2 hours ago, austinfan said:

And how will these proposals garner enough votes?

This isn't 40 years ago when party discipline was tight, the fly over state Congressmen know they have to run for re-election in states that won't be happy with their support of a radical left (though what is radical is a matter of opinion, I don't consider moving toward Germany's social contract very radical, neither would Bismark). So if there is a Democratic landslide, that doesn't mean the Progressives, who are a minority in the party (or Biden wouldn't be the Presidential candidate) will rule the roost.

Obama and B Clinton certainly weren't radical, they were both about as mainstream as it gets.

McConnell and Trump are radical reactionaries, they hark back to the Gilded Age (Lochner, et al).

We will see an increase in income tax rates, which isn't radical, but a swing back after two major "Supply side" tax cuts that did nothing to increase supply but greatly increased inequality. We'll see a gradual movement to universal health care, which is supported by the vast majority of Americans. We'll see movement toward addressing Climate Change, which again is supported by a super majority. Probably an investment in infrastructure which is long overdue.  None of these things are "radical."

It would be nice if these states weren't marginalized as being so inconsequential that the woke elite have to suffer them...  You used the phrase 'fly over state' on multiple occasions now, which is about as belittling a title as you can give to an entire region that used to be known as 'the Heartland', 'the Breadbasket' or just plain 'Farm country'.    I'm sure you can find another term which would give them the dignity that they so rightly deserve for what they do offer to this nation at large.

 

 

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

No way either party gets a super majority in the Senate, thankfully. And any party getting a majority s going to have to win swing states and districts. That is why the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering was so disappointing.  We really need a focus on opposing gerrymandering this year given it is a census year.  

His premise was a massive landslide to the point that Texas goes blue.  Yes, 65 senate seats is obviously hyperbole, but if Democrats have that kind of stranglehold on power to the point that they flip Texan, they will go full AOC insanity. Hell, they're not even in power right now and Pelosi is talking about reviewing if we should have statues of Washington and Jefferson.

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

His premise was a massive landslide to the point that Texas goes blue.  Yes, 65 senate seats is obviously hyperbole, but if Democrats have that kind of stranglehold on power to the point that they flip Texan, they will go full AOC insanity. Hell, they're not even in power right now and Pelosi is talking about reviewing if we should have statues of Washington and Jefferson.

That’s a bit of a misleading representation of what Pelosi said.  She was talking about removing statues of Confederates and was asked about Washington and Jefferson because they were slave owners.  She specifically differentiated what they did for this country from Confederate generals but suggested that all statues should be considered for review. Pelosi is not in favor of removing statues of Washington and Jefferson, but is open to a review process for all.  Interestingly, all indications from the writings of Washington and Jefferson suggest both would be appalled by statues and monuments in their honor. 

 

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Would like to see more muscle. 

Good article by Reub about Fletcher and Jerome.  A few of us started the discussion about how they compare to each other but it didn't gain much traction.  

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/fletcher-cox-honors-jerome-brown-pro-football-hall-of-fame

Who does everyone think is the best Philly beat writer who is primarily in our market.  I think it's safe to say Sheil Kapadia is the best but I consider him on the national level.

Reuben and Dave Zangaro are probably who I spend the most time reading.

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

Would like to see more muscle. 

Don't say that... or we will have more shirtless selfies in here.  

Well, TEW is obviously far to the right of the mainstream if he thinks McConnell is "moderate."

Trump, of course, has no ideology other than self-aggrandization.

An increase in the income tax would not be radical, it would simply be a return to "normalcy"

1946-51, highest bracket was 91%

1952-53, 92%

1954-63, 91%

1965-81, 70%

1982-86, 50%

1987, 38%

1988-90, 28%

1991, 31%

1993-2000, 39.6%

2001, 39.1%

2002, 38.6%

2003-12, 35.0%

2013-17, 39.6%

2018-2020, 37.0%

Not much evidence that income tax rates have an impact on economic growth, fastest growth period was 1947-73.

What would be "radical" is slashing deductions and loopholes, eliminating deduction of real estate interest, taxing health premiums paid by companies as income (since they are), reforming treatment of depreciation on commercial real estate, tightening the estate tax, and so forth. Doing so would allow a substantial increase in revenue without increasing marginal tax rates, especially the corporate tax.

A carbon tax would be an efficient way of raising revenue, encouraging renewable energy (by making fossil fuel more expensive) and shift the economy away from carbon.

 

5 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

 

That's pretty crazy to think about.  Imagine if Reagor pans out and one of Hightower and Watkins can be productive.  This offense has a chance to be scary good.

Just now, bpac55 said:

Good article by Reub about Fletcher and Jerome.  A few of us started the discussion about how they compare to each other but it didn't gain much traction.  

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/fletcher-cox-honors-jerome-brown-pro-football-hall-of-fame

Who does everyone think is the best Philly beat writer who is primarily in our market.  I think it's safe to say Sheil Kapadia is the best but I consider him on the national level.

Reuben and Dave Zangaro are probably who I spend the most time reading.

Seth Jordan made the Jerome comparison back during the Chip Era, when Cox was playing a 2 gap system and just beasting on double teams.  That was his 3rd year, I think.

I'm curious how the Eagles compare to other NFL teams as far as "redshirting" players. Seems as if we do it fairly regularly especially along the lines (eg Miller, Sweat, Mailata etc)

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I'm curious how the Eagles compare to other NFL teams as far as "redshirting" players. Seems as if we do it fairly regularly especially along the lines (eg Miller, Sweat, Mailata etc)

It's probably because we all follow the Eagles close but it seems like the Eagles do this far more than other teams.  I'm sure every team does it however. 

8 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

It's probably because we all follow the Eagles close but it seems like the Eagles do this far more than other teams.  I'm sure every team does it however. 

I would say that’s fairly common for teams. We’re discussing mid and late-round picks. Most of them are out of the league quickly and aren’t good enough to earn playing time, especially as rookies. 

19 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Well, TEW is obviously far to the right of the mainstream if he thinks McConnell is "moderate."

Trump, of course, has no ideology other than self-aggrandization.

An increase in the income tax would not be radical, it would simply be a return to "normalcy"

1946-51, highest bracket was 91%

1952-53, 92%

1954-63, 91%

1965-81, 70%

1982-86, 50%

1987, 38%

1988-90, 28%

1991, 31%

1993-2000, 39.6%

2001, 39.1%

2002, 38.6%

2003-12, 35.0%

2013-17, 39.6%

2018-2020, 37.0%

Not much evidence that income tax rates have an impact on economic growth, fastest growth period was 1947-73.

What would be "radical" is slashing deductions and loopholes, eliminating deduction of real estate interest, taxing health premiums paid by companies as income (since they are), reforming treatment of depreciation on commercial real estate, tightening the estate tax, and so forth. Doing so would allow a substantial increase in revenue without increasing marginal tax rates, especially the corporate tax.

A carbon tax would be an efficient way of raising revenue, encouraging renewable energy (by making fossil fuel more expensive) and shift the economy away from carbon.

 

I’ve seen TEWs posts over the years.  I wouldn’t describe him as far right at all.  Sure, he’s fiscally conservative and likely more knowledgeable about economics and finance than the rest of us combined.  But hard right?  No way.

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I’ve seen TEWs posts over the years.  I wouldn’t describe him as far right at all.  Sure, he’s fiscally conservative and likely more knowledgeable about economics and finance than the rest of us combined.  But hard right?  No way.

Seems subjective and would differ according to how far left the person judging him is. Afan has shown to be pretty damn radical today. From his perspective, almost everyone is going to look radically right to him. 

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

I’ve seen TEWs posts over the years.  I wouldn’t describe him as far right at all.  Sure, he’s fiscally conservative and likely more knowledgeable about economics and finance than the rest of us combined.  But hard right?  No way.

And Afan is an economist lawyer who used to be a lawyer and is published as an economist. TEW is pretty conservative by my take and I am a fiscal conservative that believes you pay your bills. All this tax reduction and deficit spending of the Republicans and Democrats is pretty radical to me.

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

And Afan is an economist lawyer who used to be a lawyer and is published as an economist. TEW is pretty conservative by my take and I am a fiscal conservative that believes you pay your bills. All this tax reduction and deficit spending of the Republicans and Democrats is pretty radical to me.

I have a problem with deficit spending as well.  I am far from an economic historian, but I believe Bush was one of the first in the Republican Party to venture down that road.  
 

TEW can speak for himself, but he strikes me as someone who would identify as libertarian.  

54 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

That’s a bit of a misleading representation of what Pelosi said.  She was talking about removing statues of Confederates and was asked about Washington and Jefferson because they were slave owners.  She specifically differentiated what they did for this country from Confederate generals but suggested that all statues should be considered for review. Pelosi is not in favor of removing statues of Washington and Jefferson, but is open to a review process for all.  Interestingly, all indications from the writings of Washington and Jefferson suggest both would be appalled by statues and monuments in their honor. 

 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

 Pelosi is talking about reviewing if we should have statues of Washington and Jefferson.

58 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Well, TEW is obviously far to the right of the mainstream if he thinks McConnell is "moderate."

Trump, of course, has no ideology other than self-aggrandization.

An increase in the income tax would not be radical, it would simply be a return to "normalcy"

1946-51, highest bracket was 91%

1952-53, 92%

1954-63, 91%

1965-81, 70%

1982-86, 50%

1987, 38%

1988-90, 28%

1991, 31%

1993-2000, 39.6%

2001, 39.1%

2002, 38.6%

2003-12, 35.0%

2013-17, 39.6%

2018-2020, 37.0%

Not much evidence that income tax rates have an impact on economic growth, fastest growth period was 1947-73.

What would be "radical" is slashing deductions and loopholes, eliminating deduction of real estate interest, taxing health premiums paid by companies as income (since they are), reforming treatment of depreciation on commercial real estate, tightening the estate tax, and so forth. Doing so would allow a substantial increase in revenue without increasing marginal tax rates, especially the corporate tax.

A carbon tax would be an efficient way of raising revenue, encouraging renewable energy (by making fossil fuel more expensive) and shift the economy away from carbon.

 

I'm a not quite radical libertarian.  I guess the best one word description of me would be "minarchist" but of course it's hard to boil one's beliefs down to a single word.  I don't consider myself to be a moderate, and I don't consider McConnell to be a moderate, but I am laughing at you for characterizing Trump and McConnell as "radical reactionaries" when their actual policies over the past 4 years have been far more moderate (and popular) than Obama, whom you characterized as a moderate.

Anyway, if you want to talk tax rates, and normalcy, let's use some perspective, shall we?

Nominal rates are meaningless.  If you are even fractionally as knowledgeable about economics as you've claimed over the years, you would know this.  So let's talk effective tax rates because they are all that matters:

 

Then you talk about the fastest economic growth rate of 1947-1973.  Gee, what on Earth could have been going on during that period? It's almost as if the industrial base of the entire planet had been carpet bombed and the US was the only nation left with the productive capacity to rebuild multiple continents.  Come on, man... if you're going to pretend to be Mr. Centrist Economist, you're going to have to do a lot better than these college freshman nonsense arguments.

The fact is that the US has among the most progressive income tax systems in the OECD.  The revenue "problem" (and I don't agree it's a problem, which we can get into if you'd like) we have is that the lower and middle class aren't paying their fair share when compared to, say, the Scandinavian countries most on the left would point towards as a model. 

29 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

And Afan is an economist lawyer who used to be a lawyer and is published as an economist. TEW is pretty conservative by my take and I am a fiscal conservative that believes you pay your bills. All this tax reduction and deficit spending of the Republicans and Democrats is pretty radical to me.

On that, I agree.

But I'm more libertarian than anything else.

57 minutes ago, austinfan said:

 

Not much evidence that income tax rates have an impact on economic growth, fastest growth period was 1947-73.

 

 

I’m not an economist.  Far from it.  But it’s disingenuous not to acknowledge how multifactorial "economic growth” is. You cant just post that next to the income tax for the year as evidence for what does and does not work.  
 

The subprime mortgage crisis, Great Depression, COVID, internet explosion, industrial revolution....these are major forces that blow through whatever the current climate of income tax may be.  You probably know this far better than I do.  
 

A high vs low income tax isn’t right or wrong.  It’s a philosophy.  

 

10 minutes ago, TEW said:

I'm a not quite radical libertarian.  I guess the best one word description of me would be "minarchist" but of course it's hard to boil one's beliefs down to a single word.  I don't consider myself to be a moderate, and I don't consider McConnell to be a moderate, but I am laughing at you for characterizing Trump and McConnell as "radical reactionaries" when their actual policies over the past 4 years have been far more moderate (and popular) than Obama, whom you characterized as a moderate.

Anyway, if you want to talk tax rates, and normalcy, let's use some perspective, shall we?

Nominal rates are meaningless.  If you are even fractionally as knowledgeable about economics as you've claimed over the years, you would know this.  So let's talk effective tax rates because they are all that matters:

 

Then you talk about the fastest economic growth rate of 1947-1973.  Gee, what on Earth could have been going on during that period? It's almost as if the industrial base of the entire planet had been carpet bombed and the US was the only nation left with the productive capacity to rebuild multiple continents.  Come on, man... if you're going to pretend to be Mr. Centrist Economist, you're going to have to do a lot better than these college freshman nonsense arguments.

The fact is that the US has among the most progressive income tax systems in the OECD.  The revenue "problem" (and I don't agree it's a problem, which we can get into if you'd like) we have is that the lower and middle class aren't paying their fair share when compared to, say, the Scandinavian countries most on the left would point towards as a model. 

No, overall we don't have much of a progressive tax system when you look at overall taxes, Federal, State and Local. And we have low taxes compared to other OECD countries.

In the US, we shift much of the tax burden to the states, most of whom are financed through regressive taxation.

And because the "safety net" is primarily left to the states (i.e. medicare and social security, while progressive spending is mostly limited to the 65 and older group), it's not surprising the Economist finds this result:

"This strange amalgam of views manifests itself in fiscal policy. The federal government has no qualms about making the rich pay the country’s bills; it has perhaps the most progressive tax system in the rich world, according to one study from 2009. But it pulls off only half of Robin Hood’s trick, because it funnels very little of the money it raises towards the poor."

And state and local spending is regressive, just look at per capita spending on education, etc.

Globalization raised overall wealth, but all that gain and more went to the top 5% or so, all the transactions costs went to displaced workers.

The irony is the victims of globalization choose Trump as their savior, a man who despises the poor and working classes (see how he treated his workers and subcontractors over the years).

 

 

 

Welcome to Graph Wars - the Taxation division.  

I'm not an economist but I play one on the Eagles Message Board.  I think if we want to live in a beautiful country with easy access to all of it's beauty, to be able to move about it freely and easily, have clean drinkable water at our fingertips, underground sewer systems, water treatment plants, roads, school for our children, much better access to healthcare, and I could go on for a while, it costs money and each year it's gonna cost more money.  If we don't want to pony up for such an amazing life we suck.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Welcome to Graph Wars - the Taxation division.  

And here I thought all our graphing resources were diverted to COVID.