US Politics January 2019: we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger

steve should stick to what he's good at -- baseball

anyway seems like the reasoned, centered take now is that taxing those 16k people at the 70% marginal rate really won't amount to a hill of beans so hey why do anything at all lol

uuuugh yeah, that's another thing but my internet outrage is nearing my daily maximum limit so i need to back off

Karl:

okay so a lot of (rich, white) folks are freaking out about what a 70% tax rate on the wealthy would look like and they’re scared about it and shit (even though it’s literally what rich baby boomers already dealt with).

SO LET’S DO THE MATH.

— Dianna E. Anderson 🏳️‍🌈 (@diannaeanderson) January 5, 2019

there it is, thanks!

is there a rough dollar amount estimate for what that would generate?

not to naysay that tweet-thread too much because it's well-intentioned, but i read that earlier and i didn't like the digression it takes into using the Rock's personal finances as a measure of how taxing the wealthy could pay for other things. for example, it says "The Rock would pay almost enough in taxes in a single year to completely solve Flint’s water crisis", which just isn't true. if the Rock makes $65 million and has to pay 70% of taxes over 10 million, the portion over $10 million would generate $38.5 million in tax revenue. estimates for the cost of solving Flint's water crisis vary, but it's much, much more than that. the state was ordered to replace 18,000 water service lines at a cost of over $100 million, and that's just part of the cost of fixing the whole mess. anyway, i think all of that stuff is a distraction from the main point

on top of that, i also don't think it's a good tactical move to argue for the benefits of taxing the wealthy by personifying the issue using dwayne 'the rock' johnson, one of the most beloved celebrities out there. would much rather think about what taxing jeff bezos or zuckerberg could accomplish, if one were to go down that road

yeah not just in actual revenues, but underscoring the fact that the Bezos & Zucks of this country have the kind of political clout and aim that creates bad tax code to begin with

yeah but if you tax bezos at 70% he'll just quit and head to galt's gulch and *then* where will we be

is there a rough dollar amount estimate for what that would generate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-raise

an AOC-esque plan of 70% tax rate on income over 10 million would raise about $720 billion per decade

yeah but if you tax bezos at 70% he'll just quit and head to galt's gulch and *then* where will we be

the driver's seat of a bulldozer would be p cool

Aiming a plan at disliked rich folks makes it vulnerable to complaints about liked rich folk - pointing out that the liked ones are going to be just fine does a much better job.

xxp thank you!

so almost exactly as much as cutting the $716 billion military budget by 10%

por que no los dos?

Problems, problems

NBC reporting the Pentagon Chief of Staff has resigned. This within 24 hours of Trump claiming he can call national emergency and direct DOD to build a wall.

— Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) January 5, 2019

Dunno how i feel about everyone who can say no to this fuck keeps resigning

Aiming a plan at disliked rich folks makes it vulnerable to complaints about liked rich folk - pointing out that the liked ones are going to be just fine does a much better job.

yeah a lot of them are image-conscious and are always quick to say 'i'm very comfortable' to downplay the immense gap between them and the fans who make them very comfortable

heres's a recycled thought destined for lonely doom on a saturday night. the presidency and everything connected to it has been one non-stop entertainment story ever since he bumbled his way down the escalator in 2015. that has been a key factor in trump's popularity among his base. he may be the dumbest man in the united states, but he is also unpredictable and entertaining.

honestly i don't know what is going to happen when/if we go back to a "normal" president. it just doesn't seem possible. this is whisky-induced non-sense, but i think in some ways he has created a permanent thing or space that will have to be occupied by something or someone even after he leaves. like even if the president/administration is relatively normal, than something else will have to be completely off to compensate for it. it's hard to explain, but maybe someone else gets the same vibe

I’ve thought about that a lot, how the void trump leaves when he leaves the White House will extend well past the Oval Office. of course he will continue being absolutely insane in public until he dies or goes to prison so there’s that

i used to worry about how future presidential candidates would try to fill that void, or how the public would look for people who could fill it. but now i think it's more likely that the president will be "normal" and the weirdness will be displaced somewhere else.

i don't know, maybe not. but he seems like a Nero character, terrible for the ages. Nero fucking blew, but his death kicked off more terribleness (the year of the four emperors)

eh, maybe we'll be lucky and someone stable will come on board. just seems like like the world is tilted

were there romanians after ceaucescu who DIDN'T do the thing from that SNL sketch where they all spit on the floor every time they say his name

cuz that's how i dream of people acting after trump is dead

Trump getting in blew it all up which is why you should all celebrate ppl like Tlaib inviting the present

Is there a role for a White House court fool or something. Combining the roles of trump and Giuliani and always seeking press attention. Minister of Fake News?
& is it all like one continuous Saturnalia where the King/e,peror is played for laughs by some pleb who would only have the job temporarily during the festival. with the big NB about the temporary status of the role

the bullying, defensive, toxic weirdness will go back to professional wrestling where it belongs, and can be studied safely, and mocked

Is there a role for a White House court fool or something.

his name is Donald J. Trump iirc

good morning!

what television news segment will the president of the US tweet angrily four times about this morning?

Odds that he has literally suggested Tom Cruise for one of his Pentagon positions?

"this morning i asked general beringer to piss on the sparkplug"

http://agentpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/General-Beringer-Commander-of-NORAD-in-WarGames.jpg

I'm having an argument with a friend's conservative pal who insists that (a) "nobody paid the top rates" in the 1950s and 1960s (b) capital will start fleeing the United States because, after all, "capital creates output."

Starting to think politicians should just pretend marginal tax rates are a new idea

POL: “Under *my* plan, everyone pays the *same* taxes on the first 10 thousand, the next ten thousand—all the way up”
SOME GUY NAMED STEVE: “the SAME taxes?!”
POL: “that’s right Steve”

— Tom Lee (@tjl) January 6, 2019

i would fully expect some "capital strike" if marginal rates are raised 1% above the Clinton era. even so, fuck em.

Of course
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/424074-bolton-no-troop-withdrawal-from-syria-until-isis-contained-kurds-protected

Why the media reports on everything this moron says as if it's real or achievable or plausible or anything that will ever happen remains a frustrating mystery.

remains a frustrating mystery

eyeballs, clicks, ad revenue. also, cable news must fill every minute of every 24 hours.

kinda love jumaane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-gw5I0MoSk

Eh, 70% would be nice, but these fine countries do fine with top marginal income tax rates (including provincial/state/subnational taxes) above 50%:

Sweden 60.15%
Canada 58.75% (in Quebec, other provinces lower)
Japan 55.945%
Denmark 55.85%
Austria 55%
Finland 52.25%
Luxembourg 52.45%
Ireland 52%
Netherlands 51.95%
United States 51.8% (37% max federal + 13.3% max state + 1.5% max city).

Personally, I'd be content with a 40% top Federal rate, but eliminating the provisions that privilege unearned income from capital gains (taxed at only 15% or 20%) compared to earned income, and of course simplifying the code to eliminate shelters.

if I ran the zoo I'd pay our UN fees and introduce a global 80% tax rate on the top 2% of people in all countries to eliminate safe havens under the penalty of sanctions but idk I like to wish/dream

is there a mainstream economic argument for taxing capital gains lower than income? or is is entirely political?

Everything about gifting, trusts, estates and inheritances needs to be revamped too.

people with lots of money should have it all pooled and redistributed

It's kind of amazing that VP Pence has been relegated to meeting with congressional staff. Here's what that means in Washington code: It show he has no clout to make any deal, and it completely devalues the office he represents.

— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 6, 2019

lol

This too:

https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MIKE-PENCE-KIRSTEN-SINEMA-PIC-OF-THE-WEEK02-810x608.jpg

Having to swear in noted atheist and bisexual (and new Arizona senator) Kirsten Sinema with a law book instead of a Bible.

Kyrsten, even.

Fuck him up Kyrsten

Like, how can this old guard ^^^ even compete. "Only game in town" is a sad, sad, losing strategy.

fully half of her last name is "SIN". Run, Mike, run!

sorry for nerd but ive just been enjoying all the talk about marginal tax rates etc

is there a site that chucks out even a best-guess income-tax-only figure for tax youd be liable for on a given income?

sanpakus list had me wondering, because even at that theres serious variance in the thresholds for that highest marginal rate to kick in (and thresholds under which no tax is paid) and itd be a v useful comparator

google is frend

https://i.imgur.com/ru73bVd.png

yeah the threshold question is crucial to creating an apples-to-apples comparison both in budgetary terms and in terms of trying to reduce income inequality.

it completely devalues the office he represents.

Uh, it devalues an office that has been notoriously characterized as 'not worth a bucket of warm piss'?