Support NeoGAF

[Coriolanus]

First step? In what universe is an income cap a first step?

That's what I don't understand with so many people on this board. I see it in the universal income threads too. Everyone jumps to these radical 'solutions' instead of the heaps of smaller, more realistic things.

For example, instead of putting a cap on income, you can start taxing capital gains more effectively, stop people shifting massive amounts of wealth offshore, and tinker with the progressive tax brackets.

the sad reality of the world we live in is that 2 out of the 3 things you suggested are about equally as unfeasible, as far as legislative efforts during the current climate are concerned. They'll probably tinker with the brackets to lower them for the upper end, tho.

If one must hope for better taxation methods, could always go for LVT

Spoiler

(not really)

 

[True Savior]

First step? In what universe is an income cap a first step?

That's what I don't understand with so many people on this board. I see it in the universal income threads too. Everyone jumps to these radical 'solutions' instead of the heaps of smaller, more realistic things.

For example, instead of putting a cap on income, you can start taxing capital gains more effectively, stop people shifting massive amounts of wealth offshore, and tinker with the progressive tax brackets.

Taxation is hard to control at a global scale and the best solution is starting to increase the lower levels of income and that has major impacts on inflation and the progression tends to be much more costly which would reshape a bit the productive landscape. Your realistic things are mostly decent practices of any government but, sadly, easy to circumvent. But they go hand to hand.

We live in a very radical world. I think people forget this, cause they adapt to a new context and then assume it's perfectly normal. There's nothing radical about capping incomes. Public Administration all over the world operate under it. That the status quo makes it seem like it is, it's mostly a power position over the rest of us.

 

[Jackpot]

Something that I think should have received an equal amount of scorn but didn't, the Government floated plans for a £1000 "being foreign" tax on companies for each EU immigrant employee they have.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uropean-immigration-skills-levy-a7521626.html

Employers would have to pay a £1,000-a-year fee for every EU skilled worker they bring in after Brexit, under plans being considered by the Government.

An “immigration skills levy” – already being introduced for staff from the rest of the world – could be extended to the EU, the immigration minister said.

“If you want to recruit an Indian computer programmer on a four-year contract, on top of the existing visa charges and the resident labour market test, there will be a fee of £1,000 per year.

“So, for a four-year contract, that employer will need to pay a £4,000 immigration skills charge.

“That is something that currently applies to non-EU and it has been suggested to us that could be applied to EU.”

Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, now the European parliament's representative in the Brexit process, had called the proposal "shocking".

"Imagine, just for a moment, what the UK headlines would be, if the EU proposed this for UK nationals?" he wrote on Twitter.

This is already being enacted for non-EU migrants.

 

[BriareosGAF]

This is already being enacted for non-EU migrants.[/B]

Crazy. I know of some highly skilled programmers who are deliberately avoiding the UK because of all these shenanigans. Anecdata, but still interesting to witness.

 

[Xe4]

'Pro free market' is a relative term. Hillary Clinton would be on the lassiez-faire side of pro-free-market policy in any of the other first world countries you alluded to.

I'm sorry that the Overton window in your country has shifted so far too the right, but Clinton's partisan problems with the GOP don't somehow invalidate the overall political framework she exists in. You brought up Obamacare - a health care system designed not to piss off health insurers too much. We're not talking about single payer here.

Nobody calls themselves an oligarch, or an autocrat. Nobody calls themself 'pro-abortion'. Are those terms meaningless? I don't see how the term neoliberalism is somehow unutterable just because people don't self-describe as neoliberals.

Let's say you were an American politician who wanted the American economy to look more like, say, Canada's. To you, the Democrats and Republicans are BOTH too far too the right for you. Is there any term you're allowed to use for that phenomenon?

Edit - I should add that I don't personally consider 'neoliberal' to be a slur. I'm actually a fan of market economics, within reason. There are lots of Communists and anarchists who would call me a neoliberal, and that's fine. But let's not just stick our fingers in our ears and pretend like the current D/R divide represents the entirety of political possibility.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Clinton is absolutely nowhere near Laissez-Faire economics. Shit, she's closer to being a social democrat ala Norway than she is a a supporter of Laissez-Faire politics.

And you bringing up single payer as if that's the only way to achieve universal healthcare is ridiculous. Obama worked in the system he could, and even pushed for the public option, which was rejected by independents. Most democrats in the house and senate supported the public option and a more comprehensive plan.

And yes, oligarchy and pro-abortion are overused terms, especially by those that are using it as an attack. Neoliberal is even worse used than say oilgarchy, because it doesn't even have a concrete definition, in the way oligarchy does. And if you're an American who wants a more liberal country, you best be voting democrat every damn chance you get. Getting pissy and holding a protest vote because of "neoliberalism" is the number one way to move the country rightward (see this election).

 

[Maledict]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Clinton is absolutely nowhere near Laissez-Faire economics. Shit, she's closer to being a social democrat ala Norway than she is a a supporter of Laissez-Faire politics.

And you bringing up single payer as if that's the only way to achieve universal healthcare is ridiculous. Obama worked in the system he could, and even pushed for the public option, which was rejected by independents.

And yes, oligarchy and pro-abortion are overused terms, especially by those that are using it as an attack. Neoliberal is even worse used than say oilgarchy, because it doesn't even have a concrete definition, in the way oligarchy does. And if you're an American who wants a more liberal country, you best be voting democrat every damn chance you get. Getting pissy and holding a protest vote because of "neoliberalism" is the number one way to move the country rightward (see this election).

To my eternal embarrassment a huge amount of left-wing Europeans basically know fuck all about American politics except for a superficial glance, and so constantly trot out phrases like "Obama would be a conservative int he UK" and "Clinton is a right-wing capitalist in Europe". It's a load of complete hogwash, objectively proven by even the simplest glance at their platforms and what they have stood for, and also completely ignores what the ACTUAL right wing in Europe now stand and do.

But it makes people feel smug about themselves, so they keep doing it. It's frankly embarrassing.