capital can move without the individual moving and it has happened to every socialist experiment. people try to get thier money out, and the country tries to keep it in, taking drastic measures involving the constitution and judiciary. If you cant trap the people or the money in, socialism fails...so until someone figures out this problem I just see another pie in the sky socialist plan that hasnt learned from history that **** hits the fan when capital flees.

capital / investment flees --> currency weakens --> inflation kicks in --> interest rates get jacked to defend the currency and counter inflation--> game over

Socialism may work some day, but it will take a flat out wizard. All I see are naive plans - like a homeowner saying what they want thier bathroom to look like with no clue how the plumbing is going to work

So let's review the "mega tax the rich" plan.

1. We know it won't generate much revenue even theoretically if it works (maybe $150 billion if you go full crazy and everyone pays). A drop in the ocean relative to expenses, really

2. We know it won't work (see: France, who net lost money)

3. We know it has likely significant adverse economic and capital consequences

How stupid and emotionally clouded by hate and envy would you have to be to not simply laugh away such a plan?

funding healthcare isn't the problem..theres lots of money spend on it, but on what?

Canada has cheaper healthcare primarily because we wont give procedures that arent warranted - to a fault. They will stonewall you if they think its a waste of time whereas an american clinic will happily sell you the procedure.

You could be on a waitlist for spinal surgery for a year in CAnada, but its pretty much guaranteed you need it by then. In the US, they will do it next week if you fork over the cash, but then when that doesn't work you realize you need to change the insoles of your shoes.

I dont think universal health care is necessary but you cant let shops freely sell people on procedures, as the procedures they will recommend will be as vast as the wallets they serve

True our economy in the forties and fifties was trash the worst.

1. We know every non filthy rich will get a new car of their choice and free $50k income.

2. We know it works.

3. We know everyone will get laid.


FUN! Your turn, tooth!

You are conflating socialist states with socialist policies. Socialist states are always authoritarian because autocrats are forced into it to remain in power. Socialist policies with a free market work just fine and can have a stabilizing effect on the economy.

The rich already hide their money oversees. What is taxed is what can't be moved. What you are suggesting is basically a race to the bottom for tax rate on the rich.

Capital investment doesn't flee because tax rates a are few points higher. It flees because of economic instability. Money from western Europe isn't fleeing, even though it has socialist policies in place. Investors aren't investing in Russia, though, not because of socialist policies, but because Putin makes it economically unstable.

Good thing the US has a very stable genius in charge.

I think you can safely neglect most economic data until 1990.

And then you can selectively ignore all data up until the last 10 years.

anyway,

people bitching and complaining don't realize the sweetspot the US is in right now. wages are outpacing inflation by a widish margin.

the pecking order should be wages>housing costs>inflation and if we mandate the central bank to accomplish this then socialist ideas will be irrelevant. the big problem is housing and the bank would need more tools to hit a mandate like this.

Wages aren't outpacing inflation because of tax policy. It's because unemployment has been steadily dropping for the last ten years and has finally reach a point where employers have to increase wages to fill positions.

to get concrete,

if wages are rising 3%, housing 2.5% and inflation 2% then why bother with socialism as this guarantees an improvement in everyones lives.

Central bank can do this with a new mandate and a couple more tools. we are beating our heads against the wall with policy when a central bank can do this. Whats wrong with capitalism? our central banks dont have a big enough mandate

You don't think the two are connected in at least some way?

tell that to the many locales suffering chronic unemployment due to poor tax structure.

dont assume that you can tax the **** out of poeple and unemployment will just follow the trend. the trend is because of advantageous tax situation vs a place like france thats hopeless to get unemployment below 10%

No. Taxes were cut under Bush and unemployment rose. Taxes were increased under Obama and unemployment fell. Taxes were cut again under Trump and they continued to fall. Where is the correlation?

Holland has a wealth tax and its unemployment is about 3.5%. The issue with France is its cumbersome labor laws.

nothing wrong with a wealth tax its just an extended property tax. I havent studied netherlands cant comment much but by the looks of it 30% of a 4% yield on all investments doesnt look to be more than 2 % on the assessed value of a home in my jurisdiction. so its a wealth tax by name but so is our property tax and our property tax might be more depending where you live. lets call property taxes a wealth tax would that make you happy?

regardless a stable democracy with normal labor laws should easily hit low unemployment numbers. its pretty much guaranteed regardless of taxes but the currency will take a hit if taxes are high...so that the buying power will be diminished but as long as the currency can float that solves unemployment provided labor laws don't interfere.

in Frances case they have a bunch of problems...bad policy, bad labor laws and no central bank to weaken the currency. I dont see any short term solution to unemployment other than letting a currency weaken. I dont think there are any. and all the solutions that people will suggest are longer term

No. I have to assume you believe in intersectional progressive ideas if you think I'm trying to "own the libs". Few liberals on the center left or mid left would agree with the progressive concept of equity; it is something only the progressives, and specifically, identity politics or intersectional progressives advocate.

The difference is pretty well defined by progressives through the graphic that went viral awhile back:



In context therefore:
"(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);"

would involve such misguided solutions such as mandating that BoD of companies be 50% women (or have at least one woman as it is in California), or generally providing otherhand outs to people based on their color or because they are illegal immigrants. It is at its heart, a Marxist solution to provide each according to their need by taking from each according to their ability.

It spits in the face of the MLK dream that people are to "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". It is insulting to women who deserved their position as BoD or CEO, and it is insulting to those people of color who have found their successes on their own merit.

On the off chance you are not a progressive and are merely uninformed, then the Tim Pool/Joe Rogan discussion provides a pretty good breakdown on the differences:

Im just waiting for the wage disparity to get to the point the poor white man wakes up in combo with the bots taking all the jobs. Should be interesting.

So, you referenced France as an example of taxation causing unemployment, and are now completely backtracking that assertion.

Currency devaluation is caused by debt. The US is nowhere near having a taxation rate that would cause any macroeconomic issues.

No, they are different. Property tax tends to be somewhat regressive because the middle class tend to have a larger portion of their wealth in their home compared to the upper class who will own other assets.

The wealth tax in the Netherlands would also apply minimally to the middle and lower classes, regardless of whether they own a home because a primary residence is exempt. This makes the tax much more progressive.

So your argument was based on what Joe Rogan and a guest of his think other people think. That in itself is pretty dumb.

Regardless of that, the argument is a dumb one about semantics. Everybody, including progressives, thinks equity and equality are interchangeable because they are. Nobody on the left is shouting "equity, not equality".

In terms of the examples you brought up, that actually goes back to the first point you made about society changing slowly. What progressives think are issues are real issues. The problem is that their cause isn't "everybody is sexist/racist". The cause is a complex mixture of cultural and heuristic reasons. Of those only culture can be changed, and it needs to be done so slowly.

Progressives want the same thing as you, but their methods can be terrible because they try to rush solutions.

Is it your contention that complex systems like the economy have instant results when one variable is changed, and that you can isolate the results of that change without considering other factors?

I don't think you can compare the postwar rebuilding effort - when the entire economy transformed from war footing and depression to a massive economic boom off those lows as over 10 million soldiers came home and rebuilt the country - with a stable, globalized world with large international capital flows and investment opportunities.

Hell, in 1950 there wasn't even a passenger jet! The 707 came online in 1958.

The experiment has been run in the modern world. It was a failure. All kinds of special wealth taxes have been a failure. And even if they weren't the take is tiny, because most wealth is actually sitting in the stock market or businesses as productive capital.

The clear implication was about whether taxation is a primary driver of unemployment rate, not whether or not it plays any role in the unemployment rate. The answer is that it is not. Raising taxes does slow growth, but the effect is only by a couple of tenths of a percent per year and that is only in the short term. It doesn't reflect things the government can do to help create more economic stability and trust in the marketplace.

technology has been taking our jobs for the past 100 years at a fairly ambitious pace. Yet here we are at historically low unemployment. Not expecting much to change in my lifetime though I can imagine the debate in 30 years whether or not blowjob bots should be banned.

Ok so we should cut our bloated socialist military and not have boondoggle walls to fund the other socialist stuff. Like roads and healthcare and such.

He has above average intelligence with a mental disorder imo

provided labor laws are lax and there is not too much red tape or corruption, high taxes should not cripple unemployment rate in the very long run...it will just affect exchange rate and buying power of the citizens.