Massdriver

The rates on paper weren't paid. Don't you see? The effective rates weren't much higher than what the rates are today. Thus, when you use that as evidence that the economy will be just fine, it is fallacious. There is a high amount of uncertainty on what will happen if you jack up rates to 90%. My guess is it wouldn't be as great as all of you seem to think. But I'm in luck. Pelosi is a capitalist and she knows this. She knows much more than Cortez does about economic literature (yes I'm aware of her degree), etc. She will likely allow them to have some sort of voice, but she will sideline the more radical proposals because they are dangerous for the Democratic Party and the nation. As for the middle class, I agree that we need universal healthcare. I agree with helping the poor and middle class more. I can be for those things without resorting to 90% income tax rates. Edit: I've also read Krugman's article. There are other economists out there that don't agree with Krugman or the economists he cited to make it seem as if there is a consensus that 70% is the optimal rate of taxation. From what I can tell, there is no consensus of any kind and he is misrepresenting the facts. There are arguments all over the place on the optimal level of taxation, and citing one recent paper doesn't change that.

Tax avoidance and tax evasion are two different things. Tax avoidance is legal, and I've read several articles over the years that make the case that there were plenty of legal ways to avoid taxes back then. Thus the effective tax rate was much lower than 90% in part mitigating the weight of the historical evidence that is all too commonly cited for radically raising taxes and pretending nothing would happen to the economy. The burden of proof is on those wanting to radically raise taxes. The article does overreach and makes some claims that are not substantiated by the evidence that was cited, but so do the politicians making their tax case with historical evidence that is over simplified. If you want to make the case for higher marginal rates based on the 1950s USA, then you also have to advocate for legal loopholes for the rich to use to avoid paying taxes. Edit: I also want to point out that there are no countries in the world today that have a statutory income tax rate of 70% of higher. There appears to be only around 11 nations with rates higher than 50%. Jacking rates up as high as some of you want to do on this board would be an experiment with the entire economy. The burden is on you guys to show that everything would be just the same, with no negative consequences.

@SaysWho? Are the statuary tax rates of the 1950s just a talking point? https://www.aier.org/article/rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent?fbclid=IwAR0-R36WSAG_G7x4XuSHLzf4QIGdbRelx9s63bAE2L8kBTsDbJRR0dle_cA

I doubt it would be constitutional in the U.S. to tax wealth.

It is an actual plan, but I doubt it could pass both the house and senate.

If she wants to do something effective against climate change, support a carbon tax and distribute the revenue back to the people. Have it step up every year until we hit our goals. Let the market decide what the best fuel and power source is instead of Congress. It will be very efficient at it.

Taxing the top .1% is easy, but it won’t bring in enough revenue to do all the things she supports. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-raise/ She has to hit incomes a lot lower than that to afford a single payer system.

What do other developed nations do? I don’t know, but just emulate them.

If it made it to the House floor, it would likely win with 90-100 votes. Leadership has held it back in the past. Specifically, Speaker Joe Straus kept it from being voted on (I have my suspicions that this was under the private direction of Governor Abbott). We have a new speaker now, and the governor is on board. The Texas GOP has also endorsed civil penalties. It's a lot different this year. The major hiccups would likely come from our Lt Gov.

Restrict the speech of corporations and unions? Yes. How about we just Federally fund elections and take money completely out of the equation?

Texas may actually pass some sort of reform this session. The governor is on board for lowering penalties for possession. We are only 20 years behind: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2019/01/03/texas-marijuana-advocates-get-fired-decriminalize-pot-2019

Harris/O'Rourke 2020 is a winner Edit: Or not. It seems like there are problems with all the potential Democratic candidates thus far. These two are the top picks on predictwise.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/robust-employment-report-underscores-u-s-economic-strength-idUSKCN1OY0AU This is a pretty strong report. I doubt it will be as strong in January with the shut down and China uncertainty growing.

Sheriff Joe smirked as he uttered, "Son, I don't make the laws, I just enforce them!" *slaps on the cuffs* ************ "Sheriff Joe, welcome to my office. Please take a seat," Senator Farts said enthusiastically. "The problem with marijuana," Sheriff Joe explained, "is it's a gateway to harder drugs!"

Some of us require some sort of hope to function, otherwise we fall apart into major depression. The world is a shitty place. This guy is unlikely to make the world better. I see a decent probability that the economic fortunes of the average Brazilian will get better under this guy based on what I know about Brazil's economy. On the other hand, I see Brazil suffering in nearly every other way. While I don't think Brazil needs as strict of regulation on land in most areas of the country, I strongly support severe restrictions on the rain forest for obvious reasons. Obviously we are looking at Brazil suffering from a break down of due process based on what he's saying about cops shooting suspects with ARs, and then we have demonizing minority groups such as gays and women. My area of hope is narrow, but I emphasize it because the positives that come with the shitty negatives are not always brought up here. Agreed, with the narrow exception that the areas that we instituted some sort of "democracy" in recent years such as Afghanistan have suffered even worse corruption than before (I'm open to correction). We really are talking past each other. I believe in liberal democrat values. Among those values is a market economy. I simply emphasize it more than most here. It would be a mistake to think I don't care about the environment, the poor, minorities, etc.

I don't believe anything. I just remain hopeful because I have to. The news is quite depressing.

Isn't there a line somewhere on the moral spectrum where order outweighs a corrupt "democratic" system? I recognize Brazil isn't it, but it is in a grey area to me. In the Middle East, I'm pretty sure most of us recognize there is a ton of complexity to which regimes should remain in power, overthrown, etc., and sometimes these regimes are not bastions of democratic values, but of stability and against corruption. Brazil isn't the Middle East, but they do have the highest murder count per year in the world. Their institutions are corrupt, their entire regulatory system is corrupt, and their economy suffers from a ridiculous patchwork of rules that don't make any sense and hurts the working people. Before this nut came along, I guess Brazil was in tip top shape since you had to read the back pages of the NYT/WaPo to see how terrible it was there (how about a recession and two criminal leaders, violent crime off the charts, etc.). I don't support this guy, I'm just trying to be hopeful that maybe some pro market reforms will help people that have been hurting for years.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/01/05/the-radical-agenda-of-brazils-new-president?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/theradicalagendaofbrazilsnewpresidentthegoodthebadandthescary The destruction of the rain forest is something I strongly oppose, but I hope some good will come from this nutcase.

I like that he wrote it. I'm skeptical what it will mean in practice. Romney wants Trump to become someone he's not. He will likely vote with Trump the vast majority of the time, but he will speak against Trump's tweets and leadership.

Shutting down the Mexican border has to be a bluff, right? He's not that insane.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lowers-demand-for-border-wall-funding/

You can't deduct if you are putting your gross income (rather than net) in. That is equivalent to deducting at the end of the year.

You’ll take home less money, but if your employer matches, it is a good deal if you can manage to afford it. Your ira contributions won’t be matched.

Yep that’s all I meant.

Some 401k plans have a Roth component. However, matching programs are better than Roths. You can't beat doubling your money right off the bat; plus you get to deduct the savings from your taxes.