U.S. Politics - a tale of two conventions

[Guy Kilmore]

Right. They are price sensitive. Didn't say they weren't. Didn't say the sales taxes don't marginally affect those with less. I agree with all of that. Doesn't change the fact that when you pay sales tax you aren't interfacing with the government. The vendor bears that burden.

I might be being dense here then as I am not sure what you are getting at. Is it that the vendor is the one who "physically" hands the money to the government? If that is the case, I don't think that there is any real significance here as everyone involved in the transaction is aware of the entity that is responsible for why the price on the receipt is higher than that of the sticker.

ETA: That would be like me saying that the post office worker deals with more with the reprecussions of my energy bill because he is the one who delivers the bill to me and brings the payment to the energy company.

[Sci-2]

Obama and Romney tied under the Real Clear average.

[Ser Greguh]

So Daily Kos has compiled a list of some of the comments generated from Fox Nation during/after Michelle Obama's speech. I have to say, it is disgusting:

http://www.dailykos....et-wookie-story

Mostly I'm depressed that they apparently don't know how to spell "Wookiee".

[Guest Raidne]

What's this about historic Polish communities and GM plants?

It's the famous Poletown case. Eminent domain and such. Conservatives passed Michigan's statutory bar on exercises of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

On the tax issue - I can't dismiss it out of hand because it's a reasonable enough position that Zabz can write a few paragraphs in favor of the position. I don't agree, necessarily, but it's a position worthy of respect and consideration, and one that's, you know, interesting to discuss over drinks. If you guys like to trade one-liners over drinks about how dumb everyone who doesn't agree with you must be, that's cool, because I don't have to drink with you.

On the actual issue of whether everyone should pay taxes, versus the issue I raised of whether everyone who thinks everyone should pay taxes should be ridiculed and marginalized - I'll address it in the other thread, because it's not a currently proposed political position of any party and it is a larger policy issue with a philosophical justification.

[Sci-2]

I read ( :ack: ) them all- some people never grow up it seems.

Thinking about this racist/sexist example, and the aforementioned homophobic bigotry, I take heart in Sady Dolye's conclusion to her Men Call Me Things Round Up:

And they’re not doing it because we’re “weak” or “hypersensitive.” They hope to Christ that we’re weak and sensitive, because then harassment would shut us up, but they know that we’re really not. They go so incredibly hard against us — send the death threats, the rape threats, the over-the-top “you’re just a cum receptacle” — in the hopes that something, anything, will be enough to stop us. They know they have to push that hard. Because they know that we’re strong. They know that we’ve got thick skins. And they know that we won’t put up with bullshit. Which makes us scary, which makes us threatening, which makes us “aggressive” and “vicious” and “vindictive” bitches who might shut them down.

They don’t do this because women, and people who speak out against sexism online, are delicate, fragile flowers. They do this because we’re tougher than they can imagine, tougher than they’ll ever have to be, and tougher than they can personally handle. They need to shut us down, to scare us, because if we keep going we just might win. We just might end sexism. They’ll do anything to stop us from getting that done.

[Shryke]

Obama and Romney tied under the Real Clear average.

The Real Clear Politics average is ... not that helpful. It's national polling in the first place (ie - useless) but also doesn't actually parse any of the data.

So they include shit like, say, Rasmussen's blatant attempt to engineer a Romney convention bounce.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

It's the famous Poletown case. Eminent domain and such. Conservatives passed Michigan's statutory bar on exercises of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

On the tax issue - I can't dismiss it out of hand because it's a reasonable enough position that Zabz can write a few paragraphs in favor of the position. I don't agree, necessarily, but it's a position worthy of respect and consideration, and one that's, you know, interesting to discuss over drinks. If you guys like to trade one-liners over drinks about how dumb everyone who doesn't agree with you must be, that's cool, because I don't have to drink with you.

On the actual issue of whether everyone should pay taxes, versus the issue I raised of whether everyone who thinks everyone should pay taxes should be ridiculed and marginalized - I'll address it in the other thread, because it's not a currently proposed political position of any party and it is a larger policy issue with a philosophical justification.

Thanks Raidne. Like I said in my original post it's a position that I have a lot of sympathy with. It's not necessarily the correct answer, nor is it (as is pointed out and as I acknowledged) strictly true under the current system since people who buy things generally (in most, but not all states) pay sales tax, at the very least. That said, in my ideal system, everybody probably would probably pay some minimal "income" tax (which would probably look a lot more like a gross receipts tax, because I'd get rid of CG preferences, the surtaxes for the various social insurance programs, and most deductions (not sure what I'd do about the deductibility of state taxes, by the by) if they are working. I would have a set of (probably fairly steeply) progressive marginal rates. I do think that the physical filing of a tax return with at least a symbolic amount on it is meaningful from a pyschological perspective at all levels of government. If you think I'm full of $hit, that's fine. So do opposing counsel half the time. I'm used to it :D.

I (for obvious reasons) think that tax policy is inherently interesting, and something I'd definitely like to debate over drinks (in a friendly fashion).

[Shryke]

I find the idea utterly dumb because it's based on a faulty premise.

[Sci-2]

The Real Clear Politics average is ... not that helpful. It's national polling in the first place (ie - useless) but also doesn't actually parse any of the data.

So they include shit like, say, Rasmussen's blatant attempt to engineer a Romney convention bounce.

Yeah I was thinking the same about the CNN tie, a way to bring in ratings by making the race seem closer.

I know the ABC evening news reported a tie even when the RCP average had Obama at +4.

eta:

I find the idea utterly dumb because it's based on a faulty premise.

You wanna gives give us a little more meat to chew on?

[Oblique]

The Real Clear Politics average is ... not that helpful. It's national polling in the first place (ie - useless) but also doesn't actually parse any of the data.

So they include shit like, say, Rasmussen's blatant attempt to engineer a Romney convention bounce.

So what's the consensus on the accuracy of fivethirtyeight around here? Pretty good? Or not? That's the place I look at most frequently....

[Shryke]

So what's the consensus on the accuracy of fivethirtyeight around here? Pretty good? Or not? That's the place I look at most frequently....

Your best bet imo.

They look at the data that matters when calculating who's likely to win and generally study the content of polling and check the accuracy of their results and so on.

At the same time, remember they are still just using polling data.

[ThinkerX]

I don't mean that the cost of the tax isn't a burden. Sales taxes are regressive (which is why I'm against a National Sales Tax or a flat tax, btw). However, the tax is simply an inherent part of almost every economic transaction within the state. The cost of even basic goods has this tax baked in, in that the cost is paid at the cash register

Ok...getting into the 'squeezing blood out of a stone' thing here. Straight up and flat out, more and more people in the US are just barely getting by, and for those people 'sales taxes' HURT.

So...you going to go the sales tax route, impose it where the money is at: Credit Default whatevers, Securities, all those wonderfull things - by now the claimed value of those products is somewhere between 'really really high' and 'completely insane'. So...sales tax them to the tune of say 5% of the claimed value each and every time one changes hands. Probably generate enough money to pay off the deficit in less than a decade.

[Ormond]

Speaking of fivethirtyeight, here is Nate Silver's analysis of the present "tie" in the polls:

1. Polls usually overrate the standing of the candidate who just held his convention.

2. Mitt Romney just held his convention. But he seems to have gotten a below-average bounce out of it. The national polls that have come out since the Republican National Convention have shown an almost exact tie in the race.

3. If the polls overrate Mr. Romney, and they show only a tie for him now, then he will eventually lose.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Ok...getting into the 'squeezing blood out of a stone' thing here. Straight up and flat out, more and more people in the US are just barely getting by, and for those people 'sales taxes' HURT.

So...you going to go the sales tax route, impose it where the money is at: Credit Default whatevers, Securities, all those wonderfull things - by now the claimed value of those products is somewhere between 'really really high' and 'completely insane'. So...sales tax them to the tune of say 5% of the claimed value each and every time one changes hands. Probably generate enough money to pay off the deficit in less than a decade.

Yup, sales taxes increase the cost of goods and services and dispropotionately burden folks with less. They are regressive. That is absolutely indisputable.

If I understand your proposal, you are, in effect, proposing a "stamp tax" on transfers of securities. Many jurisdictions have them. They tend to be territorial. The one I am most familiar with, the UK stamp duty, is, I believe 50 basis points (a UK lawyer should correct me) on the value of a transfer of UK securities. If the transfer physically occurs outside of the UK, I don't believe that it must be paid over, BUT, (again, a UK expert should correct me), I believe the tricky thing is that you can't enforce the instrument of transfer in a UK court without payment of the duty. New York had one for years (with an exception for market exchanges), that was repealed about 20 years ago. So, they exist. We currently don't have one at the National level. It simply imposes a tax on the movement of interests,whether or not there is a gain. It's definitely an approach.

[ThinkerX]

If I understand your proposal, you are, in effect, proposing a "stamp tax" on transfers of securities. Many jurisdictions have them. They tend to be territorial. The one I am most familiar with, the UK stamp duty, is, I believe 50 basis points (a UK lawyer should correct me) on the value of a transfer of UK securities. If the transfer physically occurs outside of the UK, I don't believe that it must be paid over, BUT, (again, a UK expert should correct me), I believe the tricky thing is that you can't enforce the instrument of transfer in a UK court without payment of the duty. New York had one for years (with an exception for market exchanges), that was repealed about 20 years ago. So, they exist. We currently don't have one at the National level. It simply imposes a tax on the movement of interests,whether or not there is a gain. It's definitely an approach.

Pretty much. Done correctly on a national level it should generate a *lot* of revenue.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Pretty much. Done correctly on a national level it should generate a *lot* of revenue.

Exemptions for transfers into/within retirement plans? Loans? Equity and debt issuances? Any exceptions for small businesses? Transfers in bankruptcies? Applicable to all transfers on US exchanges no matter by whom? (I'm not opposed to such a thing, I'm trying to understand the contours).

[ThinkerX]

Exemptions for transfers into/within retirement plans? Loans? Equity and debt issuances? Any exceptions for small businesses? Transfers in bankruptcies? Applicable to all transfers on US exchanges no matter by whom? (I'm not opposed to such a thing, I'm trying to understand the contours).

A can of worms indeed. My initial thought was just securities and the 'financial instruments' directly devised from them, possibly including stocks as well. Supposedly, there is a *lot* of money moving around via those instruments, enough, apparently to crash civilization if not dealt with (sorry, the more paranoid sites got the better of me for a moment).

But...get the ball rolling with taking the old New York version you mentioned before, dusting it off and updating it, and applying it nationally, maybe? Beyond that, some sort of 'personal deduction' or 'scaled rate' to avoid screwing over the smaller players (as per the income tax, only applied to this).

Part of the idea would be to try to curtail the creation of the 'stupidly risky' deals in the first place - aka the ones which blew up and took much of the world economy with them a few years ago. So, deals like that would have a giant amount of 'tax' associated with them.

[snake]

Republicans manage to make the Democrats amend their party platform that they had only adopted a day before. They had to put back in that they recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and some references to God. I can't help but find that so hilarious.

Link.

[TerraPrime]

Republicans manage to make the Democrats amend their party platform that they had only adopted a day before. They had to put back in that they recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and some references to God. I can't help but find that so hilarious.

Link.

Why the fug does the U.S. need to affirm that Israel's capital is Jerusalem? Like, what the hell? Do we also affirm that Beijing is China's capital? The mind, it boggles.

[Shryke]

Why the fug does the U.S. need to affirm that Israel's capital is Jerusalem? Like, what the hell? Do we also affirm that Beijing is China's capital? The mind, it boggles.

Because the actual US government, along with I believe everyone else, says Tel Aviv is the Israeli capital because that's what it's supposed to be under the host of land deals and such no one actually follows.

It's a huge shitstorm no one wants to put their foot in. There's a reason when Romney talked about it on his Israel trip it was considered a gaff.