Support NeoGAF

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Good post by Matt Bruenig on the tension between liberal ideology and unequal outcomes.
http://www.demos.org/blog/3/7/16/liberal-tax-justice

A person's disposable income is determined by the following formula:
Factor Income + Transfer Income - Taxes

Tax rates are typically defined as: Taxes / Factor Income.

The problem with that view is that it assumes Factor Income is some special thing that is deeply yours divorced from government policymaking. But this is simply not true. Each person's Factor Income is just as much a function of our publicly-imposed economic institutions as their Taxes and Transfer Income are. For it is government that creates and enforces things like property law, contract law, corporate law, bankruptcy law, securities laws, labor laws, employment laws, and every other economic institution that determines how Factor Income is distributed in the first place. Because the distribution of Factor Income is usually a result of government policy, it is an odd thing to fixate on as the baseline for determining whether another government policy, taxes, are just.

Taxes are but one institution among hundreds of economic institutions that collectively determine how income is distributed in society, not its own special thing deserving of its own special considerations. If you believe in equality, as liberals often claim to, then a just tax system is one that, in concert with other economic institutions, helps to create a fairly equal distribution of disposable income. In societies where the distribution of Factor Income is extremely unequal, like this US, "tax justice" may very well require high tax rates in excess of 50%. And that's fine.

As Yglessias blithely notes, drawing the line on "middle class taxes" destroys progressive policy, categorically.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/9780162/clinton-middle-class-tax

The best and most effective American (and, for that matter, foreign) social programs are used — and paid for — by everyone, creating a virtuous cycle that keeps them reasonably effective and reasonably popular. Democratic communications professionals — including people who've worked for Obama and people who currently work for Clinton — swear the tax pledge is a political necessity. If that's true, it also speaks to a certain amount of intellectual bankruptcy in contemporary American liberalism. It's an ideology that stands for the creation of new government programs but won't stand up for the idea that these programs are actually sufficiently valuable to ask people to pay for them.

 

[Aaronology]

You assume we "fail to grasp" that. Look, I can't speak for everybody supporting Bernie, but I can't help but recognize how Hillary and Romney's experience sure didn't help them in 2008 against Obama. To me, it's a weak argument. In terms of electability, the dems will be going up against the worst GOP candidate in recent memory no matter what (save for maybe Kasich, but that's not happening since the Tea Party despises him).

I can't help but recognized that it's helping her plenty against Bernie Sanders in 2016. You're right that GOP field is particularly weak this cycle. However, I have no desire to even the playing field by putting up one of the most far left and riskiest (D) candidates in years just because it seems like Democrats will win the WH anyway. Especially when the main reason to support him is because of policy that won't get enacted, and when so much is at stake due to the USSC and GOP controlled Congress.

Romney was not the Republican candidate in 2008, by the way.

 

[lednerg]

I can't help but recognized that it's helping her plenty against Bernie Sanders in 2016. You're right that GOP field is particularly weak this cycle. However, I have no desire to even the playing field by putting up one of the most far left and riskiest (D) candidates in years just because it seems like Democrats will win the WH anyway. Especially when the main reason to support him is because of policy that won't get enacted, and when so much is at stake due to the USSC and GOP controlled Congress.

Romney was not the Republican candidate in 2008, by the way.

I edited. It actually goes doubly so for McCain against Obama.

I highly doubt Hillary supporters would refuse to vote in the general, or vote third party, if Bernie got the nomination. Because that's the only way in which the math works.

 

[Drek]

Bernie Sanders not being able to pass any of the proposals he has in a Democratically controlled house and senate would just further indicate the need to clean out the house and senate. If the current representatives don't want to follow the Presidents mandate there need to be principled individuals who stand up and take up the mantle instead. Since what is needed is not just a Democratic senate and house but rather representatives who will fight for things the majority of the American populace wants.

In any case you are talking hypotheticals as per usual

1. the idea of a presidential mandate in a country with first past the post electoral college policies is absurd. The American people have voted in some pretty lopsided victories in the POTUS race before only to break exactly the opposite and split government two years after such a wave. The "mandate" narrative only foments disention the first few months of every new POTUS. It needs to stop.

2. They're duly elected representatives. Maybe you should ask yourself if instead of failing to represent their constituency they are instead doing exactly that and your view of what is needed is the real failure here.

3. The majority of the American populous love free shit in a vacuum. Who doesn't? Show me polling where the majority of Americans support Sanders programs when contrasted against the policies needed to theoretically pay for them. Then we can have a real conversation about what the majority of Americans want. I'm pretty sure it isn't substantial tax increases on the middle class, FYI.

 

[Ogodei]

The payroll tax is the only bad one here, imo.

 

[noshten]

1. the idea of a presidential mandate in a country with first past the post electoral college policies is absurd. The American people have voted in some pretty lopsided victories in the POTUS race before only to break exactly the opposite and split government two years after such a wave. The "mandate" narrative only foments disention the first few months of every new POTUS. It needs to stop.

2. They're duly elected representatives. Maybe you should ask yourself if instead of failing to represent their constituency they are instead doing exactly that and your view of what is needed is the real failure here.

3. The majority of the American populous love free shit in a vacuum. Who doesn't? Show me polling where the majority of Americans support Sanders programs when contrasted against the policies needed to theoretically pay for them. Then we can have a real conversation about what the majority of Americans want. I'm pretty sure it isn't substantial tax increases on the middle class, FYI.

1) The Idea of a presidential mandate, means the party doesn't run away from the positions that got them the presidency. That they actively fight for what the general public has deemed important. Similarly to how democrats ran from Obama and the issues that got him elected.

2) Unless the constituency you are talking about is big business and lobbyist interests - the majority has been failing at their job for decades.

3) Once again falling back to hypoteticals as most of your arguments

 

[Russ T]

1. the idea of a presidential mandate in a country with first past the post electoral college policies is absurd. The American people have voted in some pretty lopsided victories in the POTUS race before only to break exactly the opposite and split government two years after such a wave. The "mandate" narrative only foments disention the first few months of every new POTUS. It needs to stop.

Mandate was maybe a strong word - obviously the whole point of our system of checks and balances is that the president CAN'T have absolute power - but I think the point was that if the population elects Bernie, that (theoretically) means the majority of the people in America (or at least those who voted) want the things he's talking about.

And if the rest of the government is constantly fighting against those things, then they don't really represent the people who voted for Bernie. They're, in fact, the opposite. So it makes sense to suggest that they shouldn't be in office if they're actively working against the majority's desires.

Now, obviously, there's a whole lot more nuance to it than that, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest these things.

 

[Zoe]

The payroll tax is the only bad one here, imo.

The tipping point for it costing employers more than the average health plan is around 83k. And that's for single person coverage, not family which costs the employer considerably more.