Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

How politically viable are AOC and the Socialists' economic proposals?

Not whether you agree with them or not, just give me your op batman01/06/19
Perfectly reasonable, but would need trump to destroy the Re midlaw01/06/19
It's actually impossible to run the numbers for some reason, theimmigrant01/06/19
"It's literally impossible for you to get a straight answer, batman01/06/19
I think the full goals are impractical, but getting halfway therewillbeblood01/06/19
Single payer is going to happen... in 50 years. Just ten yea brokelawyer01/06/19
Nearly every first world country already does almost everyth onefortheteam01/06/19
I think for some TITCR. I'll say for higher ed, I've hear superttthero01/06/19
Yeah there's shades of grey here to be sure, most first worl onefortheteam01/06/19
Trump ran on the promise that he would drive a stake through backfromthedead01/06/19
The coastal party is delusional! It did nothing on trade, im demwave01/06/19
70% tax is economically unviable as well. United States taxe jorgedeclaro01/06/19
Wrong on every point. Well done. gladigotaphdinstead01/06/19
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sta tistics/source-revenue-sh jorgedeclaro01/06/19
Your belief that a marginal tax rate of 70% at the 10 mm inc gladigotaphdinstead01/07/19
https://slate.com/business/2017/08/ the-history-of-tax-rates- jorgedeclaro01/07/19
Your statement is neither an argument nor a response. gladigotaphdinstead01/07/19
Glad, you’ve become a nasty person over the years. Ju massivemissive01/10/19
I don't think you're correct that we're at the same % of tax superttthero01/07/19
1,2,4 are possible - look at Germany for example which has a secondcareerlawyer01/07/19
A 70 percent tax rate for those making more than $10 million drewprocess01/07/19
People who make $10 million a year can just move to another massivemissive01/10/19
... exnite01/10/19
More information is required. If we are talking making the wearyattorney01/10/19
“Dad, when I grow up I want to be a lawyer.” Don’t massivemissive01/10/19
You know even less than it seems. midlaw01/10/19



batman (Jan 6, 2019 - 4:53 pm)

Not whether you agree with them or not, just give me your opinion on how politically viable they are. I kinda read through their platform (just the economic stuff, not the environmental) and the main points seem to be:

(1) Free public college, retroactive student loan forgiveness - I think for people that are willing to do 2 years in community college and then 2 years at a state U, this might actually be doable. Not in a straight free tuition way, but maybe some combo of tax credits and work/study. Not too different from the aid available now, just a lot more of it. Also would have to be a strict 4 year cut-off so people don't just go to college forever. The retroactive student loan forgiveness is not gonna happen.

(2) Single Payer HC - I think this is doable and we are slowly headed there anyways

(3) Jobs guarantee for everyone that wants it - Not only is this not viable, not sure how the heck you would implement such a thing. DOA.

(4) Increase in marginal tax rates to pay for the programs - I think I've heard numbers like 70-90% thrown around for income over 10 million. NOT going to happen to that degree, but I could see an increase in marginal rates at the top income levels, sure.


So I don't think a lot of these "socialist" proposals are that farfetched at all, tbh.

Reply
midlaw (Jan 6, 2019 - 5:02 pm)

Perfectly reasonable, but would need trump to destroy the Republican brand. I give most of those proposals about a 25% chance in the next decade.

Reply
theimmigrant (Jan 6, 2019 - 5:03 pm)

It's actually impossible to run the numbers for some reason, and no one ever even tries to do it. It's literally impossible for you to get a straight answer, but intuitively, since the government is already running deficits, there's nothing that can be done here imo. Unless we are going to take from the MIC/Boomers and give it to Gen Y, then all that this will result in is higher deficits. The higher taxes would eventually be cut, but the bureaucracies created by these programmes would persist, resulting in deficits. I mean what do you think happens when Chinamen stop buying treasuries? I'm talking like 2030 here.

Also, the Euro paradises that we Liberals want to emulate aren't even as Liberal as we think they are.... Related: http://jdunderground.com/pol/thread.php?threadId=180208

Reply
batman (Jan 6, 2019 - 5:34 pm)

"It's literally impossible for you to get a straight answer, but intuitively, since the government is already running deficits, there's nothing that can be done here imo."

Nah, I think this makes it more likely. Basically from the end of Clinton's administration, both parties have shown near total disregard for deficits and adding to the debt, as long as they get what they want.

As far as the Chinese buying treasuries, they are a huge foreign buyer, but most of America's debt is owned by Americans.

It's just logical that eventually we'd have to pay the piper and pay for all this debt we're racking up, but who knows when that reckoning will come? Could be next year, maybe it won't be in our lifetimes. Until then, this country will just keep racking up debt, whether to cut taxes, pay for more programs, or both.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Jan 6, 2019 - 6:03 pm)

I think the full goals are impractical, but getting halfway there is plausible:

1) Free public college is probably not practical with the system set up as it is now, but I think free community college is. Full loan forgiveness is just too expensive, and would be kind of unfair to people who passed up college because of the cost (and I say this as someone with still significant loan amounts), but I think partial forgiveness plus government-led refinancing is plausible.


2) Getting rid of already-existing private health insurance seems impossible, but expanding medicare for everyone without it seems more doable.

3) I think it's possible, but it has to be government-driven. Plenty of stuff for things to do.

4) I think the 70% thing is the most plausible though you'd have to convince

Reply
brokelawyer (Jan 6, 2019 - 6:30 pm)

Single payer is going to happen... in 50 years. Just ten years ago the Democrats had ALL the government, they still couldn’t even get close.

Reply
onefortheteam (Jan 6, 2019 - 8:49 pm)

Nearly every first world country already does almost everything you listed.

Just sayin


"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ~ Ronald Wright

Reply
superttthero (Jan 6, 2019 - 8:55 pm)

I think for some TITCR.

I'll say for higher ed, I've heard anecdotally that in many of the countries that do offer it for 'free' it's more rigorous to get accepted to a university. I think education could be done but it should be done in some sort of merit based system (to some degree or sliding scale) maybe with some trade schooling maybe mixed in, but the problem here may be what higher education is in America to begin with.

Reply
onefortheteam (Jan 6, 2019 - 8:59 pm)

Yeah there's shades of grey here to be sure, most first world countries have some sort of mix of universal and private healthcare... but the broader point I want to make is that we're not exactly talking about being the first country to put a man on the moon. It has all been done before while not destroying the private sector in the process.


Truth is most middle class and poor Americans would much rather give the wealthy another huge slice of the pie than see one of their own get more scraps that fall from the table. That's precisely why socialism is such an ugly word in this country

Reply
backfromthedead (Jan 6, 2019 - 9:03 pm)

Trump ran on the promise that he would drive a stake through the heart
of Obamacare and be the guy that finished it off, he inherited a
Congress under total Republican control and appointed two SCOTUS
Justices and where are we in 2019? He's running on fumes, that's where,
Repubs are starting to crack, esp the ones up for reelection in 2020
-- why? Only the hardcore MAGA delusional base is going to vote for him if
he even gets an opportunity to run again -- the Wall is Trump's Waterloo and
Roger Waters is going to do a tour featuring the music from that iconic Pink
Floyd album The Wall to totally mock and stick it to Trump -- how cool is that?
380,811,523 views on youtube -- how many of those guys are voting for Trump in 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U



Reply
demwave (Jan 6, 2019 - 10:37 pm)

The coastal party is delusional! It did nothing on trade, immigration and wants to stay in Syria forevah! Plastic Pelosi and Schmuck Schumer yeah!

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Jan 6, 2019 - 9:53 pm)

70% tax is economically unviable as well. United States taxes are already the norm for first world countries. The thing people seem to miss is that most countries don’t have the three layers of taxation that the U.S has with Federal, State and local each taking substantial sums.

Also, even when there was 70% marginal tax brackets, no one was paying those rates. There was no alternative minimum tax before Carter and it was actually effective until Reagan. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were 17% in the 1960s. Same place they were now and after the recession with Obama. The highest were actually under Clinton. One of the things you have to figure out is that there isn’t a magical pot of tax money out there waiting to be tapped. Undo the tax cuts and that’s basically your revenue cap and you need to either grow the economy or more realistically reduce spending. Anyone who says to the contrary is living in la la land. Like AOC and many others.

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Jan 6, 2019 - 10:15 pm)

Wrong on every point. Well done.

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Jan 6, 2019 - 11:12 pm)

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp

Pretty undeniable really.

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Jan 7, 2019 - 10:40 am)

Your belief that a marginal tax rate of 70% at the 10 mm income bracket is somehow detrimental to the economy is based on absolutely no empirical evidence and runs contrary to what actual Nobel laureate economists believe. So who am I to trust? A clown like you with no evidence to back up his claims or actual experts on the subject matter that have published scientific papers using real world data and factual arguments to back up their claims?

And your claims that our tax system is level with the rest of the first world is utter nonsense. Almost across the board, the EU bloc has much higher taxes than the US.

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Jan 7, 2019 - 1:11 pm)

https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html

Sorry that Paul Krugram parroting Peter Diamond doesn’t even have a basic understanding of how high marginal tax rates in the United States worked in practice. The only people paying house tax rates were boxers like Joe Lewis who didn’t have any way to minimize his taxes.

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Jan 7, 2019 - 1:20 pm)

Your statement is neither an argument nor a response.

Reply
massivemissive (Jan 10, 2019 - 5:00 pm)

Glad, you’ve become a nasty person over the years.

Just saying

Reply
superttthero (Jan 7, 2019 - 12:15 pm)

I don't think you're correct that we're at the same % of tax revenue of GDP.

However, assuming we are, I think this is a simplistic way to look at it. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate AND they do not count toward GDP. Capital gains makes up a larger share of the wealth today, and accounts for a lot of income disparity, I'm not sure its fair to exclude it from our tax considerations just because it's not part of GDP.

Reply
secondcareerlawyer (Jan 7, 2019 - 10:02 am)

1,2,4 are possible - look at Germany for example which has all 3.

#3. . . .not so much. The only places that have guaranteed employment are real communist states (aka not China or Vietnam) like Cuba or North Korea where the government determines what you want (e.g. when you are still a high school student or in some cases junior high they determine what your future job will be).

Reply
drewprocess (Jan 7, 2019 - 10:20 am)

A 70 percent tax rate for those making more than $10 million a year sounds reasonable to me, and I do not expect to ever be in that tax bracket as I am past the age to get a viable NBA or NFL contract. Perhaps Congress can shut down the government until Trump agrees to it.

Reply
massivemissive (Jan 10, 2019 - 5:00 pm)

People who make $10 million a year can just move to another country, taking their companies with them.

Reply
exnite (Jan 10, 2019 - 2:13 pm)

...



Reply
wearyattorney (Jan 10, 2019 - 4:00 pm)

More information is required. If we are talking making the numbers work by taxing labor generated income at that rate, it’s politically possible. Like, taxing a pediatric neurosurgeon at 70 percent making a million bucks a year is definitely possible, taxing a trust fund baby collecting income from the stock and real estate portfolio he or she inherited at anything more than 20 percent total, is impossible. It’s never going to happen unless there is an actual revolution, and if an actual revolution happens, free schooling is going to be the least of our worries.

For healthcare, you are also going to have to cut doctor pay substantially, and so we’ll need an H1B1 program to get cheap foreign doctors in here.

Also, if you can do it by cutting the benefits of non-boomers in a meaningful way, and redirecting resources in this direction, it’s also possible politically.

Now... assuming it happens... what’s the country going to look like in 30 years? To ask is to answer...

Reply
massivemissive (Jan 10, 2019 - 4:58 pm)

“Dad, when I grow up I want to be a lawyer.”

Don’t do that, no money.

“Then I want to be a doctor.”

Don’t do that, 15 years of higher ed for $300k?

Yeah, that’s a great idea.

Reply
midlaw (Jan 10, 2019 - 5:24 pm)

You know even less than it seems.

Reply
Post a message in this thread