Or the US in the 1950s.
Which, in the absence of an alternative source of revenue, just furthers the death spiral of municipal services.
Ah, so we don’t need Medicare or any other part of the Great Society.
Plan to be truthful about the need to raise middle class taxes as part of that campaign strategy?
What was the size of the US government in the 1950s as compared to today? I’ll give you a hint - it is much larger today, both in absolute size and is also a larger percentage of a (much) larger GDP.
Regards,
Shodan
Again, when the top 1% own more than the bottom 90%, I think there’s plenty of revenue available at the top.
Again, that’s wealth, and the highest wealth tax in the world is 2.5%. That country is facing bankruptcy, BTW, so we’ll go with the highest wealth tax of a country not facing bankruptcy, which is 1.5%.
Why? Spain’s bankruptcy is not because of its wealth tax.
It’s not the immediate cause, but Spain’s poor fiscal pollcies certainly contributed. Sovereign debt crises always have a trigger, but the trigger is rarely itself to blame.
Like California and Illinois, next recession is probably going to push them off the edge. Of course, liberals will blame it on the totally unexpected event that was the recession.
And the way to get at that wealth is as it is accumulated and as it is transferred. That means higher income taxes in the top brackets. That means much higher taxes on large estates. That means taxing capital gains and interest income the same as other income (with possible inflation adjustments).
Let’s not pretend that (sigh) it just can’t be done. We’ve done it before.
With tons of loopholes. that’s the part you’re forgetting. the effective tax rate has never been more than 30% on anything major, whether income, capital gains, dividends, or estates.
Ever wonder why the Kennedys have had so many deaths yet their estate is still as rich as ever? It’s a pretty easy tax to avoid.
Loopholes are a problem, because they are a way for signatories of the theoretical contract to weasel out of its commitments. But rather than throw our hands up, let’s put them to that burden, shall we? We can fight the loopholes ad hoc.
Absolutely, but as I said before you have to recruit different kinds of candidates. Just trying to push Democrats to the left won’t cut it. You’re going to need honest to goodness working class candidates. You can’t fight the plutocracy by electing the plutocracy. Even FDR, the “traitor to his class” made sure that the tax code was riddled with loopholes. Only a common sense working class-occupied Congress will pass a tax code under 20 pages.
Nonsense. There are plenty of wealthy Democrats who are inviting more rigorous taxation of their wealth. Warren Buffett and Bill Maher are two outspoken examples. Your mistake is in assuming that everyone is venal and self-serving.
BrainGlutton, to get back to your earlier point about regaining control of statehouses, the only thing I can think of would be a federal election law which puts a stop to gerrymandering. How to do that is the question. A federal commission to set districts? I have a feeling that would not be politically popular. Districts set by algorithm? Not sure how you’d frame that.
No need to re-invent the wheel. Let’s do it like the Canadians do it.
And could we hit the 60% mark with such a proposal?
If it were properly marketed, I think so. Unfair is unfair – how many voters, even Pubs, actually think they have a personal interest in their party’s gerrymandering?
A lot of the people I know approach politics as though they were rooting for a football team. And right now, in the view of Republicans, their team is winning the gerrymandering game. I doubt an appeal to fairness is going to work with even moderate Republicans.
Having said that, I guess you could construct a push poll on the issue that would get you to 60%. But even so, I would bury this one deep on the list.
I don’t know what “hard left” even means in the present context, just that the Democrats shouldn’t be afraid of promising some things without a lot of present active support, and then making a case for them.
At the risk of sounding like George Costanza, “money for people” might work:
More direct grants to higher education, less money on loans.
The government could forgive some existing student loans, too.
Increased negative income taxes–of which Earned Income Credit is an example, but not necessarily on that model.
Of course, given the economic theory of the party, a federal minimum wage over $12/hour is more likely.
Federal hiring on a New Deal scale. Hire workers to rebuild the decaying and unsustainable bits of our power grid, and so forth.
I’d also suggest ending quotas for immigration from Latin America. If someone is here illegally, I want it to be because he messed up, not because we just weren’t letting anyone more in that year.