U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[Ran]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And unlike the wealth tax proposals, both of these proposals are feasible to push through in the medium term (not saying it will happen, but saying that there is a narrow path through the woods where they could happen).

Right.

To be fair to Warren, I think she proposed this stuff alongside the wealth tax. But trying to sell M4A on a tax that's never going to happen, and a bunch of fairly optimistic assumptions as well, was not the kind of serious policymaking I had hoped for from her.

 

What do you think of returning to higher levels of financial transaction taxes? We have nominal ones presently to help fund the SEC, but decades ago it was like a 0.2% surcharge.

 

 

[Raja]

How is Castor the best counsel that the republicans managed to find?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Huh, you learn something new every day. I had no idea that the president and vice president can’t both be out of the country at the same time. I’m not even sure which class you’d pick that up in.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

58 minutes ago, Ran said:

Right.

To be fair to Warren, I think she proposed this stuff alongside the wealth tax. But trying to sell M4A on a tax that's never going to happen, and a bunch of fairly optimistic assumptions as well, was not the kind of serious policymaking I had hoped for from her.

 

What do you think of returning to higher levels of financial transaction taxes? We have nominal ones presently to help fund the SEC, but decades ago it was like a 0.2% surcharge.

 

 

I'm not a big fan of adding additional friction to financial transactions, and given how public equities are actually owned not sure it really does a lot. 

[Zorral]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Huh, you learn something new every day. I had no idea that the president and vice president can’t both be out of the country at the same time. I’m not even sure which class you’d pick that up in.

In our h.s. Political Science and Civics class, that all seniors had to take.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Devin Nunez and his family are trying to hide a whole buncha stuff, pretending their dairy farm is in CA, when it is in Iowa, in a small rural town in which all the labor is immigrants (the Nunez family are immigrants themselves about two generations back, who got here with the help of the US government), unable to vote, and the rest of them are the power elite white people.

Quote

"Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret
Rep. Devin Nunes is head of the House Intelligence Committee and one of President Trump’s biggest defenders. For years, he’s spun himself as a straight talker whose no-BS values are rooted in his family’s California dairy farm. So why did his parents and brother cover their tracks after quietly moving the farm to Iowa? Are they hiding something politically explosive? On the ground in Iowa, Esquire searched for the truth—and discovered a lot of paranoia and hypocrisy."

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

The town is massively in support of the bedbug, no matter what, even though they don't like his sexual and other behaviors -- except for one thing: immigration.  Without Hispanics there's nobody to do their work.

Quote

Other dairy farmers in the area helped me understand why the Nunes family might be so secretive about the farm: Midwestern dairies tend to run on undocumented labor. The northwest-Iowa dairy community is small. Most of the farmers know one another, and most belong to a regional trade group called the Western Iowa Dairy Alliance (though WIDA told me NuStar is not a member). One dairy farmer said that the threat of raids from ICE is so acute that WIDA members have discussed forming a NATO-like pact that would treat a raid on one dairy as a raid on all of them. The other pact members would provide labor to the raided dairy until it got back on its feet.

Plus a whole lot of other interesting content.
 

 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was here very loudly saying that Sanders’ behavior was going to help nuke Clinton, and I was pretty damn right about it.  

I didn't like what Sanders' camp was doing at the time either, but the "nuke" language is quite the exaggeration.  There are many other factors that were more significant to Clinton's loss than Sanders and his supporters being malcontents.  Sanders-Trump voters weren't as prevalent as Hillary-McCain voters, so while I hate re-opening this dialogue, that myth is just sour grapes.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

To be fair to Warren, I think she proposed this stuff alongside the wealth tax. But trying to sell M4A on a tax that's never going to happen, and a bunch of fairly optimistic assumptions as well, was not the kind of serious policymaking I had hoped for from her.

Conceptually, what is the value of a presidential candidate specifying serious policymaking?  If the voter is that interested in comparing policy proposals, shouldn't it be assumed they also are aware those proposals are not going to reflect the realities of the legislative process?  I'm just curious as a student of political behavior. 

For instance, Obama did not have any detailed plan on health care during the 2008 campaign, and while Hillary and him had some differences, both their "proposals" were pretty broad strokes.  That's because both knew - from the Clinton administration's lesson - that the success of big social (or in this case tax) policy is necessarily going to have to be building a camel when coalition building.  So politically, as a candidate, I don't see why there'd be much benefit in trying to divine how that's going to work in terms of articulating particular policy proposals.  Unless that's what high information voters are looking for?

[Ormond]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I didn't like what Sanders' camp was doing at the time either, but the "nuke" language is quite the exaggeration.  There are many other factors that were more significant to Clinton's loss than Sanders and his supporters being malcontents.  Sanders-Trump voters weren't as prevalent as Hillary-McCain voters, so while I hate re-opening this dialogue, that myth is just sour grapes.

 

I'm sure "nuke" is an exaggeration, but I don't think the idea that the Sanders camp "trashing" mainstream Democrats was a big factor in Trump's election is based on the idea that many who voted for Sanders in primaries voted for Trump in the general. I think the idea is more than many Sanders primary voters went for third party candidates or, more likely, didn't vote at all in 2016. Is there any data comparing Sanders-thirdornobody voters in 2016 to Clinton-thirdornobody voters in 2008?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Damn sounds like Will Hurd is about to flip

[Larry of the Lawn]

Lol nope

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Is there any data comparing Sanders-thirdornobody voters in 2016 to Clinton-thirdornobody voters in 2008?

Yes, and while Sanders-3rd/non voters are more prevalent, the empirics suggest they would have voted 3rd party, or not voted, regardless of Sanders' primary success.  In other words, that group tended not to vote for the "establishment" Democratic nominee.

[Jace, Extat]

 

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Didn’t basically every Sanders supporter call the party corrupt in 2016?

Look, as a longtime political operative, you have to make peace with the fact that most  political parties have some degree of corruption within its ranks. As do most corporations, companies, etc. Just hope and pray the watchdogs aren’t corrupt.

Don't take this the wrong way, on account of us being best buds and all, but do you possess a working brain? You dumb animal?

Why would you even put that evil out there on us? What could have possibly possessed you to "hope and pray" that we lose 2020? If the Democratic Party is corrupt (it is, you covered that) then I want the watchdogs to be the most corrupt, because only one ideological wing of this stupid country seems to get punished for felonious activities.

And when your system of government breaks beyond repair, history shows it's better to be on the side that doesn't sit around impotently attempting to enforce standards that no one else cares about anymore.

So in other words, we're pretty far behind already. Next liberals will be insisting that every Dem primary nominee submit to a full FBI background check because "surely, it will force Donald to do the same."

[Morpheus]

I sincerely hope Gym Jordan has cancer festering somewhere in him at this very moment.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

I didn't like what Sanders' camp was doing at the time either, but the "nuke" language is quite the exaggeration.  There are many other factors that were more significant to Clinton's loss than Sanders and his supporters being malcontents.  Sanders-Trump voters weren't as prevalent as Hillary-McCain voters, so while I hate re-opening this dialogue, that myth is just sour grapes.

Conceptually, what is the value of a presidential candidate specifying serious policymaking?  If the voter is that interested in comparing policy proposals, shouldn't it be assumed they also are aware those proposals are not going to reflect the realities of the legislative process?  I'm just curious as a student of political behavior. 

For instance, Obama did not have any detailed plan on health care during the 2008 campaign, and while Hillary and him had some differences, both their "proposals" were pretty broad strokes.  That's because both knew - from the Clinton administration's lesson - that the success of big social (or in this case tax) policy is necessarily going to have to be building a camel when coalition building.  So politically, as a candidate, I don't see why there'd be much benefit in trying to divine how that's going to work in terms of articulating particular policy proposals.  Unless that's what high information voters are looking for?

Well, this is for true, and in fact, historically, the least said the better, honestly.  But, if you are proposing as far-reaching government spending plans as are Sanders and Warren, you do need to address the elephant in the room, which is that it has to be paid for.  And, look, let's be clear, their tax reforms DO NOT PAY for all their policies. They are just as funny "math" as our budget assumptions in general.  But, to propose the policy without a payfor would look really stupid.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Property is pretty easy to assess. How do you assess the value of an entirely private company, however? Most don't really get valued until sold.  How do you assess the value of all of a wealthy person's holdings? Not just equities and homes and estates, but art objects and other collectibles whose value is higher than any retail price tag they may have had? How do assess every item of worth, like clothing, jewelry, watches, pens, etc., etc.? I don't know exactly how many properties there are in the United States, but every property owner almost certainly has a hundred times that many individual items of some sort of monetary value as part of their net worth. If I calculated my net worth at the moment, I've a library of a few hundred books -- how are those valued? How about the bed linens? What about some copies of old ASoIaF manuscripts that may have some value to collectors? What value do I place on some of the S1 limited knick-knacks HBO sent out to reviewers? I had an offer of $1000 once for the maester's box they sent, but is it worth that or more now? 

It's worth considering that the net worth calculations that get batted about are generally notional and not actually exact figures. I saw the news suggested Bill Gates has surpassed Bezos as the world's wealthiest man for the nonce, but no one -- not even Bezos or Gates -- could say for sure. Which, yes, it's a wonderful problem to have (for the billionaire) to be so wealthy that a couple billion off here and there is basically a rounding error. But you can bet that if a wealth tax were to pass muster, wealthy individuals would quite rightly argue to the courts that it would be entirely wrong for the IRS to impose a wealth tax without having a correct and accurate assessment of their wealth, and that they would contest valuations of things like art works or privately held businesses every step of the way. And who can blame them? Would you be happy if your wealth were assessed and they claimed you owed more taxes than you thought you should pay because they disagreed on a credit you claimed?

The IRS, already underfunded, would have to grow enormously to be able to do this. The courts would have to grow enormously too, to handle the litigation.

Everyone assesses their own property: they're the best suited for the task after all. If it gets complicated they can always hire experts and accountants to help. That may cost a bit but then if we're talking about taxing the super-wealthy they can certainly afford it.

The only thing the state has to fund is the means to deter fraud (especially the under-assessment of assets). In other words, to fund random tax audits of a small proportion of the people subjected to the wealth tax every year.

In fact, come to think of it, even @Mlle. Zabzie 's objection about the US's legal culture is not actually insurmountable. Sure, the tax audit of a mega-fortune like that of Bill Gates might take months and mobilize an entire task force of dozens of accountants and lawyers. But the revenue generated through the wealth tax would largely cover the cost of the most complicated cases. Plus, not every billionaire will necessarily attempt to fraud. A system of penalties could easily be designed to deter fraud anyway: just slap +20% extra-tax on under-valued assets... Or just have the billbionaire pay for the cost of the audit if characterized/systematic fraud is discovered.

Valuation can be achieved with manpower. Legal battles eventually end, especially if the state is the one to determine their rules. Expatriation can be prevented with an exit tax. Assets can be seized if necessary. Even constitutions can be amended.
There is no single insurmountable obstacle. In truth none of this is about economics, it's about politics and morality. It's about the 99% gathering the political will to fight back against the 1%. That's what's unlikely in the US.
But come to think of it, the rest is essentially technical. Worst-case scenario the wealth tax would involve some level of arbitrariness for the billionaires. But hey, it's not like our current socio-economic system is fair, and normal people are being told all the time that "c'est la vie" or something. When the wind turns, sometimes heads roll...

Again, let's drop the act. If the 99% wanted to tax the 1% it would happen regardless of any kind of technical issue. And if it were ever to happen in the US of all places, there would be no way for the rich fucks to avoid it.
And no, I don't seriously think it will happen in my lifetime. But there was one a Long threatening to run to the left of Roosevelt after all... So maybe politicians like Warren, Sanders, and AOC are Longs to someone. Or maybe, just maybe, one of them could turn out to be a Roosevelt.
All it might take... is another economic crisis.
 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Everyone assesses their own property: they're the best suited for the task after all. If it gets complicated they can always hire experts and accountants to help. That may cost a bit but then if we're talking about taxing the super-wealthy they can certainly afford it.

The only thing the state has to fund is the means to deter fraud (especially the under-assessment of assets). In other words, to fund random tax audits of a small proportion of the people subjected to the wealth tax every year.

In fact, come to think of it, even @Mlle. Zabzie 's objection about the US's legal culture is not actually insurmountable. Sure, the tax audit of a mega-fortune like that of Bill Gates might take months and mobilize an entire task force of dozens of accountants and lawyers. But the revenue generated through the wealth tax would largely cover the cost of the most complicated cases. Plus, not every billionaire will necessarily attempt to fraud. A system of penalties could easily be designed to deter fraud anyway: just slap +20% extra-tax on under-valued assets... Or just have the billbionaire pay for the cost of the audit if characterized/systematic fraud is discovered.

Valuation can be achieved with manpower. Legal battles eventually end, especially if the state is the one to determine their rules. Expatriation can be prevented with an exit tax. Assets can be seized if necessary. Even constitutions can be amended.
There is no single insurmountable obstacle. In truth none of this is about economics, it's about politics and morality. It's about the 99% gathering the political will to fight back against the 1%. That's what's unlikely in the US.
But come to think of it, the rest is essentially technical. Worst-case scenario the wealth tax would involve some level of arbitrariness for the billionaires. But hey, it's not like our current socio-economic system is fair, and normal people are being told all the time that "c'est la vie" or something. When the wind turns, sometimes heads roll...

Again, let's drop the act. If the 99% wanted to tax the 1% it would happen regardless of any kind of technical issue. And if it were ever to happen in the US of all places, there would be no way for the rich fucks to avoid it.
And no, I don't seriously think it will happen in my lifetime. But there was one a Long threatening to run to the left of Roosevelt after all... So maybe politicians like Warren, Sanders, and AOC are Longs to someone. Or maybe, just maybe, one of them could turn out to be a Roosevelt.
All it might take... is another economic crisis.
 

I have to say that I COMPLETELY disagree.  In the absence of an arm's length transaction it is impossible to know what the intrinsic value of an asset is.  It is quite true that Duff & Phelps and the accounting firms make a small fortune benchmarking third party equivalents.  But strangely enough, you can end up with quite different answers depending on (1) the choice of methodologies (and there are several), (2) the input assumptions (including, e.g., investment horizon, discount rate, definition and choice of comparables, if a comparable methodology is appropriate etc. etc. etc.).  You say "no problem, we'll just tell taxpayers what methodologies and assumptions are permissible."  Well, that's sort of what each country's transfer pricing regulations try to do. And I will also say, my experience with the people who set up these valuations (and it is relatively extensive) is my comment above - magic masquerading as truth - TO BE CHARITABLE.  My cynical view, born from experience, is that a taxpayer's view of valuation is the bid, and the government's is the ask, and frankly it simply starts a negotiation towards a settlement.  THIS IS TERRIBLE POLICY.  A taxpayer's bill should not depend on how good their (or their hired guns') negotiation skills are.  But what this sets up is exactly that.  And your penalty idea is frankly unworkable.  The Service would have to PROVE that there was intentional undervaluation (there is this concept in the estate tax and transfer pricing areas, there is also a lot of litigation).   And I'm telling you, how do you get a valuation in these circumstances that you can trust where the stakes are as high as you suggest?  No valuation expert will indemnify you if you lose (I mean if there is gross negligence or malfeasance sure, but again, they are pissing in the wind basically, so they certainly will not guarantee anything).  Where this would end up as a matter of taxpayer equity is rather that there would be a safe harbor against penalties where the taxpayer complied with some sort of recordkeeping and valuation procedures which would provide penalty protection.  Thus, all this would do is to replicate lots of me*, which I actually think is a very bad thing.   

FUTHERMORE, it provides a burden on pretty much everyone.  You say "well, this will only apply to people whose wealth** exceeds a certain amount."  Well, how do I know if I am subject to this?  I can almost guanf*ckingtee you that this will become like the AMT, which will creep down so that it isn't just rich f*ckers who have to figure this out, but simply goes down the food chain to people who can less afford the massive recordkeeping and other burdens here.  NO THANK YOU.  Tax the hell out of estates (and gifts).  Take half of them.  Honestly they are just windfalls to the inheritors (I know that people disagree with me, but you can't take it with you, frankly).  In addition, remember that valuation is not a static concept.  It changes - today's hot toy could be tomorrow's Beanie Baby.  And what's included?  Like, for instance, what if someone's name and reputation are the source of wealth?  That is, does the Kardashian family have to do a DCF on their name every year?  How does that work?  What about changed circumstances?  

Lastly, I happen to just think it is terrible policy.  I actually think it will increase volatility, add non-productive "mes" to the world who could be doing something more amazing like starting a business or making cupcakes or something but instead simply become a hidden "tax", require a complete rethink of our entire charitable giving edifice***, and immediately affect and adjust pricing of all assets, because like it or not, taxes like this are likely to affect the macro view of asset value.   

*Well, not actually me, because I am awesome, fun, pretty scary, and entirely unique.  If there were lots of me the world would be a f*cking amazing place full of efficiency, stardust, pain and kittens.

**Note that the proposals aren't necessarily net worth proposals.  

***Ok, we should do that anyhow.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

But, if you are proposing as far-reaching government spending plans as are Sanders and Warren, you do need to address the elephant in the room, which is that it has to be paid for.  And, look, let's be clear, their tax reforms DO NOT PAY for all their policies. They are just as funny "math" as our budget assumptions in general.  But, to propose the policy without a payfor would look really stupid.

My first reaction is to agree with this - enthusiastically - because it's a large part of why I've always been dismissive and even derisive of Bernie for well over a decade.  But (and it's a Sir Mixalot sized but), I'm not sure that's being fair to Sanders and Warren, which is personally important that I try to do for...I dunno, my weird-ass ethics.  If Warren becomes the nominee (I still don't think Sanders has a chance), she will be distinctly the most leftist (non-incumbent) Democratic nominee ever.  FDR and LBJ may have governed with as much (or even more) social engineering, but not as candidates.  I guess maybe McGovern is close, but overall I don't want to apply a different standard to them just because they're ideologically unique (at least on the left), so let's compare.

First, there's the low hanging fruit.  Virtually every Republican candidate/nominee promises broad tax cuts that are accounted for by the magical invisible hand.  Second, in terms of Dem candidates, they do often campaign on pretty "far-reaching" plans, at least from the status quo.  The difference between the status quo circa 2008 and the ACA was pretty significant.  Perhaps not as significant as now to MFA, but I'd think it's fair to compare it to, say, now and the public option (which is the second reason - the first and foremost being electoral concerns - I'm happy Warren has hedged there).  I might be way off here, never deeply looked into it, but I think Sanders/Warren's attempts to account for their proposals is fairly on par with most previous candidates.  And really, as you suggest, it's all fuzzy math ultimately anyway.  You're always going to get wide confidence intervals with these types of projections.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'm sure "nuke" is an exaggeration, but I don't think the idea that the Sanders camp "trashing" mainstream Democrats was a big factor in Trump's election is based on the idea that many who voted for Sanders in primaries voted for Trump in the general. I think the idea is more than many Sanders primary voters went for third party candidates or, more likely, didn't vote at all in 2016. Is there any data comparing Sanders-thirdornobody voters in 2016 to Clinton-thirdornobody voters in 2008?

Here are some numbers: https://ballot-access.org/2017/08/25/survey-shows-fewer-than-80-of-bernie-sanders-who-voted-in-general-election-voted-for-hillary-clinton/

Now keep in mind, the 12 percent figure is on the high end of Trump defectors (some data suggests 6 percent went to Trump), and there are very few data points for those who voted independent. 80 percent of Sanders supporters going to Clinton seems safe and accurate, and that isn't a staggering defection as these things go. This thing where Sanders trashing mainstream dems hurting Clinton is what I'd rather see unpacked. Sanders trashing mainstream Democrats having an impact on the presidential election would mean, to me, that he ran the meanest, dirtiest campaign in a primary (ever?). I'd love to see an analysis of how he ran his campaign and how Clinton ran hers against Obama.

In fact, Obama/Clinton got pretty dirty: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22dems.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=REGIWALL

Still, the sentiment about Sanders exists, and I really believe that divide in the party is even worse now. I've heard very good friends who are liberals say that if Warren (or Sanders) got the nom, they'd not vote. If someone like Romney runs because Trump is out for some reason, they'd vote for that Republican. That's mind boggling to me, but it's there. 

Edit: I would like to circle back to the dems I know who won't vote for Warren (or Sanders). I find that really baffling. No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, I'm voting for them over any Republican. I'm the poster boy for a bad Bernie supporter too. I'm a white male who likes Bernie (but think's he's too centrist to be honest). I think the entire capitalist structure of the United States must be smashed and broken. I'm all for a Lenin style redistribution of wealth. But at the end of the fucking day, Buttigeg or Biden is a clear winner over any Republican. I just don't get it. I hear that people like me are inflexible, and perhaps it's true that what I believe is inflexible. What actually happens is a whole other story because I know I hold a position most people don't. I guess I'm willing to compromise, whereas some of my moderate comrades are not.

Whoever wins this Dem primary is likely facing the prospect of huge factions of the party staying home handing the election back to Trump (or whomever is running if Trump is removed, doesn't run, whatever). 

Circling back to Sanders defectors, the idea that Sanders represents the far left could be not true if it was truly his supporters that went to Trump. Instead of radical lefties, maybe they're all these independent voters I keep hearing about. As a radical lefty myself, I can tell you, on election day there was no choice involved. I voted for Clinton without reservation. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Yes, and while Sanders-3rd/non voters are more prevalent, the empirics suggest they would have voted 3rd party, or not voted, regardless of Sanders' primary success.  In other words, that group tended not to vote for the "establishment" Democratic nominee.

True, but Sanders' extending his campaign beyond a reasonable point didn't help anyone. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was going to be more difficult to get his voters to agree to vote for Clinton and thus a push for unity needed to begin much earlier than it did. It also didn't help that Sanders and to increasingly get more negative to keep his campaign alive. Sanders prolonged primary challenge was not what cost Clinton the election, but it did play some roll in it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Snips the so called Jace's post

Look Jace, I know you're cynical about these things, and often times you're right to feel that way, but you're wrong here. Ethical individuals inside the government and in NGOs are probably our best hope to take Trump down. The only reason we're even having these hearings is because someone saw something and said something, and thank god s/he did. 

[felice]

14 hours ago, Ran said:

I just think a wealth tax is the wrong way to go about it because it's not really the fault of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett that the American people and the American government made choices that dovetailed with their leading businesses which then allowed them to become very wealthy.

It's not your fault if a bank error deposits a million bucks in your account. That doesn't make it wrong for the bank to take the money back.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Property is pretty easy to assess. How do you assess the value of an entirely private company, however? Most don't really get valued until sold.  How do you assess the value of all of a wealthy person's holdings? Not just equities and homes and estates, but art objects and other collectibles whose value is higher than any retail price tag they may have had? How do assess every item of worth, like clothing, jewelry, watches, pens, etc., etc.? I don't know exactly how many properties there are in the United States, but every property owner almost certainly has a hundred times that many individual items of some sort of monetary value as part of their net worth. If I calculated my net worth at the moment, I've a library of a few hundred books -- how are those valued?

Set the threshold at a lot higher than "some sort of monetary value". Eg only count items or collections valued at $100,000 or more - your books clearly aren't going to qualify so there's no need to calculate their value. And won't art objects etc generally be insured? Use the insured value for calculating tax. Private companies are more tricky, but surely a reasonable estimate could be made based on the annual profit?