Can you be socially progressive and fiscally conservative?

yeah... for every Lanz, there's probably 100 TLSs.... It'd be nice if it were the other way around, but it isn't. :/

I don't believe the private and charitable sectors could provide social welfare in an economic minarchy. The historic inadequacy is borne out by virtue of the necessity of government administered programs. Although, we can't really paint this with a broad brush given the web of intersectionalities. The failure of trickle down capitalism is likely the best starting point, as social welfare requirements have exploded in the last 30 years.

No, for the most part it's just made up bullshit. Really it's just about making the people feel morally superior to others. Hence the attempt to label themselves "progressive" even as they do everything they can to undo what had been done since the civil rights movement up until they decided to start fucking things up. Identity politics are based entirely in stereotypes based on things like race, sex, "gender" and sexual orientation. The only "diversity" that is valued amongst them is skin color. Any ideas that are even the least little bit different from the party line is not tolerated, and if anyone dares not fit the description of the little box they've tried to shove them into, the real bigotry comes out and you get, for example, people calling black people by racial epithet.

This is identity politics in a nutshell:

It's impossible to be Marxist and fiscally conservative.

Wow

Cool.

I don't think many of us disagree that a surgeon should make more than a janitor without having it taxed away. It's simply a question of how many times over.

I like the example of surgeon, because it's hard to think of a job that involves more education, skill, or daily agony. Google says the median surgeon salary is $365k per annum. That's more than most of us will ever make, but compared to some businessman, investors, etc, who make more than $1 million per year, a surgeon’s salary is not that much.

The higher on the pay scale one goes, the less of it comes from individual merit, and the more of it comes from “rents.” A rough estimate puts billionaire wealth at a whopping 74% coming from rents, not merit.

So, yeah, if you made more money, you earned it, but only up to a point. I’d say after $1 million dollars per annum, tax rates in excess of 50% become fair. Reinvesting that money in basic research, healthcare, infrastructure, environmental protection, etc—things private companies can’t or won’t fund—is better for everybody.

No. Taking more than half of someone's stuff just because you think they have "too much" or "didn't really earn it" is a path to tyranny. Because that $1 mil threshold quickly becomes $750k, then $500k, then $250k, and so on down the line until the poor schmuck making ten dollars an hour is seeing half or more of his pay disappearing in taxes.

Right now I make a decent wage. I'm "comfortable" as they say. And as it happens a little more than 1/3 of what I make goes to taxes of one sort or another. But suppose I write a best-selling novel that gets adapted into a movie and then spins off a TV show. Suddenly I'm a multi-millionaire. You're telling me that because I've had success, I suddenly need to fork over more than half of what I've made "to be fair"? I don't think so. Now, you can debate about what a tax rate should be, but for me personally when you start getting much over about 25% then I start to have a problem with it. The only "fair" income tax is a flat-rate tax, where everyone pays the same rate regardless of individual circumstance.

And always remember that to tax a thing is to discourage that thing.

Even if this were true, I'd rather convince people to vote for an elite based on lack of racism, sexism, et al than vote for - as the GOP do - an elite that fucking enforce those things, because they want more fucking cash.

Oh fuck off. I've never minded paying tax, and I only earn £49k per year, which does put me in a high tax bracket. Why? Because I've benefited from the use of taxpayer-funded programmes. The kind of cunts who disagree are either too fucking stupid to realise how much society helps them, or have had everything handed to them on a goddamn plate and thus never had to struggle for their cash (and thus noticed the contribution of taxpayer funding).

Yes, yes you should. The people buying your book were able to read it thanks to your taxes at work.

Point in fact, if millions of dollars start flowing your way over a single book, your success was the result of many things beyond your writing skills and dedication.

The government had to invest in education so that your fans were literate enough to read your book. Hundreds of years of publishing technology and infrastructure had to develop in order for your book to be available to so many people. Government had to protect the intellectual property so that you actually got paid anything for your work. The economy at large had to be developed enough, and your fans rich enough, for money on that scale to flow to you at all.

All of these are reasons why the proceeds from book sales deserve to be reinvested into society rather than held in your bank account. 50% of $20 million will still make you happy beyond belief.

What an unbelievably stupid fucking analogy.

speaking of getting rich from writing and taxes...


J. K. Rowling on paying taxes and the welfare state


"I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr. Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug".
J.K. Rowling on welfare and patriotism
J.K. Rowling, the multi-millionaire author of the Harry Potter books, had some very interesting things to say about taxes and the welfare state:

"I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr. Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug".

As silly as I think Rowling is in some ways, nice to hear.

It's not your place to put a dollar amount on someone's happiness. Nor do I buy that government is entitled to more wealth just because a segment of the population was more successful than others in accumulating money. Every one of those government functions are already funded through three different layers of taxation and none of them have the right to 50 percent under any circumstances.

Your entire position is nothing more than class warfare based on envy.

And yours is a failure to appreciate the full reality of economic activity and who causes what, based on greed. Cheers.

Clinton's campaign was largely based in sexism with a bit of racism just for giggles and grins.

as with most things, it depends on how you define your terms

The only "fair" income tax is one where billionaires pay the same percentage as people living in poverty.*

*-This is what libertarians actually believe.

Or we could stop being robbed of our labor and eliminate the income tax all together.

Because it's the only approach to an income tax that makes sense and is actually fair. I know there's lots of folks who get all riled up if they think someone has "too much" and they feel a great moral outrage, but tough shit. If you make $30k/year and I make $120k/year, but we both pay a tax of 20% on it, then that's fair. If you pay 10% but I pay 35%, that's punishing me for being more successful. Wrong approach.

Paying the same rate on capital gains as income might gain you some leverage there, Lanz.

The real point is that if you have money, it's easier to make more money without a commensurate amount of work.

Wait. You understand how marginal rates work right?

All people pay the same tax rate on the same income.

Hang on -- why not take the flat tax a step further?

Federal tax revenues are $3.3 trillion, and there are 318 million people in the U.S. Why not just say that every family has to pay $10,377 for each person in it?

Which is not at all the same thing as a flat tax.

By the way, I just realized I made an error here: while total federal tax revenues are $3.3 trillion, only about 63.5% of it comes from personal income taxes and the employee's share of payroll taxes. (Somewhat more when you consider that self-employed people are responsible for the entire payroll tax instead of half, but I think we can ignore that for now.)

That gets us about $2.095 trillion coming from direct taxes on people's income, and a tax per person of $6,588.

So with those numbers amended, I'll ask again: Why should each family's tax bill not simply be equal to the number of people in the family times $6,588?

Or if you'd prefer not to tax kids, why not just say that every person over age 18 owes exactly $8,657?

In principle, once you accede the idea of an income tax at all, what you suggest is on the table. The principle of the government having some right to a portion of your income that they determine has already been established.

That said, in the 50's such wealth was taxed at insane levels and the progression you describe did not, in fact, take place. It's not a given that the floor, whatever it is, will drop over time. Indeed, as you go lower you get into larger voting blocks and encounter more resistance.

Flat tax, fair? Fuck off. If I'm paid $200 a week, and pay 10% in tax, I'm losing a significant chunk of income that could go towards food. If a guy paid $100k a week pays 10% tax, he maybe can't afford a third fucking car he doesn't need except to make his manhood feel larger.

It's only "fair" to those currently paying more because their income is well over what is necessary to ensure their basic needs are met. The reason for which is that you are reliant on those beneath you and are thus subsidizing their lower rate. Wanna change that? How about backing a goddamn proper minimum wage? But ooohhhh no, THAT infringes your right to bend workers over a barrel if they'll "let" you - and you have the fucking chutzpah to use the "slavery" card...

That and the amount of discretionary income the 100K/week participant enjoys allows him to invest rather than just feed and house himself. Not only does he enjoy profits not open to the $200/week guy, the profits from his investment are taxed at a lower rate.

We are in a class war. That the poor and middle class are losing is obvious. It just surprises me that people on the losing side are cheering the winners. Must be the trickle-down myth. That warm trickle you feel is piss.