Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

[trixR4kids]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You're missing the point. People are "warming up" to redistribution because it's not their money being lost, and they're being the ones promised it because their whining about not getting $15/hour to flip burgers didn't help.

Yeah there's probably a little bit more to it than that.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You're missing the point. People are "warming up" to redistribution because it's not their money being lost, and they're being the ones promised it because their whining about not getting $15/hour to flip burgers didn't help. That being said, I'm not sure where the whole invention thing came from, especially considering inventors are spending probably about double what they spent to invent on "patent protections".

If you think that is what is going on then I truly do feel sorry for you.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You could've just said "yeah I didn't read the article and will now spew a bunch of talking points I heard on republican talk radio".

You're missing the point. People are "warming up" to redistribution because it's not their money being lost, and they're being the ones promised it because their whining about not getting $15/hour to flip burgers didn't help. That being said, I'm not sure where the whole invention thing came from, especially considering inventors are spending probably about double what they spent to invent on "patent protections".

[trixR4kids]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Yeah, that d*mned goose takes too long to lay those golden eggs one by one, if we slit it open we can just take all the eggs out at once instead.

If we are all destitute then we are all equal at last, eh?

Why bother to innovate or invent anything at all if you cannot make a profit from selling it....

oh, right, inventors are merely unfortunate "collateral damage." The real predators are all those evil speculators and investment bankers. They make great targets, let's somehow tax all their income while leaving incentives in place to spur technological progress.

How is that coming along? Is there a nice clean way to make sure only bankers and speculators get taxed while innovators and inventors are exempted?

You could've just said "yeah I didn't read the article and will now spew a bunch of talking points I heard on republican talk radio".

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You know what's better than getting a bunch of meager handouts that are barely enough to live on?

Innovating and becoming a billionaire. Hell, I'd settle for millionaire.

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

people are, very gradually, waking up.

Yeah, that d*mned goose takes too long to lay those golden eggs one by one, if we slit it open we can just take all the eggs out at once instead.

If we are all destitute then we are all equal at last, eh?

Why bother to innovate or invent anything at all if you cannot make a profit from selling it....

oh, right, inventors are merely unfortunate "collateral damage." The real predators are all those evil speculators and investment bankers. They make great targets, let's somehow tax all their income while leaving incentives in place to spur technological progress.

How is that coming along? Is there a nice clean way to make sure only bankers and speculators get taxed while innovators and inventors are exempted?

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Ok, that's ringing a bell. I'm guessing someone here has explained this to me (at least once) before. I think I tend to dismiss it and forget it as lunacy and it'll never happen. For that to be repealed it would take a monumental political effort like we haven't seen in generations.

This is something that the vast, vast, vast majority of people, including Republicans, would see this as a bad idea.

It'll never happen, but it's amazing that it's gone from a fringe John Birch Society idea in the 70's to being bandied about by self-described "Constitutional scholarly conservatives" in relatively respected righty think tanks. Trickle down never had the support of more than 10% of even conservative economists, and yet they used it to pull off one of the greatest heists in history. Never underestimate a patently stupid idea that will make powerful people rich -- they can always buy people to call it "credible."

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

It's not in the article, it's another the attempts to pry the vote back from the "wrong" people (i.e., non-conservatives). There's a school a thought on the ideological right that direct election of Senators is somehow bad because it's "mob" rule. There's a far more important school of thought on the pragmatic right that it is easier to bribe state legislators to push through the "right" Senators than it is to, you know, actually have elections.

Ok, that's ringing a bell. I'm guessing someone here has explained this to me (at least once) before. I think I tend to dismiss it and forget it as lunacy and it'll never happen. For that to be repealed it would take a monumental political effort like we haven't seen in generations.

This is something that the vast, vast, vast majority of people, including Republicans, would see this as a bad idea.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There was a news or video article that a pizza shop had to lay off people and cut hours and remove discounts bcause of the new law. Google pizza Seattle wage and see if it pops up.

There are plenty more places that have reported associated cuts, not just one pizza shop. It is the restaurant and live music industries that are hit the hardest.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I like how a bad economic theory, that raising the minimum wage costs job, is being directly challenged. For too long this was taken as fact. Much like Kansas has been a good expiriment in supply side economics (it failed) lets see how Seattle does with a $15 minimum wage.

I was gonna ask about this too. The problem with economics is that there's just so much misinformation out there and it seems difficult to find peer reviewed stuff that you can trust because a lot of econ profs have their agendas and what not.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

It's not in the article, it's another of the attempts to pry the vote back from the "wrong" people (i.e., non-conservatives). There's a school of thought on the ideological right that direct election of Senators is somehow bad because it's "mob" rule. There's a far more important school of thought on the pragmatic right that it is easier to bribe state legislators to push through the "right" Senators than it is to, you know, actually have elections.

The overall idea is that as more people wake up the Republicans' raison d'être of keeping the top marginal tax rate low is imperiled, therefore they must impede democracy to serve their paymasters.

The conservative party (at least in this state) has been pushing for a repeal of the 17th for a while, and it doesn't have anything to do with "prying the vote back from the 'wrong' people (i.e., non-conservatives)", although in this state, I could say why you'd think that way. It has to do with the fact that Senators were originally elected as they were in order to ensure that the State Legislatures have a say in the doings of the Federal Government. The people already have representation in Congress, that being the House of Representatives, which is the only house that may originally propose a bill to raise taxes. By the passing of the 17th Amendment, there is no longer state representation in Congress.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

No, 17th. Direct election of Senators. I'm sure they'd advocate repeal of the 16th too. And maybe the 19th.

Hey now, the last one is phrased as "End Women's Suffrage". And it's actually surprising to see how many people think "suffrage" is a form of suffering, rather than the right to vote.

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I still don't understand what the article has to do with the 17th. I might have missed something in the article or I'm just not making the connection today.

It's not in the article, it's another of the attempts to pry the vote back from the "wrong" people (i.e., non-conservatives). There's a school of thought on the ideological right that direct election of Senators is somehow bad because it's "mob" rule. There's a far more important school of thought on the pragmatic right that it is easier to bribe state legislators to push through the "right" Senators than it is to, you know, actually have elections.

The overall idea is that as more people wake up the Republicans' raison d'être of keeping the top marginal tax rate low is imperiled, therefore they must impede democracy to serve their paymasters.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I still don't understand what the article has to do with the 17th. I might have missed something in the article or I'm just not making the connection today.

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I like how a bad economic theory, that raising the minimum wage costs job, is being directly challenged. For too long this was taken as fact. Much like Kansas has been a good expiriment in supply side economics (it failed) lets see how Seattle does with a $15 minimum wage.