Conservatives and Liberals

[old salt]

The important thing of this story is, folks, what did TUCKER CARLSON know and when did he know it?!?!?

...as opposed to who is the hall monitor checking under the skirts of students entering the girls restroom, ...not that that matters.

[Farfromgeneva]

NYC just won big by getting rid of the moron known as DiBlasio

Eric Adams wins New York City mayoral race
Erin Doherty
Erin Doherty
Image of Eric Adams.
Eric Adams. Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Democrat Eric Adams won New York City's mayoral race on Tuesday, defeating Republican Curtis Sliwa, AP reports.

Why it matters: Adams, a retired NYPD captain, was the clear favorite going into Tuesday's election. He will be the second Black mayor in the city's history.

The big picture: Adams pitched himself as a moderate Democrat who opposes the "defund the police" movement, while seeking to strike a balance between fighting crime and doing away with racist policing practices as mayor.

He became a police officer in 1984 and co-founded 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, "a group that campaigned for criminal justice reform and against racial profiling."
He was elected Brooklyn borough president in 2013, a position he has held since then.
What to watch: Adams will take office from term-limited Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) as New York City seeks to rebuild after the COVID-19 pandemic, which devastated the city's economy and coincided with an increase in homicides

[Typical Lax Dad]

NYC just won big by getting rid of the moron known as DiBlasio

Eric Adams wins New York City mayoral race
Erin Doherty
Erin Doherty
Image of Eric Adams.
Eric Adams. Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Democrat Eric Adams won New York City's mayoral race on Tuesday, defeating Republican Curtis Sliwa, AP reports.

Why it matters: Adams, a retired NYPD captain, was the clear favorite going into Tuesday's election. He will be the second Black mayor in the city's history.

The big picture: Adams pitched himself as a moderate Democrat who opposes the "defund the police" movement, while seeking to strike a balance between fighting crime and doing away with racist policing practices as mayor.

He became a police officer in 1984 and co-founded 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, "a group that campaigned for criminal justice reform and against racial profiling."
He was elected Brooklyn borough president in 2013, a position he has held since then.
What to watch: Adams will take office from term-limited Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) as New York City seeks to rebuild after the COVID-19 pandemic, which devastated the city's economy and coincided with an increase in homicides

DiBlasio gon’ be sellin’ hats in Times Square

[youthathletics]

Va race called....the R’s have it. Also congrats to Winsome Sears on Lt Gov.

[Farfromgeneva]

NYC just won big by getting rid of the moron known as DiBlasio

Eric Adams wins New York City mayoral race
Erin Doherty
Erin Doherty
Image of Eric Adams.
Eric Adams. Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Democrat Eric Adams won New York City's mayoral race on Tuesday, defeating Republican Curtis Sliwa, AP reports.

Why it matters: Adams, a retired NYPD captain, was the clear favorite going into Tuesday's election. He will be the second Black mayor in the city's history.

The big picture: Adams pitched himself as a moderate Democrat who opposes the "defund the police" movement, while seeking to strike a balance between fighting crime and doing away with racist policing practices as mayor.

He became a police officer in 1984 and co-founded 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, "a group that campaigned for criminal justice reform and against racial profiling."
He was elected Brooklyn borough president in 2013, a position he has held since then.
What to watch: Adams will take office from term-limited Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) as New York City seeks to rebuild after the COVID-19 pandemic, which devastated the city's economy and coincided with an increase in homicides

DiBlasio gon’ be sellin’ hats in Times Square

He doesn’t speak 13 languages.

[Typical Lax Dad]

NYC just won big by getting rid of the moron known as DiBlasio

Eric Adams wins New York City mayoral race
Erin Doherty
Erin Doherty
Image of Eric Adams.
Eric Adams. Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Democrat Eric Adams won New York City's mayoral race on Tuesday, defeating Republican Curtis Sliwa, AP reports.

Why it matters: Adams, a retired NYPD captain, was the clear favorite going into Tuesday's election. He will be the second Black mayor in the city's history.

The big picture: Adams pitched himself as a moderate Democrat who opposes the "defund the police" movement, while seeking to strike a balance between fighting crime and doing away with racist policing practices as mayor.

He became a police officer in 1984 and co-founded 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, "a group that campaigned for criminal justice reform and against racial profiling."
He was elected Brooklyn borough president in 2013, a position he has held since then.
What to watch: Adams will take office from term-limited Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) as New York City seeks to rebuild after the COVID-19 pandemic, which devastated the city's economy and coincided with an increase in homicides

DiBlasio gon’ be sellin’ hats in Times Square

He doesn’t speak 13 languages.

he ain’t got no army!

[Farfromgeneva]

This seems correct. The people of this country aren’t buying what either party’s stronger acolytes are selling. Populism isn’t leadership. One day adults will figure this out.

Voters punish Democrats amid left drift
Margaret Talev
Margaret Talev
Terry McAuliffe
Terry McAuliffe. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
From Virginia to New Jersey to Minnesota, voters in yesterday's off-year elections sent Democrats a warning for 2022: Progressives are pulling the party too far left.

Why it matters: Now the finger-pointing begins. President Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer can use the wake-up call to try to force a reset, starting with swift passage of a long-stalled $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal.

But the same GOP gains that narrowed Dems' margins or flipped advantages in some swing counties may make it that much harder to get some moderate Democrats on board with Biden's $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" package, which aims to broadly expand the social safety net.
What happened: Republicans pulled off a massive upset in what had been blue-trending Virginia, with cliffhanger results in New Jersey and a rejection of defund-the-police themes in Minneapolis.

Republican Glenn Youngkin upset Terry McAuliffe for Virginia governor, with networks calling the race at 12:30 a.m. Republicans also won control the House of Delegates.
In New Jersey, Gov. Phil Murphy (D), who had been expected to win easily, is in the fight of his life with Republican Jack Ciattarelli. In post-midnight appearances before supporters, both said they expect to win.
In Minneapolis, voters rejected a ballot measure to replace the police department with a Department of Public Safety. The result — in the city where George Floyd was murdered — is a significant blow to the police reform movement's momentum in Minneapolis and beyond.
The mayor's race in New York City went, as expected, to Democrat Eric Adams — putting a former police officer in charge of America's most populous city.
What they're saying: "Clearly, the president's drop in favorability made it very difficult for the Democratic nominee to stay above water," Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly told Axios D.C.'s Cuneyt Dil at McAuliffe's election night event in Tysons Corner, Va.

Former President Trump, whom Youngkin had kept at arms' length while courting Trump's supporters, said in a statement: "I would like to thank my BASE for coming out in force and voting for Glenn Youngkin," adding, "Without you, he would not have been close to winning."
Trump also chided, "All McAuliffe did was talk Trump, Trump, Trump and he lost!"
Behind the scenes: "It's time for Democrats to stop f****** around," a senior aide to one House moderate told Axios' Sarah Mucha. "Show the voters we actually can govern."

A senior aide to a New Jersey Democrat told Axios' Alayna Treene it's "insanely clear" the party must reorient "not on center-left or progressive goals," but on "what gets real things done for families."
A senior aide to another House Democratic moderate told Axios’ Hans Nichols that "it’s clear that passing a historic bipartisan infrastructure deal months ago would have energized President Biden’s numbers," and that House progressives who stalled that vote had hurt McAuliffe.
An aide to a progressive House member told Axios' Andrew Solender the opposite: Moderate Dems have forced too many concessions instead of going bigger on economic populism, and that has sapped enthusiasm. "If you put dog food on the shelf, don't be mad when people won't buy it."
David Axelrod, who was former President Obama's senior adviser, said on CNN that the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress should lock in swing and suburban members on Biden's spending legislation ASAP: "I just know how it goes — I've experienced it," Axelrod said. "When things go badly, people begin to think of themselves."

[Farfromgeneva]

Opinion | Why It’s So Hard To Tax the Rich
Everyone believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Here’s why that rarely happens — and why Democrats are blowing the most obvious way to do it.
Patty Bitterli of MoveOn calls on Senator Marco Rubio's office to increase federal taxes to big corporations on May 17, 2021, in Tampa, Florida.
Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so. | Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images

Opinion by MONICA PRASAD
11/02/2021 04:30 AM EDT
Monica Prasad is a professor of sociology and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
In the last few weeks, the Democrats have veered from one tax-the-rich plan to another. First there was President Joe Biden’s suggestion to increase capital gains taxes for heirs, which disappeared over the summer. Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) Billionaires Income Tax made it as far as a plan, but seems to have died the day it was born. The latest version is a surtax on millionaires, but it could easily meet the same fate as its predecessors by the time the deal is done.

Why is it so hard to tax the rich? After all, the idea behind progressive taxation is simple, even beautiful: Let the engine of capitalism roar and then have the winners compensate the losers. By taking care of those who lose out in the free-market melee, the winners ensure the losers won’t want to destroy the system. What’s more, taxing the wealthy is popular, with a majority of Americans telling pollsters that they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. And economists have endorsed it, pointing out that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from the economic growth of the last several decades, that taxes on the wealthy prevent unproductive dynasties from forming, and that the things those tax revenues are spent on, from child care to clean energy, can benefit the economy.


And yet Democrats can’t find a way. They’re not alone — in fact no country has yet managed to get enough money out of progressive taxation to fund a comprehensive system of social programs. European countries with generous social programs fund them by making everyone pay, not just the rich. As a result, in those countries social programs don’t feel like charity or redistribution, but rather like insurance — something everyone pays for, and which everyone can access in times of need as a matter of right.
The United States has always rejected this broad-based approach to taxation, insisting on progressive taxation instead. On multiple occasions it has even been the American left, which in theory supports a more robust social system, that has undermined creating the European-style tax base needed to fund it. We do have a few programs that work on the insurance principle, like Social Security and Medicare, and it’s not a coincidence that those are our most resilient programs. But the talk lately has been of redistribution rather than insurance because it’s hard not to think that the wealthy, who have benefited so spectacularly over the last several decades, ought to shoulder more of the tax burden (and indeed, the European wealthy should too).

Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so.

Taxes on the rich increased dramatically during the First and Second World Wars, but other than global catastrophes with mass casualties, nothing seems to produce the desperation that leads to broad, bipartisan consensus on raising taxes on the rich. Indeed, even a global catastrophe with mass casualties can’t always do it, as the pandemic has shown, because low interest rates have made it easier for the government to borrow instead.


Where are Democrats in the tax hike fight?
SharePlay Video
Thus, since the Second World War, the top marginal income tax rate for individuals has declined steeply, as Democrats came around to the position that cutting taxes for the wealthy stimulates the economy (under John F. Kennedy) and then Republicans came around to the position that deficits are not a big problem (under George. W. Bush, and because of Ronald Reagan). Even if you account for all of the loopholes in the 1950s tax code, the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent — that is, the taxes they actually pay — is considerably lower now than it was at mid-century. In fact, in 2018, one study found that the top 400 billionaires were, for the first time in history, actually paying a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of families.


A few recent U.S. presidents have successfully raised taxes on the rich, but those efforts didn’t pay off politically. Under Bill Clinton’s administration the top marginal tax rate rose very slightly in 1993, but it did not help Clinton in the 1994 midterms. Under Barack Obama tax rates for the wealthy went up in 2013 — and then the 2014 midterm elections produced the largest gains for Republicans in the Senate since the 1980s, and in the House since the 1930s. The midterm defeats were not caused by the tax increases, but increasing taxes on the rich didn’t help either Clinton or Obama. Although polls always show majorities favorable to taxing the rich, people don’t seem to vote based on that issue.



The awareness that taxing the rich doesn’t gain votes must be part of what makes moderate Democrats cautious. And because the rich can pay people to figure out how to legally violate the spirit of the law — an old standby is to find ways to turn income into things that don’t get taxed as highly, like capital gains, and a newer trick is to borrow against your assets so you don’t have to sell them and incur taxes at all — it takes a complex administrative machinery to stay ahead of them. Wyden’s wealth tax plan, which received support from over a hundred organizations, would have run into questions about whether it violated the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be proportional to a state's population. It would also have required new procedures for valuing people’s wealth. It’s difficult to value assets as it is; you can guess how much a painting is worth but how do you really know until you try to sell it? And valuing those assets in the middle of an adversarial exchange between government and taxpayer is even harder, which may be why most of the countries that have attempted wealth taxation have ended it. It’s not impossible, and nothing says we have to restrict ourselves to what has happened in the past. But it is a big push on an issue on which notional support in polls does not translate into electoral support.

In the absence of desperate need or strong political support, is there any way to tax the rich? Raising capital gains taxes remains an appealing option. Getting rid of the home mortgage interest deduction is another.

And as it happens, there is one option that would not require any complex new administrative procedures, and that has actually been tried recently, and has been shown to work — but it’s Democrats who are standing in the way.

Other than Clinton and Obama, the other president who successfully raised taxes on the rich was Donald Trump. His tax cut of 2017, which was mostly a giveaway to the wealthy, included one provision that actually raised their taxes instead — the cap on deductions for state and local taxes, or SALT. This is a deduction that, all analysts agree, is shockingly regressive. It benefits only 9 percent of taxpayers, and most of the benefits go to the wealthy. As scholars have argued, it underpins systemic racism. It essentially forces the less wealthy to subsidize the local public services the rich purchase through higher state and local taxes. By putting a cap on it, Trump and the Republican Congress actually raised taxes for the wealthy. (They also put a limit on the home mortgage interest deduction, which also amounts to raising taxes on the wealthy, but because they raised the standard deduction the end result was to make the mortgage deduction even more regressive.)

Republicans have wanted to get rid of SALT for a long time, as it benefits the wealthy in blue states the most. These are the states where state and local taxes are the highest. As political maneuvering it’s brilliant, because it forces Democrats into a position of deciding between their principles of taxing the rich and their political wishes to protect their constituents.

In that battle, principles aren’t standing much of a chance. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and a coalition of Democrats from blue states have even argued for repealing Trump’s cap, even though the benefits of that repeal would go almost entirely to the richest quintile, and even though that would be an even bigger giveaway to the wealthy than Trump’s entire tax cut.

It’s Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema who have drawn the ire of progressives. But Schumer and allies have been so devastatingly and quietly effective that somehow there is not much complaint that they have been lobbying for what amounts to a tax cut for rich Democrats. Indeed, they have been so invisibly effective that completely getting rid of the deduction is not on the table, despite the fact that even with the cap the deduction benefits the wealthy the most. Perhaps the easiest and simplest way of raising taxes on the rich — by getting rid of this deduction — is not even being proposed.

Why has it been so hard for Democrats to find a way to tax the rich? Because those rich people live in the blue states.

[jhu72]

The talking heads are all blaming Biden and the lack of bill passage for McAuliffe's loss. Exit polls tell a different story. Only 50% of voters said it had anything to do with Biden. They split 28% saying Biden helped, voted for McAuliffe because of Biden, 22% saying Biden hurt, voted against McAuliffe because of Biden.

McAuliffe and the Virginia democrats that gave him the primary are at fault. Thought they could run a retread to try to pull off a feat only 1 candidate in 50 years has been able to pull off. McAuliffe's approval rating was underwater vs Youngkin's (an unknown) being slightly above water.

Youngkin now has a problem, he lied as to who he is, telling the Trumpnista he is one of them and telling suburban women he is not a Trumpnista. Both can't be true. He managed to thread the needle, but sooner or later he will have to make a choice.

I don't believe Trump understands (yet) that he lost last night, he was played. Hard to tell what the effect of this will be in the current congress. May loosen Trump's grip on the republicans who aren't hardcore Trumpnista. May actually make it possible for Biden to work with the few republicans so inclined but living in fear of Orange Duce.

[youthathletics]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

[jhu72]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

... this doesn't tell the whole story. I am neither a billionaire nor the average joe -- I pay a lot more than 14% - so do a lot of other people. That's the problem with using the "average" argument. Those charitable donations of high wealth individuals more often than not do not go for improvement of the lot of the less fortunate.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

The greatest trick ever was to get the peasants to fight for the ruling class.

[youthathletics]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

... this doesn't tell the whole story. I am neither a billionaire nor the average joe -- I pay a lot more than 14% - so do a lot of other people. That's the problem with using the "average" argument. Those charitable donations of high wealth individuals more often than not do not go for improvement of the lot of the less fortunate.

fair enough, being active in our church, I certainly see the blessing of the more fortunate, regularly. Birthright, homeless shelter, most all local churches. Same for those big donor alumni networks.

[NattyBohChamps04]

fair enough, being active in our church, I certainly see the blessing of the more fortunate, regularly. Birthright, homeless shelter, most all local churches. Same for those big donor alumni networks.

Now just imagine how great things would be if more people were fortunate!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Opinion | Why It’s So Hard To Tax the Rich
Everyone believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Here’s why that rarely happens — and why Democrats are blowing the most obvious way to do it.
Patty Bitterli of MoveOn calls on Senator Marco Rubio's office to increase federal taxes to big corporations on May 17, 2021, in Tampa, Florida.
Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so. | Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images

Opinion by MONICA PRASAD
11/02/2021 04:30 AM EDT
Monica Prasad is a professor of sociology and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
In the last few weeks, the Democrats have veered from one tax-the-rich plan to another. First there was President Joe Biden’s suggestion to increase capital gains taxes for heirs, which disappeared over the summer. Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) Billionaires Income Tax made it as far as a plan, but seems to have died the day it was born. The latest version is a surtax on millionaires, but it could easily meet the same fate as its predecessors by the time the deal is done.

Why is it so hard to tax the rich? After all, the idea behind progressive taxation is simple, even beautiful: Let the engine of capitalism roar and then have the winners compensate the losers. By taking care of those who lose out in the free-market melee, the winners ensure the losers won’t want to destroy the system. What’s more, taxing the wealthy is popular, with a majority of Americans telling pollsters that they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. And economists have endorsed it, pointing out that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from the economic growth of the last several decades, that taxes on the wealthy prevent unproductive dynasties from forming, and that the things those tax revenues are spent on, from child care to clean energy, can benefit the economy.


And yet Democrats can’t find a way. They’re not alone — in fact no country has yet managed to get enough money out of progressive taxation to fund a comprehensive system of social programs. European countries with generous social programs fund them by making everyone pay, not just the rich. As a result, in those countries social programs don’t feel like charity or redistribution, but rather like insurance — something everyone pays for, and which everyone can access in times of need as a matter of right.
The United States has always rejected this broad-based approach to taxation, insisting on progressive taxation instead. On multiple occasions it has even been the American left, which in theory supports a more robust social system, that has undermined creating the European-style tax base needed to fund it. We do have a few programs that work on the insurance principle, like Social Security and Medicare, and it’s not a coincidence that those are our most resilient programs. But the talk lately has been of redistribution rather than insurance because it’s hard not to think that the wealthy, who have benefited so spectacularly over the last several decades, ought to shoulder more of the tax burden (and indeed, the European wealthy should too).

Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so.

Taxes on the rich increased dramatically during the First and Second World Wars, but other than global catastrophes with mass casualties, nothing seems to produce the desperation that leads to broad, bipartisan consensus on raising taxes on the rich. Indeed, even a global catastrophe with mass casualties can’t always do it, as the pandemic has shown, because low interest rates have made it easier for the government to borrow instead.


Where are Democrats in the tax hike fight?
SharePlay Video
Thus, since the Second World War, the top marginal income tax rate for individuals has declined steeply, as Democrats came around to the position that cutting taxes for the wealthy stimulates the economy (under John F. Kennedy) and then Republicans came around to the position that deficits are not a big problem (under George. W. Bush, and because of Ronald Reagan). Even if you account for all of the loopholes in the 1950s tax code, the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent — that is, the taxes they actually pay — is considerably lower now than it was at mid-century. In fact, in 2018, one study found that the top 400 billionaires were, for the first time in history, actually paying a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of families.


A few recent U.S. presidents have successfully raised taxes on the rich, but those efforts didn’t pay off politically. Under Bill Clinton’s administration the top marginal tax rate rose very slightly in 1993, but it did not help Clinton in the 1994 midterms. Under Barack Obama tax rates for the wealthy went up in 2013 — and then the 2014 midterm elections produced the largest gains for Republicans in the Senate since the 1980s, and in the House since the 1930s. The midterm defeats were not caused by the tax increases, but increasing taxes on the rich didn’t help either Clinton or Obama. Although polls always show majorities favorable to taxing the rich, people don’t seem to vote based on that issue.



The awareness that taxing the rich doesn’t gain votes must be part of what makes moderate Democrats cautious. And because the rich can pay people to figure out how to legally violate the spirit of the law — an old standby is to find ways to turn income into things that don’t get taxed as highly, like capital gains, and a newer trick is to borrow against your assets so you don’t have to sell them and incur taxes at all — it takes a complex administrative machinery to stay ahead of them. Wyden’s wealth tax plan, which received support from over a hundred organizations, would have run into questions about whether it violated the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be proportional to a state's population. It would also have required new procedures for valuing people’s wealth. It’s difficult to value assets as it is; you can guess how much a painting is worth but how do you really know until you try to sell it? And valuing those assets in the middle of an adversarial exchange between government and taxpayer is even harder, which may be why most of the countries that have attempted wealth taxation have ended it. It’s not impossible, and nothing says we have to restrict ourselves to what has happened in the past. But it is a big push on an issue on which notional support in polls does not translate into electoral support.

In the absence of desperate need or strong political support, is there any way to tax the rich? Raising capital gains taxes remains an appealing option. Getting rid of the home mortgage interest deduction is another.

And as it happens, there is one option that would not require any complex new administrative procedures, and that has actually been tried recently, and has been shown to work — but it’s Democrats who are standing in the way.

Other than Clinton and Obama, the other president who successfully raised taxes on the rich was Donald Trump. His tax cut of 2017, which was mostly a giveaway to the wealthy, included one provision that actually raised their taxes instead — the cap on deductions for state and local taxes, or SALT. This is a deduction that, all analysts agree, is shockingly regressive. It benefits only 9 percent of taxpayers, and most of the benefits go to the wealthy. As scholars have argued, it underpins systemic racism. It essentially forces the less wealthy to subsidize the local public services the rich purchase through higher state and local taxes. By putting a cap on it, Trump and the Republican Congress actually raised taxes for the wealthy. (They also put a limit on the home mortgage interest deduction, which also amounts to raising taxes on the wealthy, but because they raised the standard deduction the end result was to make the mortgage deduction even more regressive.)

Republicans have wanted to get rid of SALT for a long time, as it benefits the wealthy in blue states the most. These are the states where state and local taxes are the highest. As political maneuvering it’s brilliant, because it forces Democrats into a position of deciding between their principles of taxing the rich and their political wishes to protect their constituents.

In that battle, principles aren’t standing much of a chance. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and a coalition of Democrats from blue states have even argued for repealing Trump’s cap, even though the benefits of that repeal would go almost entirely to the richest quintile, and even though that would be an even bigger giveaway to the wealthy than Trump’s entire tax cut.

It’s Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema who have drawn the ire of progressives. But Schumer and allies have been so devastatingly and quietly effective that somehow there is not much complaint that they have been lobbying for what amounts to a tax cut for rich Democrats. Indeed, they have been so invisibly effective that completely getting rid of the deduction is not on the table, despite the fact that even with the cap the deduction benefits the wealthy the most. Perhaps the easiest and simplest way of raising taxes on the rich — by getting rid of this deduction — is not even being proposed.

Why has it been so hard for Democrats to find a way to tax the rich? Because those rich people live in the blue states.

A buddy called me last week worried about our taxes going up. I told him don’t worry about taxes going up. As long as we have poor people fighting the battle, we don’t have to worry about it. Democratic/Republican it doesn’t matter.

[Farfromgeneva]

The talking heads are all blaming Biden and the lack of bill passage for McAuliffe's loss. Exit polls tell a different story. Only 50% of voters said it had anything to do with Biden. They split 28% saying Biden helped, voted for McAuliffe because of Biden, 22% saying Biden hurt, voted against McAuliffe because of Biden.

McAuliffe and the Virginia democrats that gave him the primary are at fault. Thought they could run a retread to try to pull off a feat only 1 candidate in 50 years has been able to pull off. McAuliffe's approval rating was underwater vs Youngkin's (an unknown) being slightly above water.

Youngkin now has a problem, he lied as to who he is, telling the Trumpnista he is one of them and telling suburban women he is not a Trumpnista. Both can't be true. He managed to thread the needle, but sooner or later he will have to make a choice.

I don't believe Trump understands (yet) that he lost last night, he was played. Hard to tell what the effect of this will be in the current congress. May loosen Trump's grip on the republicans who aren't hardcore Trumpnista. May actually make it possible for Biden to work with the few republicans so inclined but living in fear of Orange Duce.

It's a combination of McAuliffe being who he is and I still think a rejection of the further left trying to strongarm the system which we are seeing with the immature manner in which they are trying to get their entire wishlist jammed through with shaky accoutning and weak heuristics.

I don't know Youngkin well enough to know who he really is except a guy who threaded the needle a lot better than most traditional politicians...hope that the party overall sees that nut hugging Trump isn't a path to prosperity.

[Farfromgeneva]

Opinion | Why It’s So Hard To Tax the Rich
Everyone believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Here’s why that rarely happens — and why Democrats are blowing the most obvious way to do it.
Patty Bitterli of MoveOn calls on Senator Marco Rubio's office to increase federal taxes to big corporations on May 17, 2021, in Tampa, Florida.
Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so. | Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images

Opinion by MONICA PRASAD
11/02/2021 04:30 AM EDT
Monica Prasad is a professor of sociology and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
In the last few weeks, the Democrats have veered from one tax-the-rich plan to another. First there was President Joe Biden’s suggestion to increase capital gains taxes for heirs, which disappeared over the summer. Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) Billionaires Income Tax made it as far as a plan, but seems to have died the day it was born. The latest version is a surtax on millionaires, but it could easily meet the same fate as its predecessors by the time the deal is done.

Why is it so hard to tax the rich? After all, the idea behind progressive taxation is simple, even beautiful: Let the engine of capitalism roar and then have the winners compensate the losers. By taking care of those who lose out in the free-market melee, the winners ensure the losers won’t want to destroy the system. What’s more, taxing the wealthy is popular, with a majority of Americans telling pollsters that they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. And economists have endorsed it, pointing out that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from the economic growth of the last several decades, that taxes on the wealthy prevent unproductive dynasties from forming, and that the things those tax revenues are spent on, from child care to clean energy, can benefit the economy.


And yet Democrats can’t find a way. They’re not alone — in fact no country has yet managed to get enough money out of progressive taxation to fund a comprehensive system of social programs. European countries with generous social programs fund them by making everyone pay, not just the rich. As a result, in those countries social programs don’t feel like charity or redistribution, but rather like insurance — something everyone pays for, and which everyone can access in times of need as a matter of right.
The United States has always rejected this broad-based approach to taxation, insisting on progressive taxation instead. On multiple occasions it has even been the American left, which in theory supports a more robust social system, that has undermined creating the European-style tax base needed to fund it. We do have a few programs that work on the insurance principle, like Social Security and Medicare, and it’s not a coincidence that those are our most resilient programs. But the talk lately has been of redistribution rather than insurance because it’s hard not to think that the wealthy, who have benefited so spectacularly over the last several decades, ought to shoulder more of the tax burden (and indeed, the European wealthy should too).

Examining the history of taxing the rich shows why it’s hard, even when there is a compelling economic and moral argument for doing so.

Taxes on the rich increased dramatically during the First and Second World Wars, but other than global catastrophes with mass casualties, nothing seems to produce the desperation that leads to broad, bipartisan consensus on raising taxes on the rich. Indeed, even a global catastrophe with mass casualties can’t always do it, as the pandemic has shown, because low interest rates have made it easier for the government to borrow instead.


Where are Democrats in the tax hike fight?
SharePlay Video
Thus, since the Second World War, the top marginal income tax rate for individuals has declined steeply, as Democrats came around to the position that cutting taxes for the wealthy stimulates the economy (under John F. Kennedy) and then Republicans came around to the position that deficits are not a big problem (under George. W. Bush, and because of Ronald Reagan). Even if you account for all of the loopholes in the 1950s tax code, the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent — that is, the taxes they actually pay — is considerably lower now than it was at mid-century. In fact, in 2018, one study found that the top 400 billionaires were, for the first time in history, actually paying a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of families.


A few recent U.S. presidents have successfully raised taxes on the rich, but those efforts didn’t pay off politically. Under Bill Clinton’s administration the top marginal tax rate rose very slightly in 1993, but it did not help Clinton in the 1994 midterms. Under Barack Obama tax rates for the wealthy went up in 2013 — and then the 2014 midterm elections produced the largest gains for Republicans in the Senate since the 1980s, and in the House since the 1930s. The midterm defeats were not caused by the tax increases, but increasing taxes on the rich didn’t help either Clinton or Obama. Although polls always show majorities favorable to taxing the rich, people don’t seem to vote based on that issue.



The awareness that taxing the rich doesn’t gain votes must be part of what makes moderate Democrats cautious. And because the rich can pay people to figure out how to legally violate the spirit of the law — an old standby is to find ways to turn income into things that don’t get taxed as highly, like capital gains, and a newer trick is to borrow against your assets so you don’t have to sell them and incur taxes at all — it takes a complex administrative machinery to stay ahead of them. Wyden’s wealth tax plan, which received support from over a hundred organizations, would have run into questions about whether it violated the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be proportional to a state's population. It would also have required new procedures for valuing people’s wealth. It’s difficult to value assets as it is; you can guess how much a painting is worth but how do you really know until you try to sell it? And valuing those assets in the middle of an adversarial exchange between government and taxpayer is even harder, which may be why most of the countries that have attempted wealth taxation have ended it. It’s not impossible, and nothing says we have to restrict ourselves to what has happened in the past. But it is a big push on an issue on which notional support in polls does not translate into electoral support.

In the absence of desperate need or strong political support, is there any way to tax the rich? Raising capital gains taxes remains an appealing option. Getting rid of the home mortgage interest deduction is another.

And as it happens, there is one option that would not require any complex new administrative procedures, and that has actually been tried recently, and has been shown to work — but it’s Democrats who are standing in the way.

Other than Clinton and Obama, the other president who successfully raised taxes on the rich was Donald Trump. His tax cut of 2017, which was mostly a giveaway to the wealthy, included one provision that actually raised their taxes instead — the cap on deductions for state and local taxes, or SALT. This is a deduction that, all analysts agree, is shockingly regressive. It benefits only 9 percent of taxpayers, and most of the benefits go to the wealthy. As scholars have argued, it underpins systemic racism. It essentially forces the less wealthy to subsidize the local public services the rich purchase through higher state and local taxes. By putting a cap on it, Trump and the Republican Congress actually raised taxes for the wealthy. (They also put a limit on the home mortgage interest deduction, which also amounts to raising taxes on the wealthy, but because they raised the standard deduction the end result was to make the mortgage deduction even more regressive.)

Republicans have wanted to get rid of SALT for a long time, as it benefits the wealthy in blue states the most. These are the states where state and local taxes are the highest. As political maneuvering it’s brilliant, because it forces Democrats into a position of deciding between their principles of taxing the rich and their political wishes to protect their constituents.

In that battle, principles aren’t standing much of a chance. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and a coalition of Democrats from blue states have even argued for repealing Trump’s cap, even though the benefits of that repeal would go almost entirely to the richest quintile, and even though that would be an even bigger giveaway to the wealthy than Trump’s entire tax cut.

It’s Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema who have drawn the ire of progressives. But Schumer and allies have been so devastatingly and quietly effective that somehow there is not much complaint that they have been lobbying for what amounts to a tax cut for rich Democrats. Indeed, they have been so invisibly effective that completely getting rid of the deduction is not on the table, despite the fact that even with the cap the deduction benefits the wealthy the most. Perhaps the easiest and simplest way of raising taxes on the rich — by getting rid of this deduction — is not even being proposed.

Why has it been so hard for Democrats to find a way to tax the rich? Because those rich people live in the blue states.

A buddy called me last week worried about our taxes going up. I told him don’t worry about taxes going up. As long as we have poor people fighting the battle, we don’t have to worry about it. Democratic/Republican it doesn’t matter.

Messed up but I still chuckle at the sadness of it.

[jhu72]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

... this doesn't tell the whole story. I am neither a billionaire nor the average joe -- I pay a lot more than 14% - so do a lot of other people. That's the problem with using the "average" argument. Those charitable donations of high wealth individuals more often than not do not go for improvement of the lot of the less fortunate.

fair enough, being active in our church, I certainly see the blessing of the more fortunate, regularly. Birthright, homeless shelter, most all local churches. Same for those big donor alumni networks.

... charitable work is one of the good things about religion, I wholeheartedly support. The problem is, the need is so great and the churches cannot address the problem in its entirety. Billionaires aren't making up for the shortfall.

[Farfromgeneva]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

6% delta is huge, you shouldnt dismiss that on a few trillion. And it should be flipped in reality. Especially when compounding wealth in an era where regular folks have to invest in CDs and low principal risk bonds and the Ultra High Net Worth class has much more access to emergency liquidity and low risk, more "alpha" (outsized return for risk) oriented investment opportunities. Hard to fall out once you are in the club, just ask John Meriwether.

Keep in mind donations are 1-tax rate in cost.

I don't like the rent seeking and frictions of gov't expenditures or the administrative class any more than you do most likely but I don't ignore the reality on the ground either and think it's unfair to push hard otherwise. But the reality is told in that story quite well, we are all to blame for this mess and if anything the democrats have been more dishonest about it for a long time (as the politico piece points out).

[Farfromgeneva]

It'd be nice to see a comparative of what the wealthy pay in taxes and philanthropy, vs the same demographic they use on the tax % paid. I get that we pay on avg ~14% and the billionaires are around ~8% according to a quick search. But I believe its pretty safe to say they also donate a crap ton more then the avg joe.

The greatest trick ever was to get the peasants to fight for the ruling class.

https://irishamericancivilwar.com/2014/ ... -the-boat/