Lightning Knight posted:

This makes perfect sense to me in economic terms, it just feels wrong in moral terms.

I'll think about it more.

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Well yeah but those people probably never vote. A Sanders primary voter is part of the politic process so it means more if they stayed home for the genera.

Lightning Knight posted:

No I meant what does "wealth tax" exactly entail, mechanically? Are we talking stuff like property taxes?


This makes perfect sense to me in economic terms, it just feels wrong in moral terms.

I'll think about it more.

Trabisnikof posted:

A wealth tax is literally that, a tax on accumulated wealth. It isn't a property tax. Usually people describe it as only applying above a certain amount, like %0.25 annually on wealth over $10M or whatever.

Lightning Knight posted:

So we're talking something like a tax on net worth? I guess I'm just not clear on how that is calculated.

Edit: ^ ah, I see.

Also, a cool thing in Mississippi:

https://twitter.com/TheRoot/status/923633618492194816

Trabisnikof posted:

A wealth tax is literally that, a tax on accumulated wealth. It isn't a property tax.

LeJackal posted:

Maybe they shouldn't have betrayed Fairfax and sold out to corporate interests. It's pretty transparent that lobbying dollars are more important than representing voters and their interests. So why wouldn't people be excited and passionate about knocking and doors to usher in a group that dropped them at the first wiggle of a checkbook?

RuanGacho posted:

I mean this as a genuine point of discussion, can you define liberalism? Because GOP lite has been running the Dems for years now as what is considered "Liberal" trade policy in the rest of the world.

We all are not liberals not because Rush Limbaugh carries on about us, but in the sense that we don't actually want free trade, we want fair trade, we want worker protections, we want what markets we must endure to not come at the cost of human life, these are all contradictory to "liberal".

DACK FAYDEN posted:

Not arguing with you on that. It's one of those things where I see what it's doing and like the results, but if I spend more time thinking about it might well turn out that I'm not actually morally okay with it.

(and I'm not a real economist since I only have a Master's in experimental/micro theory so my macroeconomics might be horribly wrong.)

wixard posted:

New Jersey actually has exactly the sort of progressive sales tax mentioned: no tax on unprepared food, clothing (except fur), household paper products, or medicine.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

This is literally what I was talking about.

Justin Fairfax wasn’t dropped at all. Read my post. The mailing had two (2) pieces. One with Fairfax endorsed by the AFL-CIO, and one without endorsed by LiUNA. This is, and I’m spitballing here, a handful of of the over one million pieces of highly customizable literature we do, by district, by union, etc.

There’s not a betrayal when the mailing itself says “The Virginia AFL-CIO Proudly Endorses Justin Fairfax for Lieutenant Governor.” And since the Fairfax campaign came out hours later and flat out said “y’all, this is nothing,” why make this a stick to beat people with?

I mean, again, this is an excuse to be mad instead of proactive. I’m gonna guess, stop me if I’m wrong, that you haven’t lifted a finger for Fairfax either. (I hope I’m wrong, because I’m pretty mad about this.) And if you’d like to, since he is a proper progressive (until the left turns on him for his client list, anyway), I would be happy to turn you on to some folks so you can help him get in.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

You loving rock man. Please keep up the awesome work.

In polling news
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/923665904126263296

Lightning Knight posted:

Do you feel that this is good public policy versus having a progressive income tax? Do you think that it matters?

wixard posted:

I think I support the idea in general, if you're going to have a sales tax. I don't really have anything to back it up as being progressive, I wouldn't know what measure to look at to make that judgment. But I thought I'd mention there's at least one state doing it, if someone does want to try to compare some kind of data.

I wouldn't call my experience living in Camden County very progressive. Camden itself is practically abandoned while Cherry Hill has multiple newish high schools with swimming pools, but I think that has more to do with how property taxes work there.

Lightning Knight posted:

That's interesting. Out of curiosity, what is your sales tax rate?

I came from a quintessential Rust Belt town that is now largely hollowed out, and my state (Wisconsin) has a sales tax of about ~5% if I recall correctly, while Illinois has a slightly higher sales tax and myriad additional regulations. So there's a degree of people driving up from Illinois to buy things in Wisconsin that are illegal or more expensive there, such as notably fireworks. So the politics of sales taxes and local regulation of goods is very interesting to me.

wixard posted:

Jersey also tends to have the cheapest gas in the area, even though they're required to staff attendants so you can't pump your own. I've never understood that.

wixard posted:

I live in NC now, but NJ is 7%. It has Delaware nextdoor with no sales tax, driving down there to shop is common but it doesn't save you any money for medicine, groceries or back-to-school shopping so I feel like NJ's sales tax would help some folks that way.

But South Jersey is pretty interesting for the misc regulations thing too. Like PA has weird beer distribution laws (it's expensive to buy less than a case, basically) so if you live there you drive to Jersey for that. Jersey also tends to have the cheapest gas in the area, even though they're required to staff attendants so you can't pump your own. I've never understood that.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

Keep reading and the question will be answered in time.

Anyhow, got a desktop again so here's some links and info

NOVA GOONS: COME KNOCK ON DOORS FOR DEMOCRACY

Saturday 10/28 & Saturday 11/4, 4536-B John Marr Drive, Annandale VA
Breakfast Provided, Technology Provided, Lunch Provided, Sense of Self-Worth Self-Grown

Renaissance Spam posted:

Jesus Christ has this been posted yet?

I mean, it's not surprising, we've seen enough evidence of ICE using any opportunity to deport folks but this feels like an example of how callous their mentality is, going beyond "just doing my job" into gleeful sadism.

Radish posted:

What time is this one and do you need to bring anything?

Your Boy Fancy posted:

I mean, again, this is an excuse to be mad instead of proactive. I’m gonna guess, stop me if I’m wrong, that you haven’t lifted a finger for Fairfax either. (I hope I’m wrong, because I’m pretty mad about this.) And if you’d like to, since he is a proper progressive (until the left turns on him for his client list, anyway), I would be happy to turn you on to some folks so you can help him get in.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

Doors open at 0830, oo-rah speeches are at 0900, everyone is out the door by 0930. Fair warning: this week is the Annandale Parade, so 236 gets a little blown up.

You don’t need to bring a thing except yourself. We do a lot of our walks via smartphone app, which you can put on your own phone (it’s pretty small and sips data) or you can borrow one of ours. If you’ve never walked before, we can pair you with a veteran. If you have a friend, Bring a friend so we stop eating all the bagels ourselves. I don’t want to be fat

Your Boy Fancy posted:

This is literally what I was talking about.

Justin Fairfax wasn’t dropped at all. Read my post. The mailing had two (2) pieces. One with Fairfax endorsed by the AFL-CIO, and one without endorsed by LiUNA. This is, and I’m spitballing here, a handful of of the over one million pieces of highly customizable literature we do, by district, by union, etc.

There’s not a betrayal when the mailing itself says “The Virginia AFL-CIO Proudly Endorses Justin Fairfax for Lieutenant Governor.” And since the Fairfax campaign came out hours later and flat out said “y’all, this is nothing,” why make this a stick to beat people with?

I mean, again, this is an excuse to be mad instead of proactive. I’m gonna guess, stop me if I’m wrong, that you haven’t lifted a finger for Fairfax either. (I hope I’m wrong, because I’m pretty mad about this.) And if you’d like to, since he is a proper progressive (until the left turns on him for his client list, anyway), I would be happy to turn you on to some folks so you can help him get in.

Lightning Knight posted:

This makes perfect sense to me in economic terms, it just feels wrong in moral terms.

I'll think about it more.

quote:

The majority of studies (rated strong or moderate) reported significant smoking participation and consumption effects for low income, low education populations. Twenty-four studies (22 published; two unpublished) met selection criteria. Nineteen published and two unpublished studies were rated as strong or moderate. Studies were conducted in Canada, the US, the UK, other European countries, New Zealand, China/Russia and Mexico. Twelve studies found that persons of low socioeconomic status are more responsive to price than the general population [19,52,96,101–109]. Five indicated that low SES groups have the same responsiveness to price as the general population, that is, increased price appears to benefit all socioeconomic groups equally in terms of reducing both smoking participation and consumption [13,110–113].

A central concern regarding the impact of increased taxes of cigarettes on low socioeconomic status groups is whether or not such a tax is equitable. It has been argued that cigarette taxes are a regressive tax on the poor. A tax is regressive if lower incomes are taxed proportionally more than higher incomes. Therefore, tobacco taxes are regressive in percentage terms, as lower income individuals devote a higher percentage of their income to paying the tobacco tax than do higher income individuals. In addition, because people of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have higher smoking rates, they pay more tobacco tax per capita than those with higher incomes [114].

However, some argue that increasing cigarette taxes is not regressive if it results in differential smoking behavior change—i.e., quitting smoking or reducing consumption of cigarettes at higher rates than the general population. Some propose that increasing tobacco taxes is actually progressive at the population level because of the potentially greater accrued health benefits of reduced smoking [115]. This point of view is still contentious among economists, however, and some estimate that for most intents and purposes, tobacco tax increases are also regressive even at the population level [101].

While there are numerous studies that support the effectiveness of increasing prices, most declare that equity implications need to be paramount. Even studies that support increased taxes underscore the need to implement policies or measures to assist those who continue to smoke, especially for those smokers who do not quit or reduce smoking in response to increased taxes and who, as a result, may suffer from financial hardship [116,117]. In other words, increased prices need to be accompanied by strategies to mitigate any adverse consequences of such taxes to low SES populations.

RuanGacho posted:

I agree I'm just saying this in the context of where the Dem party is right now, whom as I've been cataloging has been running from even The New Deal, for the past 40 years. We need to go far beyond it.

Enigma89 posted:

I think what is terribly depressing is not so much the bots and fake news but that there were so many senile, ignorant, unsavvy old people that actually believe it.

Oh Snapple! posted:

I mean I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Fairfax thing became a big deal due to pieces like this one that portray the exact opposite re: the mailing (and in this particular article's case, asserting that this leaves Fairfax off party literature in critical areas), and that's a dude who fully believes in the Bernie Bro. Trying to frame it as only the hard lefties balking at the news seems kind of silly when it earned some raised eyebrows from all over the dem spectrum, likely deservedly so given the optics of a black dude being seemingly thrown under the bus.

Ytlaya posted:

Why is it that you're so mad at (people you blindly assume to be) inactive leftists instead of inactive mainstream Democrats/liberals? I mean, I imagine there's a heck of a lot more of the latter than the former, simply due to the fact there are a heck of a lot more mainstream Democrats than leftists.

Do you also get this mad when people complain about Trump and speculate about how most of them probably aren't hitting the streets? I mean, you could claim that many people are hitting the streets for that purpose, but the exact same thing goes for people on the left - there are just way, way fewer of them, so they obviously aren't as visible. In order for your particular gripe to hold any water, you'd somehow need to show that people on the left are proportionately less involved politically than mainstream Democrats, which is something that I find kind of doubtful.

And, all of this aside, I just don't see much practical use to this attitude. It's totally fine and helpful to be like "hey, I'm doing _____ and encourage everyone else to do _____ as well, here are some links", but there's a clear judgmental angle here (and, as I mentioned before, this particular type of judgmental attitude is curiously almost always targeted solely at the radical left). Not to mention the fact that I honestly don't really see what harm there is in people discussing/arguing about things. If everyone on the left just expressed contentment and a spirit of cooperation, the party would never move to the left (and we've even seen tangible results from the party schism in the form of the changes to Clinton's platform and recent rhetorical support for MfA). So I can't help but feel confused at the feelings of irritation and anger some people obviously feel towards the left.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

There’s no harm in arguing about the future, but Hillary Chat, by its very definition, is a closed loop. She campaigned, and she lost.

Enigma89 posted:

I think what is terribly depressing is not so much the bots and fake news but that there were so many people that actually believe it.

quote:

Today, the Child Tax Credit is geared toward helping working, middle-class parents—less so the poor. It allows taxpayers to deduct up to $1,000 from their IRS bill per eligible child, and starts phasing out for married couples who make more than $110,000 a year. The problem, at least for people interested in alleviating poverty, is that the benefit is just partially refundable—meaning that families who don’t owe taxes for the year can only get a fraction of the credit back as cash. As a result, it provides less assistance to needy households, who generally don’t owe the government much come tax time. The absolute poorest parents—those with incomes below $3,000—can’t claim any of the credit at all.

Bennet and Brown would revamp the Child Tax Credit to make it larger and more universal. They would start by more than tripling its value to $3,600 a year for each child up to 5 years old, while bumping it to $3,000 for kids ages 6 to 18. They would also make it fully refundable, meaning that for the first time, low-income parents could claim the whole benefit. Finally, instead of making parents wait until they file their tax returns to get the credit, they’d receive it in advance as a monthly payment. In the end, families would get $300 a month for each young child, while those with older kids would receive $250. The credit would still wind down for upper income parents, as it does today.

Of course, at that point the Child Tax Credit would no longer look much like a tax credit. Instead, it would resemble the sorts of no-strings-attached cash payments other advanced, wealthy countries already make to parents, which are often referred to as child allowances. The fact that the United States doesn’t provide that kind of support to families is one of the most important reasons why our child poverty rate is so much higher than that of our international peers.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

Leftist apathy gets me specifically BECAUSE they’re so close to being activated.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

I want more from them because I believe in them as shock troops.

Your Boy Fancy posted:

I’m not thrilled at the headlines. The WaPo version is particularly galling, since it all but admits the lack of anything substantial yet runs with “hey, some folks have decided Ralph Northam is betraying blacks and leftists” as a headline. The portrayal - that Root article specifically - is pretty radically inaccurate for the situation at hand, considering (again) that the Fairfax campaign was over it within hours and they campaigned together less than a day afterward. To me, it’s an excuse to yell Democrats Are A Waste without providing any sort of alternative. When Perriello lost the primary, the left went back to Facebook.

And one more time since nobody seems to care about this bit: there were two (2) pieces of lit in LiUNA mailers. One had Northam-Fairfax-Herring, one had Northam-Herring. It’s a scandal to nobody but people who want/need retroactive justification to not fight at a time when the fight has never been more vital.

Does that make sense?


I’m angry at apathy on all angles. It requires a bit of self care, since there’s a lot of it.

Leftist apathy gets me specifically BECAUSE they’re so close to being activated. They talk the talk, they’re well read, they know the lay of the land, and when there’s a chance to do something that moves the needle in their every day lives, they sniff and say “not good enough.” Having been in the trenches, to see some really valuable and insightful individuals turn around and do nothing - or worse, start fights where they lead OTHERS to turn around and do nothing - it’s bothersome. I want more from them because I believe in them as shock troops. Instead, they contributed to the neverending scream of the last two years.

There’s no harm in arguing about the future, but Hillary Chat, by its very definition, is a closed loop. She campaigned, and she lost. I did my tiny part in helping her carry Virginia, despite my misgivings about her, and it came to nothing. People lose and life shows up. It’s fine. But when things are happening in US Politics now, and we’re still talking about Hillary, it’s incredibly disheartening. I don’t want what happened to my parents’ generation over 1972 to happen to my generation over 2016.

One day, the past will get to be the past, and we’ll be a better nation for it. We’ll build something better. But we can’t do that without stopping the current awfulness. And that starts on my doorstep. Does that make sense?

Huzanko posted: