax annually is just moronic

are a start

On November 06 2019 01:27 Baalim wrote: The moral hazard created by the government and the 2.28 mortgage loan is a right wing fantasy. Its a fantasy that the government would cover the losses in the event of defaults incentivizing the banks to lend irresponsibly... but Obama "quantitive easied" the banks precisely covering the losses when the housing market collapsed.

OK the standard alt-right line was that the "meddling" you're referring to was stuff like the CRA (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/community_reinvestment_act.asp) which encourages lending to poor communities, so 2008 was a product of mass amounts of poors (mainly minorities) suddenly becoming lazy and irresponsible and not being able to pay there bills which caused the housing collapse. All of that is bullshit of course.

Seems like your line though is that the "meddling" was the imagined existence of some sort of government legislation or guarantee prior to the crisis that somehow predicted this once in a century black swan event. So my bad, congrats on being less racist but just more weird.

What bullshit, the poor and minorities are also to blame for 2008 NMcNasty, that much should be obvious.
Irresponsible, yes, suddenly becoming? No people are NOT RATIONAL from an economist's standpoint.
That's why functional capitalism always needs some form of regulation, the masses are largely "stupid" and easily manipulated, just like they were in 2008 and always are, there needs to be government regulation to protect them.

On November 06 2019 16:30 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On November 06 2019 01:27 Baalim wrote: The moral hazard created by the government and the 2.28 mortgage loan is a right wing fantasy. Its a fantasy that the government would cover the losses in the event of defaults incentivizing the banks to lend irresponsibly... but Obama "quantitive easied" the banks precisely covering the losses when the housing market collapsed. OK the standard alt-right line was that the "meddling" you're referring to was stuff like the CRA (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/community_reinvestment_act.asp) which encourages lending to poor communities, so 2008 was a product of mass amounts of poors (mainly minorities) suddenly becoming lazy and irresponsible and not being able to pay there bills which caused the housing collapse. All of that is bullshit of course. Seems like your line though is that the "meddling" was the imagined existence of some sort of government legislation or guarantee prior to the crisis that somehow predicted this once in a century black swan event. So my bad, congrats on being less racist but just more weird.

I actually mean both, and I dont blame any minority, I blame the government for derisking lending directly and implicitly.

If I were to offer you to cover all your losses but you keep all your profits of the next hand in poker you would naturally go all-in and who is to blame for this situation, you for being greedy or me for being an idiot?

You don't help anybody by creating systems that are easily exploited, you don't help people by campaigning about condoning student debt, people are lending like its 08 all over again.

On November 06 2019 13:56 LemOn[5thF] wrote: There's a problem with that also Baal -Instead of rich people buying politicians through lobbying you put some sort of ban on that, and instead parties get money from the state for size of base etc. You allow the billionaires to take their money and run directly, start "movements". You make the situation you're trying to solve even worse This literally happened in my country, our PM is a billionaire with higher net worth than Trump, in a country of 10m people... He spent shitloads on marketing, populist messages and now has huge influence over laws that impact his companies directly. (we don't have a dualist system so 25% of the vote as the biggest party can net you the government if you find coalition partners. And because you always get money from state if you run a successful party there's always been many of them and the parliament is fragmented)

Yes and I would also like a world without billionares for that exact reason, its too much power, but that power pales in comparison to state power.

I've said many times that these billionares exist only because they can manipulate the state into protecting their interest and the less friction in the market the easier they fall, but lets say the market changes and digital monopolies aren't inefficient and can keep growing even in a free market, well then I would totally be for a system of redistribution, but one where efficiency is the emphasis.

In terms of collection VAT is hard to dodge but I have my doubt on how effective it could be by taxing a specific income bracket, but I'm sure good accountants can come up with strong simple sistems.
In terms of distribution UBI is the best way I can think of, the entirety of the budget beyond utilities should be given in UBI, transform medicaid, medicare bla bla bla into cash and give it to people.

I feel like this isn't the first time we've tried to call the Mexican guy racist.

VAT is great in a country like Norway where the lowest salaries are still fairly high and where you're basically just trying to get a lot of taxes (one of few times I agreed with Rubio was when he said that VAT is a great way to conceal the real taxation level), but it does nothing for redistribution.

Norway always had a wealth tax until it was cancelled by the current (right wing by norwegian standards) government, and inequality been growing during their reign. For redistribution, wealth tax and estate tax are the two taxes that are 'designed' for it, if that's what you want, it's what you want to go for. But then a wealth tax for example should not target funds that are invested (even socialist left party in Norway made that suggestion).

Also my preferred method of redistribution is 'build strong public institutions', make public inner city schools have equal funding and equal quality and density of teachers as private suburban schools do, same with healthcare. Not a big fan of just giving people some money, at least not as a stand-alone solution.

On November 07 2019 04:01 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 06 2019 13:56 LemOn[5thF] wrote: There's a problem with that also Baal -Instead of rich people buying politicians through lobbying you put some sort of ban on that, and instead parties get money from the state for size of base etc. You allow the billionaires to take their money and run directly, start "movements". You make the situation you're trying to solve even worse This literally happened in my country, our PM is a billionaire with higher net worth than Trump, in a country of 10m people... He spent shitloads on marketing, populist messages and now has huge influence over laws that impact his companies directly. (we don't have a dualist system so 25% of the vote as the biggest party can net you the government if you find coalition partners. And because you always get money from state if you run a successful party there's always been many of them and the parliament is fragmented) Yes and I would also like a world without billionares for that exact reason, its too much power, but that power pales in comparison to state power. I've said many times that these billionares exist only because they can manipulate the state into protecting their interest and the less friction in the market the easier they fall, but lets say the market changes and digital monopolies aren't inefficient and can keep growing even in a free market, well then I would totally be for a system of redistribution, but one where efficiency is the emphasis. In terms of collection VAT is hard to dodge but I have my doubt on how effective it could be by taxing a specific income bracket, but I'm sure good accountants can come up with strong simple sistems. In terms of distribution UBI is the best way I can think of, the entirety of the budget beyond utilities should be given in UBI, transform medicaid, medicare bla bla bla into cash and give it to people.

in VAT you don't tax specific income bracket directly
You tax goods that income brackets use

E..g. UK has basic foods exempt completely. You buy rice or potatoes there's no VAT
You buy basic biscuits - also exempt, because British be British

You have the Biscuits dipped in chocolate however - boom, mid tier rate of VAT :D

And then you put luxury goods like private jets into the highest bracket.


EDIT: you don't have to come up with anything, this works everywhere in the world you just copy it and tweak the brackets to your environment. As I said this puts a big break on big corporations as you tax their revenue and not profit, and take away from the huge incentive to re-invest into capital and growth to totally dodge national taxes.

On November 07 2019 08:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: VAT is great in a country like Norway where the lowest salaries are still fairly high and where you're basically just trying to get a lot of taxes (one of few times I agreed with Rubio was when he said that VAT is a great way to conceal the real taxation level), but it does nothing for redistribution. Norway always had a wealth tax until it was cancelled by the current (right wing by norwegian standards) government, and inequality been growing during their reign. For redistribution, wealth tax and estate tax are the two taxes that are 'designed' for it, if that's what you want, it's what you want to go for. But then a wealth tax for example should not target funds that are invested (even socialist left party in Norway made that suggestion). Also my preferred method of redistribution is 'build strong public institutions', make public inner city schools have equal funding and equal quality and density of teachers as private suburban schools do, same with healthcare. Not a big fan of just giving people some money, at least not as a stand-alone solution.

See this is why what Warren proposed is totally moronic populism, her numbers show a flat 6% annually on net worth, including capital - those people would have to liquidate their investments just to pay for that and her healthcare, and she's somehow expect them to stay in the country and not do anything possible to dodge that