Hillary for President

[il Padrino Ute]

Nope.

There is rarely someone who would be a good President that wants to fun for President.

I don't think we could get farther right than Bush, so that doesn't worry me. To be perfectly honest, the only thing I care about is how much of the money I earn will stay in my pocket. None of the Democrats make me believe they'd allow me to keep most of my money and only Giuliani and Romney make me think I can have more money.

I'll just vote my conscience and hope for the best.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I would take Al Gore over George Bush any day of the week. Believe me, that is saying a lot. I am not a Gore fan in the slightest. I don't think Bush could run a convenience store, let alone a country.

I just look down the list of candidates and can't see a single person I would like to win. I don't want a Republican because I'm afraid the extreme right positions will stay the same or move more right. As for the Democrats, the reason I would pick Hillary is because of Bill. I realize that is not a good reason, but it seems as good as any. Isn't there anyone else out there?

There are no good Dems because they all believe in wealth redistribution through progressive income taxation, which is an anathema to a successful capitalist society. The populist rhetoric coupled with a heavy handed socialist agenda, irrespective or not if is achievable, makes every Democrat unpalatable.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There are no good Dems because they all believe in wealth redistribution through progressive income taxation, which is an anathema to a successful capitalist society. The populist rhetoric coupled with a heavy handed socialist agenda, irrespective or not if is achievable, makes every Democrat unpalatable.

How can progressive taxation be an anathema of succesful capitalist society when every succesful capitalist society has progressive taxation? And this situation has persisted for decades?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

How can progressive taxation be an anathema of succesful capitalist society when every succesful capitalist society has progressive taxation? And this situation has persisted for decades?

Right now, the only successful countries are small ones. The larger ones experience some success in spite of themselves.

Hong Kong has a low, virtually non-progressive tax structure. Singapore may be similar.

Costa Rica has low cost, low income tax and virtually no progressive taxes.

Northern Europe has no growth in new business, wealth does not cross traditional existing families. In France, you are born to wealth and do not have the opportunity to migrate from socioeconomic class. The ultimate capitalist society has not been realized because we do not employ sufficient enough of the capitalist principles.

Economic mobility is the key to a successful happy society. We need the ability for poor to migrate to middle or even upper class. The more progressive a system, the less probable this becomes. Yes this system has populist appeal.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Right now, the only successful countries are small ones. The larger ones experience some success in spite of themselves.

Hong Kong has a low, virtually non-progressive tax structure. Singapore may be similar.

Costa Rica has low cost, low income tax and virtually no progressive taxes.

Northern Europe has no growth in new business, wealth does not cross traditional existing families. In France, you are born to wealth and do not have the opportunity to migrate from socioeconomic class. The ultimate capitalist society has not been realized because we do not employ sufficient enough of the capitalist principles.

Economic mobility is the key to a successful happy society. We need the ability for poor to migrate to middle or even upper class. The more progressive a system, the less probable this becomes. Yes this system has populist appeal.

I agree with some of what you say, especially that high levels of progressivity are not the most desirable, but I am not aware of a single politician in the U.S. that advocates a tax that does not have some progressivity in it.

Furthermore, Singapore and Hong Kong are special authoritarian cases that are city states. The ability of the government to stifle dissent and enforce certain guidelines may have as much to do with economic growth as does less regulation. So the real question is, how do you like your regulation? in Economics or civil liberties?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I agree with some of what you say, especially that high levels of progressivity are not the most desirable, but I am not aware of a single politician in the U.S. that advocates a tax that does not have some progressivity in it.

Furthermore, Singapore and Hong Kong are special authoritarian cases that are city states. The ability of the government to stifle dissent and enforce certain guidelines may have as much to do with economic growth as does less regulation. So the real question is, how do you like your regulation? in Economics or civil liberties?

If I had to choose, which I don't want to, I'd rather have a free economy than liberties. And you don't understand Hong Kong and Singapore. I disagree that they are really totalitarian, but rather the Chinese culture accepts totalitarian authority more easily. Chinese and Japanese to an even greater extent culturally repress liberties.

Single rate income taxation has been a song of mine since the 80s when several Stanford economist opined that a single rate of 19 percent could produce more than sufficient revenues adjusting of course for individuals who would be exempt for any income taxation.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If I had to choose, which I don't want to, I'd rather have a free economy than liberties. And you don't understand Hong Kong and Singapore. I disagree that they are really totalitarian, but rather the Chinese culture accepts totalitarian authority more easily. Chinese and Japanese to an even greater extent culturally repress liberties.

Single rate income taxation has been a song of mine since the 80s when several Stanford economist opined that a single rate of 19 percent could produce more than sufficient revenues adjusting of course for individuals who would be exempt for any income taxation.

I prefer my regulation to be economic rather than related to civil liberties.

Authoritarian is different than totalitarian. Totalitarian would be more like Iraq used to be or the Soviets or in Zimbabwe with Mugabe, with complete suppression of the press and civil society. Authoritarian societies do some suppressing and heavily control the content, but allow some press freedom within certain parameters.

Hong Kong and Singapore are poster societies for what is called the "authoritarian bargain" in which a regime makes promises of economic development in exchange for lessened civil liberties and frequently democratic rights. This is shopped as the Asian model of development, and many who buy into the theory beliieve that it is only suited for Asian societies with their purported emphasis on societal harmony over individualism. Less clear is how the authoritarian bargain will mesh with "revolution of rising expectations " another theory on democracy (which is borne out by quite a bit of empiricism) that holds that societies are willing to make these tradeoffs until they have reached a certain income level and as life improves then they demand more rights. This theory is the single biggest hope that the rest of the world has for China in becoming more open to human rights, etc.

As for the last paragraph, exempting some people from taxation is a form of progressive taxation because it requires some people to pay more while others pay nothing. Of course, the system that you advocate would be much less progressive, but it would still have progressive features.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I prefer my regulation to be economic rather than related to civil liberties.

Authoritarian is different than totalitarian. Totalitarian would be more like Iraq used to be or the Soviets or in Zimbabwe with Mugabe, with complete suppression of the press and civil society. Authoritarian societies do some suppressing and heavily control the content, but allow some press freedom within certain parameters.

Hong Kong and Singapore are poster societies for what is called the "authoritarian bargain" in which a regime makes promises of economic development in exchange for lessened civil liberties and frequently democratic rights. This is shopped as the Asian model of development, and many who buy into the theory beliieve that it is only suited for Asian societies with their purported emphasis on societal harmony over individualism. Less clear is how the authoritarian bargain will mesh with "revolution of rising expectations " another theory on democracy (which is borne out by quite a bit of empiricism) that holds that societies are willing to make these tradeoffs until they have reached a certain income level and as life improves then they demand more rights. This theory is the single biggest hope that the rest of the world has for China in becoming more open to human rights, etc.

As for the last paragraph, exempting some people from taxation is a form of progressive taxation because it requires some people to pay more while others pay nothing. Of course, the system that you advocate would be much less progressive, but it would still have progressive features.

It has one progressive feature, an incentive for those who don't earn enough to contribute to taxation. In fact I have seen models where the closer you get to taxation level, you get benefits to encourage removal from welfare.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It has one progressive feature, an incentive for those who don't earn enough to contribute to taxation. In fact I have seen models where the closer you get to taxation level, you get benefits to encourage removal from welfare.

That is my point. Progressive taxation is not the enemy. High tax rates are the enemy. And profligate spending is the biggest enemy of all.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

That is my point. Progressive taxation is not the enemy. High tax rates are the enemy. And profligate spending is the biggest enemy of all.

High tax rate that aren't pointed toward a single rate and profligate spending are enemies, I agree.

Ronnie Reagan wove a good tale, but couldn't deliver. David gave a great speach that first year in Congress.