Mediaboss Marketing

Liberals need a wealth tax because income tax revenues cannot fund their spending.Despite the lefts assertions, the rich do not earn enough even if they pay significantly higher tax rates than less-well-off Americans.Therefore, the left must increasingly call for a revolutionary wealth tax to escape their revenue reality.

Everything about Democrats pursuit of their partys 2020 presidential nomination is big.First, they have big plans.Collectively, they have called for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free college tuition, college loan debt forgiveness and massive new infrastructure spending.

Second, they already face a big federal deficit.According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 2019 fiscal yeardeficittotaled just under $1 trillion and 4.6 percent of GDP.Third, as a result, Democrats will need big revenues to pay for their big plans.

Fourth, they have made a big promise: Only the rich will pay their needed big revenues.Yet, Democrats still have a problem an even bigger one: The rich do not earn enough to foot Democrats big bill.

According to Congress official revenueestimator, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the highest income earners shoulder by far the largest share of todays income tax burden.In 2018, those making over $1 million annually amounted to 689,000 returns (0.4 percent of total returns) and paid $583 billion in income taxes (39 percent of total income taxes paid) at an average rate of 25.4 percent.

But these revenues are built into current estimates and do nothing to offset Democratic candidates future spending plans.So, more revenue is needed. And if you are going to tax only the truly rich, it must come from here.

Even doubling this groups income tax burden hardly dints Democrats spending bill, though. It would raise an additional $583 billion in new annual revenue and take their average tax rate to 50.4 percent.Yet over 10 years, that would raise less than $6 trillion in new revenue.

Of course, such drastically higher tax rates would undoubtedly lead to behavioral changes. The Laffer Curve is real, and increasing tax rates would induce decreased levels of the taxed activity.How long people would continue to work, while taking home less than half their earnings, is debatable. But it is certainly likely that they would work less, preferring instead to take more of their return in untaxed form such as greater leisure time.

The upshot is that while such dramatically higher tax rates may arithmetically promise dramatically higher though still insufficient new revenues, they cannot be expected to fully deliver them.So, the Democrats will need to find more rich.

Even going down to the next earning group, those making $500,000 to $1 million annually, does not help much.In 2018, this group paid $187 billion (12.5 percent of total income taxes) at an average 20.7 percent rate. Doubling that only raises, on paper, another $1.87 trillion over ten years, while taking this groups average tax rate to 41.4 percent. Still more rich are needed.

Going to the next earning level, those making $200,000 to $500,000, offers considerably larger taxing opportunity.Laying aside whether these people are in fact rich, in 2018, they paid $381.7 billion in income taxes (25 .5 percent of total income taxes paid) at an average 13.3 percent rate. Doubling here would theoretically raise almost another $4 trillion over ten years.Of course, doing so would raise this groups average tax rate above todays top average tax rate.

All these doublings on paper still would raise only $1.152 trillion in new income tax revenue annually and just under $12 trillion over ten years.Yet, just Medicare for All, according to the Urban Institutesestimate, would cost an additional $32 trillion over a decade.

To make matters worse, this is only the revenue side of Democrats problematic equation.As already discussed, as rates rise, revenues assuredly will fall short of estimates.Simultaneously, spending will rise above estimates, as its subsidization increases demand.In practice, the fiscal shortfall will widen further beyond projections.

Of course, increased spending has never been the lefts concern, but a shortfall of revenue from the rich is.Unable to produce more rich, or plausibly redefine them from the middle class, liberals are forced to look beyond conventional sources to attain revenue.This has led to their unprecedented move to target wealth not just the wealthy instead.

The reality is that there is not enough income in America from the rich or otherwise to pay for the lefts spending plans. Only a wealth tax can sustain the illusion that the rich alone will pay despite the certainty that the burden will spread well beyond them.As income tax revenues prove: Pie-in-the-sky spending inevitably means taxes for the masses.

J.T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department. He served as a congressional staffer from 1987-2000.

Follow this link:
Liberals need a wealth tax because income isn't enough | TheHill - The Hill

How little it takes for a Muslim to be called an extremist.

Look at Aatish Taseer, who once thrilled to Sanskrit word-roots and the glories of Benares, and had fond hopes from this government in 2014. He wrote about his disappointment with PM Modi in an international magazine. Now his overseas citizenship status stands revoked, and the right-wing has promptly dubbed him a jihadi.Take Firoz Khan, the BHU professor of Sanskrit literature, whose father was also steeped in cow-welfare and bhajan-singing. But ABVP activists were enraged that a Muslim dares to teach us our religion, and alleged that he would want a holiday every Friday. Some Hindu nationalists are more charitable, allowing that Khans interest in Indian culture is to be encouraged.

Clearly, melting yourself down to Hindutva specifications isnt enough if you have a Muslim name.

But forget the Hindu right, who are ideologically committed to their position. What is remarkable is how even liberals buy into similar suspicions.

Our prejudices about Muslims are not even original. Our language and images are borrowed. Through the last millennium, the West constructed the Muslim as a threat, as Christianity and Islam competed for power. Nineteenth-century European scholars of the Orient, obsessed with classifying and differentiating, with racial and civilisational theories instilled the idea that the Muslim mind is one, unchanged from the deserts of Arabia, sexist and violent and fanatical.

These colonial storytellers gave us our H&M history Hindus were cast as indisciplined and soft, Turks and Afghans and Persians were all made into generic ferocious Muslims, medieval warfare on all sides was recast as running religious enmity. This British-made history didnt just set off Hindu nationalists you hear it everywhere. Then the American Islamophobia industry after 9/11, which cast specific political conflicts as an enduring struggle with a malevolent, medieval other, fed perfectly into Indian politics and majority common-sense.

This stuff is not always about memories of trauma, it is mass-manufactured mythology. Someone I know in Kerala, who has inherited no psychic injury from any invasion or riot, is a library of Islamophobic stereotypes. He quotes cherry-picked bits from the Quran that abound on the internet, gives no quarter to context. He forgets his real schoolmates and acquaintances, as he frets about this abstract Muslim terrorist.

This allows people like him to blank out the violent hate-crimes, the insecurity and denial of rights that the NRC threatens, the majoritarian tilt of the Ayodhya judgment. It makes it impossible to see the facts of subordination and exclusion that the Sachar committee showed. It makes them reduce democracy-as-usual i.e., responding to interest groups, as every party does as suspect vote bank pandering when it comes to Muslims.

Some liberals are not much better; accepting Hindutva terms like appeasement for basic cultural protections given to minorities in a multicultural nation. They hold pity-parties for Muslim women, as though non-Muslim women are much better off, affecting not to know that sexist societies make for sexist practices, whatever the faith.

To them, just being a believing Muslim is a sign of indoctrination or orthodoxy. Just speaking strongly for yourself, in this embattled situation, makes a Muslim a Musanghi in their eyes. The only acceptable Muslim is the post-faith Muslim, or someone willing to run down their community. Think of everyone clucking over Zaira Wasims choices, or liberal feminists bemoaning the hijab without respecting the rationality of the wearer. Remember how Nusrat Jahans sindoor was gloriously Indian, but Hadiyas choices were about ISIS mind control? Most of us know little, ask little, but judge with an airy superiority.

Religion is a source of selfhood, a personal journey and a community, a refuge and a practice. But when it comes to political Islam, we make a point of the Islam rather than the politics. Even liberals divide things into a grid between good or bad, Sufi or Wahhabi, moderate or fundamentalist, syncretic or scarily alien. But Sufism has inspired fighters too; a better approach might be to see totalitarianism and violence as what they are, whether under the banner of Islam or class struggle or anything else.

As Hindus, we can see the distinctions between our quietly praying grandmothers, people who loudly talk up their faith, those who have a political view of religion, and those accused of violent acts in its name. So lets be consistent in our standards.

This is not to rule out criticism of any religious or social system or practice, but to see it more sharply, locate it in its context, even to criticise more accurately. As the anthropologist Clifford Geertz metaphorically put it, Morocco and Indonesia both bow to Mecca but in opposite directions. The upside of unlearning these biases is obvious the sooner we rid ourselves of phantom fears, the better we can focus on our common welfare, on things that will truly make our lives easier.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Original post:
Liberals need to watch out for their own careless Islamophobia - Economic Times

QUEBEC Liberal leadership candidate Alexandre Cusson says he would never have created Bill 21 on state secularism had he been premier of Quebec because it violates fundamental rights.

And shifting his view closer to that of his rival Dominique Anglade, Cusson said he thinks if a government uses the notwithstanding clause to block court challenges based on individual rights, it can only be on a temporary basis.

I completely agree that the secularism of the state is essential, Cusson told 98.5 radio host Paul Arcand Monday. This said, had I been premier, I would not have presented Bill 21.

This law restricts individual freedoms. The Liberal Party of Quebec defines itself as the party of individual freedoms. I am in favour of state secularism, but there are other ways to get there than Bill 21.

Cussons statement comes a day after he refused to take a position on Bill 21, adopted last June by the Coalition Avenir Qubec government.

The bill bars public servants in positions of authority, such as judges, police officers and teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as a hijab, turban or kippah.

To shield the bill from court challenges, the CAQ government invoked the notwithstanding clause of the constitution. The clause is valid for five years from its use, which was June 2019.

Kicking off her campaign for the leadership Friday, Anglade made it clear that if she becomes premier one day, the government would keep Bill 21 but will not renew use of the clause; in other words, the bill would be subject to court challenges.

Thats what democracy is all about, Anglade said.

This is a position we will develop in the coming months, Cusson, the mayor of Drummondville, said Saturday when asked about the bill. Today, I dont want to enter into specific issues.

But Cusson shifted gears Monday, saying in his view the notwithstanding clauses can only be used on a temporary basis, not as standard practice as the CAQ proposes.

He noted the Liberals used it in the past during language debates but changed laws to adjust to court decisions later and did not renew the clause; in other words, respected the courts.

For me, attacking individual rights is not possible, Cusson said. Using the notwithstanding clause repeatedly? For me a notwithstanding clause, overriding the Charter, can be done like we did at one point with language.

The law was challenged. It had to be corrected. We applied it (the clause) temporarily. We corrected our laws and we moved on. That is how I see the use of the notwithstanding clause.

This said, the Liberal leadership race is not a referendum on Bill 21. I am in favour of state secularism, but there are other ways to get there than Bill 21. We can discuss other solutions, but as for my values, my personal position, I just explained it.

pauthier@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/philipauthier

Continue reading here:
I wouldnt have created Bill 21, Liberal leadership candidate Cusson says - Montreal Gazette

Watch an extended version of the roundtable discussion: https://youtu.be/IVIoC5ROaHk

Black conservatives and liberals hash it out in the VICE Office.

Who voted for Donald Trump? Who voted for Barack Obama? Whats it like seeing a black person wearing a MAGA hat? Has the black vote been taken for granted?

Watch the Minority Reports episode on Young Black Conservatives to learn more about the rise of the black conservative movement: https://youtu.be/DWam9FSRvGI

Click here to subscribe to VICE: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE

Check out our full video catalog: http://bit.ly/VICE-VideosVideos, daily editorial and more: http://vice.comMore videos from the VICE network: https://www.fb.com/vicevideoClick here to get the best of VICE daily: http://bit.ly/1SquZ6vLike VICE on Facebook: http://fb.com/viceFollow VICE on Twitter: http://twitter.com/viceFollow us on Instagram: http://instagram.com/viceDownload VICE on iOS: http://apple.co/28VgmqzDownload VICE on Android: http://bit.ly/28S8Et0

Read this article:
Black Conservatives Debate Black Liberals on Trump, Obama, and American Politics

Social Issues

In terms of views on social issues, conservatives oppose gay marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Liberals on the other hand, are more left-leaning and generally supportive of the right of gay people to get married and women's right to choose to have an abortion, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade.

With regard to the right to bear arms, conservatives support this right as it applies to all US citizens, whereas liberals oppose civilian gun ownership - or at the very least, demand that restrictions be places such as background checks on people who want to buy guns, requiring guns to be registered etc.

The different schools of economic thought found among conservatives and liberals are closely related to America's anti-federalist and federalist history, with conservatives desiring little to no government intervention in economic affairs and liberals desiring greater regulation.

Economic conservatives believe that the private sector can provide most services more efficiently than the government can. They also believe that government regulation is bad for businesses, usually has unintended consequences, and should be minimal. With many conservatives believing in "trickle-down" economics, they favor a small government that collects fewer taxes and spends less.

In contrast, liberals believe many citizens rely on government services for healthcare, unemployment insurance, health and safety regulations, and so on. As such, liberals often favor a larger government that taxes more and spends more to provide services to its citizens.

See Also: Comparing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's Tax Plans

Some good examples of this policy split are the Environmental Protection Agency, which liberals think is vital and some conservatives want to abolish or scale down, and the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which liberals want to expand and conservatives believe should be partially or completely privatized through a voucher system connected to private health insurers.

In the early part of the twentieth century, liberals - especially those in Britain - were those who stood for laissez fair capitalism. In more recent times, however, the nomenclature seems to have reversed. The exception to this is found in Australia, where the mainstream conservative party is called the Liberal Party and the mainstream non-conservative party is called the Labour Party.

Political liberals believe that parties motivated by self-interest are willing to behave in ways that are harmful to society unless government is prepared- and empowered to constrain them. They believe regulation is necessitated when individuals-, corporations-, and industries demonstrate a willingness to pursue financial gain at an intolerable cost to society--and grow too powerful to be constrained by other social institutions. Liberals believe in systematic protections against hazardous workplaces, unsafe consumer products, and environmental pollution. They remain wary of the corruption- and historic abuses--particularly the oppression of political minorities--that have taken place in the absence of oversight for state- and local authorities. Liberals value educators and put their trust in science. They believe the public welfare is promoted by cultivating a widely-tolerant and -permissive society.

Political conservatives believe commercial regulation does more harm than good--unnecessarily usurping political freedoms, potentially stifling transformative innovations, and typically leading to further regulatory interference. They endorse the contraction of governmental involvement in non-commercial aspects of society as well, calling upon the private sector to assume their activities. Conservatives call for the devolution of powers to the states, and believe locally-tailored solutions are more appropriate to local circumstances. They promulgate individual responsibility, and believe a strong society is made up of citizens who can stand on their own. Conservatives value the armed forces and place their emphasis on faith. Conservatives believe in the importance of stability, and promote law and order to protect the status quo.

Liberals believe in universal access to health care--they believe personal health should be in no way dependent upon one's financial resources, and support government intervention to sever that link. Political conservatives prefer no government sponsorship of health care; they prefer all industries to be private, favour deregulation of commerce, and advocate a reduced role for government in all aspects of society--they believe government should be in no way involved in one's healthcare purchasing decisions.

Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, has examined the values of liberals and conservatives through paired moral attributes: harm/care, fairnesss/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. He outlines the psychological differences in the following TED talk:

Haidt has also written a book, The Righteous Mind, based on his studies conducted over several years on liberal and conservative subjects. Nicholas Kristof, an avowed liberal, offered an unbiased review of the book and cited some interesting findings such as:

Liberals should not be confused with libertarians. Libertarians believe that the role of the government should be extremely limited, especially in the economic sphere. They believe that governments are prone to corruption and inefficiencies and that the private sector in a free market can achieve better outcomes than government bureaucracies, because they make better decisions on resource allocation. Liberals, on the other hand, favor more government involvement because they believe there are several areas where the private sector -- especially if left unregulated -- needs checks and balances to ensure consumer protection.

The primary focus of libertarians is the maximization of liberty for all citizens, regardless of race, class, or socio-economic position.

Read more here:
Difference and Comparison - Diffen.com