[Flem72]

awm, on 2012-November-28, 20:42, said:

Of course, there are already taxes on assets... as anyone who pays property taxes would already know. Whether these taxes should be raised and income taxes lowered (or vice versa) is perhaps an interesting question.

Yeah budddy, but I'm talking about taxes on your 401K, your equity holdings, your trust assets, a FEDERAL property tax and etc. State property taxes are so old school....

[mike777]

Ya I noticed fox news is talking often about a wealth tax that I guess many countries already have.

[PassedOut]

Flem72, on 2012-November-28, 20:39, said:

And I'm becoming one of the psychedelic conservatives: let BHO have anything and everything he wants, and let the voters discover what they have wrought.

Me too. Obama has brought down spending and I hope congress agrees to even deeper cuts. But it will take revenue increases as well to get back to the road that Clinton paved. It will be interesting to see how that gets done.

[mike777]

btw speaking of trust assets...often you dont own the trust......in fact very often you dont.

people dont know this.


a wealth tax could just complicate such tax avoidance stuff but create jobs for tax lawyers and others.


in any case the Dems won...let them lead on these issues..they were voted in.

senate republicans have and should have little power....in the house a bit more but only a bit more.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 22:04, said:

in any case the Dems won...let them lead on these issues..they were voted in.

senate republicans have and should have little power....in the house a bit more but only a bit more.

It's not entirely true that "the Dems won"... Obama won... 25 Dem senators (including two independents) won as opposed to 8 GOP senators... but the GOP won 234 out of 435 seats in the House. Those 234 GOP congressmen can certainly make a case that they were elected as a majority in their House and they should not be expected to simply roll over for the Dems.

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-28, 22:49, said:

It's not entirely true that "the Dems won"... Obama won... 25 Dem senators (including two independents) won as opposed to 8 GOP senators... but the GOP won 234 out of 435 seats in the House. Those 234 GOP congressmen can certainly make a case that they were elected as a majority in their House and they should not be expected to simply roll over for the Dems.

I hope i said gop in house has some effect..but not much they did lose the overall raw vote for the house


....in the house a bit more but only a bit more

[blackshoe]

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

-- George Harrison, "The Taxman"

[mike777]

and yet he lived and paid taxes where?

any way see UK vs Hong Kong...milton friedman

see the voters ....voted for Dems and policy

[Cthulhu D]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-28, 22:49, said:

It's not entirely true that "the Dems won"... Obama won... 25 Dem senators (including two independents) won as opposed to 8 GOP senators... but the GOP won 234 out of 435 seats in the House. Those 234 GOP congressmen can certainly make a case that they were elected as a majority in their House and they should not be expected to simply roll over for the Dems.

It's clear that the US has a major problem with Gerrymandering in the lower house though. I do not understand why the land of the free continues to tolerate this sort of bizarre disenfranchisement of the voters. Only one of 53 seats in California has changed hands in the last decade?

[mike777]

gerrymandering in most cases a strawman

in this case...dems won...replost

pls let them govern and stop being silly

rpe lost....dem won

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2012-November-29, 01:17, said:

gerrymandering in most cases a strawman

It's an established fact that the US is heavily gerrymandered - http://www.theatlant...ague-of/309084/

Really it's one of the most damaging forces in the US today, because it means you're not running against the other side, you're running against the other wing of your own party!

[mike777]

I repeat:


gerry mandering in this case..today


often

but it dont matter I repeat it dont matter


gop lost


dems won


give it up and they make policy


I said strawman

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2012-November-29, 02:45, said:

I repeat:


gerry mandering in this case..today


often

but it dont matter I repeat it dont matter


gop lost


dems won


give it up and they make policy


I said strawman

It matters hugely because it is what keeps the congress like it is, and also prevents congressmen from either side moving towards the centre. Without that you cannot compromise. Without comprise you cannot pass legislation. If your legislative body cannot pass legislation, you don't have a government any more.

[kenberg]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-November-29, 00:35, said:

It's clear that the US has a major problem with Gerrymandering in the lower house though. I do not understand why the land of the free continues to tolerate this sort of bizarre disenfranchisement of the voters. Only one of 53 seats in California has changed hands in the last decade?

I believe I confessed my guilt on this right after the election. Maryland redrew the lines for congressional districts. this was challenged, and put to a referendum. My wife, more principled than I am, voted to reject the gerrymandering. I voted to accept it. It's true that the redrawn lines put me in the same district as my older daughter, and it takes an hour to get to her house, going through two other counties,, but the redrawing also means that I am now in Chris Van Hollen's district instead of Roscoe Bartlett's. Actually it also means Roscoe Bartlett has been replaced by john Delaney. I know I should have followed principle and voted against the gerrymandering, but I just couldn't. I confess my sin. I imagine myself going in to Van Hollen's office to tell him I am a constituent and I live in Carroll County. I expect a reply of something akin to "Where the hell is Carroll County?". I''m joking, Chris, joking. I am sure you will represent me just fine. Call if you need directions.

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 08:07, said:

Ken just to be clear:
1) yes you cannot live in a stock like you live in a house.

Are you telling me that 401K is not the address of an old folks home In Washington D.C.? Good grief, I have been swindled again.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-November-29, 02:45, said:

I repeat:


gerry mandering in this case..today


often

but it dont matter I repeat it dont matter


gop lost


dems won


give it up and they make policy


I said strawman

Wish I could tell whether this was some kind of bizarre avant gaurde version of poetry or incipient dementia...

The reason that this issue is significant is the the GOP membership of the House is claiming that their electoral success demonstrates that there is widespread support for their obstructionism in the country.
The Democrats claim that their success in 2012 reflects GOP favorable redistricting following the 2010 elections.

FWIW, I have major issues with gerrymandering, whether is is being done by the Democrats in Illinois or the Republicans in North Carolina. I hope that California's experiments work well...

[WellSpyder]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-29, 09:40, said:

Wish I could tell whether this was some kind of bizarre avant garde version of poetry or incipient dementia...

Surely worth a nomination for one of our award categories. Most elegant insult, perhaps....

[mycroft]

The Republican strength has always - at least since Reagan - been a single point of focus. They may argue amongst themselves about what to do (*), but once it comes time to vote, they vote party line even if it's wrong. The Democrats are so much more likely to vote against caucus that what this means is that over the last 20 years the Republicans *could* say "**** you, we're going this way" and often enough, get away with it, as they get enough Red Ds (or people like Sen. Feinstein (D-MPAA)) to follow along.

However, they seem to believe that that is the Natural Order of Things, and can't actually see any other way to do it. Obama's Democrats are getting better at working this way, too - try to get what is right in your eyes in committee, but whip up and vote Blue at roll call. Especially now, when the Republicans have stopped even trying to hide their "my way or I take my ball and go home" tactics from the sheep voters.

I happen to think that the "vote your conscience" thing is an *advantage* of the U.S. republican system over the British-style parliamentary system. But it is sensitive to gaming, and here we are. Until the games stop, or at least slow down to use in normal "this is heinous, and can not stand" situations, both sides will have to game to make clear that this won't work.

With luck, this will clear up, and the Republicans will stop equating "we need to compromise" with "you need to agree with us". Or, you know, they could be routed around as a source of damage and become irrelevant.

(*) usually, at least in the past, behind the scenes. One of the interesting things since the Rise of the Tea Party is that it is seemed to be safe to have these discussions in public. I think that that arrogance stems from the same "Natural Order of Things" feelings. I don't think it's in the Republicans' best interest (even though more transparency is likely in the country's best interest).

[nigel_k]

mycroft, on 2012-November-29, 13:06, said:

The Republican strength has always - at least since Reagan - been a single point of focus. They may argue amongst themselves about what to do (*), but once it comes time to vote, they vote party line even if it's wrong. The Democrats are so much more likely to vote against caucus that what this means is that over the last 20 years the Republicans *could* say "**** you, we're going this way" and often enough, get away with it, as they get enough Red Ds (or people like Sen. Feinstein (D-MPAA)) to follow along.

The right tends to be more united than the left in most countries I have observed. There are more ways to spend other people's money than there are to not spend it.

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-29, 09:40, said:

FWIW, I have major issues with gerrymandering, whether is is being done by the Democrats in Illinois or the Republicans in North Carolina. I hope that California's experiments work well...

To my mind, all procedures for deciding districts are equally absurd? Why should we feel limited by geography? That is so pre-post-modern.

But seriously, all that is notable about the US gerrymandering is how unsubtle it is. You could easily have been a bit more subtle about it. You can gerrymander perfectly well just by controlling the council for housing zoning, create a nice ghetto in the middle of your left win areas, and when people move there you can swing a large number of nearby marginal right wing seats due to a decreased number of poor people in those areas.

Or you can do the opposite. Other good tricks include: Scheduling construction work in opposition voting districts during voting, making sure that planning permission for train lines goes through marginal seats, as it tends to bring an influx of young professionals.....

I guess in the UK we have just had a few centuries more to practice.