Derec
Contributor
My bad. I miswrote. In either case it makes zero sense.He didn't say "autocracy", he said "aristocracy".
My bad. I miswrote. In either case it makes zero sense.He didn't say "autocracy", he said "aristocracy".
Ok. My figure was the 2020 budget.That was a typo. 2019 federal budget was $4.45 trillion.
And large part of the budget is mandated by various laws and can't be changed with just annual budgeting. So looking at the entire budget already accounts for the congress's legislative powers.
It's a highly cherry-picked one.The figure was based on his net worth growth in the first half of 2020. Granted, it's not a sustainable figure,
And you are missing the point that the power of a legislator goes well beyond spending money.because Amazon stock skyrocketed during that time. But the point remains, it's way more than the averaged, dollarized influence of a congressperson.
And your claim was that a congressperson is at least an order of magnitude, i.e. ten times, more influential, which is clearly false no matter which way you look at it.
I won't bother answering your diatribe point-by-point, but this comment is especially ignorant.
AOC does NOT have subpoena powers. The chairman of a committee may have such powers, on majority vote, but not individual Congressmen. And to demonstrate she had an effect on legislation you'll want an example which passed by a single vote.
It would be incredibly naïve to believe that this kind of thing does not happen in academia just like it happens in politics.What a nasty remark. The "I kid" just makes it worse. "Although you never know" = "Just asking questions" = JAQ'ing off.
Speaking of economics, it is you who demonstrate ignorance. It isn't government spending which might cause inflation; it is spending that is not countered with tax increases.
I don't even watch/listen to the guy. Maybe the right-winger is you?That you don't fall for ALL of Sean Hannity's lies?
So you rant against AOC as though she were more of a problem than the millions of citizens who support Trump's lies and treasons — did she turn you down for a date or something? — and it turns out you've never even skimmed her Wikipedia bio. Wow!
If you are going to take the meme so literally that you think it means they've never paid taxes, I'll do you one better. I say it literally means they've never been to a tax office. I'd bet the vast majority of us here have never been to a tax office to pay their taxes in person.
- Social illiberalism (also a big disagreement with the illiberal left)Then what are your biggest disagreements with the right wing?
I would not call missing out on a lot of good jobs and local tax revenues a "triumph" exactly.AOC credits local activists for this triumph, and I see no reason to think otherwise.
GND would be an order of magnitude more expensive than military spending.How would that be inflationary and big spending on military adventures not be inflationary?
Because in a Wall Street firm you can't just take two weeks off whenever you like it to go to ND to protest against oil?Because she didn't want to sell out and join some Wall Street firm.
I am a supporter of NASA! I think their budget should be increased - much more sensible use of money than subsidizing people having a lot of kids like Dems are doing with their $3.5T abomination. And your second sentence is what I have been saying all along. And if they can get more bang for their budget by hiring SpaceX to do their launching, so much the better!NASA, space research, etc, has benefited the nation and the world. NASA does not prevent others from competing, uses private contractors, suppliers, etc.
In return the government gets a more cost-effective way to get into space. Win, win.Besos, Musk, et al, are happy to take gov/tax payer funding to the tune of billions, which hardly makes it a NASA monopoly.
Battlers? Is that some Aussie slang?The point here is a matter of taking care of the top end while letting the battlers languish.
Buffett was pointing out that his (and those in his class) percentage of tax is lower than that of the average worker, who earns a tiny fraction of Buffett's income. Do you thinkI this is fair and equatable?
Buffett was pointing out that his (and those in his class) percentage of tax is lower than that of the average worker, who earns a tiny fraction of Buffett's income. Do you thinkI this is fair and equatable?
An "average worker" pays very little if any federal income tax due to all the refundable tax credits. I think I remember him talking about this, and I think his point of comparison was his executive assistant or some such. I believe that is a vey well-paid position, and hardly an "average worker".
But yes, her (?) income is mostly salary while Buffett's is almost all capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.
I think adding one or two capital gains brackets and increasing the rate on capital gains above say 1 million (25%) and and 10 million (30%) would be a good idea.
Also, close some loopholes relative to cost basis at death and the like.
That would increase tax fairness while being a lot easier to implement than redefining what counts as "income" or adding a new tax on wealth.
My bad. I miswrote. In either case it makes zero sense.He didn't say "autocracy", he said "aristocracy".
Not unprecedented. Australia taxes unrealized capital gains on foreign stocks; the discrimination is supposed to incentivize Australians to invest in Australian companies instead of doing the rational thing and diversifying.Basically they want to create a new tax - afaik unprecedented in the history of modern taxation - where unrealized capital gains are taxed.
Nope. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it. The private sector plays an important role in space, and making space off limits to all non-government actors would be a stupid thing to do.It makes sense if you take the trouble of understanding it.
Which may be difficult to do for someone who is trying to justify a situation where a small percentage of the population hold or control most of the nations wealth.
Are you claiming that workers get refunded all of the taxes they paid for the year?
But that's not what "because" means. It's just a claim of correlation across possible worlds, not a claim of causation. There might be some third factor causing both GDP growth to slow and rich-poor gaps to increase.(etc)No, it is saying if the poor's income increased at a faster rate than the rich's (which does not require subtraction of wealth from the rich), then GDP growth would have been faster.Okay, then what is it they mean by saying GDP growth has slowed because of increasing rich-poor income gaps? Normally that would mean if only we'd arranged for a smaller gap it would have stopped the growth from slowing -- i.e., it would have increased GDP. That's what it is to make a causality claim.
Well, there are two ways to arrange for a smaller gap: make the poor richer or make the rich poorer. But to say adding wealth to the poor increases GDP is practically a tautology: we don't need IMF economists to tell us that. So if the IMF is saying something substantive it seems it would have to be that subtracting wealth from the rich increases GDP.
"It will trickle down!"
Nope. They'll build spaceships with it.
"It will trickle down!"
Nope. They'll build spaceships with it.
Those are not mutually exclusive. The money spent on spaceships is not shot into space. Blue Origin for example has over 3,000 employees that get paid, in addition to buying stuff from suppliers that also hire people. And those employees spend that money in the local economy.
Now, you might say, why not impose confiscatory taxes on Jeff Bezos et al and distribute the proceeds directly to people?
Well, creating prosperity though jobs is better than putting more people on the dole and giving them money for nothing.
Plus, we get cool spaceships out of it, unlike with the 'confiscatory tax' plan favored by you and this unimaginative memester. It did not even a funny picture; a really low effort! At least the other one had a drawing of New Shepard.
Nope. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it. The private sector plays an important role in space, and making space off limits to all non-government actors would be a stupid thing to do.It makes sense if you take the trouble of understanding it.
Which may be difficult to do for someone who is trying to justify a situation where a small percentage of the population hold or control most of the nations wealth.
Do not try to change the subject. How much wealth is controlled by what fraction of people is a different thing altogether than what bilby is saying - that space should be a government monopoly and that companies such as SpaceX should not exist even if they are a lot more efficient than governments building launch vehicles.
Congress as a body has subpoena and legislative powers. Nobody claimed she can pass legislation with one vote, so that's a strawman.
AOC is also more powerful than an average Congressman, because she is the leader of the Squad, a far-left group of Congresspeople.
Very insulting and unsubstantiated. And AOC is smarter than you.It would be incredibly naïve to believe that this kind of thing does not happen in academia just like it happens in politics.
And AOC certainly has more looks than brains.
Even worse. You now claim to know better, so your injection of a falsehood was deliberate.Speaking of economics, it is you who demonstrate ignorance. It isn't government spending which might cause inflation; it is spending that is not countered with tax increases.
Not at all ignorant, I just gave an abridged version of her argumentation ...
In your post you named another Congresswoman I had never heard of, and still haven't Googled, despite that MTG and Boboert were available. I'll bet that even though you pretend not to be a right-winger, that example was a Democrat.I don't even watch/listen to the guy. Maybe the right-winger is you?
She founded a company, and was named Person of the Year at a non-profit where she worked. Her bartending and waitressing jobs were to help her mother avoid eviction.So you rant against AOC as though she were more of a problem than the millions of citizens who support Trump's lies and treasons — did she turn you down for a date or something? — and it turns out you've never even skimmed her Wikipedia bio. Wow!
Not everything is about Trump, dudue! And what's so special in her bio? Bartending. Driving 2000 miles (burning over 100 gallons of gasoline in the process!) to North Dakota to protest against oil. What else? What do you think she did that was so impressive before running for Congress?
It should also be pointed out that even when we're considering only how much money they spend, the federal budget is a substantial underestimate of the dollarized influence of a congressperson. Congresspersons order an awful lot of other people to spend their own money to give Congress what it wants.And you are missing the point that the power of a legislator goes well beyond spending money.because Amazon stock skyrocketed during that time. But the point remains, it's way more than the averaged, dollarized influence of a congressperson.
I don't know, sorry. A guy who emigrated from Australia to the U.S. told me about their tax rule 20-odd years ago; your question is one I should have thought to ask.Not unprecedented. Australia taxes unrealized capital gains on foreign stocks; the discrimination is supposed to incentivize Australians to invest in Australian companies instead of doing the rational thing and diversifying.
Interesting. Do you know how it is being implemented. For example, if a stock rises from $100 to $200 one year, but drops to $100 again the next, is the taxpayer due a refund?
"His production value" isn't a thing. Concepts like "production value", "exchange value", "use value" and "surplus value" are relics from classical economics, i.e., economics as it was misunderstood before the "marginal revolution" in the 1870s and 1880s.Bomb20 said:But in reality the workers are getting more out than they put in too
How can a worker get out more than they put in? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying a worker gets paid more than his production value.
"His production value" isn't a thing. Concepts like "production value", "exchange value", "use value" and "surplus value" are relics from classical economics, i.e., economics as it was misunderstood before the "marginal revolution" in the 1870s and 1880s.Bomb20 said:But in reality the workers are getting more out than they put in too
How can a worker get out more than they put in? That doesn't make any sense. You're saying a worker gets paid more than his production value.
Pre-marginal theories of economics treat "value" as if it's some sort of conserved substance that flows out of a worker into a product as it's constructed, and the "value" extracted from each worker can be added up to compute the "value" of the product. The substance is, inevitably, unobservable. It is the western equivalent of "qi" from traditional Chinese medicine.