Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

TALLAHASSEE — Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature is moving to roll back parts of a historic November constitutional amendment that reinstated voting rights for convicted felons, drawing sharp opposition from Democrats in a key 2020 presidential battleground.

A bill that would limit voting rights that ex-offenders gained under the ballot measure cleared its first stop in a Republican-controlled Florida House committee on a party-line vote Tuesday, and the president of the state Senate said he expects his chamber to draw up a companion measure.


Democrats and others condemned the move, likening the legislation to a poll tax imposed on African-Americans during the Jim Crow era.

 

Florida felon voting rights imperiled amid GOP opposition

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/03/19/felon-vote-sparks-battle-for-florida-as-gop-moves-to-define-rights-921875

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fair enough.

I know country clubbers when I see them. I grew up with these types, and I did not always love it. 

Oh well, at least it left me with a sweet golf swing. One day I'll have to challenge @Fragile Bird to a round, spot her a stroke on each hole, let her tee off from where she wants and then proceed to thoroughly roast her!

I'll obviously defer to you here, but I would have assumed the federal savings would have off set any state losses, at least with the types they want to associate with.

I think for them it would at best be about a push.  Most of their income will be taxable at the top marginal rate of 37% federal (down from 39.6% - so a 2.6% benefit), but they would have given up the rate benefit of the deductibility of state and local taxes.  So they would have gone from an effective rate of ~45% (39.6% plus 39.6% of 8.97%) to an effective rate of ~46% (37% plus 8.97%,), for those marginal dollars all else being equal.  This of course does not take into account the potential effects of property taxes and bracket shift.  In addition, I believe NJ has a new tax for marginal dollars above $5 million of over 10% - not sure if this applies to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

 

Biden may really be benefiting from a market inefficiency in the Democratic primary.  Lots of Democrats are always talking about bringing out the youth vote, and as a result virtually all the candidates are targeting younger voters.  Sanders relied on it in 2016.  Harris, O'Rourke, Booker and (especially) Buttigieg talk about it regularly.  But in a primary, the 50+ crowd is going to make up a large portion (40 or 50%) of the voters.  So which candidate is speaking particularly to them?  Just Biden.  Now, I'm sure you could say that all those candidates want to appeal to every voter, and that's true to some extent, but you can't target everybody.  And unless something changes, Biden could end up cleaning up with older voters, while everyone else is scratching and clawing for younger voters that often don't show up for primaries anyway. 

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

My main colleague and I were just discussing the Democrats a couple of hours ago. I'm 67 and she's 62. We both agreed that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are "too old" and, though we are really still undecided, agreed that if we had to vote for one of the declared candidates today it would be Harris.

Of course as Ph. D. academic psychologists we may not be representative of the average over 50 Democratic primary voter. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

My main colleague and I were just discussing the Democrats a couple of hours ago. I'm 67 and she's 62. We both agreed that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are "too old" and, though we are really still undecided, agreed that if we had to vote for one of the declared candidates today it would be Harris.

Of course as Ph. D. academic psychologists we may not be representative of the average over 50 Democratic primary voter. :)

One of the reasons I'm partial to Beto, aside from being familiar with him as a 'local' candidate, is I really want to see a young, fresh optimist juxtaposed with Trump's curmudgeonly and dark worldview.   To be fair I think Clinton was almost successful at doing this in 2016.  Especially when I think back to the gloom and doom Republican convention vs. the Democratic convention where I thought they did a good job of projecting positivity about the  country and it's values.  It didn't save Clinton, but I think that's because the right simply had had too much time to work on making her into the devil, and she's always had a charisma problem, unfair as that may be.  

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?  My gut says no, even after the propaganda machine had 8 years to work Obama over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

There's polling that shows older Democrats prefer Biden more.  Here's the latest CNN poll.  Go to page 41 - he's the top choice of 36% of 45+ year-old and 19% of <45 year olds.  While I'm too lazy to prove it, that's a pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Double post, sorry.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

15 minutes ago, S John said:

One of the reasons I'm partial to Beto, aside from being familiar with him as a 'local' candidate, is I really want to see a young, fresh optimist juxtaposed with Trump's curmudgeonly and dark worldview.   To be fair I think Clinton was almost successful at doing this in 2016.  Especially when I think back to the gloom and doom Republican convention vs. the Democratic convention where I thought they did a good job of projecting positivity about the  country and it's values.  It didn't save Clinton, but I think that's because the right simply had had too much time to work on making her into the devil, and she's always had a charisma problem, unfair as that may be.  

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?  My gut says no, even after the propaganda machine had 8 years to work Obama over.  

Obama might have won. He certainly keeps Pennsylvania and Michigan. Wisconsin I think still goes to trump because the greater efforts at racist voter supppression there is more successful in that state at squashing black turnout even with Obama on the ballot. That makes it either a 269 tie or a 1-2 vote trump win in the electoral college, depending on Nebraska’s urban district and Maine’s rural district.

obamas wins in Ohio and Florida were narrow and trumps were not, I think trump keeps both.

but Obama was incredibly well loved in Iowa and always wildly outperformed the regional trend in that state.

so iowa could have given him a 275 win, a state abandoned early on by Clinton since she was so reviled there. So long as Clinton’s faithless electors didn’t also fuck him over like they did her, which could have pushed the whole race back towards tie territory, so it’s worth remembering that 2016 had the most faithless electors of all time.

so I don’t think he would have had such a slam dunk against trump that a lot of people think, pinning your hopes on Iowa is not a lot to hang your hat on.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its that older voters prefer older candidates -  it's that they prefer more vetted, more centrist ones. And Biden is a known commodity, one that they're cool with. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fair enough.

I know country clubbers when I see them. I grew up with these types, and I did not always love it. 

Oh well, at least it left me with a sweet golf swing. One day I'll have to challenge @Fragile Bird to a round, spot her a stroke on each hole, let her tee off from where she wants and then proceed to thoroughly roast her!

Trust me, I’d need at least 5 strokes on each hole. While I love to trudge around with my friends (uh, in a golf cart) my skills are pretty abysmal. I imagined that, in my old age, I’d take lessons but, bah, I don’t care enough.

And I have never set foot in a country club. Golf clubs only for social games thrown by employers or charity events!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

snip

For what it's worth, I think Obama wins Wisconsin.  The win was narrow enough that Obama would have had to have outperformed Hillary by enough to make the difference despite the voter suppression.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S John said:

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?

Not a chance. First, it's generally hard to beat an incumbent. Second, Obama was never as unpopular a candidate as Clinton. Third, Trump's style of campaigning would come off rather differently when applied to a sitting President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Obama would beat Trump for several reasons.

1. He was charistmatic, whereas Hillary was basically a robot, unfortunately also a flip-flopping one when it came to coal jobs.

2. Obama didn't have as much political baggage on him as she did due to Bill's dalliances in the 90s.

3. Obama campaigned more.

Edited by Red Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I dont think its that older voters prefer older candidates -  it's that they prefer more vetted, more centrist ones. And Biden is a known commodity, one that they're cool with.

Surely all that is needed to defeat Biden is wall-to-wall ads of his noncing up of young girls. That stuff is seriously creepy, a lot of people will not be cool with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Surely all that is needed to defeat Biden is wall-to-wall ads of his noncing up of young girls. That stuff is seriously creepy, a lot of people will not be cool with it.

Biden has a LOT of problems that everyone knows are lurking in the background.  He voted for the Iraq War.  He spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral.  He slutshamed Anita Hill.  He's creepy with women generally.

Really he's a great candidate for low information voters who just know him as Obama's VP.  He was a good VP, he was Obama's liason to Congress, and was effective in that role.  But the reasons why he wasn't a strong candidate in 2008 are NOT gone, and the party has moved away from him since then. 

I don't see how it ends up being Biden.  I know he's polling well, but that CNN poll showed his numbers were going down since last year, and I think as people get to know Harris/Beto/Booker/whoever, his support is going to wash away.

Each candidate needs to be what the party is looking for right then.  Republicans wanted a huge asshole after years of (perceived) eating shit from Obama, and that is why they ended up with Trump, with Cruz runner up.  What are Democrats looking for?  Electability, someone who fights for liberal values, someone who can bring together the different ideological and social groups of the party, someone who inspires us. 

That's why I think that Harris is going to win.  She is at least OK on all those fronts, whereas Beto, Biden and Sanders all fall short on at least one.  But it's quite possible I'm just biased because I like her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DMC said:

The point, which has been my main point the entire time, is we have no way of knowing that.  And I really don't like trying to read "vibes" from public figures when it comes to their marriage.  That's tabloid stuff, should be next to "Obama's brother appears to endorse conspiracy Michelle is a man!"

I guess where we differ is that I’d consider it tabloid material if the point of discussing it was to mock and humiliate them. That’s not my intent, though it’s easy to crack a joke here and there. What I want is to understand the behavior, which is what a psychology dork would do. And this case is particularly fascinating to me because I have been a staff member for multiple politicians. I know that if I was working for one and my significant other was trashing them on social media there would be problems in our relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

3. Obama campaigned more.

As a political scientist, I'm generally skeptical of the influence of campaigns on vote choice and turnout.  However, that does ignore the downstream effects of actively campaigning throughout the swing states - it builds enthusiasm with activists and volunteers which in turn helps mobilize voters.  So in that way it would have been very valuable to have a more active candidate in the states with razor-thin margins.  And this is not monday morning quarterbacking, btw, I said as much when it became apparent she was limiting her campaign stops in late September/early October.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I want is to understand the behavior, which is what a psychology dork would do.

A political psychology dork also would not speculate on trying to understand their intra-relationship dynamic without better data and/or insight into that relationship, which is not publicly available (nor should it be).  What we do know is Kellyanne began the 2016 campaign running a PAC for Ted Cruz, and routinely attacked Trump in that role.  Which suggests she wouldn't take her husband's criticisms of the president or his administration too personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think for them it would at best be about a push.  Most of their income will be taxable at the top marginal rate of 37% federal (down from 39.6% - so a 2.6% benefit), but they would have given up the rate benefit of the deductibility of state and local taxes.  So they would have gone from an effective rate of ~45% (39.6% plus 39.6% of 8.97%) to an effective rate of ~46% (37% plus 8.97%,), for those marginal dollars all else being equal.  This of course does not take into account the potential effects of property taxes and bracket shift.  In addition, I believe NJ has a new tax for marginal dollars above $5 million of over 10% - not sure if this applies to them.

But didn’t the changes in the capital gains tax alter how you can file federally? I thought the big giveaway for wealthy individuals was that they could change how they were taxed. For example, Bezos is (or was) the richest man in the world, but his annual salary is only $80K. Isn’t that the type of loophole people use to bypass the rates you’re describing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trust me, I’d need at least 5 strokes on each hole. While I love to trudge around with my friends (uh, in a golf cart) my skills are pretty abysmal. I imagined that, in my old age, I’d take lessons but, bah, I don’t care enough.

And I have never set foot in a country club. Golf clubs only for social games thrown by employers or charity events!

Well the last bit is an upset. I would have figured a lawyer working in corporate finance would have at least attended an event at a country club.

And fine. We can play a nine hole par three and I’ll shotgun a beer before we tee off at each hole. Fair enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DMC said:

.A political psychology dork also would not speculate on trying to understand their intra-relationship dynamic without better data and/or insight into that relationship, which is not publicly available (nor should it be).  What we do know is Kellyanne began the 2016 campaign running a PAC for Ted Cruz, and routinely attacked Trump in that role.  Which suggests she wouldn't take her husband's criticisms of the president or his administration too personally.

Before we lived in the reality T.V. presidency era? Sure. But that’s not where we are anymore. We now live in the post-Goldwater rule era, and when top psychologists are questioning the President’s mental health, and now the husband of one of his top advisers is doing so too, it’s far game to speculate about anything that’s going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But didn’t the changes in the capital gains tax alter how you can file federally? I thought the big giveaway for wealthy individuals was that they could change how they were taxed. For example, Bezos is (or was) the richest man in the world, but his annual salary is only $80K. Isn’t that the type of loophole people use to bypass the rates you’re describing?

Not sure what you are referring to.  Capital gains tax didn't really change at all.  

1.  If you are a shareholder/service provider to a closely held C corporation or S corporation, it is true that you must be paid "reasonable compensation," which can be fairly low (really meant to preserve employment taxes in the S context).  But Bezos' continuing stake in Amazon is a minority stake, IIRC.  (The accumulated earnings tax, though rarely historically enforced since the 1986 reforms, also exists to help police conversion from OI to CG - also wouldn't apply).  At this point he doesn't need a high salary, it is true, but that's because he has captured wealth from basically being a founder.

2.  There never has been a reasonable compensation rule for partnerships or other flow through businesses (including law partnerships).  In fact, the IRS and Treasury take the view that you cannot be both a partner in a partnership and an employee of that partnership (I think this rule is dumb, but I'm not in charge of the universe).

3.  There is new Section 199A which, if a taxpayer fully qualifies, would reduce the rate on certain types of pass through income to approximately 29.6%.  However, income from legal services, and income from consulting (and political consulting specifically counts - and even if KAC received some sort of weird exemption, you have to have tangible property or a substantial wage base to really get the benefit) do not receive the benefit of Section 199A.

4.  Section 1061, which was aimed at curbing the ability of carried interest to receive capital gains treatment (but is basically toothless) wouldn't apply to this sort of income in the first place, which was ordinary before and ordinary after.

5.  It is true that a Wachtell partner makes so much money that the marginal dollars will be plentiful and can be reinvested post tax in instruments that give rise to capital gain.  And, in fact, from a wealth, rather than income, perspective could just accumulate until they kick the bucket and their heirs get a basically tax free step up.  But that was always true.  

6.  But if there is something specific you were looking referring to, LMK, because I might not be responding to the right question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×