Always? No. But certainly since the 1970s.
So based on recent voting patterns, I vote Democrat.
It’s not obvious. Take a corporate tax loophole, is that spending and or a form of economic control? Foreign ownership of US companies compounds this, is it giving money to foreigners or good economic policy etc.
A more common example is to pay nothing and also get a rebait to avoid paying taxes in the future.
The $1400 stimulus payment was not a tax break nor was it income.
Some nonrefundable tax tax credits cap at zero or the AMT for that year.
Other nonrefundable tax tax credits can get rolled over into future years, so people with actual incomes can still pay zero in some years. Aka they go to zero and roll over savings to next year.
However refundable credits mean an actual check even in years you paid zero taxes: American opportunity tax credit, Earned income tax credit, Child tax credit, Premium tax credit. Aka they go to zero then send you a check.
It not that common for people to get a check for the full amount, but it does happen.
But nevertheless the original point stands - the state may be handing out advantages but it is not a form of spending. Not taking stuff is different to handing something out even if in some models they have equivalent effects.
Often things are written so exactly one company benefits when they agree to build something like a sports stadium in exchange for zero property taxes for N years. If that subsidy isn’t large large enough they may also hand out cash.
A subsidy is a payment to the person.
If a farmer lost money one year, the tax break does not financially benefit him.
Money I have left over from paying taxes is not a "subsidy".
“subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
“A subsidy is an incentive given by the government to individuals or businesses in the form of cash, grants, or tax breaks that improve the supply of certain goods and services.” https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec...
That’s literally the first two definitions from searching DDG, here’s Wikipedia.
“A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
Tax policy you disagree with isn't a loophole.
A loophole is using a thing (a loophole) for something it is not supposed to be used for but is advantageous (entry).
In fact, you could better call this exact tax policy being discussed as a backdoor for rich people in the tax code.
The classic double Irish with a Dutch sandwich was emergent behavior based on how US, EU, Irish, and Dutch tax codes all intertwined.
This is an oxymoron.
While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.
Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
You're wrong. You just have been using the term wrong and listening to people who do as well. Loopholes are unintentional. The things you are referring to are intentionally placed in the tax code for people to take advantage of.
Do you consider the solar credit a tax loophole for people with solar?
>Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.
Great but this doesn't apply to "loophole". You're just wrong and doubling down.
>tax loophole
>A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.
I tend to agree, but then again I really don't grok the Trump thing, and I can't claim that I saw it coming or sticking around as long as it has. At this point I would not be terribly shocked to see a bit of role reversal between the two major parties.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect in left-right (economic) politics. The left, as I see it, wants some guarantee of a good outcome. The right wants liberty, recognizing that comes with risk.
But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for.
You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr...
I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here.
EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing.
https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2...
So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
[0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point.
As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.
Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors.
Monolingual? The global business world runs on English.
Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
I'm not convinced that this is the case. Like, the US market is cheaper to operate in relative to other markets the same size (e.g. the EU) because you have an over-arching system of laws, contracts and (most importantly) language.
If your theory is correct, then one would expect the US to remain the largest source of profitable companies globally. If my theory is correct, one might expect China/India to take it's place. Come back in 20 years, I guess?
> Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors.
Can you point to some sources on this. A quick Google didn't reveal much information, and I really would like to know. Modulo Softbank, I suspect that it's mostly US based institutions giving VC's their money.
> Monolingual? The global business world runs on English.
All of the big companies you mentioned sell to consumers, not businesses, so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant. My point was that the US is a relatively integrated, large market with one language. Most startups begin in their home company. While a startup from Greece would likely have to hire more people to scale across the EU (20+ languages), the equivalent US based startup can scale happily without worrying about languages for a much longer period.
> Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
FAANG are 100% outliers, I don't see how you can believe otherwise.
However, Europe has produced SAP (uggghhhh), Spotify, and a bunch of second-tier fintechs (but given the regulatory advantages of the EU in this space, I suspect one of them will conquer the world).
No, but I've heard it many times. I've also seen plenty of talk about the trade deficit not being a deficit at all, as the balance is foreign investment in the US, which is not counted.
> so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant
Attend a trade show. They're in English, even in foreign countries. Every single one I've attended.
The bottom line is, which companies do you invest in?
Just guns?
Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-a...
It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom.
Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
I've never made the claim that privatized health care is more efficient. I have claimed that free market health care is more efficient. If you've got evidence that government health care is more efficient, let alone overwhelming evidence, I'd like to see it.
From what I've seen from high school economics, they can laugh at me all they want. But they don't know anything as they are taught by high school teachers who don't have any training in economics and have never held a private sector job or run a business.
Here's a reference for you with plenty of evidence that contradicts your claims. Read it and get back to me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...
BTW, you made one of my points for me. You just said that having the government force a plan on you is better than you picking your own plan. You gave up your freedom for security. Exactly what I was talking about.
You're making several basic mistakes thinking about freedom, because once again you're not even familiar with basic knowledge of the topic. In particular:
- Confusing the quality and quantity of choices. Free healthcare increases freedom because it increases overall quality of choices people can make - if you'd even encountered the concept of the capability approach to human welfare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach) you wouldn't have made this basic mistake.
- You're conflating capitalism with freedom, when in fact capitalism is built on top of property law, a very anti-freedom system. Property is the biggest government program their is, and is enforced with violent anti-freedom, liberty-destroying government force.
In other words, you're so ideological you're not even wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
BTW, the Soviet Union didn't allow people to own property, and had free healthcare. People were so free there they had to build a wall around it and shoot people who tried to escape. Ditto for every other communist country.
And where do those freedom-loving people want to go? The US. So many, in fact, that the US had to build a wall to keep them out.
What do all those people know that you missed?
Or, in other words, to have the freedom to self-actualize, you must have security in your basic needs.
This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.
I think it's more that the left believes government has a responsibility to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome in what is assumed to be a fundamentally inequitable system. The big philosophical difference to me is in what each side believes the proper role of government should be. The right (tending to be the side that supports the military, police, harsh criminal penalties, etc.) believes government's only legitimate purpose is enforcing the laws and defending the borders, in other words the exercise of violence, whereas the left also believes the government has a duty to provide for the social welfare of its citizens in exchange for the power granted to it by social contract.
And when the right says it wants liberty, what it tends to mean is that it wants liberty from the social obligations that the left tend to want government to support.
I think you're close here, but I don't think that's the root of it. That difference in position is important, but it comes from even deeper philosophical differences. I think this boils down to the argument over positive vs negative rights (freedom to vs freedom from).
A worldview built on negative rights has to have a much smaller legitimate role for the government than one built on positive rights. In the former, the government can never make anything better, only potentially rectifying wrongs (usually via punishing the offender). Within that framework, the goal of the government becomes to rectify the worst of the wrongs while disturbing things as little as possible. A worldview built on positive rights inherently leaves a bigger space for the government to behave legitimately, because this worldview sees the government as having a role in making things better.
Of course, there are very few people who adhere 100% to either of these, so reality is a bit more complicated.
There is a section of the left-right spectrum that believes in equality of opportunity, but that it’s certainly not the leftmost people in that spectrum. The left pole is not “equality of opportunity for all” and how far left you are is defined by how strongly you believe in that.
I think it’s more the middle of the spectrum who hold the view and the left extreme is much closer to equality of outcome.
People who support police when police breaks laws are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it increasingly hard to prosecute and investigate cop when those are suspect of breaking law are not pro-enforcing laws. People who make it legal for police to use escalating aggression are not pro law enforcement either.
These people are pro state violence people. Simple as that. Whether it is happening in Russia, America or elsewhere.
But for catastrophe prevention... you don't have to think the government will care as much about your family as you do to want there to be a support system in for your family if you die, become unable to work, etc...
And "liberty" alone is so undefined as to be meaningless for these purposes. Is "paying less taxes so that the disabled don't have as much help" an example of liberty? For you? For them?
Right. It's weird to me to see so many people framing it in the ensures-good-outcome sense.
A "safety net" is literally a thing that catches you when you fall. That's it. It doesn't push you higher in general; it just helps you avoid the lowest of the low.
unless it has to do with your education, gender identity, sexual preference, religion, voting, or women's rights, I assume
We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming over the past 30 years to allow gays to have the right to marry and openly serve in the military, just like we had to drag them kicking and screaming 60 years ago to allow minorities the right to vote, or allow mixed-race couples to marry.
No conservatives lost liberty in any of those instances. They lost their "special" status, which is what they're really worried about and why the populist rhetoric resonates so strongly with them.
Obviously many people changed their minds since then. It is perhaps notable, though, to consider that most of the people who changed their minds since then identify as Democrat, while many more Republicans continue to hold such backward, discriminatory views.
What about the CA Prop 8 against gay marriage that was widely supported by minorities? Were you "dragging, kicking and screaming" those minorities as well?
Clearly you're trying to go for a "gotcha!" type comment, but... so what? People who believed same-sex marriage should be illegal are just as wrong as people who believed interracial marriage should be illegal during much of the last century. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Democrats or Republicans or whatever. It doesn't matter if they were part of some majority or minority. They were just as wrong regardless.
Some people -- Obama included -- changed their minds, for whatever reason. Many people, sadly, still have not. It might be interesting to look at what kind of person still hasn't seen the light on this, and what political party that kind of person is overwhelmingly more likely to identify with, but that still doesn't really matter much to the rightness or wrongness of a previous belief.
My comment was more about calling out a group that doesn’t actually exist or at least has no formal definition based on OPs opinion.
You didn’t answer the question. You agree Obama was a conservative. So is he still? Not “more or less”, you either are or you aren’t.
> Not “more or less”, you either are or you aren’t.
This is not true. This is both fallacy and a lie. This is also refusal to see worls as it is, insisting on comfortable dichotomy.
Then you and I agree on the exact same point. The OP was wrong to say "We had to drag conservatives kicking and screaming..."
There are no "conservatives", there are "conservative views".
These people call themselves conservative. They read what other self described conservatives write or listen to their talkshows. They alter their own views to conform to what those talkshows say.
These people hated Obama. Obama did not shared all that many views with them.
It is hard to know whether you are trolling or genuinely ignored politics and culture from wherever you got born.
So again, is Obama a conservative? If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?
> If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?
When you proclaim proudly "I am conservative" and share 70% of conservative opinions or more. Or, when you talk about liberal snowflakes. Same thing, really.
So the question is, "how much risk is acceptable?" Are we okay with the idea that getting sick can ruin your entire financial future? Are we okay with child labor? Personally I lean towards providing a social safety net, and I think most people actually want _some_ version of that as well -- but perhaps have not thought deeply about where exactly the balance is for them.
The right are proponents of right-to-work legislation that force unions to represent non-dues paying members for free, and nullifies their private contracts. That's not exactly liberty, and it minimizes risk for owners.
Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization.
Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.
Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.
In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.
What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.
So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.
Well, I am talking to you here though right? And there is context here, to this subthread that you are ignoring/missing.
If you want to say "Non union members cannot force 3rd parties to work with them, if they don't want to" Then yes I agree.
But the context of this subthread was about the idea of who is or is not forcing people to do things.
So, to get back to the point of all of this, I was initially responding to someone else who tried to claim "That's not exactly liberty".
But it is liberty. Liberty is the idea of consenting parties, not being forced to do things. So yes it is liberty to say that people can join non-members unions, but that those non-members unions cannot force other people to do certain things.
Do you understand the point and context of this all? It was about whether that is "liberty" or not, which just means who is or is not forcing others to be in the group, or forcing people to work with your group.
Unless you're suggesting someone in this position should have to retrain for a different industry. Which, sure, ok, I guess, but the cost to do so might be quite high to the point of being life-ruining.
And then workers who prefer the union, can join members only unions that are not forced to represent people not in them.
Also, golden handcuff means enough money so that you don't want to leave. I don't think such high govermental support exists all that often.
In my new home. I have better access to medical care, the outdoors are better funded, voting is simple and easy.
Both parties want control over the populace. The idea one party is advocating for more “liberty” is a reductive way of viewing politics
Why did the republicans bail out the banks then?
The right wants you to think you should be responsible but the guys at the top will happily give and take govt money.
I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
He said he loves the “poorly educated”, he never said “dumb”, you did, which I think says more about you than Trump.
You introduced "dumb" as a euphemism for poorly educated. You did that in this discussion. The poster than quotes directly Trump saying he loves the poorly educated, and then you presumably feign being upset at the use of the word "dumb" that you introduced.
That speaks volumes about you.
And regardless, clearly Bilal_io was accusing Trump of something negative or why else share that clip? He literally sad "Trump was ridiculed" and shared that clip. So he agrees Trump was ridiculed for loving the "uneducated vote", which was entirely my point.
You either missed that or are intentionally trying to gaslight me.
Then please share the quote from a legit source (and not joe schmo on the internet).
And again, it's not clear if you know what you wrote. Bila_io didn't accuse Trump of something negative. You again said:
> Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
You specifically introduced Trump being ridiculed. Do you again not see that you introduced this concept to the discussion and yet are accusing the other person of doing it? You both wrote "dumb" and the concept of "ridicule" and are assigning responsibility to both of those to the person who responded to you. You introduced both of those in the context of Trump.
Google it, plenty of articles with headlines like this “Now there's proof: Trump's voters lack "cognitive sophistication," often believe Bible is literal word of God”
https://www.salon.com/2022/03/23/new-research-on-voters-they...
Or maybe "Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally" which includes "Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces...
Happy to provide another dozen similar articles if you’d like.
I introduced nothing. I quoted articles (like the above). Sure you can be pedantic and nitpick over “cognitive sophistication” or "low-information" or "ignorant", but you know exactly what they meant - "dumb".
And what did Bila_io say? "No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so." I would read that as agreement that he was ridiculed for loving the "dumb" vote, the only argument being made was that Trump agreed they were "dumb" (which the clip doesn't support in the least).
And if Bila_io wasn’t accusing Trump of something negative, what was the point of the reply? Just sharing a random clip for fun?
The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.
(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)