Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
"Not until Europe adopts common fiscal policy. Corporate tax is more harmful to growth than other taxes. Tax competition helps keep it low."
"Effective rates already in range 20-30 (Ireland lower). Good to minimize incentives for tax avoidance."
"Yes but the implied loss of tax revenue should be compensated by either less distortionary taxes or by inefficient spending cuts."
"It may be difficult to make up for too large revenue losses."
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 12:57:17 PM
Kamala Harris’s Blackness Isn’t Up for Debate.
I choose to believe in Kamala Harris because she reminds me of Commissioner Barbara Gordon in the Lego Batman movie.
[pause]
Wait, I didn't mean to type that in public.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:06:34 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I generally check links when I have the time, especially when someone makes a bold assertion, so let’s see how those links support your strong statement.
Link one is the personal blog of a very conservative economist, John Cochrane. He argues that all taxes on corporations are passed along to the consumer anyway, so the corporate tax rate should be zero. He uses sales tax as an example, which makes no sense, as it is widely accepted that consumers pay sales tax, not businesses. That’s how sales tax works. But he uses this analogy to claim that corporations really pay no tax, because any tax on profits is passed to consumers in the form of higher prices, etc. He also believes in the following:
...
In Cochrane's world, social programs are a burden on the poor. Almost all taxation (of the wealthy) is "confiscatory." Arguments that inequality is politically and socially destabilizing are bunk: "Inequality was pretty bad on Thomas Jefferson's farm. But he started a revolution, not his slaves."
The premise of Cochrane's Hoover Institution talk was that "it is a mistake to accept the premise that inequality, per se, is a 'problem' needing to be 'solved,' and to craft 'alternate solutions.'"
...
Cochrane also airs a variation on the "undeserving poor" theme last sounded by Rep. Paul Ryan in his "opportunity grant" proposal: "A segment of America is stuck in widespread single motherhood, leading to terrible early-child experiences, awful education, substance abuse, and criminality," Cochrane declared. "70% of male black high school dropouts will end up in prison, hence essentially unemployable.... Less than half are even looking for legal work."
So, based on his other beliefs, I’m going to take his ideas about as seriously as I take Paul Ryan’s.
But you argued his ideas are part of a broad consensus, so let’s look at link number 2, which is a 14 page report issued by the Trump administration to support the tax reform bill. That’s not a reliable and credible source. I wouldn’t trust a Trump admin paper that claimed water is wet. Their reputation for cherry picking and misrepresenting data is well established.
And finally, link 3, which appears to be results from a December 2017 survey of less than 70 European economists conducted by IGM, or Initiative on Global Markets, a research center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, asking about whether, all else remaining equal, the European corporate profits tax rate should be harmonized. The first question asked whether harmonizing corporate taxes in all European countries to be 20% would be positive. The majority agreed.
However, only 4% agreed that harmonizing and LOWERING the rate would be positive, while 16% were uncertain, 29% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed (the missing % did not respond).
So, these three links fail to support your aggressive assertion that “just about every economist working today” agrees with you that lowering corporate taxes is “basic economic knowledge,” and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of sources or condescension to fellow tropers.
Edit:
‘d by
x6, but leaving this up because it took me almost half an hour to check those three links and I addressed some different issues.
x5 The Tax Foundation is a conservative think tank founded by the chairman of General Motors and the President of Standard Oil in 1937.
They’ve spent their entire history opposing corporate taxes.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:13:58 AM
Our Revolution is only one group and an op-ed by one Stanford economist and not a particularly prominent one or so it seems to me. Contrast that with climate science (OK, probably an extreme counterexample), where you can cite a number of scientists rather than just one or two. There are no comments that I can see, unless you mean the ones below which sound fairly cautionary. And the point about other percentages not being discussed stands.
I am iffy on that Tax Foundation thing as a) it ignores revenue implications or any other aspect of tax policy, b) the usefulness of the investment is little quantified and c) the sources cited don't seem to be particularly strong to me - in the sense that they don't appear to be prominent economists and that they don't seem to have a "methods" section anywhere - and d) even assuming that this foundation is a reliable source I am kind of iffy on all the self-citing there.
Also, just a personal preference, but I strongly prefer if you don't do a quote-reply post. It creates signal noise. Just say your piece.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou keep on talking about data while not actually providing any.
Because a cursory search on the matter clearly shows that the Democratic base has been moving to the Left strongly
.
Your position is fundamentally unfalsifiable, you claim that the voting public is moderate or center-right and when people bring up evidence that contradicts your claim you just move the goal posts and say "sure they support things now but when you actually try it the people will reject it!", without any actual evidence.
It's just a statement of faith on your part that the Public cannot support "far-left" positions and if it appears that they are then clearly it must not be 'real' support.
I am highly unimpressed with your argument.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangOr I could cite some of my textbooks from university? If nothing else that would show what academic consensus is thought of as being appropriate to teach to students as fact. Though I'm only a BA.
Like this one
, from 10 years ago, which extensively cites the literature on the subject, and notes "Economists stress that only individuals and not entities can bear tax burdens. Here's another article
which surveyed six top economists and asked them to recommend policies, one of which was eliminating the corporate tax (and, interestingly, changing the income tax to a consumption tax- story for another day).
However, only 4% agreed that harmonizing and LOWERING the rate would be positive, while 16% were uncertain, 29% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed (the missing % did not respond).
You also mischaracterized their responses. The statement was, "AFTER every European country taxed corporate profits at a common rate of 20%, then reducing that common rate SUBSTANTIALLY below 20% would make the average European better off."
Far left candidates ran in the last elections, as I posted. They lost. Overwhelmingly. Meanwhile, moderates won. Overwhelmingly. Quite simple. They lost in 2016, they lost in 2018, and they're going to lose again in 2020. How much more must they lose before you take the data as representative?
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:44:36 AM
He’s not right just because he agrees with your political beliefs. I am skeptical of people, regardless of Ph D ownership, who appear to lack any actual understanding of people who are below the highest tax bracket, let alone who choose to degrade them. His classist and racist remarks undermine his credibility.
Not really, Amercians spent decades convincing every one Communism was Satan (Even going so far as to insert religion into your national anthem despite the constitution saying thats a no-no), and that Communism and Socialism are the same thing..... Now its to the point that "Socialist" might as well be a political slur in the US dispite people wanting socialist policies.
So come election time all you have to do is bring up that the candidate that supports the positions they want is supporting socialist positions (normaly with code words) and it becomes a matter of "I ain't voting for no f*cking commie"
Paired with good old fashioned racism of wanting socialist positions for ones self, but not wanting there tax money to go to "Lazy (insert choice of slur here)", and the politicians on the right side of the spectrum being more then willing to play into that racism.
And you get the perfect breeding ground for elected officials not matching up with the kinds of policies people want.
Edited by Imca on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:34:09 AM
So come election time all you have to do is bring up that the candidate that supports the positions they want is supporting socialist positions (normaly with code words) and it becomes a matter of "I ain't voting for no f*cking commie"
Paired with good old fashioned racism of wanting socialist positions for ones self, but not wanting there tax money to go to "Lazy (insert choice of slur here)", and the politicians on the right side of the spectrum being more then willing to play into that racism.
And you get the perfect breeding ground for elected officials not matching up with the kinds of policies people want.
I will point out that the "communists" never actually called themselves communists. The USSR was run by a socialist party, as was Maoist China, and all the other authoritarian Marxist-Leninist states.
I'm not saying that modern US 'socialists' (they are for the most part Social Democrats not Socialists) want to create the Soviet Union, they don't. It's just that there are a variety of socialist ideologies and the ones that produced the Soviet Union were one of them.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMany U.S. "social democrats" are simply socialists trying to look more appealing because the U.S. population as a whole, again, doesn't support socialism (though attempts by socialists to muddy the waters has lead to some confusion of what "socialism" actually is). Similar to how much of the far right would institute overtly authoritarian policies if they could, despite ostensibly being for "small government." See, for example, Bernie Sanders praising the economic system of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2011 and saying that the U.S. should learn from them.
Before it collapsed, of course.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:45:47 AM
Before it collapsed, of course.
Ridiculous. This is literally Mc Carthian logic, and it's as inane now as it was then.
I see no reason to believe that the policies they're pushing are similar to Marxist-Leninists like Chavez or Lenin.
Not to mention that you're acting as if Venezuela or other Vanguardist Socialist ideologies are the only forms of socialism that exist, if you want to oppose something you should at-least ''try'' to understand it
.
Eh, you're right that it has been like that but as the electorate moves away from the Cold War the stigma against 'socialism' will and has faded. That's how Sanders can run on self-proclaimed socialism while not being non-viable.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:48:12 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
x5 That may be true, but the Socialist and Communist Parties in America were distinct entities. Your point is correct though.
x4 Hahaha no.
Believe me, as a Leftist, when I say that most US Social Democrats are actually Social Democrats. Note that you don't see a whole lot of calls for nationalizations and the such.
Also see ![]()
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:50:53 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerSanders in 2011
: "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
![]()
![]()
![]()
Neoliberalism.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 1:53:40 AM
Okay, and yet places like Bolivia haven't collapsed the same way as Venezuela. Nor has Cuba, which is even more hardline. In fact, Venezuela seems to be largely unique in this regard.
And this is why 'But Venezuela' is an aggravatingly pointless tactic. Venezuela is more complicated then 'If Socialism then Bad' you have issues like the erosion of Democracy, Cronyism, and Nationalism.
Sanders praising Venezuela may make an interesting point in how some American Leftists see other movements around the world, and it may also be a pointer into how the world changes. After all, you may find that something you once supported has turned sour. That's where reflecting and maybe apologizing are important.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:56:12 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerCongratulations you've shown that Sanders has said something stupid, that does not qualify as many social democrats especially considering how many of the US' social democrats have been relatively recently elected like AOC.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Venezuela used to have a much more positive reputation amongst US leftists before it went to hell, it's not like you'll any major social democrats praising it now.
Your case is extremely weak.
Eww, it's incredible that you think in 2019 that mass privatization and deregulation and other "market focused" policies are good things.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 16th 2019 at 4:56:44 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangCuba got tens of billions in donations from the Soviet Union
(its GDP contracted 30% after the USSR collapsed), was historically always richer than its neighbors even prior to socialism (and has heavily stagnated relative to them since implementing it
◊), and has been liberalizing at a fast pace for the last couple of decades.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 2:02:01 AM

This
is a not very richly sourced Op-ed.
This
discussion only discusses 20% and does not say anything about any other percentage. So for all we know it might be preferred only because it's the minimum. And do we know whether that sample is representative?
This
is from the White House during the time of the Falsehood Teller in Chief and they have been accused of cherry picking the few
economists that support the Trump tax cuts while ignoring the others. That and if memory serves the empirical evidence of the Trump tax cuts indicates that the effect on wages borders on lacking clinical relevance. The graph is also too short to tell us anything. So I don't think it's solid and the competing evidence is considerable.
Even assuming that they all hold up: They are not the "voice of just about every economist" today no matter what. You need this sort of source
for that claim.
Also, that is not a stringent activity on the popularity of far left candidates. There is also the risk of survivorship bias - in competitive districts the DNC is more likely to intervene to support moderate candidates, while in noncompetitive districts far left candidates can advance unopposed.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman