volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
They're both!
Tech companies were overpaying for underperforming employees AND this financial reality is shown by the lack of competition for talent as different industry outfits are coming to that realization, looking at their output over the last couple of years.
This is focusing on the wrong branch of government, though.
The question of whether or not to issue debt is, as per the Constitution, up to the Congress, not the president.
We really need reporting to be more clear about the different roles of the different branches of government in the US.
But Robert Reich is the one obscuring what's going on, as he's been flat out misleading his readers about how the US government finances actually operate.
The US Treasury is bringing in plenty of money to service its debts. It reports its balances continuously and publicly, so we can verify that for ourselves.
Robert Reich tries to say otherwise because it's convenient for him to push his politics.
There is no hostage holding here.
Democrats in the last Congress passed spending bills without passing any way to actually pay for them, and the debt limit is kicking in exactly as it's supposed to when things get so out of balanced.
How do you mean that with sales tax every citizen becomes a tax collector?
I really don't see how sales taxes are any different from income taxes in terms of people wanting to pay them or not.
Well, it does remind me of people wanting cash payment for work to avoid income taxes, though.
There's no difference there.
@csgordon@zirk.us
Oh no, there is no appeal to morality required to say that if you have a thing and I don't take the thing away, so that you still have the thing, I have not given you the thing.
That's math, not morality.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
How exactly do you see a program that actively transfers wealth from rich to poor as being a massive wealth transfer to the richest of the rich?
I really don't understand how you can get to your conclusion from what's in front of us.
@Npars01 @csgordon@zirk.us @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The FairTax plan specifically addresses that by not requiring that sort of paperwork hurdle.
You guys keep bringing up all of these issues that I've heard the FairTax proponents themselves bring up and address decades ago.
@csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @Mastopoet @GreenFire
No.
The FairTax would increase the cash in peoples' pockets, so people who are in debt and are cash poor would end up with more resources to address that problem.
Remember that the FairTax also eliminates the taxes taken out of a person's paycheck, increasing their take home pay.
It would be an immediate boost to stagnant wages, since you bring that up in particular.
Perhaps John Oliver isn't the best source for unbiased coverage of the people he's shown such outright derision for?
Or... for anything else in particular? I mean, the guy is pretty dumb.
Funny commedian, but pretty ignorant.
Careful: business owners might prefer to avoid things described as "wild" in their operations :)
No, the two won't be directly connected. There are many other factors going into liquidity.
That's not to say markets won't use these signals somewhat irrationally to make choices, though.
The element you're missing from your analogy is that the US takes in plenty to pay its debt obligations, so there would be no reason not to pay these regardless of whether it enters into even more borrowing.
In your analogy, your household income would be high enough to pay your obligations on the mortgage and credit card even if you decide not to take out a second mortgage.
The debt ceiling isn't racketeering.
It's merely the recognition that the legislative branch is the one authorized to commit to borrowing on behalf of the population it represents, and the debt ceiling is just the total amount that it's authorized in borrowing.
The FairTax is absolutely not a VAT, though.
The folks who proposed the idea are very critical of VAT schemes like the on in Canada for exactly the reasons you outline, and they emphasize that FairTax is substantially different from a tax like Canada's.
@_L1vY_ @csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The FairTax addresses that concern head on by actively mailing checks to the poor who would be otherwise hit by the regressive nature of sales taxes.
The plan would literally mail checks to poor people as a core part of its operation. That shouldn't be overlooked!
@csgordon@zirk.us
I think it's always noteworthy when someone equates not taking with giving away. It shows really fuzzy accounting, at best.
That someone might keep his own earnings isn't being given anything. They're his.
Yes, we can talk about whether to take away his earnings for good reasons like the funding of government, but it's not a giveaway to not do that.
@csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The #FairTax plan specifically doesn't require any sort of itemized proof of spending or application for rebates.
In fact, they emphasize that the idea is to get people this money *before* they actually pay the tax, and they refer to the payment as a prebate to highlight that.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
It comes across as rather naive to say that the IRS only goes after tax cheats, akin to saying the cops only arrest guilty people.
No, it's no secret that the IRS audits people from all walks of life, and heck, it's easier for them to go after folks who aren't so well off because their finances are easier to audit AND they have less resources with which to fight even erroneous claims against them.
As for redistribution, the FairTax proposal is built around regular payments covering the cost of taxation on necessities, which is the opposite, a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy to the poor.
Too often I see people failing to mention that core pillar of the plan.
In developed economies with modern financial systems there really is practically no concept of stationary money.
Even money sitting in a bank account isn't actually just sitting there. The account is credited the balance, but the money is being used to fund loans, and such.
Sure, velocity may increase or decrease in response to the economic environment, but even that is a dynamic process that doesn't actually care all that much what a rich person thinks.
But sure, the Laffer Curve looks at tax avoidance, but it's applicable to all forms of taxation, not just sales.
@Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
@Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
In theory it may be true that income taxes can be far simpler and cheaper to administer, but in practice we see that as set up, governments tend to choose income tax policies that are far from that ideal.
There's no real point in talking about ideals of either type of tax here since I'm positive governments won't be hitting that mark either way.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
