Printable View
Surely you are being ironicQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
There's an obvious question which evidently hasn't occurred to Fanti - if Trump's approach toward China has been so successful then why has China's behaviour worsened during his term of office?
I was being rude, and should not have been, but was frustrated with the kind of opinion expressed by Mr Fanti, so divorced from fact that it is. China is vulnerable to all sorts of criticism, but has been since the Communists have ruled the country in 1949, and even then the history of atrocities against human beings goes back so much further. People are attacking China now for crimes that have been staring us in the face for decades. It smacks of hypocrisy because it is, and n Pompeo's case is a nauseatingg hypocrisy given the man's obvious attempt to present himself as a 'tough leader', when he has no leadership skills, and is no more tough than a nightly rant by John Oliver -or Sean Hannity.
Mr Fanti can speak for himself, though I doubt he will respond to my post, and it is not specific to this thread, but I do wonder why people refer to China-US trade as if it had suddenly become a matter of critical urgency when the issues raised by the President amount to an invention based solely on his personal resentment that China 'treated him so badly', as said before, merging his personal interests with those of the USA. We could do with a more balanced and objective view of US-China relations, but as it is now becoming an election, issue, there is no hope of that. Transforming it into an either/or issue, either you back the US against China, or you back China against the US, the President is putting himself and his daughter in a vulnerable position. Anotherr example of the fact that even after nearly 4 years in the job, he doesn't know much about politics.
The real issue, outside the remit of this thread, is why since 2008 the very people who have emerged to attack Globlization also claim the remedy for the crisis of 2008 is to replace 'regulation-lite' with zero regulation, as if they are so ignorant of the causes of the financial crisis that they seek to repeat its mistakes. And, for good measure, by removing all obstacles to free trade, what do they think this will enable China to do?
Let me clear about something, I don't what's happening in Portland and Seattle to happen anywhere else in the United States. But I don't live in Chicago, so I don't know what the residents that live in the areas that effected by gang violence are going through. So I can't fault any of them for thinking this way.
http:////www.yahoo.com/news/chicagos...113718234.html
I grew up in Chicago and that city is arguably the most corrupt city in the USA!Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
And all the violent crime that has been going on for YEARS and DECADES (not just recently) falls squarely in the laps of the current mayor and all the previous mayors before her.
I'm glad to see the residents getting fed up because it's about time after all these years and decades of violence in the streets of Chicago!
The Independent has published what seems to me a fair profile of the VP candidates known to be under consideration, the article has probably been syndicated in the US Press too.
These are (in alphabetical order)-
Stacey Abrams
Karen Bass
Keisha Lance Bottoms
Val Demings
Tammy Duckworth
Michelle Lujan Grisham
Kamala Harris
Susan Rice
Elizabeth Warren
Gretchen Whitmer
https://www.independent.co.uk/us-ele...-a9641101.html
Getting angry at Fanti for posting drivel is as futile as getting angry at the weather. No matter what you say it will have no effect on him. I don't know what motivates him: maybe he's delusional enough to think he's persuading someone, or maybe he just likes to be annoying. Best to just ignore his posts as others seem to have learned to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
More than 152,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US so far. The increase in murders this year must be a small fraction of that (there were around 16,000 murders in the latest year). I'm curious as to why some people seem to think the latter may be a bigger issue in the election.
Also, the data on murder rates don't seem to indicate any clear pattern in terms of which political party is in control of states or cities. In fact, the states with the highest murder rates are red states. So why are some people presenting this as if it were a Democrat problem?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...-rate-by-state
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/bl...te-cities-2019
I get frustrated with a lot of posts, and it is in my nature to be argumentative, though I hope because of the arguments not just for the sake of it. We have had some offensive people on these boards before, but not Mr Fanti. I think it is matter of how one views some issues, because of ideology, because of an aversion to it, on the basis of personal experience, knowledge, and so forth. As I like the rough and tumble of debate and argument, it is a pity people who post here don't engage in moe of it, and I don't want to stop it. Mr Fanti is robust enough to defend himself, if he wants to.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
And sometimes there are specific issues. Watching the series, Once Upon a Time in Iraq in the present-day context, is moving (because of the individual stories), illuminating, and depressing because the crisis in Iraq in 2002-2003 was manufactured to suit the need the Republicans had to punish the Arabs for 9/11, but chose the wrong Arabs. The point that is not made in the TV series, perhaps because it is more about the personal experience of the 2003 war and its aftermath, rather than the politics, is that the very same Saddam Hussein who was a monster in 2003, had not only been a US ally when Iraq was fighting a war with Iran in the 1980s, the atrocities that sustained him in power were just as common in 1979 as they were in 2002-2003. Indeed, when Saddam took control of the Ba'ath Party in 1979 one of the first things he did was round up members of the Iraqi Communist Party and deal with the Saddam-style= imprisonment, torture and death. And it was the CIA that gave him so many of the names of Party members he didn't already know.
Now fast forward and suddenly China is the enemy, the very same China that is embedded in the US economy through its purchase of US debt, its inputs into the industrial and consumer economy, the US education system and so on. When the Chinese and the US normalized their relations in the 1970s, Russia had been the primary common factor, as the US was prepared then to overlook the multiple crimes and millions upon millions of deaths caused by Mao's catastrophic policies -the Great Leap Forward c1958-60) and the Great People's Cultural revolution (1966-69?) to make the new relationship work. So great has been the death and devastation of Mao's policies Covid 19 looks like a footnote to Chinese history in comparison.
But is it not the case, that ever since 1979, and indeed, that other trifling event in 1989, the US has been prepared to 'look the other way' when China behaves badly, and just 'take the money'? President Xi has yet to match Mao in terms of mega-deaths at home, though Mao's foreign adventures were not as effective as China's have been since, particularly in Africa, a continent that the US has tended to use as a lucrative mineral mine, or a toilet for their own shitty delusions. But if Nixon and Kissinger could and felt they had to deal with Mao, why not Xi, when China is more entangled with the US than Mao was?
The more obvious factor is that it is now the policy of one man, the US President, that has decided Confrontation is the best policy. It is a tactic he has used in the past in business, just as, when exposed as a bankrupt, a tax cheat or a law breaker, he created lawsuits designed to put his accusers in the dock. Not accused, but proven to have received illegal financial and political assistance from Russia in the 2016 campaign, he now embarks on investigatons designed to attack the people who proved it, on the basis that they are wrong.
Because this is a man unique in history, who is right about everything- even Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad admitted to having faults and making the wrong judgment. It doesn't matter how many times, and how many people insist that Hydroxychloroquine does not deal effectively with Covid 19, he cannot and he will no retract his claims, because he cannot and must never say sorry or say he is wrong about anything, so he is stuck with this nonsense, even as he can't see what a fool it makes of him- or just doesn't care.
In this case, the 'war on China' is entirely personal because of his resentment at the fact he was shut out of the 'China Dream' for so many years, and even with his daughter raking in the dollars from her Chinese investments, it is not enough and anyway, she is a privlleged American and above the law.
So here we are: China and Covid 19- the two issues the President barks about most, are the two issues in this campaign which make him the most vulnerable to attack -those serious about defeating him, at least in terms of political arguments, if not at the ballot box- need only let him use these ropes to hang himself. Unless, with the assistance of his Attorney General, they find a way to consolidate his position as the most unique of US Presidents, and postpone the elections for a year. I expect to be proven wrong on the last point, but I wonder if this is not being discussed behind closed doors in the White House? Maybe it is time for Under-President Kushner to put in an appearance. At least we know in the UK the Prime Minister has now little or no interest in Covid 19 and his absorbed with the Brexit Process that, after all, will define his reputation for years to come.
China's investments in the US-
https://www.investopedia.com/article...sury-bonds.asp
An interesting paper on the rapprochement between China and the US
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi...cws.2006.8.4.3
All five episodes of Once Upon a Time in Iraq are now on the BBC iPlayer-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ies-1-5-legacy
Because their would rather believe what the Clueless Buffoon In Chief, a person who has been downplaying the CO-VID 19 Global Pandemic from the very beginning says over the health experts, and in reality it isn't a Democratic problem, it's a Trump problem because he doesn't take any responsibility at all for his negligence and his administration failure to the global pandemic and come up with a nationwide plan on how to deal with the virus,instead of letting states fend for themselves. and blaming everyone else around him.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
If Trump loses the election his response to the Coronavirus will be the main reason why he loses it. But if he wins reelection, the idea that Democrats will be/are weak on crime and civil unrest will be one of the reasons why.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Now when it comes to the states with highest murder rates, yes its true that some of them are red states. However, the cities they occur in have long history of being run by Democrats.
New Orleans.-- The last time they voted for a Republican was at the end of the 19th century.
St. Louis.- The last Republican mayor was in 1949.
Detroit.- The last Republican mayor was in 1962.
Baltimore.- The last Republican mayor was in 1967.
Chester.- As alternated back and forth between the two parties.
Gary.- The last Republican mayor was in 1943.
Chicago.- The last Republican mayor was in 1943.
That's just the mayors. There is a very good chance that the Democrats also made up a considerable part of the city councils in those respective cities.
I will point out that the Democratic Party has changed over the past 50-60 years.
Now as we have discussed before, there are other reasons for a city having high crime rates. But poor leadership is one of them. Just look what's happening here in NYC. So it is fair to say that Democratic party bares some of the blame when it comes to certain cities having a history of high crime rates.
I add a question to your succinct view: what will the impact on the candidates be if they cannot hold mass rallies? Which of the two is likely to benefit from this? It appears to be Biden, but so far he has not been subjected to public scrutiny or tough questions from hostile journaists.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
It benefits Biden because I don't think he has the energy to speak in front of a large crowd for an extended period of time. I think Biden is going out of his way to make sure he doesn't get tough questions from hostile journalists. That's why he won't do a sit down interview with Chris Wallace from Fox News. Who is tough, but I think fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
As I predicted, it has been discussed 'at the highest level'. No debates, then. And maybe no election. The man certainly wants to go down in history for his unique style and decision making...
"Donald Trump on Thursday morning floated the idea of delaying November’s presidential election, justifying the extraordinary suggestion by repeating his false claim that widespread voting by mail from home would result in a “fraudulent” result.
Trump’s incendiary proposal was dropped in a Thursday morning tweet, as the US was reeling from bad economic news, digesting the death toll of 150,000 having been reached in the coronavirus pandemic and preparing for the funeral of Congressman John Lewis in Atlanta. In it he claimed without evidence that “universal mail-in voting” would lead to “the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT election in history”.
Trump, pontificating that the result would be a “great embarrassment to the USA”, he raised the prospect of a postponement. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???” he tweeted."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...onomic-figures
I understand only Congress can change the date of an election, but the point is one Murdoch will have rammed home, because he did it in the UK in the 1980s: every day, every hour, every minute, sow doubt in people's minds. The election will be rigged, it will be fake, it will be abused, it will be fraudulent. The Democrats will steal the election, they can't be trusted, they don't care. Say it in every media platform there is, all day and every day, so that it soaks into the minds of the voters.
Note: Herman Cain has died from Covid 19, a miserable way to die. Probably the most senior Republican to do so?
I agree with your points, and in fact, probably because I live here, I don't think I have ever seen Biden in a debate. Whatever. I think he leaning either to Susan Rice, or Kamala Harris.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Part of the problem is that the Black community still refuses to acknowledge the high rate of homicide by us and within our own community.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
And folks that do are quickly shut down (Terry Crews for example) - which is why the "BLM" stuff has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
That being said, there's more to voting on someone than just COVID-19. Hillary lost in part because she didn't diversify her audience - she ignored the middle class and the Sanders supporters and as result, she's sitting on the bench now. Biden has the opportunity now to seize the Sanders supporters but he's not doing the best job of it - however he's still doing better than Hillary did at capturing this voting group.
That mayor list is key and why it's absurdly ridiculous for those mayors to blame Trump and the Republicans for THEIR CITY VIOLENCE issues when they haven't had a Republican/Libertarian/Independent mayor in DECADES.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I still struggle to see how anyone who is not a member of the Trump cult could think that the problem of crime so outweighs all other issues facing the US, most of which would be exacerbated by Trump's reelection, that it warrants overlooking all his misdeeds. Trump has clearly contributed to the coronavirus debacle through irresponsible statements and neglect. I can't see anything that Biden has said or done that could be linked to the crime surge - which doesn't seem to be an area where the Federal government has much of a role in any case. That is, unless people want to tear up the constitution and turn the US into a authoritarian police state, which is where things will be headed if Trump is reelected.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I think there's a degree of spurious correlation in the association between party control and crime rates. Big densely-populated cities inherently tend to have higher crime rates. They also tend to be more politically liberal. That doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other, because both are related to the characteristics of big cities. Liberal big cities also generally have higher-than-average incomes. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...cities-2018-12 Does that prove that Democrats are better at economic policy? Necessarily, because it may just reflect the fact that big cities tend to attract economic activity.
Also, one thing that is often overlooked is that crime rates are still way below levels of 40 years ago.
Just to be clearQuote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
As Filghy2 has indicated, the apparent correlation between Democrat run cities and crime is elusive at best, spurious at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
In the first place, are Democrat run cities, in fact, badly run? Are the Mayors incompetent, corrupt, and ignorant? Historically, it is true, Chicago has been a Democrat city, but was it not when Mayor Daley was Mayor that Saul Alinsky was at his peak as a community organizer because this Democrat run city had neglected the housing, education and voting issues around which Alinsky based his campaigns? Daley may have been a Democrat, he cannot be said to have been a Liberal.
And, with regard to crime, is it not the case that crime is often concentrated, geographically, into compact areas and is not city-wide? I imagine I could live in Chicago or Detroit for a year and never experience crime, depending on where I am. And when the crime-ridden areas are identified, are there not also issues of poor people chasing diminishing resources and turning on each other to extract what they can through dealing, for example? Again, we return to narcotics and guns, the two issues Mr Fanti seems reluctant to debate.
Second, in the last 50 years, the trend toward urban life has grown, but with this paradox: big tax paying, labour-intensive businesses have vacated the city, low-tax low-wage service jobs have moved in, granted the exception of those cities with major financial concerns -Investments in NYC, Petroleum in Houston, for example- with the accumulated profile that cities today raise lower rates of tax revenue than they did 50 years ago.
Third, most of the Democrat run Cities are in Republican run States where Republican legislators constantly block liberal laws associated with increasingly Liberal cities, and starve them of funds, indeed the division in the USA that is alleged to consist of the Coastal States (Liberal) with the Flyover States (Conservative) obscures the real division that exists within the States where it is marked by Urban-Rural concentrations of voters with oppoing views, and where for example, in a state like Ohio, one can imagine the voters in the counties think Cleveland is a cess-pool of depravity.
In this balance of forces, it appears the County wins over the City, the Republicans over the Democrats -you are blaming Democrats for problems that originate with so-called Conservatives.
It is thus facile to provide lists of Democrat run cities and squeal failure! What the US has done is develop a fetish for low taxes to the extent that most Americans have been impoverished twice over: through wage stagnation, and the economic of austerity with Republican legislatures withdrawing the funds that cities need if the people who live in them are to be given more opportunities to work and live better lives.
Conclusion, for cities and states be they Red or Blue: RAISE TAXES, SPEND THEM ON THE PEOPLE. Nothing short of a massive re-distribution of wealth can deal with the crisis we are all in, a remedy that applies to the UK too.
Cowards, flinch -Courage calls to Courage Everywhere.
You may find this article of interestQuote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...e-city/513857/
Thanks, it's an interesting issue. The US political system gives significantly more weight to rural voters, so if these trends continue minority rule could become the norm rather than the exception. That's going to raise more issues for social cohesion - how long will the majority continue to accept a system in which that they mostly don't get their way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Stavros:
What do you think is a fair rate for people to be taxed at? Here is what we pay in taxes here in New York:
http://www.communitytax.com/state-taxes/new-york-taxes/
While I still think Biden will win in November, there is also still a long way to go until then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bks0dtz0aw
And right there is the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Everyone says "fair share" but when you ask what are the EXACT numbers to be "fair", you get complete silence.....
I think the US is about the only country that has state income and sales taxes. In most countries property tax is the only one levied at state or local level.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Overall the US is very low taxed by developed country standards - about the same as Turkey, which is a developing country.
Attachment 1263038
The issue is about the right balance between private and public sectors. If you want to have developing country tax levels then you are going to have developing country public services. I think most of the benefits of lower taxes are illusory because Americans have to pay a lot more out of their own pockets for things like health and education as a well as putting up with poor infrastructure.
Current US tax levels are clearly unsustainable anyway. Even before the coronavirus the US government was borrowing massively to finance the last round of tax cuts. You also have an ageing population which is going to increase future budgetary pressures. At a minimum, your taxes probably need to rise to around the levels of countries like Australia, which would still be relatively low by international standards.
You raise and important question, but as filghy2 points out the variations in tax that exist in the US and the UK make it a difficult one to answer specifically with regard to numbers, but I will have a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
In your case, one would need to know what your income is to assess the fairness of tax in New York, but as you pay taxes on other things -I am thinking of your sales taxes, for example- the whole profile of your tax burden is difficult to assess. I make a moral case for taxation at the end.
As a means of comparison, for the UK as a whole, Income Tax is levied at the following levels of income-
-Up to £12,500 pa no tax is paid on income (£12,500=$16,353.87) [today's rates]
-£12,501-£50,000 tax is 20% (£50,000=$65,415.4-eight
-£50,001-£150,000 tax is 40% (£150,000-$196,245.74)
-over £150,000 tax is 45%.
If I were to be in charge, I would revise these rates, because I don't believe in income tax relief, and believe every citizen should pay tax, and though I think that senior citizens should not pay tax, I think we should pay a National Insurance contribution, ie for the NHS.
My rates would look like this
£5,000-£10,000 -3% tax
£10,001-£20,000- 5% tax
£20,001-£35,000- 10% tax
£35,001-£50,000- 25% tax
£50,001-£100,000- 45% tax
£100,001-£300,000- 60% tax
£300,001-£500,000-65%
£500,000+ 70%.
*The higher rate of tax is based on the likelihood that jobs that pay in excess of £100,000 usually include addtional sources of income, such as share options and other perks which can be very generous. It is possible for example, for someone on a salary of £150,000 to be awarded share options worth three times that amount, and that doees not include the alternative sources of income that can be found -many company directors sit on more than one Board, so that the annual tax requirement of say 65% of a salary can be found from the income of directorships and share sales.
Corporation Tax in the UK in general terms is 19%. I would differentiate between the size and value of commercial firms, and while 19% might be fair for small enterprises, for large corporations I would be thinking in terms of 80% to 95% for those with annual profits in excess of £1-5 billion.
National Insurance is based on weekly contributions, with no NI paid up to £183. Earning from £183-962 =NI rate of 12%, above £962 it is 2%, whereas I would charge those earning in excess of £962 a month 20% (retaining most of the exemptions, eg married or pregnant women, but with a nominal 3% charge on annual income from pensions).
In the UK we do not have sales taxes -these existed before the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, whereupon the UK replaced its Sales Tax with an EEC-wide Value Added Tax system. In theory, the UK leaving the EU can abolish VAT and revert to the Sales Tax that existed before, indeed, Michael Gove has suggested it can be replaced, whereas the consensus is that VAT is an estabished mode of taxation globally, and that the UK need not replace it -its existence helps assess the relative economic performance of States, offering a common denominator when, for example, the IMF makes calculations. VAT in the UK at 20% raises approx.£125 bn a year, amounting to 18% of tax receipts.
In addition to Income Tax, National Insurance, Corporation Tax and VAT, we pay Customs and Excise Duties on tobacco and alcohol, which is why Wine and Spirits in the UK often cost more than on the Continent, though obviously, if you don't smoke or drink you don't pay these taxes.
The UK also now has a Sugar Tax, or the Soft Drinks Industry Levy -24 pence on drinks with 8 grams of sugar per 100ml; 18 pence a litre if there are 5-8 grams per 100ml.
Local tax is called Council Tax, and varies from one jurisdiction from another. It covers local services from the collection of refuse, care and management of the streets, parks, etc, and services such as council run care homes, libraries, the fire service. There are no uniform figures to offer, Council Tax is assessed on the value of property and income; but for comparison, I pay approx £50 a month in Council Tax.
I am sure Mr Fanti, as a Libertarian, will want to chant that favourite slogan such ideologues have: All Taxation is Theft. I would argue, if I had the time, that Taxation has been one of the most profound inventions of humankind, it is up there with cooked food, the wheel and wellls, musical instruments and computing. It has played a crucial role in the develoment of the State as the primary means of collective identification, becoming intricately woven in with our ideas of freedom, private property, and political representation.
The justification of taxation has evolved over time along with the State, and has often been part of a rebellion against the State, most famously in this counry, the Peasan't Revolt of 1381. If this rebellion was provoked by the unreasonable demands of the State at the time -Richard II's war with France was the occasion for a sudden increase in tax demand- the the growth of first, the mercantile capitalist economy, and then the Industrial, eroded the superior powers of the Monarch and the landed Aristocracy, and forced revisions which depleted the extensive authority of the Crown and the ascendant power of the Merchants and landowners. Taxation thus became a means of prising away the power of the monarchy, being associated with the corruption of that power.
The rebellion against the Crown in British America is a salutory lesson in this regard, but the critical point is that even though George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army, and in doing so, govern as President of a tax free United States, the practical need to retain a Federal Army meant a tax had to be raised to pay for it -in addition because the British continued to wage war against the US until 1812. Again, the first formal income tax levy in the UK was imposed in 1798 to pay for the war against Napoleon Bonaparte, just as the first Federal Income Taxes in the US were introduced in 1861 duing the Confederate War, the IRS being created in 1862.
What has been important in recent times, has been the way that taxation as a 'war fund' has morphed into the growth of the State, mostly to cope with/pay for the negative social consequences of industrial growth, and in particular the growth of cities. Once 19th century governments realised that to maintain 'social peace' they needed to ameliorate the worst examples of poverty, then the concept of State-as opposed to Religous-based- welfare -Germany being a pioneer of this- became common.
With the exception of those libertarians who are opposed to all forms of taxation and welfare, I think most people accept the State must intervene if markets fail to maintain employment, income and the means that sustain a decent life.
But what has been phenomenal in the last few decades is the use of taxes not to remedy market failure, but to replace markets, taxes being the means whereby the banking system was protected and repaired after 2008, with taxes now funding so much market activity made redundant by Covid 19 it may be the only means by which our economies are prevented from total collapse. The point being that what starts out as the Government borrowing eventually becomes taxation as this is the only secure means of repaying debt. The consumer always pays.
But if this gives taxation a moral as well as economic purpose, the moral argument is that in a liberal market economy, taxation is best justified when being raised to pay for those services markets either do not want to provide, or whose provision is inadequte, the most obvious being health and education.
Taxation also binds the citizen to state in both an individual and collective manner, giving the citizen rights of representation, and also rights to change the government and the system of taxation, and thus is embedded in the idea of the freedom of the individual. To argue that 'all taxation is theft' is to deny the right of the citizen to participate in the State at any level, handing power to an assumed market that is expected to function in place of the State without a single guarantee that the freedom of the indivdual will be protected, and without guaranteeing the protection of the rule of law. Taxes are part of the social contract that exchanges a degree of individual liberty in return for the protection of the State.
These issues aside, if the US is now to be the main employer of the American worker, the main source of revenue for unemployed Americans, retired Americans, and fund American childhood, then it is time to re-think your Tax structures and Tax Commitments.
It is time to offer American Citizens a New Deal, in which you create a Federal Health Service that guarantees free access to health care at the time of need for every citizen from the day they are born to the day they die; and free education for children to the age of 18.
I think it is an election-winning policy, but will Biden be courageous enough to propose it?
Our highest bracket for marginal income tax rate is 37%, kicking in at about 518,000 dollars. People making between 80-160,000 pay about 24%. Of course, their total tax liability is lower because it's a marginal rate (graduated up) and there is also the issue of the standard deduction and personal exemptions that lower the amount of "taxable income". https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxe...-tax-brackets/Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
One thing I can say looking at Britain's tax brackets is that I'm a bit surprised that the 40% tax starts at as low a level as it does given that the highest rate tops out at 45%. In tax policy they might say there isn't good "vertical equity". People who are not similarly situated should not have similar burdens. The difference in lifestyle and ability to pay taxes between someone making 50,000 pounds and someone making 150,000 pounds is night and day.
So I agree more with your proposed schedule. Even though you have people in a similar bracket at 45%, the rates go up more when someone's income goes from above average to wealthy. I might have people making between 50 and 100,000 pounds paying closer to 35% but then it would rise in a similar manner to the one you propose.
The key point in the UK is that our tax policy is based on a mxture of ideology and duplicity. It began with Margaret Thatcher's 1979 campaign in which she argued that by lowering tax you give wage-earners more of their money to spend as they wish, pretty much the same as what Reagan said, but in the the case of the US, something that has been part of the income/tax culture that owes its pedigree to the 1776 Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I think on balance, and setting aside low-wage earners, the key component of the American work culture compared to Europe, was based on higher than average wages, lower than average taxes, so that the spending power of the American worker was sufficient to meet the costs of housing, transport, health and education, and that it is the stagnation, in some cases the decline of this wage-earning and spending power -since the 1970s or Reagan?- that has been the source of so much anger and discontent. It seems to me the average American is poorer in 2020 than he or she was in 1960.
By contrast, in Europe we have a tax-and-spend culture that is remote from the American idea. If Biden were to propose a tax system of the kind supported for decades in Sweden, he would be dismissed as a Communist. In the UK, what Thatcher did was indeed to cut income tax, the duplicity lay in the increase in supplementary taxes, such as VAT, so that the overall tax burden did not decrease but was increased, particularly in the cases of smokers and drinkers.
The critical point, because it has affected Labour as well as the Conservative Party, is that there is some sort of Concete Block in the schedules of the mind which says Nothing over 50% income tax for the 'Middle Class'. It has become an ideological impasse, a black hole into which nobody intends to step. 50% income tax is as Taboo in tax policy for middle earners as Incest.
On one level I agree with it, on the basis that the service economy we have -pre-Covid, whatever survives after it- needs those spare pounds to thrive, but it is also the case that in the UK, funding for the NHS is taken from wages at the same time as income tax, so that unless people choose to add private health insurance policies to their outgoing expenses, and choose to send their children to privately run, expensive schools, basic costs on health and education are met by the State from taxation. It is in this sense that by paying for crucial services by tax, people are free of the burdens of anxiety falling ill can induce, and know there will always be a school for their children, though quality in all these things varies across the country.
The area which excites a lot of waffle is with high wage earners, who, as I said, often have additional sources of income to their salary. I doubt that taxing the rich helps solve the debt problem, but if I say it produces a more equitable society, then that is seen as some sort of Socialism, which, having in mind a moral economy rather than a market economy makes it a useless argument. For the point is that it has value as a Liberal as well as a Socialist idea, but in a different context: that the distribution of wealth should be more equitable in a capitalist market-based economy, because by sharing wealth more, more consumers are created, and if we are to have service-based rather than manufacturing-based economies, what was once spare cash, is the essential soure of spending that keeps a service economy motoring along, maintaining jobs as well as the perceived quality of life factor, such as pavement cafes in summer, restaurants, bars and clubs, opera and recitals, gigs and festivals.
I don't think people object to people earning millions a year if they have worked for it, because of their hard work, ambition, and creativity. Even in the case of that screeching idiot, Madonna, or for that matter, Barry Manilow (who can at least sing, a skill unknown to Madonna).
The difference between Bill Gates and his President, is that Bill Gates created something, and built a commercial firm with a useful and popular product, whereas the President sat in his father's office earning a handsome sum of money for doing basically nothing. According to his niece, when he showed up in the office, he spent most of the morning reading the newspaper and magazine clippings about himself the staff knew he liked to read. And when he did branch out on his own, he built tall buildings with money borrowed from other sources rather than his own, and when his casinos went bankrupt, he aways got someone else to pay the bills. This is the kind of capitalism that earns resentment and contempt rather than admiration; in the early 1970s when there was a controversy over a notorious asset-stripper in the UK, Capitalist Prime Minister Edward Heath referred to it as 'the unacceptable face of Capitalism'. The money that goes with it appears tainted, and dirty.
Any thoughts on Corporation Tax? It seems everyone now wants to compete in a race to zero tax, Eisenhower had it at 90%. In the case of Covid-sticken economies, I can see the logic of a tax holiday if it helps revive an ailing economy, but as joseph Stiglitz has pointed out before, when artful tax lawyers can reduce Corporation Tax to 10% whatever the headline rate, the tax needs to be reconsidered. By all means have a holiday, but then take a fair share. And with firms like Amazon making billions, what's wrong with 90%. Or maybe in Corporation Tax too, you can't get over 50% without invoking Satan and his wicked works.
But will taxes and the debt be part of the debate from now until November? If the President looks back over the last 4 years, any gains he thinks were made have been wiped out this year, so it doesn't look like a vote winner. As for the debt, which used to be the millstone around Obama's neck, I don't think anyone wants to talk about it, even as it is that other Black Hole toward which the US and the rest of the word is headed.
Crash, bang, wallop what a picture! What a photograph!
They are hiding, and they are scared.
Very interesting post Stavros. I agree with it though I don't know a lot about corporate tax policy. I don't even know off the top of my head what our corporate tax rate is though I could quickly look it up. Corporate tax is probably easier to dodge than individual income tax as companies can move their headquarters and manufacturing plants to evade tax burdens that might have to be apportioned between different countries. While technically someone can change citizenship to avoid individual income taxes, it seems to me corporate tax is more likely to involve a race to the bottom dynamic in which raising rates won't always result in more tax revenue because companies deliberately choose situs based on tax liability.
While I can see some arguing that raising tax rates for the rich must be based on their ability to help pay for government services rather than to create equity, I don't think we necessarily need to choose. More equity doesn't have to be the direct result of their paying so much in taxes that they're no longer rich but instead be the result of creating the kinds of social programs and opportunities that create social and economic mobility. That may sound idealistic but equity is a good thing as is healthcare, educational opportunities and social safety net.
One question I have is at what point someone is rich. There are many grades along the way in my opinion. Whereas someone is unlikely to become rich with an income of between 50-100,000 pounds, someone making 150,000 to 200,000 pounds has those investment opportunities. I think sparing the middle class makes a lot of sense here where they do not have much of a buffer against catastrophic medical bills....maybe less crucial in Britain where you have NHS, but I can still see an important distinction between doing well and rich.
I think the distinction between doing well and being rich depends a few different factors. The most important being where a person lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
If a person's gross income is a million dollars, but they live in NYC, I think they're definitely doing well, but can't be considered rich. Especially if they're married and have children.
If a person's gross income is $500,000 and they live in NYC, I would consider that person to be upper middle class/lower upper class.
But I think the important thing to remember is that its not distinction between being rich and doing well that should be focus of who should pay more what when it comes to raising taxes. I think the distinction should be between who is wealthy and who is rich. Chris Rock put it best when he said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZWeFtgEAEk
While this video is from 2004, I think the view still stands today. Especially when you consider the income gap in this country.
This latest tweet from The Clueless Buffoon In Chief shows he is afraid of losing the November Presidential Election,and is desperate to hold on to power and get re-elected, and also shows that he's a hypocrite because him and everybody in his administration voted by mail. and is laying the groundwork to challenge the results of the election. he doesn't have the authority to postpone the election,only the United States Congress has the authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Once again, Biden drives a few more Black Americans towards being Independents, Libertarians, or Republicans:
(If Biden keeps talking like this, he's going to cause his own loss in November)
Joe Biden: ‘Unlike the African American Community … the Latino Community Is an Incredibly Diverse Community’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ommunity-nabj/
Here's an interesting data point:
81 Percent of Black Americans Want the Same Level, or More, of Police Presence: Gallup
https://reason.com/2020/08/06/81-per...esence-gallup/
Interesting article of concern from a Democrat
Joe Biden's Capitulation to the Crazy Left is Alienating Democrats Like Me
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/07...crats-like-me/
"The Hard Left Controls Biden Now"
"Biden Betrays Law Enforcement"
"....These voters cannot be discounted as racists or deplorables who need to be canceled. Their votes matter just as much as the protesters and rioters. They could easily lift Trump to a second term.
If that happens, Democrats will have only themselves to blame. The coronavirus gave them the chance to show what real leadership looks like. So far, they have failed.
Democrats have a small window to come to their senses, reconnect with working people, and fix it. But that will require them to get out of Washington and stand up to the special interests that are exploiting the virus for political gain — and that seems increasingly unlikely."
So Biden can sometimes say something stupid -of the two candidates for the Presidency, who would you say is capable of saying the most stupid things -indeed, who is on record saying the most stupid things?; and will enough Black Americans because of what Biden said, change their vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
By contrast Biden makes modest statements, compared to his competitor, who couches so much in absoutes there is no room for reality to get a look in: 'nobody ever saw that before', 'the greatest economy in the history of the world' (what does that even mean?); the greatest, the best, the finest, from a man who wants you to visit Yoseminite Park, or Thighland (don't we all?), who presides over a system that gives milions of dollars in loans to the Kushner famiy, father and sons...how many Black-owned and run businesses got millions of tax payer dollars?
...gaffes, if they are to define the election, are already stacked up against the Incumbent, and no amount of disinfectant is going to make his self-inflicted wounds heal before November. Some statements are so shocking they are never forgotten.
Long after Biden's remark about Black Americans is forgotten, Disinfectant may be identified as the Keyword of the 2020 campaign.
Is it a clever move by the President, to use an Executive Order to spend money without the approval of Congress? On the one hand he provokes a debate about the income Americans need and want -as defined by him-while ignoring the rule of law, and on the other hand by provoking litigation, his time-honured tactic for dealing with his own failures- he ties down the Democrats in process rather tha policy, lest the policy be exposed to the claim made by Robert Reich that while their President takes money away, his corporate buddies have received more money than they can spend?
Thus:
"Asked by a reporter why the benefits would be $400 instead of the previous $600, Trump responded: “This is the money they need, this is the money they want, this gives them a great incentive to go back to work.” He added: “There was a difficulty with the 600 number because it really was a disincentive.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-for-jobless
and
ince the start of the pandemic, American billionaires have been cleaning up. As more than 50 million Americans filed for unemployment insurance, billionaires became $637bn richer. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth has ballooned 59%. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’s, 39%. Walmart’s Walton family has added $25bn. .....On 28 July, Trump announced a $765m deal with the firm (Kodak) to bring drug production back to the United States. He called it “one of the most important deals in the history of the US pharmaceutical industries,” even though Kodak isn’t even a pharmaceutical company.
.....This much is clear: Trump and his Republican enablers won’t provide $600 per week to tens of millions of Americans who need the money to survive the pandemic, because Trump and the GOP believe the money undermines incentives to work. Yet Trump has no problem letting billionaires illegally profit off the pandemic. He thinks that as long as they buoy the stock market, they’re helping the American economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-the-pandemic
As predicted, Kamala Harris will be Biden's running mate. A clever move on his part, for however much doubt and dirt is now stirred by friend or foe, Senator Harris does appear to be sane, capable of articulating an alternative future for her country without using the language of the sewer, and may appeal to those voters being told her party is in the grip of the 'radical left', when it is the insertion of extremists from the right into the Republican Party that has been the stand-out aspect of party politics since 2016.
Needless to say, for all his contempt for her now, he must concede, she can't be all that bad-
"The president first donated to Ms Harris in 2011 as she was running for attorney general. That donation amounted to $5,000 (£3,793). He then donated another $1,000 (£758) to her re-election campaign in 2013, Washington newspaper McClatchy reported on Monday.
Ivanka Trump also donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic senator. In 2014 she donated a reported $2,000 (£1,517) to Ms Harris’ re-election efforts."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8807421.html
Maybe the Republicans should ask themselves of their leader -Is he one of us?
And now it gets interesting, but will Biden and Harris be safe, or sorry?
Agree,Joe Biden selecting Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate was a clever move on his part. and she is capable of articulating an alternative future for the country without using divisive language,and appeal to voters being told that her party is in the grip of the radical left,when in fact it is the insertion of extremists from the right who have taking over the Republican Party that has been the stand out aspect of the party politics since 2016. and also agree the Republicans should ask themselves of their so-called leader is he one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It is clever in various senses:
a) if the Republicans want to use Law and Order as their stick to beat the Democrats with, they have in Kamala Harris a former Attorney General for California, in effect the second most powerful AG in the US, and also one who has, shall we say, 'disappointed' the very same left that the Republicans claim she has become part of. One wonders if anyone in that party, from the White House to the outhouse, has ever met anyone left-wing, or maybe they keep watching old George MCGovern videos? And how left-wing was he?
b) Harris, rather than scaring off the 'suburban' voter, may actually increase the Democrats vote, as suburbs today are not what they were in the 1950s, as is remarked of one in Texas-
"Nearly 500 miles east, in the expanse of metropolitan Houston, Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni is running to represent a suburban congressional district that is worlds apart fromthe one that exists in Trump’s imagination.
Texas’ 22nd congressional district, which is almost the size of Rhode Island and nearly as populous, is so diverse that his campaign is distributing literature in 21 languages."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cratic-suburbs
c) I am sure Mr Fanti will dismiss the claim that Senator Harris represents, or even has the right to represent Black voters, but on the other hand, if Black voters look at the candidates and ask, 'Who is best among them for me?' I think the majority might choose her -who else? Mike Pence, by contrast? Has anyone ever seen his lips move when he speaks?
d) I believe Harris might be the least Christian candidate in US history -although she attended a Baptist school growing up, via her father I assume, her family history is dominated by her (now deceased) Hindu mother (the father left when Harris was 7 seven years old) and she also went to Hindu temples. She is married to a Jew, and although I don't believe she converted to Judaism, she has a solid record of support for Israel including the popular misconception as expressed here: "“Years later when I visited Israel for the first time, I saw the fruits of that effort and the Israeli ingenuity that has truly made a desert bloom.” (Historical note: there was no desert to bloom before the 1880s, the fertile areas of what is now Israel were producing oranges and olives and plums and wheat and...etc no need to let Israeli propaganda spoil reality for ya) ---but that is hardly surprising for top-tier Democrats, even if she does, or used to believe in a two-state solution -you can read a snippet or two about it here-
https://www.jta.org/2019/01/11/polit...-kamala-harris
The point might be that for those Republicans who feel they have 'lost' their America to a generation or two of immigrants who don't share their Christian European heritage, Harris represents exactly what it is that they think they have lost.
It may also be the case, as she identifies as Black, that Harris is only 50% closer to Slavery compared to Obama, who was also identified as Black but had no family connection to the Atlantic Slave Trade. It means the US has yet to see anyone fully connected to Slavery reach high office -but I am not sure who that would be.
As for the President, if his Law and Order shtick doesn't work with Harris, is he going to take a gamble on using 'race' to bait her? His only route appears to be via BLM if he can make it stick, and depending on how she responds to BLM questions.