Sunday assorted links

Comments

1. I see a gif just below Coulter's tweet which captures the "what is even happening?" moment.

The smartest take I've seen on this is that AOC knows how to play the Overton Window. In the first moments "70%" was very shocking to me, but then I started thinking back to how it actually worked in the old days ..

And timing probably maaters. This meme comes just as the populism is busted, nicely illustrated by Coulter totally losing it.

The Overton window will slam shut the moment people realize that the 'rich' she is taking about is someone with enough income to buy a house.

Ann Coulter and Ocasio-Cortez share the same desire; confiscatory taxation as a punishment for your political opponents.

Exactly

I just posted a link in the other topic on how only 40% of Republicans even know how marginal tax rates work.

So are you in the 60% or are you pretending to be? It's always so tricky, because you guys use ignorance as a strategy.

This from someone who fell for a cute brown eyed girl spouting socialist platitudes?

I happen to write checks to both employees and government and am acutely aware of the decisions people make based on marginal tax rates. Ocasio-Cortez is a blithering idiot and so are all the overeducated twits who thinks she has something rational to say.

If you were a little more self-aware you would notice that you totally punted on any hard math, to attack AOC for being a girl.

That is not going to come across well to the rational observer.

Hard math? Socialists now want the hard math?

A 70% marginal tax rate will decrease tax revenues. You mention the very rich. They won't pay those rates, they have the choice of doing it elsewhere or not at all. So there will be a net loss to the economy as projects or investments are not undertaken.

A large proportion of those people provide the essential service that people like Ocasio-Cortez depend upon, the ability of government to borrow vast sums of money. They won't pay those rates. Ever. They are too valuable. And yes Republicans are just as bad.

The US has generated record tax revenues this year. Draconian tax rates don't generate tax revenue. So the only rationale for such a proposal is negative. It represents the desire to hurt people you don't like. Those people will do fine, and you end up hurting people who you purportedly represent.

Want some numbers? The last employment report for the US was remarkably good, meaning people are able to get jobs and improve their lives. Canada with two overtly socialist provincial governments and a left leaning federal government had almost no job growth, except in Ontario where a conservative government in very short order changed the provincial economy from a burden on the other provinces to a contributor.

Why do you hate working people so much?

What a screed. You start with very odd claim that a higher marginal tax on regular income over $10 million would necessarily *reduce* revenue .. and go from there to anyone taxing such super high income hating working people.

Madness as a political strategy.

What happened in the 1950s when the higher marginal tax rate was 91% ?

Nobody paid them. They invested in tax shelters, took a year off, took non-cash compensation, or opened Swiss bank accounts (when a Swiss bank account really was a Swiss bank account).

The effective tax rate for the top 1% was about 15% higher back in the day. Now it is ~36%, but during the 1950s it was more like 42%.

You cannot tax yourself into prosperity. The socialist would put in the costly programs they want along with the taxes. But anyone with free will, will choose to avoid the taxes which will leave the programs unfunded and require taxes on the middle class because THAT is the group who cannot move or use tax avoidance schemes to get out of paying for these programs that give away free stuff to left wing voters. This is why socialism doesn't work. But when it fails it will destroy the middle class.

The effective tax rate for the top 1% was about 15% higher back in the day. Now it is ~36%,

Bullshit. The effective tax rate for the top 1% is nowhere near 36%. Check out the rates on dividends and capital gains.

Most of the top 1% (starting around a half million a year) earn most of their incomes from salaries and bonuses, not investments. So they pay the top marginal rate. This probably does not apply to the top 0.1%.

This is how it works in Latin America. Left-wing government, usually of a populist bent, comes in and puts heavy taxes on the very rich while also implementing programs for the poor that were the core of their support. But the uber-rich are well-connected and have access to resources (including corrupt politicians) that allow them to avoid paying the taxes. So the social programs aren't funded, and the government needs new taxes to provide the programs for the people who form their base of support. So then the taxes fall on the upper-middle class people, and also on the middle-class people. The middle and upper-middle classes are squeezed, the poor aren't happy because the rich are still partying and the middle classes are still doing better than them, and the government has to keep doing more and more financial voodoo before the eventual crash. Meanwhile the wealthy have pulled their cash out of the country before the inevitable capital controls when the government really starts to panic.

Very nice just so story and total bullsh*t.

Latin America is afu for too many reasons to mention, but it starts with the Spanish and Portuguese thug overlords pilfering the local economies. Add the legacy of slavery and you have a real mess.

The biggest problem with socialism is the violation of human rights required to implement. Socialism is contra human nature. It requires the energy of fanatical (like you) tyrants to implement. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, Castro, etc. Throw in KGB, Stasi et al and you have quite a murderers row.

My stock returns were higher under the "Marxist" president than under the "fascist" one.

This top tax rate would not be paid by "working people", unless you think working people have income above $10,000,000 in a year.

wts, there's little evidence for what exactly would happen with a 70% top rate for folks either in the top 1% or earning more than $10M. I'm sure the tax lawyers and accountants would love the extra work, I suspect some top earners could move. Will it increase revenue for the govt? barely. Will it tank the economy? Unlikely.

This is all kinda dumb anyway. We should tax consumption and land, with a solid estate tax. Not an income tax.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/05/a_consumption_t.html

"Why do you hate working people so much?"

Perhaps 50 million pay zero tax because they do not work. You certainly argue they should not be paid to work, thus you argue they should pay no taxes.

Why do you think they should not work? Well, paying them to work costs too much. Cost you too much.

By being willing to work, they take your jobs, or force you to work harder.

By being paid to work, they will buy things, so you can't buy those things for a lower price.

It's your failure to understand the concept of zero sum, a fundamental problem of contemporary economists who have embraced free lunch economics, totally rejectinng Adam Smith and Keynes because they insist on costs equaling benefits, thus only by increasing costs can the economy, economic welfare, etc, increase.

The 13th Amendment, and 14th, prohibits work without paying taxes.

Almost no one would be worse off paying twice as much, or ten times more, in taxes. I'd guess less than 0.1% would be worse off paying more in taxes.

Man that was torturous to read....

You do realize that most of Western Europe pays fairly high income taxes. Their economies are also smaller per capita or as a function of median income, which is sad because for the most part Germany, England, France, Italy and Spain have a more educated population....

We already have robust evidence that large regulatory-high tax states don’t grow as fast as the US...so why go deeper down that route?

Hours worked per year:

U.S. 1790
U.K. 1680
France 1470
Germany 1370

So Germany's GDP per capita is 83% of the U.S. GDP per capita and the Germans work only 77% of the hours that Americans work.

Western Europe is going to fail. They will be crushed by their own pensions and overwhelmed by unskilled (and lazy) immigrants from 3rd world sh*thole countries that want to force their way in to get on the welfare rolls. Meanwhile, we are paying for their defense and have actually stepped in and intetefered in their own backyard to stop a genocide that they were too impotent to end - Bosnia, an embarrassment to Europe.

In contrast, India and China have rather muscular economies and will be the focus of our attention.

He obviously did not attack that commie activist for being a female. Just pointed out his opinion regarding the possible sources of her popular appeal.

I personally hope that Cortez becomes the next US president after Trump (and perhaps another celebrity such as The Rock or Kanye West) as she would greatly help to reduce cross country inequality in cap GDP in the American continent.

I can't imagine a paragraph remotely like that if these tax rates were proposed by some dude.

-----

We will have to run some serious numbers fairly soon, because the last tax bill wasn't meant to be serious, or permanent. It was in fact intentionally a set up for this. It forces the Democrats to come in and try to close the gap on revenue and spending.

Like adults.

Strawman.... blah blah blah ...... Like Adults!

Thank you. Calling someone a girl is not attacking them for being a girl. We have reached a truly strange moment in public discourse.

Ann Coulter and Ocasio-Cortez share the same desire; confiscatory taxation as a punishment for your political opponent

Take a pill, derek. The smart money says Coulter is sticking a stiletto into her liberal cousins.

Nothing is keeping rich Democrats like Clinton, Gore, Bloomberg, Pelosi, etc. from paying these higher and “fairer” rates starting with their 2018 returns. They should be routinely asked why they are unwilling to do this.

So I guess you are one of those guys who just thinks Trump should put in a billion of his own money for the Wall?

Probably not.

And wonder how you deal with the petty tyrant, authoritarian, end game that he might try to command the Army to do it, siezing land from ranchers who oppose?

TDS as usual. It would be no more authoritarian than DAPA/DACA, but all we heard from the Obamatons were cheers. The plebiscitary presidency is existential threat to the republic only when the other side controls it.

Our little leftie anonamouse is pretty funny. I think he is maybe an AI bot yanking our chains!

I have to admit, he's an excellent parody of a wild-eyed idiot lefty.

I'm a big fan of occasional cortex - pretty funny stuff! Love the eyes and teeth! You can't make that sh*t up. Didn't the voters know the whole gig is a put on? She is almost as funny as Sarah Silverman! How does she do that wild eyed look? I'd love to see her and Pocahontas on the same ticket.

lol. you so butthurt and salty over what anonymous posters post.

To be honest, I thought Trump's talk about emergency powers was just a foolish negotiating ploy, but he keeps talking about it like he can actually do it!

I would say that is more problem for Trump fans than Trump critics.

I mean what are you going to do, defend military eminent domain on US soil?

"FUN FACT: Fully 820 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile US-Mexico border -- 41% -- is represented by a Republican, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, who opposes a wall and was just reelected in a tough race in which he emphasized that position."

James Gleick: "This is some seriously good public policy. Bringing back progressive taxation would be popular—even some of the 16,000(*) would support it. Yet it has been treated as taboo for years."

* - the number of Americans actually affected by a higher marginal tax rate on regular income over $10 million per year.

70%+ marginal tax rates are wrong and stupid (e.g., France ), which also describes the cast of characters who support the idea.

To say any marginal rate without pairing it with a specific income type and level is dumb, yes.

France: "The overall rate of social security and tax on the average wage in 2005 was 71.3% of gross salary, the highest of the OECD."

Now that does seem shocking, and even stupid, to me.

But not as stupid as treating $10 million in regular income per year as if it were our median.

I was referring to France's ill fated 75% marginal tax rate on incomes above 1 million euros, but a 70%+ marginal tax rate on any level of income be it $1 million or $10 million is wrong and stupid.

*inhales*

Like, all moderate Republicans support 70% tax rates. Dude, I mean, come on. Anything less than 100% is in the Republican Overton window.

*exhales*

That's the whole point, they certainly did for long stretches of American history.

Looking at this page, you guys have become a bunch of ankle biters rather than dealing with that.

If you want services, and you do, you need revenue.

Ann Coulter is right. We need to tax wealth especially the Kochs and the Soros.

For what it's worth I don't think AOC's laundry list of dreams can be paid for even with return to Reagan era tax law. But that should not be the basic standard.

We should all of us accept that revenue must match spending, or pretty close. We have some wiggle room with inflation.

The last fully Republican government(*) had its chance to match those two things at lower levels, and they could not do it. They kept what they called "high" spending, and they just punted on paying for it.

Pay for it.

* - ending just now

#4 is broken

Maybe (but probably not) this?

https://slate.com/business/2019/01/venice-day-tourists-entry-fee.html

Looks correct. Thanks for not charging a fee to get the right link.

1. Regarding Ann Coulter's tweet:

"Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax."

I think Ann's has become so cynical about wealthy elites (like the Kochs) because of their pro-immigration advocacy that she just wants to tear them down.

This is the correct answer.

Coulter doesn't seriously support a 70-80% income tax or a wealth tax. She is just angry at political rivals that are allied together on immigration, and is encouraging them to fight each other on an issue she knows they oppose each other.

She's a blueblood by birth and she's indubitably socked away a great deal of cash over the years. Her sense of irony doesn't desert her even if other people's does from time to time.

#3 WaPo?

The entry fee makes sense for Venezia.
Matera has also talked about an entrance fee.
These cities are overrun with day-tripping tourists and the fee will probably reduce tourism by 0.001%.

#! Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich.

==========

@Engineer:

+1

All those who feel they are 'Undertaxed' can easily send more personal money to Federal/state/local government. They don't send extra money, of course, because they are hypocrites.

And the American middle class is already taxed at ~50% ... when total taxation (including indirect & hidden taxes) is computed-- so it's not that big a jump to 70%, in ideological perspective.

50%? Someone making the median income for a family of 4 ($60k) with a stay at home wife and two kids pays no federal income taxes. Walk me through how you get to 50%.

Take your time. I’ll wait.

Or husband, you sexist... : )

Interesting point. Median family income is heavily weighted by single mothers, multiple “fathers” etc. Obviously.

What’s the median family income of an intact family with two working parents?

Woops!!!

The non dysfunctional median family income is $102,000.

More than half of non dysfunctional families make MORE than $102,000.

Certainly we should tax millionaires even more!! How is a family supposed to survive on $102,000?!?! I mean, talk about let them eat cake!

Ocasio-Cortez 2020!

3.The Federalist Society and GMU/Mercatus are joined at the hip in opposition to antitrust enforcement. Large is good, larger is better, largest is best. I don't believe that is libertarian, but I suppose it depends on the meaning of "is". The Federalists and GMU/Mercatus might object, and insist that they oppose large government. If benevolent large government is a fantasy, then why is benevolent monopoly? If stability breeds social complacency, what does monopoly breed? Here's my prediction: American business will see the inevitable decline of American business relative to Chinese business, and will collude with Chinese business to create enormous monopolies, with power far beyond that of any government. And we will have the Federalist Society and its confederates to thank.

Great point....

It’s all those giant corporations from unregulated markets that we have to fear. It can’t be the banks, hospitals, insurance companies etc that have basically carved out their market position as a function of regulation that we should fear...

It's even worse than you think - some of the Federalist Society members are also ... KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS!!!!

Federalist Society is Wash Post not NYT

#6.... "A grandiose, future-oriented goal is inspiring"

Kinda like communism. I'll bet we can get a good price on some of those cool Soviet Era posters to urge us on.

soo octavia
now you gonna rip off the opening of the mary tyler moore show

we see what you did there

#1 - I agree. The rich don't support conservatism, so let them taste liberalism and see how it goes down. It won't work of course, liberalism never does, but if high marginal rates are what it takes to disabuse the rich of supporting liberalism then let's give Ocasio-Cortez whatever she asks for.

Seriously, these decrepit old fools told us changing the people would not change the place and there were oodles of Latinos just waiting to come here and support supply-side economics. Gentlemen, you were correct: Latinos don't want to pay taxes; they want you to pay taxes. Now bend over.

Hah, they (the decrepit old fools, or their children) shall probably migrate elsewhere (or find domestic tax dodges), then claim it is actually because their ambition is being taxed away from them by resentful and deficient "hicks".

Hardworkingimmigrants are "natural captalists" who favor low levels of redistribution in tax, after all (and it doesn't matter that it has never really ended up being like this on any scale we can observe so far).

#4. The link is broken. Venice is basically an adult amusement park, it would make sense to operate it like one, charge admission, and use the fees to make it nicer.

Isn't the city doomed if it stays where it is? And doesn't the city empty its sewage directly into the same water those gondolas glide along?

They should start dismantling whatever structures they want to keep and assembling them somewhere else.

One thing Ann Coulter is good at is getting people to pay attention to Ann Coulter. She even sucked Tyler in.

As for Occasional Cortex.... whatever. Thanks to Youtube, at least now we know she used to be attractive in college.

What hits you about her is that she had assets. Her academic performance at age 17 was enough to cadge her a berth at a selective private research university (one of the state schools in New York might have been a better deal) and she could evidently scrape by in economics courses. She was handsome enough that she could live the life of Bess Myerson ("Men compete for me, and I choose among them"). At age 29, she has no children, she has no husband, she's had no career to speak of (just dead end jobs and start ups that dissipated), and she's had no further education. And she's kind of a clown to boot. Wha happened?

All good questions.... which will never be asked.

What oppresses me is not that she cadged a private research university berth and could evidently scrape by in economics courses. Lots of brown-eyed girls manage that.

The real tragedy is that after she got all post-teen frumpy she still managed to cadge a berth in the House of Reps and may scrape by there as well.

I name her the Bess Myerson of the new political scene, although it is painfully obvious that the question of who is the Bess Myerson of the new political scene will never be asked.

Did you notice that Tyler posted a a few links about how maybe a higher top marginal tax rate might not be crazy? Looks as if the brown-eyed handsome lady sucked him in as easy as Ann Coulter did.

AOC is a descendant of Cortez the Killer who, as Neil Young sang, exterminated Montezuma and the peace-loving stone-moving indigenous civilization in Central America. Spanish racist fascist, yuch.

This!

And also a lot like when Boxcar Willie sang fright-train something something Aztec lemons gosh maybe Spanish racist fascist, yuch.

This dang AOC more-ebullient-than-thou high-school economics scraper, she really gets one's goat. She's like the nominally handsome girl who used to strut around telling Young Republicans they ought to do something about all those pimples, not out loud maybe but we could still tell.

Who cares?

She’s one member in the HoR representing a liberal district. She went to Boston University, one of the diploma factories for moronic wealthy children, where she supposedly studied economics. I’ve never hired from Boston University, for obvious reasons (stupidity. I’ve never met a semi intelligent BU grad) But this confirms it.

She was unable to hold any real employment until she leveraged her race and gender into a congressional seat that was ripe for a change to Hispanic.

In reality, this will be the story going forward. Upper Middle class Latina goes to a terrible school due to her idiocy and wins congressional seat from rich white idiot that coasted on being a liberal for years.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

She’s one member in the HoR representing a liberal district. She went to Boston University, one of the diploma factories for moronic wealthy children, where she supposedly studied economics.

She's a professional class child from the NYC exurbs. Her father was an architect, a profession known for middling salaries; he died when she was a teenager.

About 44% of each cohort these days cadges a baccalaureate degree. If she'd been an actual moron, she wouldn't have any tertiary schooling. BU rejects 25% of its applicants. About 80% of its undergraduates earn their degrees on time. U.S. News grants 40-odd research universities a higher ranking than BU. Those 40-odd institutions have between them just north of 500,000 undergraduates. Undergraduate enrollment at baccalaureate granting institutions is currently about 3 million. So, about 17% of all undergraduates are attending institutions more selective than BU out of the 44% subset of each cohort who obtain baccalaureate degrees. 0.17 x 0.44 = 0.075.

I’ve never hired from Boston University, for obvious reasons (stupidity. I’ve never met a semi intelligent BU grad) But this confirms it.

You've just told us all that everyone performing below the 92d percentile is a moron. It's a reasonable inference you're a snotty adolescent who has never hired anyone at all.

Rejects 75% of its applicants.

The only thing I learned from your screed is that of the upstate NY universities you are/were a faculty of, it is not RIT.

RIT is The only actual school that far north in the US with the exception of Middlebury. And who wants a Middlebury graduate?

Any school with a 25% acceptance rate is...a hard pass. I’ve encountered BU grads in the wild during consulting projects.

Yikes. The idea of ceteris paribus is akin to speaking Latin.

Here’s a pro tip : no one is hiring BU grads. I’ve never seen one in my field pre Ivy MBA. I’ve never hired one. And I say that as someone who’s hired from Stern.

So my threshold is low. Stern. Stern MBA. With an average gmat of 720ish. 720. I’m basically running a charity at that point.

Ocasio-Cortez is hotter than Man Coulter. And dances better too. Conservative women tragically start to age into beef jerky in their late 20s. And what the hell happened to Megyn Kelly?

I got stuck on compounded growth, we don't do it. We rapidly depreciate productivity gains and end up with the same goods of higher quality, which is not compounding, it ends up being a linear improvement.

Coulter is correct in pointing out that to tax the rich, you have to tax wealth, not income. Income is a change in wealth, the delta, not wealth itself. This is an issue that politicians and economists are either unaware of or deliberately obfuscate.

Delta in wealth is income - consumption. So now you incent consumption over investment. Stupid plan.

The big problem with a wealth tax is that it punishes those who would save for retirement.

-dk

You should have called the last link: In which William Nava politely tears Tyler a new one :-)

If the NYT is against it, the Federlaist Society must be pretty good.

If you are okay with corporations and the establishment milking the common man for all his worth, then yeah the Federalist society is pretty good. Ann Coulter's new view on life would beg to differ.

It wasn't in the NYT, but rather the WaPo Magazine. Also - and surprisingly - the piece wasn't very critical of the Federalist Society at all. It was in fact quite positive.

5: People on the Congo River appear to paddle their pirogues while standing up, like stand-up paddlers. Seems like an inherently tippy way to paddle.

There's a good chance there's a reason why they do this, but I'm trying to figure out what it is. Easier to spot hazards such as hippos in the river?

The Mariners Museum in Newport News VA has a very good exhibit on small watercraft throughout history and the world, typically with explanations for why they were designed the way they were, from sailboats for racing to Peruvian reed canoes to Asian sampans to Polynesian outriggers.
https://iscc.marinersmuseum.org/explore/

Ann Coulter is starting to go full National Socialist.

If AOC weren't beautiful, she would have received exactly two votes (that's assuming her Mom bothered voting).

A hard lefty running in a hard left district? Wasn't just the looks. Sarah Palin, on the other hand...

#1 Ann Coulter

"Start with the Koch bros" clearly makes this bait. She starts by suggesting a debatable policy, then appends it w/ a morally reprehensible idea of targeting specific people. Then, when the left agrees, she'll assume they agree w/ the immoral part instead of the headline.

1. The transformation of the Republicans into the National Socialist Workers Party is nearly complete.

Comments for this post are closed