And close the gap - I wasn’t until today aware that many millions in the US are uninsured because they are too “rich” for medicaid but don’t have enough income for the Marketplace premium tax credits.
WTF? Who plans such a shitty system?
7 Likes
Myths don’t exist? I think that using “myth == counterfactual” is lazy rhetoric, and betrays a misunderstanding of how mythology works.
Social structures are implemented and used by humans. It just makes more sense to use those you find most accurate, rather than pressuring others to internalize those of outsiders. When people apply some formal rigor, they are less likely to be duped.
Another way to consider it is that there is no default society to belong to unless you make some. Collectives, groups, cultures, etc are created by people, and the more inclusive this process is, the more robust they are. Just like if you read hundreds of books without writing any, the exchange becomes one-sided. Participation in media (and agriculture, and government) can be considered the norm. If instead you “leave it to the professionals”, you get what you get.
So, for money, one can start with more fundamental questions: How do YOU define wealth? What are some effective ways of symbolizing it? As for gender, we could start with something like: What do YOU consider the most significant similarities and differences between people?
I would argue that what makes humans “civilized” to any extent is their abilities to symbolize, so it yields a more humane culture when people are encouraged and expected participate in this process.
1 Like
When it’s the same three names to indicate wealth and power on one side of the political aisle, as opposed to thousands, the post can be added to the pile of those basically admitting the opposite of what they say is true.
7 Likes
It required the combined efforts of Congress, the Supreme Court, and a bunch of Republican governors. Personally, I think they could have managed to do a little shittier.
6 Likes
Many restrict your vote during primaries to your registered party.
4 Likes
Total US personal income in 2014 was 14.7 trillion.
The top 1% get 9% of that these days.
The US federal deficit in 2014 was 0.483 trillion.
9% of 14.7 trillion = 1.32 trillion.
0.483/1.32 = .366.
If total tax rates on the top 1% can be raised by 36.6 percentage points the deficit would be eliminated.
The total effective federal tax rate on the top 1% in 2012 was 22.8%.
Therefore raising the total effective tax rate on the top 1% to 59%, nearly tripling their tax bills, would eliminate the deficit.
Unless i have made a mistake we absolutely could eliminate the deficit this year by increasing taxes on the top 1%. We wouldn’t even have to exceed the 75% ish level where studies indicate the ‘laffer curve’ effect may actually happen.
I am not saying this is exactly the policy that should be pursued… but it appears to be plausible.
10 Likes
Note, state taxes probably bump the total effective tax rate for the top 1% by 10% or so (though varying by state), so we would be tickling the 75% real-laffer-curve rate.
I can’t help it. Someone mentions the Laffer Curve and…
2 Likes
Every time someone tickles the laffer-curve I get the giggles.
1 Like
This could get nasty if they refuse to acknowledge my party of choice. Also, it sounds like a tool for gerrymandering.
2 Likes
Here, have a nice doormat…
Woops!
4 Likes
Actually I think I wrote in “Ron Paul” on that one, although honestly I do not remember… I do remember McCain and Paul had both already dropped out, leaving a small rogues’ gallery of Christian Armageddonist laissez faire losers (including GWB, of course). Write-in votes are no longer meaningful in Delaware, though; they count them without reading them unless you’ve gone through some ridiculous paperwork months in advance, because the parties are terrified of the possibility of a popular draft. In the general, I believe I voted for David Cobb.
2 Likes
What it means is that you are only allowed to vote on a party ticket. If you walk in and say you’re an independent, you will be given a ballot which includes only candidates running on the Independent party platform, plus any non-partisan issues up for a vote such as judge retention or referendums. If you say you are a D or R, you will be given that ballot instead. You are not allowed to vote for a D candidate for one office and an R candidate for another office on the same ballot. This is only for primary voting, not general elections.
3 Likes
Related must-see:
“People used to, in their position, use that money, to invest in our country, to invest in people, and they’re not doing it anymore. And as a nurse, I would probably say they’re a little mentally ill. It’s not normal to want to hoard all that money. And the people in this country need it.”
Interview with the film’s director:
4 Likes
Not in Michigan. 
Also, the majority of small businesses only have one employee… the owner.
And, from my experience, their unemployed adult children.
7 Likes
I don’t recall Wisconsin doing it, but California does. I should probably change my registration from Independent…
Open primaries are great, I highly recommend them. The only other place I’ve lived while old enough to vote was Iowa and they demanded that you join a party just to vote in primaries. Registering for a party seems so dang Soviet.
5 Likes
We don’t need to pay off the current budget. Balancing budgets is a bad goal. I’ve seen estimated of the value of public education to grade 8 as high as effectively investing at 70%. If you can borrow at 3% and invest at 70% then you are a pretty big idiot if you are paying down you debt instead of borrowing more and more and more. Now, basic literacy might be one of the best investments imaginable but lots of social investments are going to have an effective return exceeding the interest rate paid by the government.
As for the option of actually confiscating money, that’s exactly what Picketty suggested as a solution to the problem: a tax on capital itself.
Yes, yes ,yes. That is exactly should be done. Denmark, is, as advertised in the byline, rich, happy and equal? Why wouldn’t you want those things. There is no correlation between tax rates and take home pay. People who live in countries with higher taxes have just as much money to spend as people who live in countries with lower taxes. In fact, I would bet that the correlation between tax rates and take home pay is positive, since the study I saw saying it was negative was in 2007, and countries with higher tax rates have done better since the economic collapse.
But no one is going to advocate raising tax rates by that much in one day. That’s for violent revolutionaries. Democratic elections tend to change things at a slow pace, which is less painful.
16 Likes
