International Oligarchy is not just a Russian phenomenon. It exists right here in the USA.

[Jack V Savage]

You can fund a significant expansion of social services in various ways, as has been repeatedly laid out by advocates of them. The working class doesnt need to see tax increases that would send them into a panic, either. Especially being as the difference between us and most social democracies is only a few percentage points, 6% at the highest I've seen, and that's not counting for deductions variations in the code. And with our favorable cuts to corporations.

The top-line number masks some significant differences. Remember the Romney tape in 2012? He was talking about how 47% of American households have no net income-tax obligation. That number is down a little because the economy is doing so well (and while it's mostly poorer households, it's not exclusively poorer households), but it's still true that at the median, household income taxes are really low. If we instituted a VAT, that would hit the middle class much harder, but it wouldn't show up as a big income-tax increase. However you do it, if you want big spending programs (or even deficit reduction), there's just not enough juice if you're only squeezing the very top.

Oh and sidenote, a few Republican legislators have already petitioned Trump to get rid of the brand new system the IRS set up to make filing free and easy.

I wonder why that is.

A variety of reasons, but a big part of it is that Republicans want paying taxes to be difficult so they can increase pressure against income taxes because income taxes are the most progressive part of our system. What I'm saying here is that if the right is against income taxes, and the left is also feeding into hysteria about taxes, there's not going to be anyone pushing for higher middle-class taxes. And you won't get more social programs or lower deficits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The working class won't complain a ton if they seen an increase in taxes but also an increase in services. I mean suggesting so is nute.

I think that's just delusional.

I'll pay a higher percentage if it means there's no insurance premiums, copays, or if I don't have to worry about how my kids might go to College without predatory loans hanging over them for 30 years.

You will. I will too. But a lot of people--including possibly a majority of lower-wage workers--are paranoid about this stuff and would freak out. There's a reason even Biden pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400K.

 

[avenue94]

Will no one think of the poor millionaires out there?

Hey, that's the upper upper middle class you're talking about lol

 

[brothir]

There's no free market, it's heavily regulated by the states

Free market - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

The problem with definitions like the one on Wikipedia is that it effectively ends up arguing against itself in the above quote. Like you said, regulations have always existed, so the theoretically pure free market has never existed. Which is why when I say "free market", I obviously don't mean that. The primary force behind the economies of any functioning Western country is dynamic prices based on actors, which is the basic requirement for a free market.

 

[Sinister]

I think that's just delusional.

You will. I will too. But a lot of people--including possibly a majority of lower-wage workers--are paranoid about this stuff and would freak out. There's a reason even Biden pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400K.

I do agree that the hysteria surrounding taxes is overblown. However I think that's tied to anti-establishment sentiment. I mean sure there is always an underlying "taxation is wrong" etched on our History, but this modern interpretation has grown proportionate to the anti-Government sentiment. I also think this is perpetuated by the corporate world, ever-implying that taxing corporations hurts their ability to serve America (by serve I take that as meaning fleece people for higher profitability).

However I still don't think people will oppose 3-5% higher a tax rate if suddenly University is free, if medical care was free, etc. Especially if people who have insurance through their jobs realized it would still be better to use the public option until the private ones caught up.

 

[brothir]

However I still don't think people will oppose 3-5% higher a tax rate if suddenly University is free, if medical care was free, etc. Especially if people who have insurance through their jobs realized it would still be better to use the public option until the private ones caught up.

So why hasn't that already happened?

 

[avenue94]

I do agree that the hysteria surrounding taxes is overblown. However I think that's tied to anti-establishment sentiment. I mean sure there is always an underlying "taxation is wrong" etched on our History, but this modern interpretation has grown proportionate to the anti-Government sentiment. I also think this is perpetuated by the corporate world, ever-implying that taxing corporations hurts their ability to serve America (by serve I take that as meaning fleece people for higher profitability).

However I still don't think people will oppose 3-5% higher a tax rate if suddenly University is free, if medical care was free, etc. Especially if people who have insurance through their jobs realized it would still be better to use the public option until the private ones caught up.

It's also the classic every American is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, which magnifies the traditional paradox of poor people overestimate their relative wealth and rich people underestimate theirs. The estate tax is a shining example.

 

[avenue94]

So why hasn't that already happened?

The filibuster is the primary structural impediment, and also America tends to be more conservative (as in literally hating change). The government's design is bad and inefficient compared to most modern democracies. There's also the obvious political dimension and interests that oppose these changes. For example, the tax industry is literally the only holdout against having the government calculate your taxes at this point, and that's a much easier lift than any of the big social programs.

 

[brothir]

The filibuster is the primary structural impediment, and also America tends to be more conservative (as in literally hating change).

So the argument is that people won't oppose increased taxes to fund more welfare, except that they oppose it?

 

[avenue94]

So the argument is that people won't oppose increased taxes to fund more welfare, except that they oppose it?

It depends on who you mean by they. Increased welfare is broadly quite popular (over the 50% mark usually). But most Americans don't really understand the actual tax environment that we're in and what those changes would require. The GOP has done an excellent job preying on the latter. As I mentioned: Many Americans have a deep fear of the estate tax and how it will affect them even though statically speaking almost every single one of these people will never actually have enough wealth to be affected by it.

 

[Sinister]

So why hasn't that already happened?

For the exact same reason Roe got overturned when that wasnt popular among the constituency. The ruling class dont particularly give a f*ck what the commoners want once they actually hold power.

 

[brothir]

It depends on who you mean by they. Increased welfare is broadly quite popular (over the 50% mark usually). But most Americans don't really understand the actual tax environment that we're in and what those changes would require. The GOP has done an excellent job preying on the latter. As I mentioned: Many Americans have a deep fear of the estate tax and how it will affect them even though statically speaking almost every single one of these people will never actually have enough wealth to be affected by it.

"They" refers to "people" in "So the argument is that people won't oppose increased taxes to fund more welfare, except that they oppose it?". What I gather is that you think people in fact oppose increased taxes to fund more welfare.

 

[brothir]

For the exact same reason Roe got overturned when that wasnt popular among the constituency. The ruling class dont particularly give a f*ck what the commoners want once they actually hold power.

The difference is that the SC overruled a previous ruling of theirs on a single issue, which doesn't compare to a gradual increase in taxation. Moreover, the SC is the least democratic part of the government, but people also voted for Trump in a way that enabled the decision, and re-elected him after the decision. Clearly it's not that big of a deal-breaker.

 

[Sinister]

The difference is that the SC overruled a previous ruling of theirs on a single issue, which doesn't compare to a gradual increase in taxation. Moreover, the SC is the least democratic part of the government, but people also voted for Trump in a way that enabled the decision, and re-elected him after the decision. Clearly it's not that big of a deal-breaker.

I'm aware of the technical difference in execution. It doesnt change the fact that the majority of the population wholly disagreed with the decision, showing that what the population wants doesnt much factor into what the Government does depending on who is in power.

Clearly it is that big of a deal-breaker considering how many Americans:

1) voted to enshrine abortion access into their State Constitutions

2) are so unaware of how the Government functions that they don't get how voting for the access to the right by State wont mean much in the face of Federal banning, and the other anti-democratic means the GOP will plan to thwart that effort (it's already begun in Ohio and Missouri).

Americans vote against their interests as a working class because of dissent created by a media environment that pushes cultural divides as top priority. Are you new to this?

 

[kflo]

A lot of the ambitious programs proposed would require taxing the middle class. Not saying I'm necessarily against that but we have to be honest about it.

It's expensive because it's the greatest city in the world, living there is itself a luxury.

To say that someone who makes $1m/yr can barely afford to live in NYC strikes me as ludicrous.

Well it’s a fact that the median home price for a 2br in manhattan is about $2.1m, which is a lot even for someone making $1m/yr.

Yes and that's good. You disagree and think that's bad.

I think it’s a lot. I’d prefer to extra tax the super rich…..

What makes you say that?

Because I’ve almost been there and know a lot of others who have.

It's not really an enormous difference. The more money you make, the less each additional dollar contributes to your material well being. A person making $1m/yr has achieved more or less the ceiling of material well being and safety.

Again, it’s an enormous difference. $1m is nowhere near the ceiling. You still worry about bills and the future. Believe me, I know it’s no sob story, but I also know it’s the truth. I mean, yeah, you take things for granted. But you also know resources are finite. The billionaire doesn’t look at prices, and stays in the nicest places and orders whatever he/she wants. Making $1m doesn’t afford anywhere near that freedom.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

One of my managers told me that in one of the last few years (2021 I think?), I worked about 3700 hours. That's not a joke or exaggeration. I stopped doing heavy OT about midway through last year. Don't fuckin' talk to me about hard work.

Then why are you broke?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

To be honest I don't care.

It's not even about punishing greed although yes, I've no respect for robber barons, it's that we could get a lot of shit done with wealth redistribution and we have before. Taxing the wealthy, redistribution, more unionization, a universal single payer healthcare system - these are not fantasy.

More wealth inequality than the Guilded Age is not good for society nor the world. It is what it is.

How come society has progressed so far under this system then and how come societies that instituted communism all ended up with people starving to death?

 

[deviake]

How come society has progressed so far under this system then and how come societies that instituted communism all ended up with people starving to death?

Society progressed with slavery, fascism, and feudalism too. Your point?

Then why are you broke?

I'm not. Are you just gonna continue posting stupid shit?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Society progressed with slavery, fascism, and feudalism too. Your point?

That iPhones and high speed internet are better than people starving to death.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

I'm not. Are you just gonna continue posting stupid shit?

If you're not broke then why are you crying about money constantly? Invest your money.