The many vague, and poorly thought up economic policies of the far left.

[Phoenixmgs]

I know people who have given up on owning a house and whatnot due to how impossible it feels now to get the money needed (and by the time you get the money needed, the money needed has gone up and you're right back to not having the money needed).

So they go ahead and treat themselves to nice stuff instead of even trying. They feel they're never going to crawl out of the hole Capitalism has put them in so they might as well at least enjoy life now instead of sacrificing everything to try to get enough money to play in a rigged game. As I stated before, I got stupid lucky with my house purchase but if I were trying now, I could see myself giving up that same way. I legit have no idea how anyone young that didn't sneak in at the buzzer like I did is ever going to be able to afford a house that isn't in bumfuck nowhere.

A mortgage is cheaper per month vs renting, everyone I know that rents (in my area) pays more a month than I do on my mortgage. It only takes a couple years of saving for a down payment. I've never made more than 40K/year (this year I should actually make more for the 1st time, but probably only like 47K though with shit benefits so it's not that much of a bump) and I eat out almost everyday; on Monday/Wednesday/Friday nights, I'm out with friends doing stuff; and on the Weekend, I'm usually busy with friends as well. People just don't know how to manage money and feel they are entitled to so many things. When the mortgage insurance guy came over when I bought my place, he was kinda flabbergasted when he asked me how I save money and I just said "I only buy stuff I need or really want and it seems to work out". I've never made a budget in my life, I just don't waste money on things is all. I literally put everything on my credit card and it's just on autopay (the whole amount, not the minimum) so I never even look at my banking account essentially.

 

[Bedinsis]

I have job security, have never to worry about medical bills, have good working conditions and even 300 days vacation a year [...]

You only have to work 65 days per year?

 

[Gergar12]

Carbon Tax is a good idea.

Vat tax is not. It can't be a progressive tax by design. It will never achieve anything against inequality.

Taxes on work like income tax can be progressive. But they also tend to make work more expensive, increasing outsourcing and actually hurting jobs.

Taxes on capital gains however will primarily affect people with wealth , those whom you actually want to go after. And they can slow speculation and bubbles.

An estate tax would work similarly

This whole "unrealized gains tax" is a uniquely American thing. In most other countries, companies don't hold stupid amounts of unrealized gains to avoid being taxed. It is a situation that only became a thing because the US tax code has some loopholes here. And whenever there is a huge trend in tax avoidance, it is appropriate to do something about it.

Coming from a country with a very robust social security system, with free university education no one fearing medical debt, i have to say
1) it is generally left wing policy that does implement stuff like that
2) It has to be paid and implementing taxes etc. to pay for that are also generally left wing policies.

I mean, i would never want to live in the US. Even if i could earn double the pay there and would have less taxes. I have job security, have never to worry about medical bills, have good working conditions and even 300 days vacation a year, would even if i were to quit on my own get unemployment benefits for a year that are high enough that i would not have to change my lifestyle, will get state based pension when i am old and would even get partially paid care of i needed. Public transport is good enough that i don't need a car. I am in my mid 40s and never owned a car in my life. Food safety is superior as are safety standards in general. My life expectancy is higher (not least because of all the safety standards and the good medical system). I also have a PhD and never had student debt.
Sure, my country is not a superpower. But who cares ?
Sure, i also have to give away more from my paycheck to the government. But i am gladly doing so because i like what we all get in return.



That does not mean that every left wing economic or tax idea is automatically a good idea. It is difficult to make good laws.

I am for an estate tax on the wealthy, but economists after economists have stated that an unrealized gains tax on everyone is a bad idea for the economy and will trigger bad policy outcomes.

 

[Agema]

but economists after economists have stated that an unrealized gains tax on everyone is a bad idea for the economy and will trigger bad policy outcomes.

Sure sure. That might be true, but...

It's funny how often the usual suspect think tanks and media outlets and general gobshites tell us something's an utter disaster and we just cannot do it otherwise the nation will collapse. They do this with any taxes, and climate change policies, other environmental policies, smoking bans, diet campaigns (sugar/fats). They were saying this about the ACA, that it would meltdown the US healthcare services and/or federal budget. You name it, there's a whole army of rent-a-twats to rush out and try and kill it in the public mind before it can get any traction. Some of those things they attacked ended up happening, and the supposed catastrophe never happened.

This looks straight out of the standard PR playbook from the billionaire/business lobby. They lie to us, all the time.

I think I'll reserve judgement until I've seen wider opinion.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

They were saying this about the ACA, that it would meltdown the US healthcare services and/or federal budget.

Remember that we're talking about people who thought that the ACA was a great idea, but Obamacare would destroy the country, even though they were the same thing. They were fed a line and were much, much, much, much, much, much too stupid to think about it.

 

[Gergar12]

Remember that we're talking about people who thought that the ACA was a great idea, but Obamacare would destroy the country, even though they were the same thing. They were fed a line and were much, much, much, much, much, much too stupid to think about it.

Sure sure. That might be true, but...

It's funny how often the usual suspect think tanks and media outlets and general gobshites tell us something's an utter disaster and we just cannot do it otherwise the nation will collapse. They do this with any taxes, and climate change policies, other environmental policies, smoking bans, diet campaigns (sugar/fats). They were saying this about the ACA, that it would meltdown the US healthcare services and/or federal budget. You name it, there's a whole army of rent-a-twats to rush out and try and kill it in the public mind before it can get any traction. Some of those things they attacked ended up happening, and the supposed catastrophe never happened.

This looks straight out of the standard PR playbook from the billionaire/business lobby. They lie to us, all the time.

I think I'll reserve judgement until I've seen wider opinion.

No, there was a consensus among policy experts, not left or right per se, that US healthcare policy is abysmal, has the highest cost, and is the least efficient among OCED countries. The people who hated it were the insurance companies, who were the main villains in that story. Carbon taxes are a type of sin tax, and at least among people who believed in climate change, of whom the majority were climate experts, people agreed that was the best way to go as cap and trade was viewed as a way for Elon Musk just to sell carbon credits. The smoking ban has once again obscured those who engage in bad behavior compared to those who were policy experts. With sugar and fat, it's more like the US operations kept pushing more processed foods, which again were proven bad, but it's only trans fats that are bad, regular fats, and sugar in grapes, for example, aren't. Environmental policy is mixed, anti-nuclear is the green-peace/green party loony-tunes policy made by Simpson-watching idiots who tied themselves to trees vs. the campaign for universal healthcare. Factory and industrial farming for non-processed food like bun cakes is a good thing as it feeds people, pesticides are good as long as they're not being used too much, and agrarian research is a good thing, Organic is made for green party twats, which will make people in poorer countries starve. But generally, no lead paint and gasoline, cleaner rivers, cleaner water, and cleaner air are good things.

The federal budget is complicated, yes, there is a point where the debt becomes a problem, but the US isn't near there yet. However, looney tunes Zimbabwe-style massive printing of dollar bills via post-Keynesianism economic policy will mean hyperinflation. Also, people are sometimes idiots who will vote for someone like Trump, Julius Caesar, or even a Gracchi brothers-like demagogue.

 

[Agema]

No, there was a consensus among policy experts, not left or right per se, that US healthcare policy is abysmal,

Sure, US healthcare overall has a load of massive inefficiencies. But it is maintained by a vast network of vested interests who ensure as little as possible changes, and ragingly assault any significant reformation. The ACA was the pretty much the minimal change possible that would deliver something, and the whole right-wing attack machine went into overdrive. The Democrats only just squeaked the ACA through because they had a supermajority.

Carbon taxes are a type of sin tax, and at least among people who believed in climate change, of whom the majority were climate experts, people agreed that was the best way to go as cap and trade was viewed as a way for Elon Musk just to sell carbon credits. The smoking ban has once again obscured those who engage in bad behavior compared to those who were policy experts. With sugar and fat, it's more like the US operations kept pushing more processed foods, which again were proven bad, but it's only trans fats that are bad, regular fats, and sugar in grapes, for example, aren't.

And why aren't processed, high sugar and high fat foods regulated? Because the usual suspects dash out and trash anything that gets in the way of their freedom to help people to an early grave. Carbon taxes were met with ferocious opposition at the time. This is the point: countless reasonable policies that definitely are not going to crash the economy and might provide huge benefits for individuals and wider society are aggressively attacked by businesses and their super-rich owners who think it's more important that they earn $$$ with minimal inconvenience.

And thus to get to the point, the usual twats dash out articles telling us Kamala Harris's policies are going to destroy the economy. But they're not necessarily true, or even close. They're just trying to persuade the public not to tax their paymasters and they don't care if it's a pack of lies... like they always do.

The federal budget is complicated, yes, there is a point where the debt becomes a problem, but the US isn't near there yet. However, looney tunes Zimbabwe-style massive printing of dollar bills via post-Keynesianism economic policy will mean hyperinflation.

The idea that the USA is going to end up printing dollars at that sort of level is absurd fearmongering - at minimum, it's not going to get there without some other catastrophic crisis you'll be much more worried about. You are just spouting utter bullshit from tawdry scare pieces against post-Keynesianism, because it has economic theories that the right despises.

 

[tstorm823]

The ACA was the pretty much the minimal change possible that would deliver something.

You mean deliver the American people deeper into insurance hell?

 

[Agema]

You mean deliver the American people deeper into insurance hell?

Insurance "hell" is an interesting term, given that lacking health insurance in the USA was often a way to the afterlife.

Totally rethinking healthcare in the USA could be fantastic for the country. You and I both know that will not come from the Republican party, and also that the Republican Party will nearly always have, and use, the power to stop the Democrats from doing so.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Why have you titled the thread referring to the "far left", then spent the post criticising a bunch of mild middle-of-the-road policies and Harris proposals?

That darn Overton Window.

 

[tstorm823]

Totally rethinking healthcare in the USA could be fantastic for the country. You and I both know that will not come from the Republican party, and also that the Republican Party will nearly always have, and use, the power to stop the Democrats from doing so.

This is an issue with the ACA: it makes rethinking healthcare impossible. A rethinking of US healthcare isn't likely to come from or be allowed by Republicans at the federal level, but Republicans try all sorts of things at the state and local level. The ACA itself was pretty close to copy and paste on something Mitt Romney put together in Massachusetts. Like, the Canadian healthcare system isn't really national, it's delegated to the provinces for management, and Canada's population is less than just California's. Expecting a functional US federal health system would be closer to trying to have a single authority provide and manage all the healthcare for the entire EU. That's just not gonna work across dozens of areas with such a wide variety of geographic, social, and economic circumstances. The NHS has had some understandable difficulty catering to rural populations, and Texas alone is bigger (and more rural) than then entire United Kingdom. There has to be different answers for different circumstances, but now it's close to impossible to try anything new on the state level, because they've all been locked by federal mandates into the private health insurance market.

 

[Agema]

This is an issue with the ACA: it makes rethinking healthcare impossible. A rethinking of US healthcare isn't likely to come from or be allowed by Republicans at the federal level, but Republicans try all sorts of things at the state and local level. The ACA itself was pretty close to copy and paste on something Mitt Romney put together in Massachusetts. Like, the Canadian healthcare system isn't really national, it's delegated to the provinces for management, and Canada's population is less than just California's. Expecting a functional US federal health system would be closer to trying to have a single authority provide and manage all the healthcare for the entire EU. That's just not gonna work across dozens of areas with such a wide variety of geographic, social, and economic circumstances. The NHS has had some understandable difficulty catering to rural populations, and Texas alone is bigger (and more rural) than then entire United Kingdom. There has to be different answers for different circumstances, but now it's close to impossible to try anything new on the state level, because they've all been locked by federal mandates into the private health insurance market.

If the aim is to create national standards, then it ends up needing national (federal) directives. Universal healthcare isn't universal if states give themselves the right to opt out. And it could not be plainer than many states had absolutely zero intention of universal healthcare under any circumstance. There's no point pretending that they were all secretly working on their own plans to deliver for their populations. They weren't. Massacheusetts passed one because it's a Democratic state: Romney was a Republican governor wise enough to work with his state and its wishes rather than encourage voters to remove him from office - I mean him no discredit, he delivered. But we have to be realistic about why Massacheusetts did this and not others, and the answer isn't that Massacheusetts was Republican.

You then introduce a sort of semi-myth - the USA is too big for a national program. You point out Canada delegates functions to the states, and you're undercutting your case. You then note the UK, but the NHS is actually structured via regional trusts who have significant latitude to arrange resources to meet their local needs: there's no bureaucrat in Whitehall micromanaging the healthcare delivery in Stafford, Inverness or Aberystwyth. The argument you're arguing even approximates to the idea that the government can't deliver anything large-scale... and yet it already does, in many ways. There's absolutely no reason to think healthcare is some bizarre, insuperable stumbling block. And rural healthcare delivery will always have challenges, even in a decentralised system, because that's just the nature of rural environments.

The ACA is irrelevant to federal reform. Except perhaps I would grant that by mitigating the existing problems, it reduces the pressure for further reform. Nevertheless, there was no other significant reform on the table. Restructuring US healthcare would have required a complete rethink and root and branch reform before the ACA, and it will still require it after the ACA. The ACA may constrain state action, but as above, state action looked nowhere near to delivering across swathes of the USA, so this argument lacks a lot of merit.

 

[Satinavian]

I am for an estate tax on the wealthy, but economists after economists have stated that an unrealized gains tax on everyone is a bad idea for the economy and will trigger bad policy outcomes.

First, i would also question which economists exactly. If it is articles from WSJ, Marketwatch and so on, it is probably protecting business and stock owners and finace industry, exactly the kind of people who would be hurt by this tax.

Second, googling "unrealized gains tax US" instantly gives me lots of articles that specify that Harris' proposal is about unrealized capital gains. So not peoples houses rising in value.

Third, the proposal seems to tax only households with a net worth above 100 million $.


So, it is just a wealth tax that won't affect 99% of the population anyway.
I could find all that in less than 10 minutes and corroborated from sever sources. You should have been able to as well.

You only have to work 65 days per year?

Thanks for pointing it out. It is only more reasonable 30 days paid vacation.

 

[tstorm823]

You then introduce a sort of semi-myth - the USA is too big for a national program.

It's not the size, per se. It's the variation. Again, compare instead to the EU, if you wanted healthcare across Europe by EU mandate, how would you approach that? The answer is not the ACA, and it's really not Medicare for all.

 

[Agema]

It's not the size, per se. It's the variation. Again, compare instead to the EU, if you wanted healthcare across Europe by EU mandate, how would you approach that? The answer is not the ACA, and it's really not Medicare for all.

This amounts to an appeal to incredulity.

Instead of thinking "How does this not work?", you start thinking "How can this work?". Any organisation on the planet will tell its employees their job is solving problems, not moaning about them. Just moaning about them means everything stays rubbish and nobody has any interest in doing any better. Lots of these problems are manufactured problems spouted by people who don't want change because they have a vested interest in the status quo. If they actually wanted to make something work, they could do so.

The role of a central body here can be anywhere from instructing lower level organisational units "These are your minimum standards, we'll look over your shoulder to make sure you meet them" to more active involvement. Trying to make out that an organistion cannot oversee provision of goods and services in different circumstances goes contrary to everything we know about the ability of the human race to organise itself. You may as well argue Amazon cannot cope with how to deliver its goods in different states or urban v. rural environments. And yet it does. It's not complicated to facilitate forms of decentralisation that leaves subunits capable of assessing local needs and adapting provision accordingly to meet requirements. Whoever is funding can make appropriate arrangements to ensure that reasonable funding exists to do so, just like the cost to maintain the road network or electricity supply isn't the same per unit population depending on geographical and other reasons. You just need to set up the systems to do so.

In terms of what to do, probably the whole system could be canned and rebuilt from scratch, although in terms of what you do really the world is your oyster: a whole world of options to see what can work. ACA is neither here nor there, as previously mentioned. "Medicare for all" could be a component of a solution and potentially some sort of foundation to adapt or build around with much wider reforms: after all the idea of central, state-purchased insurance is an existing, workable model (e.g. Netherlands).

 

[Silvanus]

It's not the size, per se. It's the variation. Again, compare instead to the EU, if you wanted healthcare across Europe by EU mandate, how would you approach that? The answer is not the ACA, and it's really not Medicare for all.

Consider that the EU already has standardised regulations in various areas: protections, trade, quality standards, as well as some broad shared budgetary rules.

Direct administration of these things-- and operational decisions-- are up to the countries, and within them, their provinces/states/counties/regional bodies. But the EU sets standards, limits, and rules. The EU is actually a good illustration of how such things are possible.

 

[Gergar12]

First, i would also question which economists exactly. If it is articles from WSJ, Marketwatch and so on, it is probably protecting business and stock owners and finace industry, exactly the kind of people who would be hurt by this tax.

Second, googling "unrealized gains tax US" instantly gives me lots of articles that specify that Harris' proposal is about unrealized capital gains. So not peoples houses rising in value.

Third, the proposal seems to tax only households with a net worth above 100 million $.


So, it is just a wealth tax that won't affect 99% of the population anyway.
I could find all that in less than 10 minutes and corroborated from sever sources. You should have been able to as well.
Thanks for pointing it out. It is only more reasonable 30 days paid vacation.

My logic is that it will eventually be passed on to the ordinary consumer/the middle class like income taxes were which were originally for the rich. Plus, a tax on unrealized gains would lead to selloff which would lead to a whole host of poor policy outcomes like lowering of company valuations, public companies being private, and that would be bad for the middle class.

 

[Gergar12]

First, i would also question which economists exactly. If it is articles from WSJ, Marketwatch and so on, it is probably protecting business and stock owners and finace industry, exactly the kind of people who would be hurt by this tax.

Second, googling "unrealized gains tax US" instantly gives me lots of articles that specify that Harris' proposal is about unrealized capital gains. So not peoples houses rising in value.

Third, the proposal seems to tax only households with a net worth above 100 million $.


So, it is just a wealth tax that won't affect 99% of the population anyway.
I could find all that in less than 10 minutes and corroborated from sever sources. You should have been able to as well.
Thanks for pointing it out. It is only more reasonable 30 days paid vacation.

How to tax billionaires—and how not to

Closing loopholes would be a better bet than a levy on unrealised capital gains

www.economist.com

They are pretty center or centre.

 

[tstorm823]

Consider that the EU already has standardised regulations in various areas: protections, trade, quality standards, as well as some broad shared budgetary rules.

Direct administration of these things-- and operational decisions-- are up to the countries, and within them, their provinces/states/counties/regional bodies. But the EU sets standards, limits, and rules. The EU is actually a good illustration of how such things are possible.

Yes, my example was very good, thank you.

This amounts to an appeal to incredulity.

It wasn't an appeal to incredulity, it wasn't rhetorical, it was a direct question, which you proceeded to answer.

Lots of these problems are manufactured problems spouted by people who don't want change because they have a vested interest in the status quo. If they actually wanted to make something work, they could do so.

You guys have gotten surprisingly good at agreeing with me all of a sudden. A lot of the problems of healthcare in the US are manufactured problems by people with vested interest in the status quo. That's why politicians passed an act that legally mandated that every citizen has to participate in that status quo. That's what the ACA is, not a solution to healthcare costs and availability, but rather the codification of those issues. I said not long after it passed on this very forum that I do not care for the idea of a socialized health system, but it would be better than this.

"Medicare for all" could be a component of a solution and potentially some sort of foundation to adapt or build around with much wider reforms: after all the idea of central, state-purchased insurance is an existing, workable model (e.g. Netherlands).

I think you vastly underestimate what Medicare and Medicaid are in the US. We do not have universal healthcare, but only in as much as the programs only cover the elderly and those in need. Healthy, working age people are expected to pay for themselves. A lot of the world does have some form of universal healthcare, but that "universal" only means that it applies to everyone, it doesn't say what is covered and for how much. Medicare pays for more things than most nations' health systems. Medicare has out-of-pocket maximums where some nations have caps one how much can be paid on your behalf. Applying Medicare to everyone would not be some shallow half effort, it would immediately stand among the most comprehensive health financing systems on the planet, and again would be akin to the EU declaring itself the single-payer of all healthcare in the EU. I can't say it'd be the most government-run of all healthcare systems, as the government would need to take over the other 3/4s of the hospitals to claim that title from you guys, but it's wild to suggest that's just a start to wider efforts.

 

[Satinavian]

My logic is that it will eventually be passed on to the ordinary consumer/the middle class like income taxes were which were originally for the rich. Plus, a tax on unrealized gains would lead to selloff which would lead to a whole host of poor policy outcomes like lowering of company valuations, public companies being private, and that would be bad for the middle class.

It is a capital gains tax.

So it doesn't actually make it any more costly to provide a product or a service. There is nothing to pass on to consumers. Sure, theoretically companies could just raise prices to make more profit, but they would lose customers to the competition.

While income tax, value added tax and tariffs always get passed to the customer, this tax won't.

And sure, it would hurt the stock market a bit as stocks become less attractive for households over 100 million. But that is a small price to pay.


As for the economist, yes, that is not too bad usually. And it might be right in saying closing tax loopholes would be better. But then again, why not both ? Closing tax loopholes is always a good thing, regardless what you do otherwise.

. A lot of the world does have some form of universal healthcare, but that "universal" only means that it applies to everyone, it doesn't say what is covered and for how much. Medicare pays for more things than most nations' health systems.

I am skeptical that that statement remains true, if limited to the developed world. Which should be more of a proper comparison for the richest country on the planet.