Why cut off the end of the quote?
That's the form I got the quote in. It doesn't change it though, this is the standard pro-immigration stance - ever hear people argue that we should prioritize indecent people known for their bad conduct?
Yes, the infamous Free White Men of Good Character. That's who he was addressing
Significantly, the 1790 Act placed no restrictions on immigration whatsoever, from white or nonwhite nations, which feels like the opportune chance to have done so if they wanted. Either way this is not a particular contrast with our late 19th century poet. A mostly white crowd is who Lazarus was addressing as well, writing during the era of mass European immigration. It is well known that Washington was himself a racial supremacist and I think it's good we've moved past his bad ideas (he himself felt that the slavery he profited from was immoral and hoped that it would be done away with). My point is that being welcoming to poor immigrants isn't some commie Jewish revisionism, it's been an attitude present in political tradition from the very start - many of our other founders expressed similar sentiments.
Soriek
2mo ago
I mean, he could have made immigration law take morality into account but didn't, suggesting it wasn't really that important to him as a matter of policy. Is the claim "not everybody in the world is equally awesome" really relevant to anyone but Bryan Caplan? Few people genuinely imagine the entire earth should move into their country.
Soriek
2mo ago
I didn’t remove the end of the quote, that’s how I found it. Since you’re commenting on the tail end of a long conversation of me repeatedly arguing the addendum doesn’t change anything, either semantically or when we look at the actual immigration policy the quoted speaker pursued (or his other quotes on the issue), and you aren’t bothering to try to counter, do you have any point of substance to make? If not, let’s end this.
Soriek
2mo ago
because the claim that they don't change the meaning is not an objective, undisputed, fact, it's something you have to explicitly argue
Given that I have been explicitly arguing that, what exactly are you complaining about?
What makes you say this, based on the CBO report that raising the cap could raise an extra trillion?
Soriek
2mo ago
they sabotaged white South Africa until they gave up:
American sanctions didn’t have much impact on the Safrican economy, most of their econ indicators get slightly better after 86 even. This is likely in large part due to Reagan being opposed to them (they were passed over his veto) and slow walking their enforcement. The Treasury said they had lists of Safrican SOEs but not lists of which goods originated from them, so they were pretty limited in application. There was I believe a GAO report saying basically “sanctions didn’t hit most companies, those it did hit just rerouted trade through third party intermediaries in neutral countries”
Soriek
2mo ago
My argument is that the longer quote doesn’t change the meaning at all. You’re trying to argue the longer quote means something different, that actually Washington would have reservations about poor immigrants. The fact that he pursued the most maximalist open borders immigration policy conceivable is a hint to which interpretation is more likely correct.
Soriek
8mo ago
Their entire logic rests on the assumption that the higher spending is causing higher test scores.
If they're taking two neighborhoods and controlling for income, cost of living, demographics, population, pop density, and so on, and find that the difference in the better performing school is more funding per student, this is a reasonable argument to make. As far as I can tell you haven't made a counterargument here. If anyone has any actual objections with the adequacy model they're welcome to raise it, but the entire thing is besides the point because, again, the EPI paper isn't saying "funding is equal but they should be given more for the adequacy score," they're saying "poor districts are funded worse, period." It's also besides the point because my OP isn't some philosophical argument about who deserves what or what's the best way to fund schools; I'm asking a pretty specific question about how these two different think tanks found different conclusions from the same data.
Soriek
2mo ago
We had surprisingly robust state welfare in his time, and he lived through a period of far more extreme restrictions on the first amendment via the Sedition Act. I imagine things nowadays would be pretty unrecognizable for him, but I like to think he'd be proud that we built the richest and freest nation in the world.
Soriek
3mo ago
I lived in North Korea in 2015 and 2016 in order to teach computer science at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. I have a pretty detailed journal of my trip posted online. From that I think you should get a decent sense of what life as a university student in North Korea is like.
Thanks a ton for the insider account.
Soriek
5mo ago
I'm in favor. It would be a pretty massive move away from federalism and towards centralization, so I imagine it would be hard to pass though.
Soriek
6mo ago
because I remember him posting in that specific style over and over and over again
Sure, I remember it differently - same place we were in at the start of this conversation. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree, but you're not going to convince to me by linking to some random comment from somebody else. I don't think that comment is good. There are lots of comments I see here regularly that I don't think are good, or in good faith, but I don't publicly call users out or complain about them the way I see people do for him.
But you aren't actually a 100k salary employee. Your post-payroll cost to your employer is 106.2k.
But the way you calculated your number is by taking the sticker salary, 100k, and applying the full 3.44% tax there instead of to the real 106.2K, which is why your estimate is higher than it should be. Or, more specifically you took the median household income, $74,580, and multiplied by 0.0344, when the total median compensation for purpose of tax burden is $79,203. If you're going to use sticker salary that's fine, but then you should multiply by 0.0172, which is $1282, half of what you cited. Do you seem what I'm trying to point out?
This is also of course the most extreme solution, equivalent to funding the full 75 year projection window. In reality we likely won't raise it anywhere near this high, we can't even agree on the proposal to raise the tax by $3/week/person to close the gap by a fifth.
Soriek
6mo ago
Remember that even though workers really shoulder the full burden of the tax, half of it comes from your employer's account so that's not literally a 3.44% increase on whatever your takehome salary was before.
Soriek
6mo ago
Even if you multiplied that by two for a household, a 3.44% increase in the tax wouldn't come close to $2565.
Soriek
6mo ago
Do we want a larger share of power and capital in the hands of dumb people?
I'd like for them to be provided for in retirement! Certainly better than them being up-in-arms against their poverty, even if it's self inflicted. The problem is much larger than a cohort of dumb people at the bottom of the population as well, insofar as you trust self-reported surveys, various studies are always showing that even surprisingly numbers of well-off people report living paycheck-to-paycheck (25% of people making over $200k, 30% of people making over $250k). If these were middle income folks I would happily accept the counter that raising their payroll taxes would make this worse, but if even the Americans with the most disposable income don't save any of it, it's hard to imagine this would be better in a less-guaranteed retirement system.
Similarly, the "funding solutions" you consider all involve taxing labour more...As Western Europe has already experienced, social democracy via tax-and-spend plus regulation ends up in a trap of stagnation that is politically hard to escape:
These just aren't very high taxes on labor. 0.3% isn't going to bring us to anywhere near Europe. I'll note that even if we were, the Scandanavian countries are the pretty central example of high taxes on labor/consumption, low taxes on capital, and have done some of the best in terms of keeping pace with the US.
But we could even skip that and go with option 2 and only tax the top 5% of laborers. If you'd rather fund it by taxing capital I'm fine with that too. But even the conservative Tax Foundation agrees payroll taxes are more efficient than taxes on capital:
due to the inelasticity of the supply of labor, payroll taxes generate a comparatively small amount of deadweight loss compared to other forms of taxation. This means that payroll taxes lead to a relatively small amount of economic inefficiency, since the quantity of labor in the market does not dramatically decline as a result. Overall, payroll taxes do much less economic harm than taxes on capital. This is evidenced by our analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’ tax proposals, whose payroll tax rate increase raised nearly four times as much revenue as his proposed increases on capital gains and dividends, but with a fourth less of the impact on GDP.
We've also been pretty committed to keeping entitlements funded via payroll tax partially because it's the least unpopular tax, since people see it more as an investment.
Agreed that part of the problem with taxing wages is that businesses can respond by shifting compensation, generally to benefits. That's one of the problems "option 3: Widen the tax base" is trying to account for. Worth noting though that payroll tax is already considered the hardest to dodge:
payroll taxes are very hard to evade. According to the IRS’ criminal enforcement data, investigations into payroll tax abuse make up less than 3 percent of all tax investigations, despite payroll taxes generating about a third of all federal tax revenue.
I'll also note that the (conservative, pro-low tax) Tax Foundation has similarly ambitious estimates for raising the whole cap:
removing the payroll tax cap entirely would lead to $1.8 trillion in additional federal revenue over ten years on a static basis, and primarily impact high-earners. Furthermore, this additional revenue could be used to lower marginal rates on corporate and personal income, growing both wages and GDP by 2.2%, while still raising revenue.
Alternatively you could take the option of raising taxes very slightly on normal people, or even just tax capital directly if we really want to be sure the rich to pay.
Soriek
6mo ago
Because the $250,000 isn't indexed to inflation it's just a slow transition into removing the cap on taxed income while providing benefits only on the social security max income.
Yeah, the title of that section was "Raise the Payroll Cap", this wasn't hidden. Unpleasant decisions will half to be made either way, a decade and a half transition from the payroll cap that fundraises a trillion in the first decade off the top 5% of earners is one of the more reasonable ones I've seen.
It's high time for benefit shortfalls to match funding shortfalls.
Should we cut benefits by over almost a quarter? That's what we're on track to do currently.
Soriek
6mo ago
Fair point. The regressivity is broader than just the cap, generally as you get poorer people pay a larger sharer of the income for payroll, but payouts should ofc be factored in too.
Soriek
8mo ago
The buried assumption here is that putting more money into schools with larger shares of poor students will improve their education. But that's exactly what we were trying to determine! This is circular.
I think you're imagining researchers comparing a poor neighborhood to a rich neighborhood and assuming the difference in outcomes is down to funding. They're not, they're comparing poor neighborhoods and finding that the stand out difference between them (after controlling for income, cost of living, demographics, population density) is the better performing poor school has more funding per student. This is a reasonable conclusion. I'm sure there are counterarguments or complaints to be made about their data or something but no one here is providing them
The world is a big place, 45 days isn't slow.
The claim on the part of the skeptics is that the scientist made an abrupt 180 on their views in only a few days because of pressure from the NIH. Instead they had a month and half during which relevant research was published that overturned the main cited uncertainty.
OK, but any other theory was called a conspiracy theory (at best). So they put forth one possibility and suppressed anything else... You don't see a problem here?
This is what the scientists had to say about the lab leak theory vs the market:
As many early cases of COVID-19 were linked to the Huanan market in Wuhan, it is possible that an animal source was present at this location....
Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.
Pretty reasonable imo. Anyone is welcome to dispute their scientific claims. Again, the same government you're accusing of supressing the lab leak has also repeatedly endorsed the lab leak. Seems like a pretty sloppy coverup imo.
Is that not what you’re referring to with this passage?
History is littered not only with incompetent male rulers, but also men who very competently and effectively executed their vision for society, to the immense detriment of everyone involved because their philosophical premises were rotten. The masculine virtues of course have their corrupted forms, and I would dread living under a regime run by men who embodied those corrupted virtues. (Being sent off to get butchered in some pointless war waged merely to satisfy some red-blooded moron’s bloodlust and pig-headed sense of honor would be a nightmare scenario for me personally.)
A discussion of “the more disastrous decisions in the 20th century” and “pointless wars caused by masculine leaders” that didn’t include fascism would be an odd one indeed. We could certainly add other countries, but ie the Soviet Union of course was no more reliant on women’s support than any other dictatorship from that era.
I mean no, not really, for the reason I described. If someone said "I want oppressed and persecuted people to immigrate here," which is a more natural interpretation?
"I want oppressed and persecuted people to immigrate here, and I want them to be moral people"
"I want oppressed and persecuted people to immigrate here, and I hope they're really bad"
Yes, that is what this conversation is about.
Sure I didn't ask.
More options
Context Copy link