What's your generation and how would you change your government?

[JasonBlack]

I'm most interested in a pragmatic approach: how you would change things given the present circumstances, rather than what you would want them to be ideally (though you may include this as well after the fact). 



I'll start: 
generational archetype: Civic
political leanings: libertarian conservative 

Some of my changes are as follows.

Overall Policy Goal: reward personal freedom and ambition as much as possible provided checks and balances and civic and environmental sustainability are maintained (I know that's kind of vague. More specifics listed below)
 
1) All political contributions over $100 are banned, and candidates can only spend a designated sum of their own money (say, $2,000,000) which would be regularly adjusted for inflation. You get success by achieving high performance, not by buying up the referee to rig the game. 
2) Welfare is contingent on acts of community service. We will help you if you're willing to work, not if you aren't.  
3) Weed is legalized and taxed. So are all other drugs. That money will be used initially to fund reparations for people incarcerated solely on drug charges, followed by funding a crack down on gangs of all sorts (from human traffickers, to Crips and Bloods, to Aryan Brotherhood) 
4) Executive Orders are legal only a national emergency as declared by Congress 
5) A Constitutional Amendment for data privacy and other forms of related privacy. 
6) If you genuinely want to leave, we don't want you either, so we will be willing to pay for your relocation to another country. That way, if you stay, it is because you have chosen to do so. 
7) Pay homeless people to plant trees. We don't have wait for fancy green technology to begin implementing common sense solutions. Naturally, they would be overseen by professional ecologists in order to reproduce the biodiversity of the native flora and fauna. 
8) Corporate tax would be medium-low (low enough to keep jobs, high enough to give smaller businesses a leg up), and the proceeds would go largely toward grants for entrepreneurs to start small businesses, increase competition and encourage greater self-sufficiency, ambition and value creation for the local community. 
9) Healthcare would be left up to the states, and the rest of the country could watch as 50 different experiments in healthcare policy took effect in order to watch the results. 
10) Reasonable funds allocated to green technology R & D, but not to be implemented until both better infrastructure and more cost effective solutions have been developed (the culture of shaming poor people for burning fossil fuels in order to survive is disgusting and indecent)
11) Everyone takes an ASVAB-like test at 18. The higher you score, the more your vote counts. You can retake the test at any time to improve your score, and you get small bonuses for consistent years of being a net tax contributor, as well as larger bonuses for active duty and entrepreneurship/creating jobs. The test would all be multiple choice, with an encrypted test ID number so it would be impossible to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc.
12) Abortion is illegal in cases other than rape or threat to the life of the mother. Sorry not sorry. Stop having sex with irresponsible bad boys and society.
13) Immigration policies that take advantage of brain drain (and for that matter, values drain). You get expedited citizenship of you get above a certain IQ score, come with STEM credentials or create a certain number of jobs by opening up a business. 
14) ALL educational materials, if not free, are tax-deductable, including all non-fiction books.
15) At least 3 semesters of debate, 2 semesters of public speaking, 3 semesters of post-secondary life planning (college, trade school, budgeting skills, etc), are required to graduate high school.
16) Also included is a required internship once per week for grades 9-12. 
17) Alimony cannot exceed the minimum for a living wage. None of this "I got $400,000 a year just by getting a divorce" nonsense....
18) All weapons, martial arts training and fitness-related expenses are tax deductible. 
19) While we're at it, so are most art/music related expenses (with a few exceptions. ie, not $50,000 sound equipment for non-professionals, that has the potential to get a little absurd). 
20) Grades K-12 would include 4 yearly trips to elderly homes with games and refreshments to encourage different generations to understand each other. 
21) Required 2 years public service (doesn't have to be military. it can also be Peace Corps or an approved charity or volunteer organization). 
22) Polluting activities are taxed in proportion to damages.
23) Police are federally funded, must complete a 2 year associate's degree, have regular mental health screening and wear body cams, but will receive a pay increase and additional pension benefits for the extra hurtles.
24) It is illegal to publish articles about alleged crimes until the person has been convicted. Rumors about alleged criminals only lead to trial-by-media, witch hunts and potential harm to persons who may be innocent.

[Eric the Green]

generational archetype: Prophet/Idealist
political leanings: green liberal

End gerrymandering, instead of politicians choosing their voters, voters should choose their politicians. It may be difficult, but independent non-partisan and bi-partisan commissions should be appointed by judges or other independent officials to draw district boundaries according rules designed to make political districts more
geographically cohesive and representative of communities instead of drawn to favor political parties.

Admit Puerto Rico as a state with full voting rights, and require that DC be represented by two elected and voting senators and a representative.

End subsidies for fossil fuels and reduce them for highways; increase them for trains and transit and renewable energy companies. Increase mileage requirements on carmakers so that they are required to shift to renewable fuels. Require solar panels on new buildings. Rules on pollution emissions and tailings etc. that force coal companies and oil and gas companies to transition to becoming renewable energy companies. Regulation should be required on all businesses and producers to make sure working conditions and all products are safe and clean for the environment, and reviewed from time to time as needed. Neoliberalism should not guide policy.

End all racial profiling, whether among police, or redlining of neighborhoods, or discrimination in hiring, etc. and provide reparations to those damaged by racist policies.

Raise taxes on the wealthy; not to confiscatory levels, but at least to Clinton era levels, and even higher on those making the most money.

The president's war-making power should be reduced. Strengthen the war powers act so that any war must be declared by congress. A parliamentary system should be considered, like most democracies have. Proportional representation should be enacted so political parties are represented in congress and legislatures according to votes received in elections. End all voter suppression policies, and make sure people can vote on many days, by mail and using drop off boxes, with voting precincts equally distributed. Ranked-choice voting should be enacted so people don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils all the time.

Public schools should be well-financed, with money distributed equally to all districts and not according to who lives in rich neighborhoods and can afford to pay higher school taxes.

Ideas from my website:

Proposed Reforms for the 2020s
Here is a list of proposed reforms that may happen in our new reform era:

Repeal gerrymandering and reduce the filibuster.

Repeal Citizens United, pass public campaign financing, require licensed media to provide fair, free time and space for candidates, limit contributions from all sources, restrict lobbying.

End the 2 party duopoly and voting for lesser of two evils with ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.

Raise taxes on the wealthy, and return social security savings to the social security account to reduce the debt and reduce inequality in the economy among classes.

Raise minimum wages and provide basic income security for all. End trickle-down economics and its deceptive slogans of freedom as "less government."

Require corporations to serve and contribute to society in their charter.

Invest prudently in aid for housing to bring down prices.

Medicare for All. Lower prescription drug prices. Invest in disease control again. Restore government departments that have been decimated by Trump.

End voter suppression schemes. Repeal the electoral college.

Require civics classes to be taught in all licensed schools, public and private.

Effective gun control. Defeat the expected violent revolt against it.

Hold police accountable for shootings. Black lives matter. End racial profiling and unfair criminal sentences. Anti-racist education. Slavery reparations. Restore funding to social work and health professionals whose jobs were cut since Reaganomics and replaced by police.

Action to reduce and reverse the existential threat of climate change/global warming. Institute carbon taxes. Regulate auto emissions so that gasoline is phased out in 10 years. Regulate and end coal emissions and provide for transition to renewables. Invest in subsidies if necessary to further encourage the transition to renewable green energy. Reform farming practices, and restore family farms by restricting the size of corporate farms.

I see some chance for artistic revival in the 2020s-- unusual for a 4T. Watch the year 2022.

If necessary, consider packing the supreme court if it blocks reforms. Consider dividing the country between red and blue states. Consider ending the presidency as we know it and its war-making power, and switch to a parliamentary system like all other countries have instead of our elected-king system.

Will we pass some, most or all of these reforms in the 2020s? Or will we leave them to the late 2040s when in some cases (such as climate change) it may be too late to avoid catastrophe or the rapid decline of the USA? That could be our decision in the 2020 election, and the 2024 election.

[David Horn]

Interesting. You two aren't that far apart -- more a matter of degree or focus. The one undeniable fact is, we are living in a plutocracy and have been for decades. Both of you propose to end that -- often by similar means. Yet you are near photo-opposites on the political spectrum. What that tells me is simple enough: the plutocrats are winning by creating massive opposition where a bit of basic cooperation would be better all around -- except for them, of course. That's the task at hand. Easier said than done, but the only way out I can see.

[JasonBlack]

(02-17-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting. You two aren't that far apart -- more a matter of degree or focus. The one undeniable fact is, we are living in a plutocracy and have been for decades. Both of you propose to end that -- often by similar means. Yet you are near photo-opposites on the political spectrum. What that tells me is simple enough: the plutocrats are winning by creating massive opposition where a bit of basic cooperation would be better all around -- except for them, of course. That's the task at hand. Easier said than done, but the only way out I can see.

Funnily enough, I actually really dislike one of my own suggestions: requiring 2 years of some sort of active duty/other public service really goes against my nature, but if we want things to work for more than like 40 years, it's kind of a necessity.

[JasonBlack]

Ideally, patriotism is something like going to see your extended family. You associate them with positive memories, and you're probably willing to help them in a crisis if you have some extra cash, but you also probably don't think about most of them every day, because your life is consumed primarily by your own pursuits and immediate family/friends. You can still maintain a relatively individualist society, with high levels of disagreement/debate and self-expression while fostering an atmosphere of "we're all basically on the same side here". Aside from that, it shouldn't be important that all regions agree with each other most of the time, and most jurisdiction should be left to the individual states to create laws in line with the values of their constituents (especially given America has been strongly multicultural from its inception even without taking race into account. I recommend Collin Wooddard's "American Nations" where he identifies the 11 distinct regional cultures of American civilization and how most of them have completely different cultural roots and histories. Along with Generational Theory, I think it's the most useful lens for viewing American history).

[David Horn]

(02-17-2022, 11:57 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting. You two aren't that far apart -- more a matter of degree or focus.  The one undeniable fact is, we are living in a plutocracy and have been for decades.  Both of you propose to end that -- often by similar means.  Yet you are near photo-opposites on the political spectrum.  What that tells me is simple enough: the plutocrats are winning by creating massive opposition where a bit of basic cooperation would be better all around -- except for them, of course. That's the task at hand.  Easier said than done, but the only way out I can see.

Funnily enough, I actually really dislike one of my own suggestions: requiring 2 years of some sort of active duty/other public service really goes against my nature, but if we want things to work for more than like 40 years, it's kind of a necessity.

I did an enormous eyeroll when Richard Nixon killed the draft in 1973 to begin the era of the all-volunteer force.  I'm still of the opinion that taking the vast majority of Americans' skin out of the game made war fighting easier and may have contributed to the messes we just exited in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It also eliminated the only shared civic duty other than paying taxes, and that's not exactly the same.

FWIW, I was a reluctant volunteer and served in Vietnam.  I get thanked for my service regularly; that shouldn't be necessary.

[JasonBlack]

(02-17-2022, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 11:57 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting. You two aren't that far apart -- more a matter of degree or focus.  The one undeniable fact is, we are living in a plutocracy and have been for decades.  Both of you propose to end that -- often by similar means.  Yet you are near photo-opposites on the political spectrum.  What that tells me is simple enough: the plutocrats are winning by creating massive opposition where a bit of basic cooperation would be better all around -- except for them, of course. That's the task at hand.  Easier said than done, but the only way out I can see.

Funnily enough, I actually really dislike one of my own suggestions: requiring 2 years of some sort of active duty/other public service really goes against my nature, but if we want things to work for more than like 40 years, it's kind of a necessity.

I did an enormous eyeroll when Richard Nixon killed the draft in 1973 to begin the era of the all-volunteer force.  I'm still of the opinion that taking the vast majority of Americans' skin out of the game made war fighting easier and may have contributed to the messes we just exited in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It also eliminated the only shared civic duty other than paying taxes, and that's not exactly the same.

FWIW, I was a reluctant volunteer and served in Vietnam.  I get thanked for my service regularly; that shouldn't be necessary.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the majority of people are really suited for combat, so I think it's more realistic to provide other civic avenues for people with different skills and personalities. More importantly, we should...do more to make it fun. If you associate positively with your formative experience in public service, you'll be more likely to vote in your country's best interest later in life.

[galaxy]

Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.


The shortest answer I could possibly give would be "every country should imitate Scandinavia in most ways* unless there is a really good reason not to." Of course, it's actually a lot more detailed and complicated than this. I'll try to find the time to do an Eric-style write-up of it all (though actually, most of the things in his post I would write as well).

*exceptions include things like drug policy, one of the few things Scandinavia doesn't do well

The best ideological description of me is probably "center-left," but I try to avoid ideological labels, because I am very frustrated by the people (read: Boomers) who have decided that the morally righteous thing to do is to pursue their ideologies to the ends of the earth regardless of consequences, completely ignoring the "facts on the ground" and having no regard for anything even resembling pragmatism.

I'm not saying having "values" is bad - quite the opposite, in fact - but I am saying it is often very bad in politics when people insist on doing what their "values" demand rather than what the situation demands. Two Senators who seem to have become fixated on "bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship" come to mind.

(02-17-2022, 05:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see some chance for artistic revival in the 2020s-- unusual for a 4T. Watch the year 2022.

Any thoughts on this now that we're in the year in question?

[JasonBlack]

(02-17-2022, 03:50 PM)galaxy Wrote: Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.

last year for Civic births is 2004, you're in firmly my squad bro (1991 Millennial here. guess that makes me middle wave and you late wave)

Quote:The shortest answer I could possibly give would be "every country should imitate Scandinavia in most ways* unless there is a really good reason not to." Of course, it's actually a lot more detailed and complicated than this. I'll try to find the time to do an Eric-style write-up of it all (though actually, most of the things in his post I would write as well).

*exceptions include things like drug policy, one of the few things Scandinavia doesn't do well

The best ideological description of me is probably "center-left," but I try to avoid ideological labels, because I am very frustrated by the people (read: Boomers) who have decided that the morally righteous thing to do is to pursue their ideologies to the ends of the earth regardless of consequences, completely ignoring the "facts on the ground" and having no regard for anything even resembling pragmatism.

I'm not saying having "values" is bad - quite the opposite, in fact - but I am saying it is often very bad in politics when people insist on doing what their "values" demand rather than what the situation demands. Two Senators who seem to have become fixated on "bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship" come to mind.

I certainly sympathize with the second half of this. It's one of the reasons I decided this thread was the best way to approach things.

[David Horn]

(02-17-2022, 02:05 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote: I did an enormous eyeroll when Richard Nixon killed the draft in 1973 to begin the era of the all-volunteer force.  I'm still of the opinion that taking the vast majority of Americans' skin out of the game made war fighting easier and may have contributed to the messes we just exited in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It also eliminated the only shared civic duty other than paying taxes, and that's not exactly the same.

FWIW, I was a reluctant volunteer and served in Vietnam.  I get thanked for my service regularly; that shouldn't be necessary.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the majority of people are really suited for combat, so I think it's more realistic to provide other civic avenues for people with different skills and personalities. More importantly, we should...do more to make it fun. If you associate positively with your formative experience in public service, you'll be more likely to vote in your country's best interest later in life.

Believe me, I was not suited to combat either.  90% of the military work in non-combat fields, but they are still soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, or marines.  The most important part of doing something like this, and alternatives are fine as well, is gained by being forced by circumstance to work beside people you would never encounter in your day-to-day life.  It's impossible to overvalue that experience.  If the alternatives do that as well, then they're fine as well.

[Eric the Green]

(02-17-2022, 03:50 PM)galaxy Wrote: Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.


The shortest answer I could possibly give would be "every country should imitate Scandinavia in most ways* unless there is a really good reason not to." Of course, it's actually a lot more detailed and complicated than this. I'll try to find the time to do an Eric-style write-up of it all (though actually, most of the things in his post I would write as well).

*exceptions include things like drug policy, one of the few things Scandinavia doesn't do well

The best ideological description of me is probably "center-left," but I try to avoid ideological labels, because I am very frustrated by the people (read: Boomers) who have decided that the morally righteous thing to do is to pursue their ideologies to the ends of the earth regardless of consequences, completely ignoring the "facts on the ground" and having no regard for anything even resembling pragmatism.

I'm not saying having "values" is bad - quite the opposite, in fact - but I am saying it is often very bad in politics when people insist on doing what their "values" demand rather than what the situation demands. Two Senators who seem to have become fixated on "bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship" come to mind.

(02-17-2022, 05:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see some chance for artistic revival in the 2020s-- unusual for a 4T. Watch the year 2022.

Any thoughts on this now that we're in the year in question?

Agreed with the above. Regarding artistic revival, I don't know yet, it seems an unlikely prediction to pan out right now, but I can feel an increase in sensitivity sometimes now as the conjunction I see related to such a revival approaches. I have felt this before during previous major Jupiter-Neptune angles; none more so than during the grand trine of Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune in the water signs in 1966-1967 (part of a peace symbol formation with Uranus conj. Pluto too). There was a similar trine in mid-2013 I looked forward to, but with less noticable results. Jupiter conjunct Neptune in the watery sign that rules both of these planets should be a powerful sign of a new sensitivity or spirituality, but then, these conjunctions also happened in cave man days. It depends on who is actually on Earth to respond to such indications, and we on the Earth today certainly seem more out of touch with the good vibes than those here in 1966 were.

I have predicted that this conjunction should smooth out the current war threat too, and maybe indicate progress with Iran too. It's an optimistic forecast as well, but we'll see. I also thought it would show releasing of the covid restrictions, which is happening, and I hope it's not too soon as variants could still appear. Another good indication I have seen from this conjunction is that some of the reforms I have forecast will come to pass this year, and it looks like April or so will be the last chance for the BBBBB to pass. There is no better planetary formation than this conjunction, and so I hope we can respond to it. With Saturn in Aquarius and soon also in Pisces, this is a reform era according to past cycles.

[galaxy]

(02-17-2022, 08:34 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 03:50 PM)galaxy Wrote: Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.

last year for Civic births is 2004, you're in firmly my squad bro (1991 Millennial here. guess that makes me middle wave and you late wave)

The divide is somewhere in the middle of 2002, depending on location and individual factors, with a hard limit at November 3, 2002 being the last day a Millennial could be born.

[David Horn]

(02-18-2022, 08:57 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 08:34 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 03:50 PM)galaxy Wrote: Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.

last year for Civic births is 2004, you're in firmly my squad bro (1991 Millennial here. guess that makes me middle wave and you late wave)

The divide is somewhere in the middle of 2002, depending on location and individual factors, with a hard limit at November 3, 2002 being the last day a Millennial could be born.

That's a tad deterministic, don't you think?  History is not determinant like physics or chemistry.  There is no magic formula that makes it all clear.  We can agree that the 2002-4 timeframe marks the end of the Millennial generation (in most places -- there are bound to be exceptions) but driving a stake in the ground and declaring a distinct difference on each side can't make sense.  The idea of cusps has been well established in the S&H framework; members of the ~2001-5 cohorts will be cuspy by definition.  

History never changes that fast unless something of a catastrophic nature occurs.  Nothing like that happened anytime in the near vicinity except 9/11, and no one claims that as definitive anymore.

[galaxy]

(02-19-2022, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 08:57 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 08:34 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 03:50 PM)galaxy Wrote: Me: Civic/Adaptive borderline, more Civic than Adaptive. Born in January 2001, currently aged 21, student, from Missouri.

last year for Civic births is 2004, you're in firmly my squad bro (1991 Millennial here. guess that makes me middle wave and you late wave)

The divide is somewhere in the middle of 2002, depending on location and individual factors, with a hard limit at November 3, 2002 being the last day a Millennial could be born.

That's a tad deterministic, don't you think?  History is not determinant like physics or chemistry.  There is no magic formula that makes it all clear.  We can agree that the 2002-4 timeframe marks the end of the Millennial generation (in most places -- there are bound to be exceptions) but driving a stake in the ground and declaring a distinct difference on each side can't make sense.  The idea of cusps has been well established in the S&H framework; members of the ~2001-5 cohorts will be cuspy by definition.  

History never changes that fast unless something of a catastrophic nature occurs.  Nothing like that happened anytime in the near vicinity except 9/11, and no one claims that as definitive anymore.

Perhaps I've been a little too deterministic, but I really do feel very strongly that voting (or at least being old enough to vote) in the 2020 election is an important marker of Millennialism (as well as graduating high school in the Class of 2020 or earlier).

Also, when I referred to location, I was referring to lockdowns. Someone born in 2002 who lived in Montana in spring 2020 (where schools actually reopened in-person for a few weeks in May, one of the only places where that was possible) will probably be more Millennial than someone born in 2002 living in New York City in spring 2020. It has to do with reaching certain societally-determined (but admittedly vaguely defined) "markers of entry into adulthood" before the Crisis really gets serious.

We see the GI generation end the same way - most of those born after 1925 were not "old enough to be of consequence" (for lack of a better phrase) before the war ended.


The cusp cohorts, by the way, are defined by memory of the events of 2001 and memory of the events of 2008 respectively. So roughly 1998 to 2004. Though I personally still prefer a tripartite division of the Millennial generation (roughly 1982-1988, 1988-1996, 1996-2002).

[pbrower2a]

Tax the Hell out of easy money.

[David Horn]

(02-19-2022, 05:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Tax the Hell out of easy money.

Tha's a bumper sticker waiting for a campaign.

[JasonBlack]

Quote:aise taxes on the wealthy; not to confiscatory levels, but at least to Clinton era levels, and even higher on those making the most money.

This part is very, very important. No society needs to return to the 91% top tax bracket that we peaked at during the high. Imo, the problem is less the tax rates and more the tax loopholes.

[David Horn]

(03-14-2022, 08:34 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:Raise taxes on the wealthy; not to confiscatory levels, but at least to Clinton era levels, and even higher on those making the most money.

This part is very, very important. No society needs to return to the 91% top tax bracket that we peaked at during the high. Imo, the problem is less the tax rates and more the tax loopholes.

The high rates weren't there to raise money.  They were there to discourage greed.  In the 1950s, the ratio of the company President to his workers was roughly 30.  Now, the CEO gets 300-400 times their pay.  A little effective disincentive is well in order, and soon.  If things proceed apace, we'll soon need to begin taxing wealth, not just income.  In fact, we may be there already.

[JasonBlack]

(03-14-2022, 11:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-14-2022, 08:34 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:Raise taxes on the wealthy; not to confiscatory levels, but at least to Clinton era levels, and even higher on those making the most money.

This part is very, very important. No society needs to return to the 91% top tax bracket that we peaked at during the high. Imo, the problem is less the tax rates and more the tax loopholes.

The high rates weren't there to raise money.  They were there to discourage greed.  In the 1950s, the ratio of the company President to his workers was roughly 30.  Now, the CEO gets 300-400 times their pay.  A little effective disincentive is well in order, and soon.  If things proceed apace, we'll soon need to begin taxing wealth, not just income.  In fact, we may be there already.

The problem isn't "greed" in the first place. It's lobbying, cheating, extortionist labor contracts and a bureaucratic mess which breeds dishonesty and lack of accountability. Currently, the left thinks we need more regulation and more taxes, the right thinks we need less regulation and less taxes. Both are wrong. We need to replace the fossilized, ineffectual regulation with updated regulation that has actual teeth, and focus less on the tax rates vs on closing the loopholes that allow the rich to pay less taxes than the rich even with high theoretical tax rates.

[David Horn]

(03-14-2022, 03:09 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(03-14-2022, 11:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-14-2022, 08:34 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:Raise taxes on the wealthy; not to confiscatory levels, but at least to Clinton era levels, and even higher on those making the most money.

This part is very, very important. No society needs to return to the 91% top tax bracket that we peaked at during the high. Imo, the problem is less the tax rates and more the tax loopholes.

The high rates weren't there to raise money.  They were there to discourage greed.  In the 1950s, the ratio of the company President to his workers was roughly 30.  Now, the CEO gets 300-400 times their pay.  A little effective disincentive is well in order, and soon.  If things proceed apace, we'll soon need to begin taxing wealth, not just income.  In fact, we may be there already.

The problem isn't "greed" in the first place. It's lobbying, cheating, extortionist labor contracts and a bureaucratic mess which breeds dishonesty and lack of accountability. Currently, the left thinks we need more regulation and more taxes, the right thinks we need less regulation and less taxes. Both are wrong. We need to replace the fossilized, ineffectual regulation with updated regulation that has actual teeth, and focus less on the tax rates vs on closing the loopholes that allow the rich to pay less taxes than the rich even with high theoretical tax rates.

All you say is true, but it still fails on one level.  We are now at the end of 40+ years of a social model that empowered individuals but restrained the commons.  What has that produced?  As you note, regulatory capture is a major "success", at least it is for the powerful who did the capturing.  Tax restraint has guaranteed that needed spending will never happen -- only spending with strong support by the same individuals and groups that captured our regulatory apparatus. Unless you are already part of the top, you missed out and aren't likely to join them.

Since this has had an open run of 40+ years, the imbalances that have been created can't be addressed by "leveling the playing field".  The playing field needs to be tilted in reverse, at least for a while, so we can finally produce something approximating general prosperity, and repair old and create new infrastructure -- physical and social.  At some point, that will also become a net negative, and the return to individualism will return ... but not soon.