Tommy DJ said:

He's the type of dude who has to deduce everything into raw economic numbers generated through a cost benefit analysis.

Which is why he'd support Kansas' economic policy because it's looks alright so long as you ignore the gutting of literally every public service from roads to Medicaid to education to emergency services.

He's literally the guy who argued that the strict detention regime we have in Australia is a necessity because basically torturing a few dozens is better than letting people die. It's just an amazingly misanthropic stance to claim the "ends justify the means" when we're trying to justify mental, physical and sexual torture.

Click to expand...

Dude is out of his freaking mind. Trying to have a rational discussion with him which relies on value judgements is like talking to a chat bot.

darkace said:

He quoted the guy who wrote the report, who said: In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna need the link to the report (I'm on mobile so it's not gonna be easy for me to search for it)

I rather read the actual report to draw conclusions from the data it presents rather than rely on an edit that shows a table with little context

Whether the US has the most progressive tax structure is one thing (are we to include state tax structures in to this considering this topic is about the state of Kansas) and proving that it is overly progressive and thus harming economic activity is another.

darkace said:

Funnily enough I've just done some research on this and it looks like an unsolved question. Friedman and co. argued that they didn't, while more modern researchers are evenly split.

Click to expand...

So if you consider saving to be spending, what you're saying is we should tax saving like other forms of spending.

Or am I mistaken?

I wonder if it would literally kill a politician to admit they were wrong instead of using PR to spin it into horseshit.

darkace said:

So I can watch a bunch of people attempt to discuss things they don't understand? .

Click to expand...

hahaha, oh my. whee.

Piecake said:

It will be interesting to see what sort of republican Kansas puts forward and whether or not the people elect him.

If a democrat gets elected, I wonder how long it takes for Republicans to start blaming the democrat for the economic disaster that Brownback caused.

Click to expand...

Zero day. Brownback blamed Obama for it in order to get re-elected and people ate it up.

In other news, Kansans are more enthusiastic than ever to vote for more Republicans.

I will just mildly note that when I studied micro and macro economics at the university of Stockholm, it was repeatedly started that when you take an objective decision on macro issues, you consult a wide array of experts and papers. Because depending on the inputs and models used you get different answers.

So everytime I hear somebody going on, with 100% certainty about the order of things and what works and doesn't seem to realize the above, I get a bit ... doubtful of their claims.

(I'm not a proponent of flat taxes, not the least from a standpoint of social cohesion and a scewing away from plutocracy that I feel it fails to address)

Click to expand...

.

If only there was an election coming up where they could fire the people that caused this fuckup of gigantic proportions.

Nah. Obviously this is the liberals fault, with their witchcraft and telekinesis influencing red blooded patriotic leaders.

The kicker is that we're constantly going to be bailing out this failed experiment, because you can't let people suffer. But it's the minorities and illegals that stress the system.

darkace said:

So I can watch a bunch of people attempt to discuss things they don't understand? I've repeatedly said that Kansas wouldn't see any large-scale positive measurable effects from its policies, and that the short-term would be painful because it's not possible for governments to defeat the business cycle with fiscal policy. I was just surprised to see that Kansas hadn't literally been nuked given the rhetoric.

Brownback's policies aren't good, and I've repeatedly said that. The sole reform I support him in is moving to taxing consumption rather than income, which is good policy when properly offset with spending cuts. This is dumb.

Click to expand...

...

Taxing consumption is stupid though...

Not only does it incentivize savings vs spending (besides essentials), or spending in lesser taxed states or tax heavens, it also VASTLY over-burdens the poor in terms of ratio of basic need spending vs income.

Elandyll said:

...

Taxing consumption is stupid though...

Not only does it incentivize savings vs spending (besides essentials), or spending in lesser taxed states or tax heavens, it also VASTLY over-burdens the poor in terms of ratio of basic need spending vs income.

Click to expand...

The counter to that is that you give people credits for basic needs, so that people at the low end of incomes don't end up paying much in net taxes. However, that still doesn't say anything about the impact of taxes on people making $100,000 a year and those making $1,000,000 a year. People making a lot of money don't spend anywhere near as much money as they make per year.

Interesting discussion here about income tax versus consumption tax. As a Swede I feel the customary compulsion to jump in to explain to the world how it works here, and why everyone should do it our way.

I think many people here on gaf would want a Scandinavian-type welfare system, with public healthcare, over a year of paid parental leave and free education. What many of you don't seem to realize, is that to be able to afford Scandinavian-type welfare systems, you don't only need Scandinavian tax rates (they are much higher in Scandinavia than in the US) but also Scandinavian tax brackets. The top marginal income tax rate in Sweden is around 56.6 % (with slight variations depending on the rates for local government where you live) and I think many here would support that, but you also have to be aware that the top tax bracket that gets this rate starts at annual incomes of around $65000. We also have a value added sales tax (consumption tax) at 30 % (though with much lower rates for certain things, such as food)

As a social democrat (by ideology, I don't vote for them though because the social democratic party is too watered down at the moment; this is ok, though, because we have proportional representation, so my vote isn't wasted), I still think it's worth it, but you have to be aware of the implications of the policies (you think) you support.

I think American top tax rates should be increased even though that alone would not be nearly enough to pay for a Scandinavian welfare system. Increasing the top rates is necessary just in and of itself in order to combat your democratic issues of having a way too wealthy class, which has the economic means to far too heavily influence policy.

I realize that changing to a Scandinavian-type tax system would need to take a VERY long time, as the current situation for the working class and lower middle class in America is bad enough that it would be impossible for them to survive such sweeping changes overnight. The situation for them would need to improve significantly before such changes become feasible.

TLDR: Democratic socialists (and their leaders) in the US need to temper their expectations, and eventually accept and embrace the fact that you can't pay for universally free (well with some nominal fees to discourage waste) healthcare, free education and dignity-allowing income security only by squeezing the rich. That is a good thing to do in and of itself, but to be able to pay for all that good stuff, nearly everyone needs to contribute. It is a requirement for democratic socialism.

Also, I agree with darkace that the biggest problem in the USA is not an insufficiently progressive tax code, but rather far too small redistributional systems. In order to be able to afford Scandinavian style redistribution, you need a tax system that is far less progressive than the current system (in terms of how big a share is paid by the richest parts of the population). The gains are well worth it though.