US Politics: Vaguely above average Tuesday

[Rippounet]

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The people this targets are not Joe Blow Schmoe.  These are folks who have managed to assemble massive amounts of wealth.  If there is a loophole to maintain that wealth do you really think most of them will not take it?

You're still basically arguing that criminals don't obey laws.

Anyway, let's throw in the data on the French wealth tax. Even with an insane amount of loopholes, minimal controls, tons of legal ways of evading taxes... etc, the revenue kept growing. And this was a wealth tax that had people declaring the value of their wealth themselves ; not only that, but there was a special provision called "verrou de Bercy" that shielded most cases of fraud from prosecution (yes, you read that right).
From the perspective of the super-wealthy, the French wealth tax was as voluntary as it could be. Many avoided it indeed (since everything was done to make avoidance easy), and this was in fact presented as the reason for its abolition. But it was always a fallacious argument.
First, because the revenue generated kept growing, so fraud and evasion were never that bad. Revenue more than doubled between 2003 and 2018 from 2,1bn to 5,4bn.
Second, because using a loophole to abolish a law is an insane argument. Would anyone in their right mind argue that laws punishing murder should be abolished because some people keep committing murder despite those laws? Of course not. If there is a loophole you do what you can to close it.
The heart of the matter? The right made sure that the wealth tax had no teeth, then abolished it saying that it couldn't be enforced. It was done so clumsily that it shocked about 70% of the French (polls go from 69 to 82%), was one of the main reasons behind the Yellow Vests movement, and will give the presidency to a Le Pen two years from now.

Giving up is an ideological position in itself. Fuck the neo-liberals. And fuck the "pragmatism" behind which the neo-liberals love to hide. You think you're being smart Scot, but you're only showing that you've drunk the koolaid.

[Maithanet]

It is very disappointing that Biden voted for the Iraq War.  There is also quite a bit of evidence that his thinking on foreign policy and military adventurism has changed quite a bit in the 18 years since then.  Which matches the Democratic electorate as a whole, which has a much stronger anti-war wing than in 2002.  For this reason, a Biden administration is extremely unlikely to untake any sort of military action like the Iraq war.  Will it continue the drone strikes and special forces actions, which continue to poison international public opinion against America?  Yes.  Will it engage in saber rattling to improve its position, which could potentially dangerously escalate? Almost assuredly. 

It is accurate to say that Sanders has been more consistent and better on the Iraq war and warmongering generally.  But Biden's foreign policy story does not end with the 2002 Iraq vote, and his record since then has been much better. 

Ugh, I can't believe I have to carry Biden's water for the next seven months.  Thanks ObamaDemocratic primary voters. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But Biden's foreign policy story does not end with the 2002 Iraq vote, and his record since then has been much better. 

I don't wanna harp on this too much, but it does grind my gears so I'm gonna.  This false equivalency that implicates Biden as much as the neocons that actually perpetuated the war throughout the aughts - when many of the casualties referred to actually occurred - is absolute bullshit.  John Kerry voted just like Biden did.  And then a year after the war started he was the Democratic nominee running against Dubya with his primary message being the Iraq War was a mistake.  This "active supporter" depiction is an absurdly reductive false narrative.  Almost like blaming everybody that initially supported going into Vietnam even if by 68 they were getting beaten in the head for opposing it.

[Fez]

Good for Pelosi. Though I do wish they would do more to secure the capitol building itself.

Boss line too.

[Larry of the Lawn]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

...Until he wasn't, which was pretty quick.  Again, this isn't like referring to McCain or Jeb Bush and their steadfast support of the Iraq War.  There are important distinctions there, and Biden was one of the first prominent Democrats to voice opposition to the war.  Does he get credit for that?  I understand if you don't think so, but it's a clear indicator he was not all on board Dubya's neocon world-building and rather was simply a reflection of the rally round the flag effect - which most Democrats in Congress were at the time.  Very few dissenters then.  Yes, Sanders was one, great.

Um, you're gonna have to be more specific that that.  Everyone was talking about going into Iraq during the Clinton administration.  We bombed them, twice, during the Clinton administration.

I know it's the Intercept but said what he said:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/

Quote

Biden told Ritter that no matter how thorough the inspections, the only way to eliminate the threat was to remove Saddam Hussein. “The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place to deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you nor I believe he’s ever going to abandon as long as he’s in place,” Biden said, characterizing former President Bill Clinton’s administration’s policy. “You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

Here's Biden to the Brookings institute in July 2003:

Quote

Some in my own party have said that it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and believe that it’s not worth the cost, whatever benefit may flow from our engagement in Iraq. But the cost of not acting against Saddam I think would have been much greater, and so is the cost, and so will be the cost of not finishing this job. The President of the United States is a bold leader, and he is popular. The stakes are high, and the need for leadership is great. I wish he’d use some of his stored-up popularity to make what I admit is not a very popular case, but I, and many others, will support him when he makes the case

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're still basically arguing that criminals don't obey laws.

Anyway, let's throw in the data on the French wealth tax. Even with an insane amount of loopholes, minimal controls, tons of legal ways of evading taxes... etc, the revenue kept growing. And this was a wealth tax that had people declaring the value of their wealth themselves ; not only that, but there was a special provision called "verrou de Bercy" that shielded most cases of fraud from prosecution (yes, you read that right).
From the perspective of the super-wealthy, the French wealth tax was as voluntary as it could be. Many avoided it indeed (since everything was done to make avoidance easy), and this was in fact presented as the reason for its abolition. But it was always a fallacious argument.
First, because the revenue generated kept growing, so fraud and evasion were never that bad. Revenue more than doubled between 2003 and 2018 from 2,1bn to 5,4bn.
Second, because using a loophole to abolish a law is an insane argument. Would anyone in their right mind argue that laws punishing murder should be abolished because some people keep committing murder despite those laws? Of course not. If there is a loophole you do what you can to close it.
The heart of the matter? The right made sure that the wealth tax had no teeth, then abolished it saying that it couldn't be enforced. It was done so clumsily that it shocked about 70% of the French (polls go from 69 to 82%), was one of the main reasons behind the Yellow Vests movement, and will give the presidency to a Le Pen two years from now.

Giving up is an ideological position in itself. Fuck the neo-liberals. And fuck the "pragmatism" behind which the neo-liberals love to hide. You think you're being smart Scot, but you're only showing that you've drunk the koolaid.

You say yourself that people dodged this tax left and right.  Part of why people accept taxation is that it is relatively even handed.  If the tax is created with the expectation of avoidance or refusal to pay what purpose does it serve.  Why not just ask the wealthy to donate what they believe is fair to the State?  It would have about the same impact.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I find it interesting that we still hold it against people who supported the war, but largely give the same people a pass for their terrible stances on LGBTQ+ rights two decades ago. Because I’m not sure which is actually worse (and there’s probably no way to really know). For what it’s worth, opposition to the war and support for LGBT rights are two of the four subjects that got me into politics, with the others being the environment and the debt, and lord knows we’ve done jack about those two subjects.

On an unrelated subject, looks like that dead cat bounce is just a dead cat.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Not going into the gun point discussion, but I have a dimmer view of our species. You're asking everyone to act in good faith. Its not happening. There are going to be bad actors. I feel like it would just be giving bigger economies another avenue to exploit or blunt small economies. 

I think global taxation is fair, especially as economies go increasing digital, but how we are going to achieve it is a very big problem. I assume Scot's concern is enforcement. I'm sceptical on the fairness of how it will be achieved.

@Mlle. Zabzie I'm just bitter about it being a strong-arm agreement rather than a handshake agreement. I feel even worse reading Ran's comment that the US isn't even holding up their end of this lopsided bargain.

Honestly, it was only "strong arm" in the sense that the US has such a big share of global markets and could basically say to a bank that it couldn't bank with Americans without significant penalties (a withholding tax at source).  The EU has a lot of similar leverage, frankly and is using it. I mean heck, India put in place a non-resident capital gains tax that definitely changed behavior. 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Oh FFS Scot this is why I keep bringing up FATCA. What FATCA showed is that if a major economic power (like the US, but also the EU, and possibly China) decides that it really wants to go after its citizens' wealth it can actually do so. Throw in some measure of international cooperation and even half-assed measures would achieve something. It doesn't matter that much if a minority will always find a way around them as long as we start recognizing that it is in everyone's interest for States to cooperate on those issues. On some level many of Piketty's proposals are only meant to raise awareness, and like it or not he's already had some success, even in the US.

This discussion is a bit like me saying we should have laws against crime and you endlessly repeating that criminals won't obey laws anyway so we have to be prepared to shoot them in the face. You're just not interested in discussing the problem.

Nah - FATCA isn't a really a revenue raiser; it's information gathering (which then permits enforcement).  Look, you can dream about all kinds of things, but the practical answer (and I'm all about practical here) is that a wealth tax will not be found to be constitutional in the US without a constitutional amendment or a complete turnover in the court, so will not happen in my lifetime.

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You say yourself that people dodged this tax left and right.  Part of why people accept taxation is that it is relatively even handed.  If the tax is created with the expectation of avoidance or refusal to pay what purpose does it serve.  Why not just ask the wealthy to donate what they believe is fair to the State?  It would have about the same impact.

Well, this is not wrong in terms of tax policy.  That is, in formulating a tax, in terms of effectiveness, it should be clear, produce consistent results, and apply neutrally (ie similarly situated taxpayers should get the same result).  This is why I am so opposed to the current formulation of our estate tax.  It is also why in general I'm opposed to an annual wealth tax, but am VERY in favor of a REAL estate tax that applies to every inheritance. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

Good for Pelosi. Though I do wish they would do more to secure the capitol building itself.

Boss line too.

This is why it’s hard to cancel political events. Imagine what kind of message it would send. Sometimes you have to do stupid things to keep the even stupider public calm.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is why it’s hard to cancel political events. Imagine what kind of message it would send. Sometimes you have to do stupid things to keep the even stupider public calm.

I get that. But there's a difference between campaign rallies and actual governing. The later is necessary and has no replacement, the former has lots of alternatives.

In fact, is there any evidence that rallies themselves actually juice turnout or swing voters?

[Rippounet]

Oh the US is fucked anyway. Information sharing could still give other countries options nonetheless. 

[Proudfeet]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Honestly, it was only "strong arm" in the sense that the US has such a big share of global markets and could basically say to a bank that it couldn't bank with Americans without significant penalties (a withholding tax at source).  The EU has a lot of similar leverage, frankly and is using it. I mean heck, India put in place a non-resident capital gains tax that definitely changed behavior. 

"Only" Also, I feel that it is very much a one-way street. You're more knowledgeable than I am, but I'm explicitly asked whether I'm a citizen of the US every time I apply for something at a financial institution. I'm not asked if I'm a citizen of an EU member state at all. Does the US collect information so that they are able to share it when asked?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Oh the US is fucked anyway. Information sharing could still give other countries options nonetheless. 

Sincerely, if the tax is essentially voluntary why call it a tax at all?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Nah - FATCA isn't a really a revenue raiser; it's information gathering (which then permits enforcement).  Look, you can dream about all kinds of things, but the practical answer (and I'm all about practical here) is that a wealth tax will not be found to be constitutional in the US without a constitutional amendment or a complete turnover in the court, so will not happen in my lifetime.

It will absolutely happen in your lifetime in one form or another, especially if you make it to the Age of Cyborgs, and that’s only a few decades away.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It will absolutely happen in your lifetime in one form or another, especially if you make it to the Age of Cyborgs, and that’s only a few decades away.  

Huh?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It will absolutely happen in your lifetime in one form or another, especially if you make it to the Age of Cyborgs, and that’s only a few decades away.  

Well, that gives me more time to realize my ambition to become God-Empress.  Takes some pressure off, honestly.

6 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

"Only" Also, I feel that it is very much a one-way street. You're more knowledgeable than I am, but I'm explicitly asked whether I'm a citizen of the US every time I apply for something at a financial institution. I'm not asked if I'm a citizen of an EU member state at all. Does the US collect information so that they are able to share it when asked?

Are you in the US or Europe (I don't know why this is in italics btw, but I can't turn it off)?  In the US providing a W-9 is our very minimal KYC process for banking; also necessary for backup withholding compliance.  In Europe, a lot of what you get asked has as much to do with EU principles.  EU has a different (and much more stringent) KYC process for banking and company formation.  My understanding is that information is shared under competent authority agreements or tax treaties.  While we have a model based on an OECD model, our treaties vary widely from country to country, and also depending on the vintage.  FATCA agreements provide additional information sharing opportunities, BUT depend on the country in question.  here is some information about IGAs.  You will note that it is noted that reciprocity is dependent on the agreement itself.

[Fragile Bird]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On an unrelated subject, looks like that dead cat bounce is just a dead cat.

As I said last week when the market was up, if you are worried take the opportunity to sell. 
Sell the rally is a tactic used in down markets.

The Dow started up almost a 1000 points and is now down 145.

A trader came on CNBC and said that during the Spanish flu the S&P was down 47% over a year, but had two rallies, up 17% and up 22%, continuing it’s fall after each rally.

If you are worried, sell into the rallies. There will be more. This won’t settle out until the epidemic is over.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

I get that. But there's a difference between campaign rallies and actual governing. The later is necessary and has no replacement, the former has lots of alternatives.

In fact, is there any evidence that rallies themselves actually juice turnout or swing voters?

Interesting question, and it’s not something I’ve ever studied. My guess is that they only help build momentum, but they aren’t necessary to sustain it. Still, there’s not much of an immediate chance for Sanders to stop at the moment.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Huh?

???

What was I unclear about, the fact that the masses will tear down the rich in the not too distant future or that technological advances project us to have cyborg like technology in the next 20-50 years?    

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, that gives me more time to realize my ambition to become God-Empress.  Takes some pressure off, honestly.

Good luck with that. Once I get my sharks with laser beams on their frickin’ heads, game over man.