politics Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

[Legiondude]

1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

On the Trumpcare thing, I think it's going to be interesting to see how it works out. A lot of Trump voting states are going to get bit in the ass by that if it does pass with the current rules in place. I have several friends on FB who are terrified that they are basically going to end up loosing their houses and/or go bankrupt due to loss of coverage for pre-existing conditions, especially those that are struggling even with the ACA in place.

 

I hope t__a is right and it doesn't get past the Senate, for my friends sake anyway.

 

51 minutes ago, Donward said:

I'm not going to get into details but ObamaCare has been an absolute disaster for me and my family. And it is a situation we (as in my wife) has spent hundreds of man hours online and on the phone to try to rectify. For Mrs. The Captain, she has been forced onto a different health care plan every year. This is after she had - and paid out of pocket - for the same healthcare plan with the same health insurance provider - for almost two decades. So she spent her entire adult life taking responsibility for her own health care, making sacrifices at times to do the responsible adult thing to keep that health care coverage, and for thanks the Federal government throws her to the wolves.

The day they passed the bill in the House, my mother got a call informing her that because our household makes too much money compared to the previous year(A bump from just under $50K to just over it, 75% is based on my father's C&P/SS/retirement funds) she has to pay back to the IRS some subsidy she received to the tune of an amount that exceeds her current annual income as an adjunct professor at the local community college.

 

Oh, and the escalating premiums will also exceed her annual income in the next year. Violating the individual mandate as an option also happens to exceed her annual income. So staying or going, she's about to be nuked financially unless something changes.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Obamacare is fucking stupid. 

 

When it hit, it was cheaper to pay out of pocket and the stupid fine than go through all the hoops. It didn't help the people it was promised to help, and it hurt everyone else.

 

My deductible, for instance,  was over $7000. My previous deductible was around $2000. 

 

And I paid half for the previous plan. I have ended up paying cash for whatever healthcare service I have required, which thank God hasn't been much. 

 

A very good friend of mine works in healthcare as a tech and administrator. He's seen all the shit first hand, and has not a thing good to say about the obamacare plan. In fact, even though he works in healthcare for two different hospitals, his plan couldn't get him in to see a cardiologist when he needed it. So he resorted to slipping a doctor cash to get seen. 

 

The plan is shit, pure and simple. 

[Sturgeon]

Obamacare also screwed my girlfriend over when the subsidy was spontaneously and mysteriously revoked and backdated by two months. So even though her subsidy had only just been revoked (for reasons we still don't have any clue about) she was instantly two months delinquent. Bye bye healthcare. Her only resort to fix this was to file something called "escalation" which would do... Something. Of course, it was optional for the government to ever get back to her, and of course they never did.

 

So she spent hundreds of dollars buying healthcare that she never used before it got revoked by the government. Then she got very sick, about a month after.

 

Thanks, Obama.

[Sturgeon]

In case you needed a reminder of just how stupid elected politicians can be.

[Sturgeon]

It is BIZARRE to me how many people do not understand the concept of the Laffer Optimum.

 

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Pardon me for posting something from the left wing Washington Post, but this is interesting.

 

Trump’s forbidden love: Single-payer health care

 

Stranger things have happened.

 

[Toxn]

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

It is BIZARRE to me how many people do not understand the concept of the Laffer Optimum.

 

 

Isn't the Laffer curve yet another of those nice, rational-sounding economics concepts that don't work at all in the real world?

 

I mean; correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that no country has successfuly raised revenue by lowering the tax rate yet, which is one of the key predictions of the curve. 

 

Edit: the interviewer also comes off as a complete prick here. Is this a standard US media thing?

[Sturgeon]

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

Isn't the Laffer curve yet another of those nice, rational-sounding economics concepts that don't work at all in the real world?

 

I mean; correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that no country has successfuly raised revenue by lowering the tax rate yet, which is one of the key predictions of the curve. 

 

Oh yeah, I'm sure a 90% income tax does wonders for the producers in your economy.

 

Sure, I'll buy the thesis that it's impossible to actually optimize based on a Laffer curve because this shit's too complex for a model like that. However, it is patently obvious to me that you are stifling the economy by taxing high earners at gouging rates, which is what that lady is asking for.

[Toxn]

5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Oh yeah, I'm sure a 90% income tax does wonders for the producers in your economy.

 

Sure, I'll buy the thesis that it's impossible to actually optimize based on a Laffer curve because this shit's too complex for a model like that. However, it is patently obvious to me that you are stifling the economy by taxing high earners at gouging rates, which is what that lady is asking for.

 

That's assuming a total tax rate, which this sort of thing never is. You're never talking about taking X% of a rich person's total income, because rich people finances aren't anything like the rest or ours (their wealth is distributed across a whole range of entities and structures, nearly always across continents). Hell, you could tax your top three million at 100% of their reported income and most of them probably wouldn't notice, because their reported income doesn't even remotely resemble their actual wealth.

 

As for stifling the economy, do you really think that rich individuals are the engine of economic growth? Nah bro, the 19th century is over. Corporations and governments are, for better or worse, the main drivers of research, investment and growth in our economies.

 

Also capital != 'producer' in our modern economy, but that's a whole other subject.

 

To end on a constructive note, I'd say that my operating theory of how wealth works at the top end (and something which I've had some opportunity to observe first hand) is that enough money eventually catapults you outside the orbit of the real economy and into this weird zone where it becomes just raw numbers floating in the ether without being pegged to anything and grows according to its own rules. I think its fairly well understood at this point (by all sides) that one of the primary issues for capitalist economies is to work out how to bring this wealth back into the real world somehow. One approach is to try to encourage rich people to spend more themselves by taking the shackles off (deregulation, lower tax rates etc.) but my belief is that the gravetic pull of capital is just too strong for them to do this (ie: I agree with Piketty).

 

The other approach is to try to redirect wealth in some way to deflate this whole issue before it destroys the system its feeding off of. Which is where we get the idea of ultra-high tax rates for the top 1%. I'm abivalent on this approach, as it hasn't historically been very sustainable in the face of incentives and human behaviour. But, lacking a third way, its what we've got.

[Ramlaen]

56 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Isn't the Laffer curve yet another of those nice, rational-sounding economics concepts that don't work at all in the real world?

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tax-cuts-revenue-what-we-learned-1980s

[Toxn]

28 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tax-cuts-revenue-what-we-learned-1980s

Ah, the 1980s. Either the best of economic times or the beginning of the end, depending on your view.

 

I'm not going to bash the CATO institute too much, because frankly all economics seems to be soft science and claiming positive effects of your favourite policy retrospectively seems to be pretty common throughout. But my abiding impression of the last decade is that you can have wonderful economic growth without it meaning a damn thing to people on the ground, and the mantra of cutting taxes to folk at the top of the income curve seems to be a great way to generate this effect. The related idea; that increasing inequality isn't a problem because the pie gets bigger faster than they can make your slice of it smaller, seems to be about as dead as the idea that putting all productive capacity in the hands of the state will lead to everyone getting a fair shake. 

[Toxn]

I should also mention that the mindset behind the Laffer curve as public policy is a fascinating area where thinking sort of inverts itself.

As a simple example; the official response to people speeding on a certain section of road is never going to be 'we should raise the speed limit there'. And getting the government to agree to the idea that pot should be decriminalised has been this monumental struggle, despite it relying on many of the same arguments as those for lowering taxes (and sometimes even being argued by the same people).

 

All of which makes me think that one of the great strengths of economics as a political idea is its uncanny way of recasting the actions of individuals as the output of some vast, inscrutible machine. If individuals don't get with the program (by, for instance, speeding or smoking pot) then the response is to slap them until they do. The machine, on the other hand, must be placated.  

[Sturgeon]

I think you arguments are patently nonsensical and/or counterfactual, Tox, but frankly I don't want to argue the point, so fine.

[Toxn]

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

I think you arguments are patently nonsensical and/or counterfactual, Tox, but frankly I don't want to argue the point, so fine.

We're having similar days, it seems.

 

Let's agree to disagree, and save mental effort for more productive things?

[ShamefurDispray]

14 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

It is BIZARRE to me how many people do not understand the concept of the Laffer Optimum.

 

 

I love how people like her are saying that anyone richer than they are should be taxed at punishing rates while their rate is perfectly fine.

[EnsignExpendable]

You can raise productivity by seizing the means of production, makes you think.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Just now, EnsignExpendable said:

You can raise productivity by seizing the means of production, makes you think.

Seize the means of production? 

 

Seizing the uterus? 

 

Grabbing the pussy?

 

Trump wants to seize the means of production? 

 

#wake #up #sheeple

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, ShamefurDispray said:

I love how people like her are saying that anyone richer than they are should be taxed at punishing rates while their rate is perfectly fine.

 

No you see, they are the top 1% so they have to give the extra money to the government instead of charities like she does because reasons.

 

At the same time as saying she prefers to send her extra money to charities because she doesn't think the government (insert a TRUMP REEEEEE! moment) will spend the money wisely.

[Collimatrix]

11 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

That's assuming a total tax rate, which this sort of thing never is. You're never talking about taking X% of a rich person's total income, because rich people finances aren't anything like the rest or ours (their wealth is distributed across a whole range of entities and structures, nearly always across continents). Hell, you could tax your top three million at 100% of their reported income and most of them probably wouldn't notice, because their reported income doesn't even remotely resemble their actual wealth.

 

As for stifling the economy, do you really think that rich individuals are the engine of economic growth? Nah bro, the 19th century is over. Corporations and governments are, for better or worse, the main drivers of research, investment and growth in our economies.

 

Also capital != 'producer' in our modern economy, but that's a whole other subject.

 

To end on a constructive note, I'd say that my operating theory of how wealth works at the top end (and something which I've had some opportunity to observe first hand) is that enough money eventually catapults you outside the orbit of the real economy and into this weird zone where it becomes just raw numbers floating in the ether without being pegged to anything and grows according to its own rules. I think its fairly well understood at this point (by all sides) that one of the primary issues for capitalist economies is to work out how to bring this wealth back into the real world somehow. One approach is to try to encourage rich people to spend more themselves by taking the shackles off (deregulation, lower tax rates etc.) but my belief is that the gravetic pull of capital is just too strong for them to do this (ie: I agree with Piketty).

 

The other approach is to try to redirect wealth in some way to deflate this whole issue before it destroys the system its feeding off of. Which is where we get the idea of ultra-high tax rates for the top 1%. I'm abivalent on this approach, as it hasn't historically been very sustainable in the face of incentives and human behaviour. But, lacking a third way, its what we've got.

 

 

Milton Friedman argued, in the 1980s but as far as I can tell it's still true today, that a simplification of tax code would increase government revenue whilst also reducing taxpayer burden.  He also argued that it was impossible for such common sense reforms to ever be made for political reasons.

 

This wasn't a Laffer Curve argument either.  This was assuming no economic growth due to the changes he proposed.

 

Tax code is enormously complex, not because it's highly optimized for revenue maximization or for minimal disruption to the economy or even for wealth redistribution.  Tax code is optimized first and foremost as a delicate piece of political theater; a goal which is obviously orthogonal to any of those other goals, and that is why it sucks generally.

 

Current taxation consists of very high marginal tax rates for the highest brackets combined with a labyrinthine web of exceptions and exemptions so that almost nobody in those highest brackets actually pays those rates.  The high marginal tax rates are necessary to convince the voters that their politicians really are sticking it to the rich.  The web of exceptions is necessary to convince the rich donors who actually matter that they are being taken care of.  Obviously, politicians don't actually write this crap, pressure groups and lobbyist's assistants and civil servants do the heavy lifting, because the actual politicians are basically human ornaments who just sort of officiate over the process.

 

Enacting a streamlined, efficient tax code is impossible because both factions would be tempted to re-insert either the high marginal rates or the web of exceptions to make sure that their constituents didn't get screwed over.  The eat-the-rich crowd would be worried about losing face and having all the loopholes quietly reinstated, while the fuck-the-poor crowd would be worried about the marginal rates being jacked up and them having no loopholes to evade those rates with.  It's a classic defect-defect outcome of the prisoner's dilemma.

 

 

[EnsignExpendable]

[Toxn]

7 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Milton Friedman argued, in the 1980s but as far as I can tell it's still true today, that a simplification of tax code would increase government revenue whilst also reducing taxpayer burden.  He also argued that it was impossible for such common sense reforms to ever be made for political reasons.

 

This wasn't a Laffer Curve argument either.  This was assuming no economic growth due to the changes he proposed.

 

Tax code is enormously complex, not because it's highly optimized for revenue maximization or for minimal disruption to the economy or even for wealth redistribution.  Tax code is optimized first and foremost as a delicate piece of political theater; a goal which is obviously orthogonal to any of those other goals, and that is why it sucks generally.

 

Current taxation consists of very high marginal tax rates for the highest brackets combined with a labyrinthine web of exceptions and exemptions so that almost nobody in those highest brackets actually pays those rates.  The high marginal tax rates are necessary to convince the voters that their politicians really are sticking it to the rich.  The web of exceptions is necessary to convince the rich donors who actually matter that they are being taken care of.  Obviously, politicians don't actually write this crap, pressure groups and lobbyist's assistants and civil servants do the heavy lifting, because the actual politicians are basically human ornaments who just sort of officiate over the process.

 

Enacting a streamlined, efficient tax code is impossible because both factions would be tempted to re-insert either the high marginal rates or the web of exceptions to make sure that their constituents didn't get screwed over.  The eat-the-rich crowd would be worried about losing face and having all the loopholes quietly reinstated, while the fuck-the-poor crowd would be worried about the marginal rates being jacked up and them having no loopholes to evade those rates with.  It's a classic defect-defect outcome of the prisoner's dilemma.

 

 

I like this explanation, but according to what you said this wouldn't game as a straight defect-defect outcome, as that implies that both sides lose worse than they would have by cooperation. Rather; the fuck-the-poor crowd has decisively won and everyone else has lost. They're the only party here that gets what they want, after all.

 

I don't know if there's a well-known model for this kind of three-way situation, to be honest. 

[Collimatrix]

49 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I like this explanation, but according to what you said this wouldn't game as a straight defect-defect outcome, as that implies that both sides lose worse than they would have by cooperation. Rather; the fuck-the-poor crowd has decisively won and everyone else has lost. They're the only party here that gets what they want, after all.

 

I don't know if there's a well-known model for this kind of three-way situation, to be honest. 

 

 

Fuck-the-poor does lose out, however.  Especially the just-barely-rich-enough-to-need-to-use-tax-loophole contingent.  The frictional losses of paying accountants are significant, although they would shrink proportionally the bigger you get.  Friedman showed that the actual tax burden could be reduced while increasing revenue.

I am convinced, by the way, that most instances of tax reductions increasing tax revenue are not examples of the Laffer Curve at work (because that's a long-term effect) but examples of tax evasion, legalized and otherwise, going down.

 

The only people who win in this scenario are the tax attorneys and politicians, i.e. scum and even more scum.

[Toxn]

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Fuck-the-poor does lose out, however.  Especially the just-barely-rich-enough-to-need-to-use-tax-loophole contingent.  The frictional losses of paying accountants are significant, although they would shrink proportionally the bigger you get.  Friedman showed that the actual tax burden could be reduced while increasing revenue.

I am convinced, by the way, that most instances of tax reductions increasing tax revenue are not examples of the Laffer Curve at work (because that's a long-term effect) but examples of tax evasion, legalized and otherwise, going down.

 

The only people who win in this scenario are the tax attorneys and politicians, i.e. scum and even more scum.

That's more a marginal win in my book, but whatever. I fully agree with you that the system itself is dysfunctional in terms of actually collecting money in an efficient fashion, and also that the incentives at play make such a system impossible to reform.

[Walter_Sobchak]

On 5/7/2017 at 1:53 AM, Toxn said:

 

 

Edit: the interviewer also comes off as a complete prick here. Is this a standard US media thing?

It's Tucker Carlson from Fox.  Being a prick is part of his shtick.  

 

Also, the name "Tucker" is a terrible fucking name.  

 

 

[Toxn]

Looks like you guys almost got Nixon in a dress:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-the-new-book-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978