|
TheImmigrant posted:It's unlikely in London, with safe and affluent as parameters. Feel free to prove me wrong. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^93917&minPrice=300&maxPrice=1750&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&displayPropertyType=flats&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&googleAnalyticsChannel=renting 1-10 of 1000+ two bedroom flats to rent found
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:56 |
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's unlikely in London, with safe and affluent as parameters. Feel free to prove me wrong. So am I right that this is an elaborate way to say that we shouldn't say nasty things about the UMC, or what? Bip Roberts posted:Has anyone suggested I'll do it. We can fix the class system over a period of decades by pushing one step at a time for full safety nets, economic democracy, the leisure society, etc. without needing more than the usual levels of violence in a liberal democracy. In theory.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:53
|
|
social democracy
Effectronica posted:I'll do it. We can fix the class system over a period of decades by pushing one step at a time for full safety nets, economic democracy, the leisure society, etc. without needing more than the usual levels of violence in a liberal democracy. In theory. Good luck, social democracy is on the wane in Europe.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 20:54
|
|
Disinterested posted:Good luck, social democracy is on the wane in Europe. Given infinite political will and no gigantic economic disasters...
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I need my neighborhood to be """""safe""""" and """""affluent""""". How can I discern these qualities at a glance? Who can say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
$100k puts you at the bottom of the top income quintile in the US. Yeah, you might not be a millionaire, but you're better off than basically 80% of Americans. I'm not sure I'd call it rich, but if you lived in a city like Omaha (there are many worse places to live) you'd be living like a king. You'd live comfortably in any city in the US. I personally don't think capitalism is a very good economic system for getting what we care about, but if we're sticking with it, yeah, high taxes on the rich, GMI/mincome initiatives, cheap/free education, and cheap/free health care is a pretty good way to at least go in the right direction for eliminating income inequality. Getting that to happen? gently caress if I know how to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
this thread is bad. can we make it better? What are peoples' thoughts on a supposed Land tax? I've heard this thrown around as one small remedy that isn't regressive and would bring in significant cash for the govt to invest in social programs. Beyond that there's the obvious things like mansion, inheritance, and capital gains tax. That last one in particular needs to be buffed up because there's lots of money moving through our modern market system that is not going to anything beneficial other than the production of more wealth. The issue with all this is of course the atmosphere isn't conducive for new taxes. Every capitalist and Fox News pundit will scream class warfare until their hoarse and it doesn't prevent them being overturned in future (Democrat or Republican) administrations. But besides closing tax loopholes and really cracking down on safe havens, I don't really see any other way to build up the funding required for the kinds of programs needed to bring people up like... quote:I personally don't think capitalism is a very good economic system for getting what we care about, but if we're sticking with it, yeah, high taxes on the rich, GMI/mincome initiatives, cheap/free education, and cheap/free health care is a pretty good way to at least go in the right direction for eliminating income inequality. Getting that to happen? gently caress if I know how to make it happen. what is mentioned here. Yes, the US has all the resources it could ever need to do these kinds of things, but it's going to be hard disentangling them from the defense budget and other sinkholes. Canadian Surf Club fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
The truth about taxation is that generally speaking flat and regressive taxation is better for the market. If you're not abandoning the free market, then ideally it is better to just have very heavy sales taxes and other similar regressive taxes, but to compensate for this regressive effect by paying back with a massive system of social investment and security. That's what the Swedes do. I have never been able to work out why corporation tax is so absurdly high in the USA given how much they love corporations and the free market, or say they do. It is not a very effective form of taxation for the market.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The truth about taxation is that generally speaking flat and regressive taxation is better for the market. If you're not abandoning the free market, then ideally it is better to just have very heavy sales taxes and other similar regressive taxes, but to compensate for this regressive effect by paying back with a massive system of social investment and security. That's what the Swedes do. Because it is pretend, corporations do not pay the tax rate they bitch about so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:20
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because it is pretend, corporations do not pay the tax rate they bitch about so much. Of course it's pretend, but that isn't an explanation for the phenomenon at all. You're not breaking any ground at all. The problem with advocating the view I have just put forward is that European right wingers like to advocate flatter and more regressive taxation by referencing the Swedish system. This is quite a deceitful approach because they want the tax system but not the social security system - that is to say, the other half of the bargain.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Of course it's pretend, but that isn't an explanation for the phenomenon at all. You're not breaking any ground at all. You appeared mystified and did not make any reference to the fact that corporations do not pay the supposed corporate tax rate; I guess you were breaking even less ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because it is pretend, corporations do not pay the tax rate they bitch about so much. propose a tax on all travel itineraries to IRS-dedignated state sponsors of tax evasion Also get IRS the tools of CIA with the oversight of NSA and the budget of DEA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:propose a tax on all travel itineraries to IRS-dedignated state sponsors of tax evasion I'm feeling a sense of political alignment with MIGF; help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:34
|
|
SedanChair posted:You appeared mystified and did not make any reference to the fact that corporations do not pay the supposed corporate tax rate; I guess you were breaking even less ground. That is a fairly universal problem - it nonetheless does not explain why the United States has a nominal top rate of corporate tax higher than any European country. I'm quite certain corporations in the US are paying a greater proportion of their income in corporation taxes than comparable British ones. You would think that would be a way bigger political sticking point than it actually is.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Also get IRS the tools of CIA with the oversight of NSA and the budget of DEA. I would switch careers to IRS SWAT team Member. e: I want to be in the corporate tax gestapo
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is a fairly universal problem - it nonetheless does not explain why the United States has a nominal top rate of corporate tax higher than any European country. I'm quite certain corporations in the US are paying a greater proportion of their income in corporation taxes than comparable British ones. What you're looking for is the effective corporate tax rate; in the UK, I'd recommend reading up on the Triple Lux. We have such high rates to stall the rate at which competition enters our markets. Whats hard about that to understand? Miltank posted:I would switch careers to IRS SWAT team Member. Ut cum fiducia et sine termino obiceret: Our Congressional Mandate. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:propose a tax on all travel itineraries to IRS-dedignated state sponsors of tax evasion This would be completely ineffective. First, it isn't necessary to travel to the Switzerland to deposit funds in an account there. Second, most US citizens traveling to Switzerland do not do so to avoid US taxation. This would be a terribly-crafted tool that bears little relation to its stated goal. quote:Also get IRS the tools of CIA with the oversight of NSA and the budget of DEA. The CIA's charter generally does not permit it to gather intelligence on US citizens. I'm sure it happens, but an acknowledgment would be facially invalid. Besides, I'm categorically opposed to any expansion of the ambit of the CIA's role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:43
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What you're looking for is the effective corporate tax rate; in the UK, I'd recommend reading up on the Triple Lux. The effective rate in the US is high, comparatively, even disregarding deductions. Certainly higher than in high-tax European social democratic countries. Your argument appears to be that it's oligopolistic/protectionist? I guess I could buy that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
I think he said give the IRS CIA powers, not expand the CIA. Nice misdirection, keep it up and they might let you on All Things Considered opposite E.J. Dionne on Fridays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:45
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is a fairly universal problem - it nonetheless does not explain why the United States has a nominal top rate of corporate tax higher than any European country. I'm quite certain corporations in the US are paying a greater proportion of their income in corporation taxes than comparable British ones. People in the US don't like corporations all that much, so it's not a winning proposition from a voting perspective and the notion of appealing to something being good policy is anathema to our political culture. Thus, it remains an internal business Republican talking point.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The effective rate in the US is high, comparatively, even disregarding deductions. Certainly higher than in high-tax European social democratic countries. The more capital you accumulate, the lower your effective tax rate. Hell, you pay enough, we'll pay you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
The US corporate tax rate is high because big companies don't pay it and small-to-medium companies do; this favors big, established companies. If they wanted it reduced it would be absolutely trivial to lobby Congress to do so. They like it the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is a fairly universal problem - it nonetheless does not explain why the United States has a nominal top rate of corporate tax higher than any European country. I'm quite certain corporations in the US are paying a greater proportion of their income in corporation taxes than comparable British ones. That would require Americans actually knowing a drat thing about their own tax policies let loving alone those of other countries. Otherwise it's extremely helpful, politically. In practice, corporations pay much less than the nominal tax rate, but in theory, any attempt to raise revenues from corporate income can be spun into "adding more to the most burdensome corporate tax rates in the world" Heavy neutrino fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
The challenge: Reduce gross tax rates while increasing effective tax rates through a progressive structuring The solution: Invade Switzerland and all state sponsors of tax evasion and execute all their bankers who refuse to cooperate Implications: Pax Americanum. Empire is natural in order to reduce tax evasion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:58
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The challenge: Reduce gross tax rates while increasing effective tax rates through a progressive structuring As Britain is to free trade in the 19th century, America is to tax evasion in the 21st. I'm not sure this is what Cecil Rhodes and Kipling had in mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:As Britain is to free trade in the 19th century, America is to tax evasion in the 21st. I'm not sure this is what Cecil Rhodes and Kipling had in mind. Taking up the taxman's burden, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:As Britain is to free trade in the 19th century, America is to tax evasion in the 21st. I'm not sure this is what Cecil Rhodes and Kipling had in mind. Of course they didn't, they wanted empire under English control. Well, England is poo poo and now belongs to America. Guess what? We need a Conference of Washington to divide the world's tax shelters into spheres of influence and allo Germany to annex Benelux.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:When the revolution comes, people who write like this will be assigned a debate coach, who will smack them whenever they use formalism in informal communications. Happy Boxing Day!! You say that, but what are the political leanings of most gun nuts/veterans/police in the U.S.? When the "revolution comes" you may find yourself "smacked" by a "debate coach".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:07
|
|
spacetoaster posted:You say that, but what are the political leanings of most gun nuts/veterans/police in the U.S.? I won't stand for your filthy innuendos about right-wingers, but I will return your fantasies about the death of a perfect stranger with gruesomer ones.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Housing a family of four in a safe and affluent area of London costs at least $36,000 a year. Don't live in london. It's crap and overpriced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I won't stand for your filthy innuendos about right-wingers, but I will return your fantasies about the death of a perfect stranger with gruesomer ones. Oh you big tease. If I didn't know any better I'd say you didn't love me anymore. Seriously though, the French revolution had the support of a lot of the military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Oh you big tease. If I didn't know any better I'd say you didn't love me anymore. *definitions of French military at the time may not be comprehensive nor representative of the changing loyalties of the military Why did the French lose at Gibralter snd the Nile? So that Napoleon could win Italy and the Pyramids---strip the gunners and officers to fill out the land-based artillery detachments. Hell, look at the background of the men in Napoleon's Parisian command when he fired: Middle-class, naval men, willing to fire on the peasant mob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:*definitions of French military at the time may not be comprehensive nor representative of the changing loyalties of the military Yeah, Napoleon is cool and everyone knows him. I was thinking of Charles Pichegru though. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
I have a US-centric question related to this topic: While I know that it didn't fix the problem, we were at least able to band-aid the class divide after the great depression for a little while, weren't we? Was it the New Deal that did that? And, provided the political will ever existed, could a New Deal II ever happen, or would that be impossible with the way the global economy works now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 02:39
|
|
Mirthless posted:I have a US-centric question related to this topic: While I know that it didn't fix the problem, we were at least able to band-aid the class divide after the great depression for a little while, weren't we? Was it the New Deal that did that? And, provided the political will ever existed, could a New Deal II ever happen, or would that be impossible with the way the global economy works now? More important was the aftermath of WW2, when virtually all of the nations in the American sphere worked out various deals for prosperity with their citizens. Some of these were imposed like in West Germany and Japan, while others were directly negotiated at the ballot box like with Britain and France, or left somewhat implicit as in the US (and the fact that the US was one of six or seven industrial nations which weren't a burned-out husk, and the only one that had been a major power before the war, helped). These largely lasted until broad economic crises in the late 1970s destroyed the march towards the affluent society described by Galbraith, Keynes, and many of the early social-democrats (this is where people stopped getting more money for greater productivity) and the austere governments of Thatcher, Reagan, and so on replaced this liberal ideology. Of course, the New Deal was a large part of the American idea of liberalism too. So with that said, it's possible to go to a similar attitude of prosperity-first, but a rerun would require a gigantic series of crises that first (and this is my speculative interpretation of why these deals were adopted, mind) cleared out the market-liberal beliefs that hold so many today and discredited them entirely, and secondly reinvigorated idealistic liberalism and led people to hold to the ideals of liberalism across the board (or democratic socialism, or social democracy, or whatever you want to call it). That is, the Great Depression and World War 2. We've had a long depression, but it hasn't actually discredited austerity or conventional economic theory as of yet where the Great Depression opened up room for developmentalists in the US and Keynes's theories in Europe. Nor, hopefully, will we have a global war where the inhuman violence of one side transforms the war into one of ideals anytime soon.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Free Speech and Free Market should be able to course correct everything. This of course means we actually need free speech and a free market, which we do not have. To accomplish, we must reclaim the public airwaves, so that the resource of mass communication is distributed in a free and fair manner. This of course will require human driven filtering systems, that allow ideas, products, and politicians to be promoted based on their actual merits, rather then finance driven propaganda. Education and investigation would also need to be elements of the filtering system, as well as reasonable levels of proxy so that we can continue to have divisions of labor where necessary. In addition we might need to convert all corporations to non-profits and or bcorps, to prevent social hacking of the new communication systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:I have a US-centric question related to this topic: While I know that it didn't fix the problem, we were at least able to band-aid the class divide after the great depression for a little while, weren't we? Was it the New Deal that did that? And, provided the political will ever existed, could a New Deal II ever happen, or would that be impossible with the way the global economy works now? The New Deal and war time spending primed the pump (to use FDR's rhetoric) but what kept us out of a major correction after the war was the fact that all of our competitors had their factories bombed. Once they fixed them and started manufacturing again, suddenly American prosperity began to wither.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The New Deal and war time spending primed the pump (to use FDR's rhetoric) but what kept us out of a major correction after the war was the fact that all of our competitors had their factories bombed. Well, its a bit more complicated. Perceptions of Russian foreign policy 1950-1975 had major implications for American institutional investors and acceptable multinational balance sheet risk ratios; we truly believed that the Soviets would be around for much longer than they were, and invested accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
I'm a bit behind in this thread: have we already ruled out guaranteed minimum income, free college education, making it legal for unions to strike during the life of the contract, end the drug war, ban private prisons, and cutting the absurd subsidies to private industry and/or partially nationalizing all the resource extraction companies? People get nervous when the term "nationalization" comes up, but that's because it's usually done by incompetent goons that have no business running a food truck, much less an industrial economy. Also we should switch from short prison sentences to corporal punishment/ body mutilation for financial crimes, environmental crimes, etc. Although it's usually not possible to get the money back or undo the damage, the threat of castration or having your spine severed could be a more lot tangible than 18 months in a minimum security prison and some fines. Or does using a cigar cutter as a wiener guillotine violate the thread rules?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Smerdyakov posted:
Depends on your opinion on the legality of waterboarding I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:32
|
|