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

[JasonBlack]

(03-15-2022, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(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.

y 
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.

edit: I misread. what does "tilting the playing field in reverse" entail? I really don't like the sound of that (it sounds like confiscation, witch hunts, and "sins of the father" style retribution, not like building up a new middle class)


The part I disagree with is that focusing on empowering the individual vs empowering society is a false dichotomy. We want to empower a society which empowers the individual. The GIs did a very good job of this. The boomers rightly called them out for narrowly focusing on straight white people rather than trying to empower Americans of all races and sexualities (they also did so at the appropriate time, choosing a 2T to wage moral warfare rather than a 4T), but the basic idea of building a society that promotes confident, vigorous individuals is a win-win for everyone, not a proposition that requires sacrificing one for the sake of the other.