What the "Others" Want

[Cow Poke]

It's about time you realized that...

You're right.

[Leonhard]

Wouldn't we have to basically keep track of all donations to a political candidate, their company, their family, even whether they're receiving unreasonable discounts etc?

Money are fungible. There's thousands of ways to pay a bribe.

[Cow Poke]

Wouldn't we have to basically keep track of all donations to a political candidate, their company, their family, even whether they're receiving unreasonable discounts etc?

Money are fungible. There's thousands of ways to pay a bribe.

EGGzackly... And how would anybody track somebody walking up to the candidate and handing him (or his agents, so he has plausible deniability) a grocery sack full of $100 bills?

It's like when somebody has a brilliant idea to put a luxury tax on yachts --- they just seem to think the manufacturers of yachts are gonna pay the tax, instead of moving their entire operations offshore out of the reach of the IRS.

[RumTumTugger]

Cool! Sometimes fixing things locally is best...

and what happens when those millionaires move somewhere else that doesn't punish them for being millionaires hmm?

[Leonhard]

EGGzackly... And how would anybody track somebody walking up to the candidate and handing him (or his agents, so he has plausible deniability) a grocery sack full of $100 bills?

That would require laundring. And there are limits. I mean Scott Pruitt got in trouble for suddenly being given extremely cheap luxury hotel visits from some oil companies. But I can definitely see many ways it could be done. Especially if the politician owns a company. The deal could be an investment in that company, or a loan with an extremely low interest, or, etc... etc... etc...

It's like when somebody has a brilliant idea to put a luxury tax on yachts --- they just seem to think the manufacturers of yachts are gonna pay the tax, instead of moving their entire operations offshore out of the reach of the IRS.

Actually I can see a solution to that. You can buy a luxury yacht in another country, but you can have in a US harbor, without having a certain license plate, or registration on it. And its getting that registration which will apply the taxes to it.

But people who are rich enough to afford those boats can probably afford to only sail in them around Monaco and the Cayman Islands.

Rich people have too many possibilities to cheat with taxes and the rules. Meanwhile low-incom and medium-income family can be faced with patronizing conversation about how much money they're spending on small trivialities in comparison.

Meanwhile Apple have a cash store of some 200+ billion dollars, none of which they've paid taxes on.

[Cow Poke]

Actually I can see a solution to that. You can buy a luxury yacht in another country, but you can have in a US harbor, without having a certain license plate, or registration on it. And its getting that registration which will apply the taxes to it.

Check out "Flag of Convenience".

[carpedm9587]

You're right.

Of course!

[carpedm9587]

Wouldn't we have to basically keep track of all donations to a political candidate, their company, their family, even whether they're receiving unreasonable discounts etc?

Money are fungible. There's thousands of ways to pay a bribe.

I'm not finding it right now, but someone earlier complained about Beto accepting PAC money when he said he wouldn't, and provided a link to a website where every donation to his campaign was documented. The tracking is not done at the donor level - it is done at the campaign level by requiring the campaign to a) document every incoming dollar and its source, and b) submit to random audit of their finances. There are far fewer candidates than donors.

And bribes will always be a problem - and we already have laws against those. Note that the difficulty in tracking bribes has not stopped us from saying "it's illegal."

[carpedm9587]

and what happens when those millionaires move somewhere else that doesn't punish them for being millionaires hmm?

The "millionaires moving" thing is, as far as I can tell, a canard. Like most people, even millionaires grow roots. The cost of an entire shift to another location has to be less than the tax paid and the personal cost of the move before the move will happen. The data suggests the number of relocations due to these factors is minimal.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not finding it right now, but someone earlier complained about Beto accepting PAC money when he said he wouldn't, and provided a link to a website where every donation to his campaign was documented. The tracking is not done at the donor level - it is done at the campaign level by requiring the campaign to a) document every incoming dollar and its source, and b) submit to random audit of their finances. There are far fewer candidates than donors.

And bribes will always be a problem - and we already have laws against those. Note that the difficulty in tracking bribes has not stopped us from saying "it's illegal."

Robert Francis is so full of himself it's not funny. You'd think the guy was a politician or something.

[Sparko]

In yesterday's election, San Francisco overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure to levy a tax on millionaires in order to spend $300m per year addressing homelessness.

The new California governor elected yesterday ran on addressing homelessness as a priority.

Finally! So let's see what happens. But 300M seems a bit on the low side considering the numbers of billionaires that live in California and the the richest industries.

Do you think they will institute a basic income?

[Sparko]

Basic income wasn't actually in my list, but yes I would support that. The government here just introduced free college and I strongly support that... a more educated population is simply a good thing and is well-established as a major cause of social improvement around the world.

They likely will. But the state has not been hugely progressive for hugely long... remember back to 2011 when they had Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?

You're confusing the populace becoming reasonably progressive, with the politicians being progressive. The California populace is becoming gradually more and more progressive and support for these types of programs is rising across the board among the voters.

But due to the power of incumbency political representation tends to lag voter desires. And due to the effects of money-in-politics politicians have a tendency to pay attention to big donors and special interests who lean more conservative on average than the populace. And due to the effects of US checks-and-balances systems where there is a house-senate-governor system, conservatives can often block changes even if they have majority support.

What I think we'll see is that California is now beginning to have been progressive enough for long enough that it's mostly flushed out the more conservative politicians, and so, yes, they are likely to start implementing a fairly progressive political agenda in the future.

I think your answer is a lot better than Carps. Thanks. And looking at the state legislature, while it is overwhelmingly democratic, there are still a number of republicans there too. I think northern california is still more conservative.

[Sparko]

You'd have to pay me more than a million dollars to get me to live in Texas.

But regardless, it gives the lie to Sparko's repeated claim that Californians are okay with homelessness or not doing anything to address it.

Well they haven't so far. If they start now, it doesn't give lie to my claim about what they haven't done yet.

[Roy]

Wouldn't we have to basically keep track of all donations to a political candidate, their company, their family, even whether they're receiving unreasonable discounts etc?

Money are fungible. There's thousands of ways to pay a bribe.

The UK does this not by restricting donations, but by restricting spending. Candidates/parties have a maximum amount they can spend on political advertising. MPs found to have spent more may not get their win cancelled and have to get re-elected, but also face criminal charges.

[rogue06]

A politician influencing law to be beneficial to themselves? Oh my!

Can you say "tax cut?"

Only amongst those on the left could anyone think that being allowed to keep a bit more of what you earned can be equated with making yourself exempt from laws you passed for everyone else (which coincidentally give you an unfair advantage because you don't have to bear the expense you imposed on competitors).