|
Lightning Knight posted:This makes perfect sense to me in economic terms, it just feels wrong in moral terms. (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.)
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:27 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:15 |
|
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. Writing off massive amounts of people as "never going to vote" is part of the problem, buddy.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:28 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:No I meant what does "wealth tax" exactly entail, mechanically? Are we talking stuff like property taxes? 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. Sanders proposed one to help pay for single payer iirc. Edit: sanders proposed a 1% wealth tax on the top 0.1% of households. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 26, 2017 |
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:28 |
|
edit: ^^^ They answered better
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:30 |
|
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. 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
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:30 |
|
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. Yeah in countries that have them you total up your assets minus your debts and deductions and pay based on that.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:32 |
|
Almost all the US jobs created since 2005 are temporary.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 21:44 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:A wealth tax is literally that, a tax on accumulated wealth. It isn't a property tax. It actually is just a property tax that accounts for the fact that people own more personal property than land. I find talking to libretarians and right wingers attacking from a stance of "you pay taxes on the land you own every year, why doesn't wall street pay a tax on the stock they own?" is actually pretty effective
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:20 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:40 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:41 |
|
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. Liberalism in an American context, a belief that we should spread so called universal rights, a belief that we can merely by appealing to the better angels of peoples natures we can achieve good. A belief that we must respect that which is not only objectionable but is aimed at the destruction of a good society. I reject that. I ascribe to a society that promotes virtue, that ensures it's citizens well being among all else, and that ensures that those who within seek its destruction either are soon forced out of the country at the barrel of the gun or are soon shown the error of the ways. While I may find some other societies frankly barbaric, that is other's peoples societies and I see no reason why they should be forced to ascribe to different alien ways.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:41 |
|
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. I only have a bachelors and my business card / org chart says Transportation Economist so it must be true. and in my defense I do a shitload of life cycle cost stuff
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:42 |
|
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. Do you feel that this is good public policy versus having a progressive income tax? Do you think that it matters?
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:43 |
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:This is literally what I was talking about. You loving rock man. Please keep up the awesome work. In polling news https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/923665904126263296
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:43 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You loving rock man. Please keep up the awesome work. Wow. I wonder what the 30-45 numbers specifically are since that's probably the most important demo to mobilize.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:50 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Do you feel that this is good public policy versus having a progressive income tax? Do you think that it matters? 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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:51 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:52 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 22:57 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's interesting. Out of curiosity, what is your sales tax rate? 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. \/\/ - It's great to have the attendants, I've never understood how it also tends to be cheaper than PA or DE. ChristsDickWorship fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 26, 2017 |
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:07 |
|
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. People getting paid while you post. They win, you win.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:10 |
|
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. Huh. Staff attendants at gas stations is the weirdest thing to me. Also, in remarkably lovely news: https://twitter.com/GlennWhipp/status/923666156740780032
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:11 |
Your Boy Fancy posted:Keep reading and the question will be answered in time. What time is this one and do you need to bring anything?
|
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:13 |
|
Renaissance Spam posted:Jesus Christ has this been posted yet? More info on this https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/923673990656339973 https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/923672992412000257
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:15 |
|
Radish posted:What time is this one and do you need to bring anything? 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
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:18 |
|
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. 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. As I said before, this sort of thing just reeks of someone being really mad at negative attention and trying to conjure up some excuse for it that won't sound ridiculous in the context of a discussion like this.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:26 |
|
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. I used this app last week. It's a breeze to use, and even will tell you what houses are closest to where you are! Plus the lists they're giving out are all dem-aligned or dem-leaning voters. You're going to be talking to people who by and large are happy to see you. Try it, it's fun and rewarding!
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:26 |
|
The irony of democrat politicians trying to respect republicans and chase their votes is that seemingly the only democrats i've ever seen them show any respect to has been people supporting Bernie (on the basis that he was demonstrably honest, for the most part) sort of a "yeah they're wrong and being duped but they at least want to do good, better than the dumbocrats" sort of respect.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:32 |
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:This is literally what I was talking about. 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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:36 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:This makes perfect sense to me in economic terms, it just feels wrong in moral terms. Here's a recent meta study about how this plays out across 6 subpopulations, including low SES. The subsection of the Results dedicated to the low SES group (quoted below) discusses both sides of the argument regarding cigarette taxes being regressive or not. 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]. Given that this group is more likely to smoke in general and most studies find that the correlation stronger than the general population, I'm willing to say it's a net positive. Of course, I'm willing to stretch my morality a bit, because smoking is a big public health issue and is highly addictive. There's only one study the listed for the heavy user group, but it found that there's a correlation between increased price and more likely to try to quit. While the rate of success doesn't change, more people trying to quit invariably means more people quitting.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:41 |
|
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. it's time... for a neo deal
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:44 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:48 |
|
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.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2017 23:57 |
|
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. 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? 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. 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?
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:02 |
|
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. You understand that some of us are bringing her up because her influence is still controlling the party? Remember Harris being flown out to the Hamptons to meet with Clinton's private circle of donors? It's not relitigating the past, many of us are concerned about how her actions/influence are currently affecting the Dems or will affect them in the future. If her donor influence kills leftist movement before it can even begin, that's a valid concern to bring up. If people would stop going completely over the top in defending her and admit "Yes, leftist ideas are cool and good and I agree with you on most of them" it would probably stop the Clinton chat more than trying to defend her or shut people up because they're talking about something that makes you feel bad. That's the major thing that a lot of people on this board don't get. We're not just "mad at Hillary" we're loving concerned about where the Dems are going as a party.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:06 |
|
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. There are so many people who believe run of the mill Republican talking points too.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:08 |
|
Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) propose massive expansion of tax benefits for parents. This would greatly reduce child poverty rates.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.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:13 |
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Leftist apathy gets me specifically BECAUSE they’re so close to being activated. If you want leftists to work with you, support some loving leftist causes. Your Boy Fancy posted:I want more from them because I believe in them as shock troops.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:17 |
|
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. I ain’t your shock troop buddy. be better if you want our help
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:21 |
|
Millenials twice as likely to fall for phishing scams RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Oct 27, 2017 |
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:22 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:15 |
|
Oh gently caress you guys, seriously. The Republicans elected loving Trump and you idiots are still so obsessed with ideological purity that you'd rather let another loving right-wing white supremacist win an election than hold your loving nose for five goddamn minutes. And you wonder why the left can't win loving elections. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Oct 27, 2017 00:30 |