51–60 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard for working-class people to get away from their jobs to vote.
Its the law that you must be given time away from your job to vote.
Nowadays even college graduates struggle to achieve "liftoff."
Globalization has led to a race-to-the-bottom situation where jobs flow across borders, to the places where desperate poverty allows wages to be as low as possible, and the greatest degree of worker exploitation is allowed.
Which is great for those people being lifted out of poverty. And it's great for companies who can more freely exploit workers, and maximize their profits. And it's great for consumers, who get lots of cheap new stuff.
But it totally wrecked our economy's ability to provide a good standard of living for the ordinary person.
Those chickens finally came home to roost in the last US presidential election. There's a lot I don't like about Trump, but I think his tariffs really will make America great again (if they aren't just repealed by the next administration). Because we're finally doing something about this situation.
To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.
Old people. Retired people live on money gathered from ownership of things. Since old people have the most political power it should be no surprise that the tax code favors their capital gains over working wage earners. In the days when the boomers were young and in work (50s 60s) the tax code was very different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With what money? Between student debt, stagnant wages, the 'gig' economy, and limited mobility - how is anyone supposed to save a reasonable sum to invest in even when taking into account the joys of compound interest?
With the money they use to go to bars, pay for netflix, eat out at restaurants, go to concerts, buy video games, etcetera etcetera. Almost every person who claims to have no money to invest actually has plenty of money; they just squander it on immediate gratification.
To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.
The system is one where back-scratching, ass-covering, and kickback-giving is the norm. It's surprising there's any tax on capital at all. A few more rounds of conservatives in power might take care of that.
Conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
These are the kinds of people who are running the show these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a strange take when the wealthy actively conspire through bought-and-sold politicians to discredit, undermine, and destroy labor organization, the only thing in history with a proven track record of winning concessions for workers(in aggregate). Maybe there’s not a “conspiracy,” but there’s certainly a class war.
I agree class issues are at play. But our “class system” is not determined by blood lines. The constituents of a a given class are fluid. Which leads me to believe it is a combination of human nature and relative participation of the various classes. Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low and election participation is low is a non starter for me.
Depressing turnout by demoralizing constituencies that lean to the other side and, particularly on one side, outright voter suppression, is something that the rich (both independently and acting through the major parties) fund lavishly, so why wouldn't they get blame when turnout is low?
To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.
The reason is simple: labor has less options. Capital can mostly go where it pleases - if it is taxed too much it might flee the country. But your 160 million workers aren't going to uproot themselves and move to another country because they're too heavily taxed.
People need to be taught about investing and the time value of money from an early age. If you invest in some low-cost index funds, you share in the profits. And if you start early, it doesn't have to be a big sacrifice.
Many people barely have enough to live on, let alone invest. If wages were higher in real terms, they're lives would be better. Plus, investing is risky. Not everyone has the ability to weather business downturns without tapping into savings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the Federal Reserve is not responsible for labor law and the like. They are clearly very late in their response, but it's notable that a non-political organization felt the need to comment.
The Fed is responsible for the savings rate of the average American, which is to say, it's absolutely worthless to stick your money in the bank and watch it grow, which would help starve off what they're talking about here.
To me it is pretty ridiculous how much labor is taxed, and how little capital is taxed. Especially if we are worried about automation and lack of productivity growth, it seems so counter-intuitive that we are completely stuck to a tax system that devalues workers.
The reason is simple: labor has less options. Capital can mostly go where it pleases - if it is taxed too much it might flee the country. But your 160 million workers aren't going to uproot themselves and move to another country because they're too heavily taxed.
I bet if lawmakers said capital gains tax is bumped to 20% everyone of them would bitch and moan for 30 minutes, and then pay the damn tax.