Labor Party Standing Committee thread: Endorsement voting

[asexual trans victimologist]

It's my sense that it should be free trade that's conditional that we're supporting, rather than supporting free trade but doing so conditionally. It's a subtle difference but emphasizing that the free trade is conditional is, I think, important.

As in fair trade being the norm instead of a policy only for cushioning against backwards oppressistans?

As in fair trade being the norm prior to due diligence, yes.

Antonio, remind the convention of your proposal, please?

[Californian Tony]

This one.

Health care should indeed be universal, free and publicly run.

I think our next policy priority should be taxation (after all, we can't have any effective government program without a well-functioning fiscal system). I'd go with something like this.

The Labor Party believe in the necessity of a substantial taxation. Taxes are a necessity in order for the government to establish public services and run them to the benefits of all, but they also have an intrinsecal positive value as a mean of redistribution and social solidarity. That's why the fiscal system shall be based on the principle of progressivity : every citizen should contribute depending on their means. The core of the fiscal system shall be a highly progressive Income Tax, with the highest marginal rate reaching a level superior to three quarters. Capital gains shall be included into the income tax, because it is unacceptable that stockholders be exempt of the taxes paid by the workers. Other sources of revenues (consumption taxes, corporate taxes, wealth taxes) might be established, but the main revenue shall still come from the taxation of incomes. Inheritances shall be subjected to taxation as progressive or more progressive than regular incomes. Tax loopholes might have some utility, but they should be capped so that they don't become a way for wealthy people to avoid contributing to the public wealth as they should. Finally, tax evasion and fraud must be fought restlessly, and the State authorities in charge of this task shall be heavily funded and equipped.

I think it's a key stance we need to discuss. Opinions on this rough draft ?

[Comrade Shmoo]

I like it. Are we going to tax-exempt any charities or churches or poor people or stuff like that?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'd support tax exemptions but there is after all already that 'depending on their means' in Antonio's language. Do you think we could finesse that?

[Californian Tony]

I'd support tax exemptions but there is after all already that 'depending on their means' in Antonio's language. Do you think we could finesse that?

I think all is here : "Tax loopholes might have some utility, but they should be capped so that they don't become a way for wealthy people to avoid contributing to the public wealth as they should." Basically, OK to exemptions, as long as you can't cumulate them in a way that renders income tax utterly void.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'd support tax exemptions but there is after all already that 'depending on their means' in Antonio's language. Do you think we could finesse that?

I think all is here : "Tax loopholes might have some utility, but they should be capped so that they don't become a way for wealthy people to avoid contributing to the public wealth as they should." Basically, OK to exemptions, as long as you can't cumulate them in a way that renders income tax utterly void.

I approve of this language.

[Comrade Shmoo]

Aye. Are we the only three people here, because if so, that passes.

[Senator Snowstalker]

75% might be a little much for a top rate.

[hawkeye59]

I support this.

[Californian Tony]

75% might be a little much for a top rate.

That's how you people prefer. Maybe we should have a debate on the maximal tax rate ?

If it were for me, it'd be 90%

[Comrade Shmoo]

Well, that depends on what the brackets are. We could tax billionaires at 99% and they'd still be extremely rich. Here's my idea of a possible national tax plan:

<30K 0%
30K-60K, 10%
60K-120K: 15%
120K-200K: 25%:
200K-500K: 35%:
500K-1M: 45%
1M-10M: 60%
10M-100M: 75%
100M-1B: 90%:
>1B: 99%

[asexual trans victimologist]

I don't know that anybody actually makes a billion dollars a year, but I like these brackets. Astute readers will note that these are actually lower than US tax brackets until the 200K mark.

[Senator Snowstalker]

99% probably means that they will have a harder time keeping up with, say, owning a large corporation. I'd support a top rate of closer to 60-70%.

Also, is it worth talking about tariffs? I'd be fine with a very small tariff (a couple cents) for revenue (so as not to harm the consumer), and use of protective tariffs for countries which clearly exploit their workers and have no regard for environmental safety. No pain, no change.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I would support such tariffs. Remember, we were talking about definitively conditional support for free trade, not generalized support.

I really don't see how a tax rate that leaves a person with ten million dollars per annum in income makes owning even the largest corporations 'hard', particularly since I like to think we're emphatically not neoliberal or a party of business.

[Senator Snowstalker]

We're not pro-business, but I think that, to some extent, massive success can be especially rewarded. Though I certainly see a problem with the income disparity between the CEO and a typical employee, if that CEO is genuinely making most of their money from income and not stocks, I think we can afford to have at least a few billionaires. After all, this party advocates the reform of capitalism, not the end of it.

[asexual trans victimologist]

We do? I was under the impression we were or should be a little more leftist than that (though not Marxist-Leninist by any means).

By all means, this is a conversation we as a party should have. Could you draw up a set of brackets you might like to see?

[Senator Snowstalker]

<30K 0%
30K-60K, 10%
60K-120K: 15%
120K-200K: 20%
200K-500K: 30%
500K-1M: 45%
1M-10M: 55%
10M-100M: 60%
100M-1B: 70%
>1B: 75%

[asexual trans victimologist]

Here's my recommendation:

<30K 0%
30K-60K, 10%
60K-120K: 15%
120K-200K: 25%
200K-500K: 35%
500K-1M: 45%
1M-10M: 55%
10M-100M: 65%
100M-1B: 75%
>1B: 85%

[Californian Tony]

Well, that depends on what the brackets are. We could tax billionaires at 99% and they'd still be extremely rich. Here's my idea of a possible national tax plan:

<30K 0%
30K-60K, 10%
60K-120K: 15%
120K-200K: 25%:
200K-500K: 35%:
500K-1M: 45%
1M-10M: 60%
10M-100M: 75%
100M-1B: 90%:
>1B: 99%

I'm all for this one. Snowstalker's and Nathan's are acceptable, as well.

[ModerateCoward]

I think we should endorse Tweed for president.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I agree.

If nobody else has anything to say about this I'm putting it to a vote.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I think we should endorse Tweed for president.

Isn't it a bit early?

[asexual trans victimologist]

It is, but he's already in full campaign mode and shows no signs of needing or wanting to let up over the next few months. Perhaps we should make the official endorsement if any later but is it, let us say, the sense of the Party that Tweed would be the right stuff for Atlasia?

[ModerateCoward]

Of course we could go the political savvy decision and make sure that opposition also supports the revivification of Atlasia to get the desired outcome on that issue regardless of election results, by marginalizing anyone who doesn't support Tweed's position. Seems to me many people want that anyway, so it shouldn't be hard to do.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Let's make it happen.

It is the sense of the Party that the revivification of Atlasia as laid out in Boss Tweed's current platform is of absolute necessity for any serious Presidential candidate in these lethargic times.

Good? It even has a Paul Verlaine reference.