Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Some of these things require a real "read the room dude" MOST of them require a more thorough inspection of the room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: MOST of them require a more thorough inspection of the room Free trade though? Some of the more liberal wishes are far, far, far, far more realistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Free trade though? THAT one especially needs a room temperature check! The era of neoliberal-defined free trade is DEAD DEAD DEAD. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBladeRoden Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 "Corporations are People" bill Instead of being fined for breaking the law, corporations now get jails built around their offices so they can serve time like real people. Or, barring that, maybe limit their income to $2 a day like a working prisoner until their sentence is up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Constitutional Amendment: Declare money is not speech. Mandatory public financing of all elections. Political donations are limited per individual to 3x the Federal minimum wage and can only be given by those within the candidate's jurisdiction. Federalization of all elections under the FEC who's Commissioners are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and supervised by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Political parties get no recognition by State or Federal Governments. Parties wishing to use FEC resources (voter rolls, staff, equipment) for Primaries must allow the Primary to be open to all voters within the relevant jurisdiction. State and Federal political boundaries must align with city and county lines, and be are subject to FEC approval. Medicare for All: All Federal Health Insurance programs are now under Medicare. Medicare covers those over 55, veterans, active duty military, children, and people with disabilities. Those on Medicare can opt for private coverage subsidized by Medicare. Passage of the Disability Integration Act. Creation of the Disability Services Agency with no income or asset restrictions. Ban Employer based insurance, everyone not on Medicare must use the Federal Individual Market that use Medicare drug and service prices. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 49 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Some of these things require a real "read the room dude" I can dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 A list like this would conceivably have bi-partisan support, but the GOP is certifiably insane so who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 50 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: A list like this would conceivably have bi-partisan support, but the GOP is certifiably insane so who knows. 3/5 would be killed by big DNC donors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 4 hours ago, SFLUFAN said: THAT one especially needs a room temperature check! The era of neoliberal-defined free trade is DEAD DEAD DEAD. We shall see. The US and Japan are supposed to be negotiating a trade deal right now. Trump may have less of a problem with bilateral trade deals relative to large multi national ones. And add a negative income tax to the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Also, the house can do virtually nothing about trade. That all goes through the Senate. Also, as far as investigations go: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Also, the house can do virtually nothing about trade. That all goes through the Senate. The U.S. House votes on free trade deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 60% tax on the top 20% $2,000 monthly living wage check to people making under 30k a year Free health care for everybody Free 4G nationwide Wi-Fi New smart energy grid Nationwide Pneumatic Tubes transporter Solar Panels on All New Buildings and every multi story building by 2030 Mass produced cheap homes for low income families 100% renewable energy production by 2030 All electric vehicles after 2030 with free trade in/tax credit Restaurant tax credits for meals for homeless people Hotel tax credits for rooms for homeless people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Just now, Remarkableriots said: 60% tax on the top 20% $2,000 monthly living wage check to people making under 30k a year Free health care for everybody Free 4G nationwide Wi-Fi New smart energy grid Nationwide Pneumatic Tubes transporter Solar Panels on All New Buildings and every multi story building by 2030 Mass produced cheap homes for low income families 100% renewable energy production by 2030 All electric vehicles after 2030 with free trade in/tax credit Restaurant tax credits for meals for homeless people Hotel tax credits for rooms for homeless people Instead of creating a means test to decide who gets the $2000, why not just give it to every citizen over the age of 18? Whether you make zero dollars a year or a million, you would get the same amount. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Just now, mclumber1 said: Instead of creating a means test to decide who gets the $2000, why not just give it to every citizen over the age of 18? Whether you make zero dollars a year or a million, you would get the same amount. That would work also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: Instead of creating a means test to decide who gets the $2000, why not just give it to every citizen over the age of 18? Whether you make zero dollars a year or a million, you would get the same amount. Because a negative income tax is cheaper and is targeted to the people that need it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said: 60% tax on the top 20% Someone making $100k in Manhattan is not richie rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 25 minutes ago, Jason said: Someone making $100k in Manhattan is not richie rich. $100K is significantly higher than the Manhattan median income. I dunno if he means a flat 60% tax rate on people making over $100K or 60% on income over $100K, since that would obviously make a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: $100K is significantly higher than the Manhattan median income. I dunno if he means a flat 60% tax rate on people making over $100K or 60% on income over $100K, since that would obviously make a big difference. Just because it's higher than the Manhattan median income doesn't mean you're living high on the hog. Plenty of people making $100k in Manhattan who still have to live with roommates to keep housing costs reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Whether or not $100,000 goes far in Manhattan is irrelevant, because we should not be basing tax brackets on outlier cost-of-living areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Here's one @mclumber1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/09/opinion/expanded-house-representatives-size.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 On 11/9/2018 at 10:01 AM, Chris- said: Whether or not $100,000 goes far in Manhattan is irrelevant, because we should not be basing tax brackets on outlier cost-of-living areas. Considering a disproportionate percentage of Americans live in those high-COL areas and those high-COL areas are where most of the highest-paying jobs are, it'd be irresponsible to ignore the effect of hammering what counts as the middle class in those areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Election day federal holiday All student loan interest is tax deductible regardless of income Increase regulations around education lending Cars for Clunkers 2, hybrids or electric only this time Increase emissions regulations to CA standards+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 On 11/9/2018 at 12:58 PM, Jason said: Just because it's higher than the Manhattan median income doesn't mean you're living high on the hog. Plenty of people making $100k in Manhattan who still have to live with roommates to keep housing costs reasonable. What dumbass that works in Manhattan only making 100k decided it was a good idea to live there? You have a billion other options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 34 minutes ago, Jose said: What dumbass that works in Manhattan only making 100k decided it was a good idea to live there? You have a billion other options. Way to willfully miss the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 34 minutes ago, Jason said: Way to willfully miss the point. How? No one making 100k should live in Manhattan. You make it sound like Queens or NJ arent options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Jose said: How? No one making 100k should live in Manhattan. You make it sound like Queens or NJ arent options. Living in Queens or Jersey City/Hoboken while making $100k is certainly a lot more feasible than living in Manhattan on that income but it's still not putting you in richie rich territory. And what you're arguing is ultimately still supporting my underlying point: $100k is not richie rich driving around throwing money out of your car money if live within a 15 mile radius of Manhattan and should not be taxed like it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 I want them to pass things that make it harder for Senate Republicans to get re-elected in 2020 because I'm not seeing how anything with a Democratic priority actually makes it through. Fortunately we'll have a brilliant legislator and shrewd whip counter in charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 16 hours ago, Jason said: Considering a disproportionate percentage of Americans live in those high-COL areas and those high-COL areas are where most of the highest-paying jobs are, it'd be irresponsible to ignore the effect of hammering what counts as the middle class in those areas. There are probably only three (New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles) - maybe four (Seattle) - areas where 100k is only 'middle class'. How many $100k earners live in those areas? Yeah, no. Basing national tax policy on a minority of cases is asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 12, 2018 Author Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Chris- said: There are probably only three (New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles) - maybe four (Seattle) - areas where 100k is only 'middle class'. How many $100k earners live in those areas? Yeah, no. Basing national tax policy on a minority of cases is asinine. Five: Washington, DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 24 minutes ago, Chris- said: There are probably only three (New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles) - maybe four (Seattle) - areas where 100k is only 'middle class'. How many $100k earners live in those areas? Yeah, no. Basing national tax policy on a minority of cases is asinine. Creating a COL adjustment isn't "basing national tax policy on a minority of cases". A family of four with a household income of $117k is considered low income in San Francisco. I really don't get why you're sneering at the idea of accounting for not hitting those people with tax rates that are meant to go after the wealthy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/bay-area-housing-market.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Five: Washington, DC. While they obviously don't have it as tough as people living in Manhattan I'm pretty sure this applies to a broad swath of NJ, Long Island, and the suburbs just north of NYC as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jason said: Creating a COL adjustment isn't "basing national tax policy on a minority of cases". A family of four with a household income of $117k is considered low income in San Francisco. I really don't get why you're sneering at the idea of accounting for not hitting those people with tax rates that are meant to go after the wealthy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/bay-area-housing-market.html Your original comment was in response to an idea about the top marginal bracket, so how was I suppose to know you were suggesting some kind of COL adjustment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 One of the benefits of instituting a universal basic income system, or even a negative income tax, is that it would potentially help facilitate the evening out of cost of living throughout the country. The person living and working SF may choose to move to a lower cost of living area because their monthly payment will be worth more. Over time, this could cause housing prices to go down in places like SF, and rise in other areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jason said: Creating a COL adjustment isn't "basing national tax policy on a minority of cases". A family of four with a household income of $117k is considered low income in San Francisco. I really don't get why you're sneering at the idea of accounting for not hitting those people with tax rates that are meant to go after the wealthy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/bay-area-housing-market.html Do people making that actually live in SF, or do they live outside the city where it’s cheaper? It just doesn’t seem particularly relevant that $100k in some places doesn’t mean much when people making that don’t live in those zip codes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: One of the benefits of instituting a universal basic income system, or even a negative income tax, is that it would potentially help facilitate the evening out of cost of living throughout the country. The person living and working SF may choose to move to a lower cost of living area because their monthly payment will be worth more. Over time, this could cause housing prices to go down in places like SF, and rise in other areas. It wouldn't do anything about the fact that job markets are inherently more dynamic when they're clustered into specific cities/areas than when they're sprinkled out across the country. 5 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Do people making that actually live in SF, or do they live outside the city where it’s cheaper? It just doesn’t seem particularly relevant that $100k in some places doesn’t mean much when people making that don’t live in those zip codes. From another article on that: Quote Note that when HUD talks about “San Francisco” it’s actually referencing the larger San Francisco metro area, if you will, that includes Marin County and San Mateo County. So in fact, parallel figures for just San Francisco would probably be even more extreme. https://sf.curbed.com/2018/6/26/17505550/low-income-limit-2018-salary-san-francisco-families-hud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.