Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
If the far-right becomes more extreme, people will reject them because most people prefer moderate views.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine
that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for
a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually
paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.
The Manhattan Institute is also a billionaire-sponsored think tank that exists to advocate for lower taxes – there’s a lot of them, and I imagine they’ll all have a version of that article.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago.
I don’t think so. His policies, including his border policies, are more extreme versions of previous policies that were all quite controversial at the time – gradually disassembling important judicial principles and democratic checks and limitations of power.
But I have to keep hammering on this, because you keep ignoring it: the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this. As long as there is no leftist alternative, things will keep creeping further towards fascism - slower when the centrists are in power, and faster when they’re not.
Decades ago, Trump’s extreme policies regarding border security would never have been necessary because there would never have been a flood of illegal migrants. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement began. Even nonwhite US citizens faced discrimination.
No, politics too far to the left produces far-right parties. One of Trump’s top campaign issues was tougher border security. The AfD party is becoming popular because of its anti-immigration stance. It has been stopped by Merz’s centrist views.
I don’t think they’re necessary today either, and I don’t think they’ll do much good. I think immigration has been blamed for a bunch of stuff, just like with EU-membership in the UK – and in the UK we see what happens when leaving the EU seems to have led to more harm than good. Farage and the gang just double down, the UK just hasn’t left hard enough, and with the moderate Labor government in charge, Farage’s party is soaring in the polls.
As for far-left policies producing far-right parties, I’d use post-war economic policy as a counterexample to that, but then we’d have to get into the nitty gritty of effective tax policy, and I’m sure we’d both just like to have a relaxing easter week :p
Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
I tried to find the article they link to as a source (their link is dead), and I think it might be this: https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf - here’s a quote from it:
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
This article says the same thing. The article is too long so I just read the conclusion. From https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_19.pdf
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.
The Manhattan Institute is also a billionaire-sponsored think tank that exists to advocate for lower taxes – there’s a lot of them, and I imagine they’ll all have a version of that article.
I don’t think so. His policies, including his border policies, are more extreme versions of previous policies that were all quite controversial at the time – gradually disassembling important judicial principles and democratic checks and limitations of power.
But I have to keep hammering on this, because you keep ignoring it: the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this. As long as there is no leftist alternative, things will keep creeping further towards fascism - slower when the centrists are in power, and faster when they’re not.
Decades ago, Trump’s extreme policies regarding border security would never have been necessary because there would never have been a flood of illegal migrants. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement began. Even nonwhite US citizens faced discrimination.
No, politics too far to the left produces far-right parties. One of Trump’s top campaign issues was tougher border security. The AfD party is becoming popular because of its anti-immigration stance. It has been stopped by Merz’s centrist views.
I don’t think they’re necessary today either, and I don’t think they’ll do much good. I think immigration has been blamed for a bunch of stuff, just like with EU-membership in the UK – and in the UK we see what happens when leaving the EU seems to have led to more harm than good. Farage and the gang just double down, the UK just hasn’t left hard enough, and with the moderate Labor government in charge, Farage’s party is soaring in the polls.
As for far-left policies producing far-right parties, I’d use post-war economic policy as a counterexample to that, but then we’d have to get into the nitty gritty of effective tax policy, and I’m sure we’d both just like to have a relaxing easter week :p