[PowerLine] SETTLED SCIENCE: LIBERALS MORE CLOSED-MINDED AND INTOLERANT THAN CONSERVATIVES

That's $4T just for Bangladesh alone. There are a LOT more people living in potentially affected areas than merely those in Bangladesh.

 

Migration and adaptation in a world of walls and borders are nice cool words for wars and death.

Built that southern wall! Destroy the northern wall!

Now, let’s forget about the humanity ouch, and try to calculate the $$$ for migration and adaptation. Good luck.

 

Right, progressives are full on socialists, "neo-liberals" like Clinton are worse than bigots, and whatever garbage? Oh, right, Schultz's plain and sensible talk about the debt, deficits, and the fantasy of Medicare-for-All. Strange how that fantasy works around the world but obviously can't work here.

It's amusing how right wing bloggers and talk radio hosts trot out big nasty words and slogans like neo-liberal, virtue signaling, open borders, deep state, and socialism to scare the right to death and have you all clutching those guns a little tighter. Scare tactics in lieu of factual policy discussion.

Look forward to your next thirty eight blog links.

 

Well let's talk policy instead of trading editorials from bloggers who, like for profit big media, are mostly interested in stirring the pot rather than educating and informing the public.

 

Whatever you like. Taxes, deficits, entitlements, wars, education, health care, wealth inequality, etc.

Taxes. Michael Dell asked what country in the world had a 70% tax rate that worked and obviously the US is one answer.





The above graph is just income tax. How about capital gains taxes? Estate taxes?

 

Just the facts. What facts can you present to counter the idea that a 70% tax rate for $10m in income per year could not work? What facts can you present that explain why capital should be taxed less than actual labor?

 

This is the D&D. I said let's talk policy, you asked what policy I wanted to talk about, I posted a couple, then you asked me if there was a question there, so I asked questions, and now you're asking me why the questions?

I guess this is the D&D equivalent of who's on first.

 

I will butt in if you permit me.

Dell did appear to get humiliated in Davos. But the speaker who indicated the US was a little misleading. The period of taxation to which he referred had optically really high marginal rates. But in reality, in actual practice, the effective tax rate was way lower. Reagan came in and lowered and simplified (yeah) the brackets and in return attempted to close loopholes.

So, as I said in a prior post, this evidence of extremely high taxes working is not really supportive because in reality the wealthy by and large avoided them (which I assume proponents don't want).

I know the easy answer is to say "don't let them avoid, but it takes away the "example" every one is pointing to for the proposition that extremely high taxes work.

On the 10mm threshhold, I really believe the concept is to have brackets before 10mm that have higher rates than now and then hot 70 percent at 10mm -- but I haven't seen where AOC explains this.

On estate taxes, I think Bernie's proposal sets the bar too low. A person who works hard at a good but not super high paying job who also saves and invests or starts a small business could generate over 3.5mm in wealth over their lifetime. I personally feel like such a person or family should be able to pass that on particularly if there are multiple kids. I would be ok with going back to the pre-Trump levels.

(practically, the really rich use revocable trusts and valuation experts to avoid estate taxes currently even when they exceed the bar).

 

You'll have to cite that. I'd like to read it.

If we're going to talk about effective rates instead of actual rates then it's even more evident that the corporate tax cuts were a gigantic scam which is another large problem.

 

Preventing global warming is not the aim here. The aim here is to slow down climate change so that other technology can come to be that will more efficiency reverse the damage. It is not possible to stop climate change - even if we cut carbon dioxide emissions 75% we are still going to be in trouble, it just buys us a lot more time to find a solution.

This is about risk management. The discussion should be how much do we need to reduce CO2 emission to buy us time to find and implement a solution to restore equilibrium. Instead we are wasting time debating where or not global warming is real.