Maybe, but a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
To put it differently: a Bill Clinton-type might manage to get elected and be popular, but he wouldn’t do anything to keep inequality from rising even more.
Incorrect. Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship. Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent.
Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship.
This has no bearing on what I said, I’ll repeat myself:
a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent
Nobody is talking about completely eliminating inequality
We are where we are because we’ve allowed inequality to increase every year since the mid-'70s. Allowing that to continue - especially without establishing an actually leftist alternative (New Deal Democrat or democratic socialist at the least) - will just make the populist right bigger and more extreme.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
Ah, okay, fair enough. In practice, though, since the fundamental problems will persist regardless of immigration policy, I think they’re still likely to keep growing in the longer run. They might also just chose to become even more extreme. I’d say we’ve seen this in Europe, with calls for “remigration” becoming part of the alt-right manifestos as mainstream politics has gotten more restrictive on immigration.
That being said, it’s not impossible to do a very progressive economic policy, combined with restrictive immigration policies.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
Well, I personally only want to go back to some version of what was the western consensus in the three decades following WW2 - I don’t think that’s very extreme really, but some people think it means I’m basically the ghost of Yosef Stalin :/
People innovated and worked hard in the 1950’s too
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
If the far-right becomes more extreme, people will reject them because most people prefer moderate views.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine
that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for
a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually
paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.
Maybe, but a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
To put it differently: a Bill Clinton-type might manage to get elected and be popular, but he wouldn’t do anything to keep inequality from rising even more.
Incorrect. Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship. Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent.
This has no bearing on what I said, I’ll repeat myself:
a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
Nobody is talking about completely eliminating inequality
We are where we are because we’ve allowed inequality to increase every year since the mid-'70s. Allowing that to continue - especially without establishing an actually leftist alternative (New Deal Democrat or democratic socialist at the least) - will just make the populist right bigger and more extreme.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
Ah, okay, fair enough. In practice, though, since the fundamental problems will persist regardless of immigration policy, I think they’re still likely to keep growing in the longer run. They might also just chose to become even more extreme. I’d say we’ve seen this in Europe, with calls for “remigration” becoming part of the alt-right manifestos as mainstream politics has gotten more restrictive on immigration.
That being said, it’s not impossible to do a very progressive economic policy, combined with restrictive immigration policies.
Well, I personally only want to go back to some version of what was the western consensus in the three decades following WW2 - I don’t think that’s very extreme really, but some people think it means I’m basically the ghost of Yosef Stalin :/
People innovated and worked hard in the 1950’s too
If the far-right becomes more extreme, people will reject them because most people prefer moderate views.
From https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
I tried to find the article they link to as a source (their link is dead), and I think it might be this: https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf - here’s a quote from it:
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
This article says the same thing. The article is too long so I just read the conclusion. From https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_19.pdf
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.