Our monthly open thread. Post news tips about alt parties and independent candidates, discuss any story that should be posted here but has not yet been posted, or even delve into completely off-topic stuff….just avoid quarantined thread subject matter and things that could get us and/or you into legal trouble such as threats, libel, and copyright infringement.
News tips can also be sent to the IPR writers who have chosen to make their contact info available at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/about/.
It’s also become an IPR tradition to post videos in the open threads. This month I’m doing a triple header, for no particular reason besides the beverages mentioned in the first two videos.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
Cops Tell Children Not To Buy Lemonade!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7wlx95Ztsw
How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (Skeptics see this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M
New thread is up if you all would like to take the FTT discussion there.
gw: No one on this thread is suggesting a tax on all financial transactions (deposits, withdrawals, etc) — except maybe the voices in Zapper’s thread.
me: Actually, Z was just extrapolating off my point, to be fair. I’m tweaking the FTT and the FAIR tax into one basic tax principle, that is, taxing at VERY low rates all transactions. I’m suggesting perhaps a VAT structure for financial vehicles, which may or may not include deposits and withdrawals.
So far, in concept, I’d certainly carve out gifts. The broader the transaction base, the lower the rate can be.
I believe AZ was also today. Anyone have an update of results?
The Manhattan Libertarian Party (one of New York State’s dozen chapters) held its annual Convention today. Great time was had by all at the spectacular Ukrainian East Village Restaurant.
Thanks to our regional alternate rep. Josh Katz for making the trip to NYC from CT (and to Rich Tomasso for offering to do so from NH).
Excellent slate of activists elected as officers for the upcoming year, two excellent speakers and of course perogis for peace!
Onward to freedom in an un-free City.
I’m posting it now.
No one on this thread is suggesting a tax on all financial transactions (deposits, withdrawals, etc) — except maybe the voices in Zapper’s thread.
I thought that link I posted on this topic would make a fine article from posting here. It’s a position paper from a third party — seems right up IPR’s alley.
z: Most transactions not for financial instruments and use verbal or even non-verbal agreements and not written contracts at all. ….Labor and marriage contracts would also be untaxed, and they have very high legal enforcement costs in the court system. Securities contracts have a relatively low enforcement cost.
me: You are starting to understand my point, which I appreciate. I see any transaction as being a contract, and, yes, most are unwritten. Person A offers product B at price C, D buys or not. This is what we do in civil society, we exchange, which is a form of a contract. The rule of law facilitates this.
Without the rule of law, in a state of nature, A possesses B, and D might be decide to just take it from A.
In civil society, we need to figure out how to pay for the institutions that allow for us to remain civil. Currently, how that is done is with a massive state that is paid for with a range of rather wacky ways to raise revenues.
In concept, I’d like to see the services matched as closely as possible with the behaviors that the domestic-tranquility functions that the state performs. Transactions are what differentiates civil society from the jungle, where there is no “property,” just “possessions.”
Mine is a rather new paradigm, I think, so it takes some time for me to explain it and for you to understand it. Although this transaction tax proto-concept basically is just a sales tax that would include financial transactions, in some form.
z: Since, in general, those with the greatest value of trades will be the richest individuals with the greatest value of consumption, they will be paying their fair share of the total cost of government – everyone will be paying 10% of their consumption.
me: I’m less concerned with how the tax burden is allocated among income or wealth levels, and more concerned with matching pricing of services with the use of those services. Getting that perfectly allocated seems impossible to me. Getting it clos-ish…perhaps not.
You don’t challenge my point about the inequity that a poor (or rich) person paying tax on a loaf of bread is subsidizing a credit default swap trader. You seem to be OK with it. I’m not.
z: Perhaps you should look at charging fees for access to the civil court system for enforcement.
me: Charging access to courts sounds wildly inequitable to me, since the costs of bringing a legitimate case would go through the roof. Court fees would be profoundly high. (Loser pays has some appeal to me, though.)
z: Giving your kid a weekly allowance would be a taxable FT, so would church donations. You’re going to need a very complex system of exemptions.
me: I dunno, maybe. Those sound like gifts to me. I’m positing something new, I think, offering general principles. Might look like a national sales tax on all transactions, with a financial services VAT.
Details would have to be worked out, and the VAT would have to be designed to avoid the offshoring factor that you rightly bring up and I agree is of concern.
RC: One more problem is that you are conflating a tax on consumption with a tax on contracts. A 10% flat-rate VAT is a tax on consumption – not on contracts.
You want to make a tax on contracts. I do not. I do not have to solve your conundrum because there is no need to tax one type of contract (financial), when with a flat-rate VAT consumption tax no contracts are being taxed. Consumption is being taxed.
You are inexplicably confused about contract enforcement as a major consumer of govenment consumption spending. In reality it’s a relatively insignificant line item, it is consumption spending and it can also be funded with user fees.
Government only has consumption spending. Only consumption should be taxed to fund that spending.
Government does provide services that could be privatized, but until they are, there is nothing wrong with user fees used to offset costs. User fees are not taxes IMO.
z: Taxing deposits and withdrawals at banks, check cashing, bill paying – even paying your taxes by check could be a taxable transaction – this would not lead to a perception of fairness.
RC: Possibly correct, depending on the rate. OTOH, a deposit or especially a withdrawal from one’s own account could be argued to not be a “transaction” at all. Changing one’s wallet from one pocket to another is not a transaction as I see it.
********
When you deposit money you are making a loan to the bank. When you withdraw money or pay bills, you are being repaid for part of the loan you made to the bank. These are financial transactions involving two parties and not moving money from one pocket to another. This IS one of the misconceptions that hurts the public understanding of the economy.
*******
BTW: Giving your kid a weekly allowance would be a taxable FT, so would church donations. You’re going to need a very complex system of exemptions. The FTT fails. There’ll be public outage, cries for exemptions, massive lobbying for exemptions … sounds like today’s income tax.
RC: It seems that your main objection is that securities trading contracts are untaxed and that somehow this makes them free riders. But these are a tiny fraction of 1% the total contracts entered into daily in the US. Most transactions not for financial instruments and use verbal or even non-verbal agreements and not written contracts at all.
Labor and marriage contracts would also be untaxed, and they have very high legal enforcement costs in the court system. Securities contracts have a relatively low enforcement cost.
Since, in general, those with the greatest value of trades will be the richest individuals with the greatest value of consumption, they will be paying their fair share of the total cost of government – everyone will be paying 10% of their consumption.
Perhaps you should look at charging fees for access to the civil court system for enforcement. (Many Ls, of course, would insist on privatizing the courts.) The filing fees could be based on the value of the items at issue, with very low flat fee filing fees for marriage and family court contracts and small claims where no “value” may pertain. Of course in high asset value divorce cases, which often require more court resources, a percentage probably should be charged.
more…
GP, and if not, how do you justify the free riding that the contract-enforcement services that financial transactions benefit from vs that all other transactions are heavily taxed?
gp: Charging on instruments moving money…oh, it’s the stamp tax again.
me: Yes, along with all other transactions, perhaps collected at the time of the transaction, or perhaps through a VAT-like mechanism.
Clear your mind for a moment of the negative association with the AmRev. Would a very low transaction tax be preferable to taxing incomes, profits, corporations, capital gains, dividends, etc.?
Charging on instruments moving money…oh, it’s the stamp tax again.
GW, thanks, although the punitive tone and grandiose assumptions of being able to fine-tune trading with a tax seems off to me. Yes, I could imagine that marginal trades are happening BECA– USE the free-riding enables them.
Sometimes Ls have a romanticized view of Wall St and capitalism. Here’s an ex. for consideration: in the 90s, I did investor relations for publicly traded companies. I had frequent contact with the buy side, sell side, and investment bankers. It was widely known that the investment banks often crammed their less attractive equity and debt raises onto the buy side (mutual funds, etc.). The funds went along, because if they didn’t, they feared the investment bankers would not allocate the very attractive NEXT IPO or capital raise to them. It was a kind of blackmail, IOW.
I’d submit that this sorta thing led to the Tech Wreck/Dot Bomb of 2000.
Nevertheless, I don’t buy this leftist notion that taxes should be used to correct market behavior. I do think that transactions that rely on contract enforcement should contribute to the institutions underlying that enforcement. The free riding has gone on for long enough.
From the Tax Wall Street Party:
http://taxwallstreetparty.org/program/1-wall-street-sales-tax
z: Taxing deposits and withdrawls at banks, check cashing, bill paying – even paying your taxes by check could be a taxable transaction – this would not lead to a perception of fairness.
me: Possibly correct, depending on the rate. OTOH, a deposit or especially a withdrawal from one’s own account could be argued to not be a “transaction” at all. Changing one’s wallet from one pocket to another is not a transaction as I see it.
It’s certainly fairer than all the free riding that happens when contracts are executed without paying for the underlying contract-enforcing services that the government provides.
more…
Zapper, call me crazy, but advocating a tax plan that would not even fund SS benefits is WAY past edgy.
Zapper, tell us how a 10% flat consumption tax on a loaf of bread bought by a poor person is fair when the funds subsidize the contract-enforcement-institutions undergirding, say, credit-default-swaps or a put order on Twitter or even an intrinsic purchase of Tesla shares?
(btw, I seriously doubt such a tax would fund current SS benefits, much less the DOJ and Supreme Court.)
And this pearl makes me wonder if you are Herbert Spencer reincarnated:
“The ability of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Koch bros, etc. to build a company and never pay any tax on their shares, growing to tens of billions of dollars tax free, with either an income tax or an FTT would now be available to everyone. Every individual could invest, start a business, buy and sell shares – tax free, just like the big boys. That’s fairness people will appreciate.”
You may have read too many Ayn Rand books, but in my experience, most people I encounter have no interest or prospect of being Gates, Buffett, or the Kochs. I sure don’t. So I’m thinking the appreciation might be all in your mind. 😉
“withdrawals” … spelling error
Essentially, every dollar you earn and don’t spend, with a flat-rate 10% consumption only tax, would be tax free, its earnings would be tax free, you could change from one investment to another, tax free – better for most people than just leaving your money in a single investment – all tax free, your whole life tax free, until you decide to spend money to consume something.
It would be changing from a system where you need an IRA or some similar vehicle to protect your money and everything outside is taxed, to a system where all your earnings, savings, income and investments are tax free – your whole life would be tax free, like living in a super IRA, until you spend the money.
We can sell this kind of tax reform to the bulk of America. It will take time, but so has marijuana decriminalization taken time.
This is why I think the solution for an LP campaign is to support a 10% flat-rate consumption tax that supports a government reduced to live on that level of revenue. Expanding the tax to include other transactions would take away the simplicity and may even reduce the perception of fairness. Taxing deposits and withdrawls at banks, check cashing, bill paying – even paying your taxes by check could be a taxable transaction – this would not lead to a perception of fairness.
Since a 10% flat-rate VAT – on all new goods and services – would hit everyone, and since rich people who spend their money would be paying much more in total taxes, it is conceivable the bulk of the public would believe that this was a fairer system than we have now. They certainly would appreciate the simplicity since only businesses and people selling goods and services would have an obligation to record, report, collect and pay.
Examples of fairness with a flat-rate VAT only on consumption:
The infamous 3-martini lunch, which is now tax deductible for a business, would become taxable.
The ability of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Koch bros, etc. to build a company and never pay any tax on their shares, growing to tens of billions of dollars tax free, with either an income tax or an FTT would now be available to everyone. Every individual could invest, start a business, buy and sell shares – tax free, just like the big boys. That’s fairness people will appreciate.
Yes, I do understand the concept of “fairness” being desired from the perspective of the individuals that make up the public, and also that they will never agree that whatever tax system we may devise or that even having no taxes at all is or would be “fair.”
A low, flat, simple tax is more likely to be perceived as fair. This desire for fairness is what motivates the backers of the Fair Tax, obviously, but the prebate makes the tax rate too high to be perceived as fair. Even without the prebate, it is probably not possible to make a new tax system that supports the present sized government that exists in the US, all levels combined. So, any new tax structure that is designed to be accepted by the bulk of the public and perceived by a majority as fair will require shrinking the size and expenditures of government.
Of course many people think that shrinking the government isn’t fair either. So, we need a position that is radical and edgy, moves significantly toward liberty, yet will maintain some government for the time being, enough to satisfy a new majority that has decided to move part of the way toward a minimum libertarian type state without the great national gestalt that would be necessary to bring about the perfect Rothbardian anarchy.
hmmm, maybe a VAT for financial transactions….
Z, OK, I agree with much, possibly most, of what you say in your last 2 posts.
You are still avoiding my main point, which got me thinking about SOMETHING LIKE the FTT (not the ones that haven’t worked, and not even necessarily something we’d ID as an FTT).
So, let me try again, as I’m sensing that you are becoming more willing to have an adult discussion vs a childish debate on specifics tax regimes.
Governments provide (at least currently) certain functions necessary for a civil society. They provide for domestic-tranquility institutions to minimize jungle-like kill-or-be-killed behavior in our communities and streets. They also provide contract-enforcement institutions, like civil courts, where contract disputes are sorted.
Currently, to pay for these institutions, we are taxed for various behaviors. Pay is taxed. Purchases of goods and services are taxed. Profits are taxed. Capital gains and dividends are taxed. (All of these are evaded and avoided under any number of tax structures, we should stipulate, OK? Discussing the ethics of these seems immaterial to the conversation. It happens and will likely always happen to some extent, OK?)
In considering SOMETHING LIKE the FTT, it got me thinking: Why is it fair and equitable that certain classes of contracts are not taxed at all? Governments provide the courts and frankly the implied threat that contract-breaking could lead to a forcible making whole of the aggrieved party? And yet these transactions are not taxed while all other ones are?
Add to that the fact that in terms of direct beneficiaries of financial trading tend to be the wealthiest? How is that fair and equitable?
Actually, what I’m simply thinking out loud about — with no particular position at this time — is actually not that different from a VAT, except I am open to the possibility that those who benefit from financial contract trading should also contribute to supporting the contract enforcement institutions that we all pay for.
You make great points about the SPECIFICS, which I’ve alluded to agreeing with all along. Again, first get the general principles right, though.
Taxing transfers of wealth — contracts — it strikes me should bear the load along with buying bread, so long as the specific actions don’t lead to generally bad outcomes for everyone.
My understanding — less than yours, perhaps — is that spreads have narrowed mightily in recent decades, and with globalization, it COULD BE that any form of transaction tax on financial instruments is a non-starter. As a relative principle, however, I am open to the possibility as a matter of generalized equity. It may well be impractical in practice, but I’d submit that novices on IPR don’t have the analytical tools necessary to make that call.
It could be that in part BECA– USE financial transfers have benefited from free riding, trading has become TOO HYPER, going down to the most marginal of trades.
Let me stipulate that while I consider myself L, I don’t relish Rothbard’s concept that it’s a good thing if some can avoid/evade taxes while other cannot. It’s just too sociopathic a worldview for this cowboy. I much prefer to see a generalized taxpayer solidarity than his (bizarre, IMO) form of social Darwinism.
The “Fair Tax” has this problem. The tax rate is just too high.
We should eliminate ALL taxes, replace them all with a single tax – simple economics understood by the ancient Chinese thousands of years before Adam Smith.
That tax must be no more than 10%, shared by all levels of government and tax only consumption, spread broadly and widely. There must be a Constitutional cap at 10%, taxing consumption only. To deal with the problem of the balanced budget, off budget items, contingent liabilities etc, there must be a Constitutional prohibition against any further borrowing by government at all levels. It may require rolling over existing debt without increasing it, but I’d prefer a bankruptcy type procedure for the US govt, and any indebted lower govt: pay off what is possible, settle for partial amounts, repeal entitlements and abrogate whatever is unpayable. Start off clean.
A sales tax that is too high will generate massive problems as well. No question. The recent death by top in New York City of a man selling cigarettes illegally imported from another state to avoid the high “sin tax” on cigs is a good example. That’s why a broadly spread tax at a very low, equal, rate on every good and service – all consumption items – is the best tax. No exceptions, but only on consumption.
Any FTT is too problematic.
But the limit for this consumption tax, sales tax or VAT is 10%. A bit arbitrary, but policy to be acceptable to the public, must be simple, visible, easily understood, with round numbers. Above 10% and purchasers will have too much pain – leading to both avoidance and evasion.
I have no problem with avoidance, nor really with evasion, but I do want to limit the pain.
I have no problem with people avoiding taxes. Bartering would be fine along with a VAT. Also, with a VAT, people would have an incentive to reuse and repair instead of buying new – also a good thing for the economy and environment. (Actually, it would be more accurate to say that it would eliminate the incentives under the current system to throw away and waste useful and repairable goods.)
Your 10% for tax EVASION comes to $300 billion. That’s a lot of people willing to break the law to save on taxes.
But you’re overlooking the fact that with the transaction tax were talking about tax AVOIDANCE – more than $1 trillion per year.
And to set up a tax destined to destroy whole industries within the US is a fools errand. Stupid tax policies have been tried and failed before. We can see what will happen and it’s silly to deny it.
Z, glad to see you agree that the VAT indeed has problems, too. Itemizing might help give it more visibility, good point.
PF, Bill Ackman is a rising-star hedge-fund manager and a bit of a rabble rouser. I could have used Ray Dalio or Steve Cohen, but I picked Ackman. Point is: Z speaks with such ENORMOUS authority, I figured I’d call him on his grandiosity.
Z, yes, high taxes are bad for everyone. We agree. All forms of taxes have downsides, we agree. Hopefully you agree that the VAT has issues, too!
You are getting into the weeds of specifics before challenging your general assumptions. First things first.
Not sure why you think Zapper is Ackman, unless that’s an inside joke or a cultural reference I am missing.
Your choice, although I am sure you know you are easily capable of writing original editorials. The offer is open to others besides you, though.
A VAT, value added tax, has to do with how the tax is collected, not making a tax invisible. Unlike a sales tax which is levied at the final sale only, a VAT is assessed on each step, or each sale from extraction of natural resources, transport, manufacturing all along the way. Each seller pays on the full cost but subtracts the tax already paid.
However, there is no reason to think that a VAT would be invisible. In many countries, the VAT is itemized on the sales receipt at the point of purchase along with the untaxed cost of the product and the total cost of the sale. Everyone can see their total VAT paid for any and every purchase. It’s just a better way to collect a sales tax.
True, a VAT can be hidden and not printed on sales receipts, but so can a general sales tax.
Zapper/Ackman, you could change your name to Captain Obvious!
Of course there is evasion and avoidance now. And, yet, the feds took in $3T in FY14. This is not a limb. That’s a whole buncha gwap.
The estimates for evasion that I see are maybe 10%. That doesn’t look like “most” “fleeing.”
ANY tax regime will have both evasion and avoidance, including, btw, your beloved VAT! Bartering comes to mind. So stipulated!
Consider the possibility that your inability to discern shades of gray might be hindering your analytical abilities. Consider working from the general to the specific. This tends to be contrary to ZAPsolutistic thought, I’ve found.
France recently experimented with very high income tax rates – a policy set to expire with few remaining supporters, as they saw large numbers of rich and famous citizens leave France and surrender their citizenship. The UK had a similar experience that notably drove many famous musicians and artists out of the UK. Presently thousands of Americans annually are giving up their US citizenship for tax purposes every year. All legal tax avoidance.
And you really don’t think when it only takes a few computer keystrokes and maybe a phone call, from the comfort of home, without moving or changing citizenship, to legally save thousands, millions or billions of dollars, that most people won’t do it?
Several countries have tried versions of Financial Transaction Taxes, although a number remain on stocks in countries without major financial industries raising very little money. Most FTTS have been abandoned as failures – especially the countries that have attempted taxing banking transactions which have apparently all been abandoned.
Now you’ve really left yourself out on a limb. There IS massive tax evasion – hundreds of billions of dollars – in the US. But, more importantly, there is massive tax avoidance. Every deduction, every loophole, every action taken by a taxpayer or potential taxpayer to legally avoid any portion of a tax – hundreds of billions of dollars more.
You see, it would be legal to transfer funds overseas – without draconinian financial and currency controls, and it would be legal to invest overseas. So, this would be tax avoidance.
Individuals in the US DO engage in massive tax avoidance all the time. Given it’s legality and the massive legal tax savings possible, why would any market maker, bank, institution or large investor NOT buy/sell off shore?
pf: It’s fine here, although I would still be interested if one of you, or Guess Who or anyone else who is interested, can submit an essay or article for us on this issue.
me: Thanks. Above my paygrade. I’m simply sharing another way of looking at the nature of government and how we pay for it as we ride the asymptote toward anarchy, and my take on how the politics and economics might play. Clearly I lack Zapper’s God-like knowledge and prescience!
Zapper, however, being Bill Ackman’s alias, can I’m sure provide a trenchant case for suing anyone who calls themselves L who deviates from the plumbline! 😉
Z, you amuse me. You remind me of the L from WI I once knew who told me that he audited his household utility bills, find rounding errors, and then he’d bill the utility for the pennies he was overcharged. His Dad was a CFO for a company who suggested the company put orange trees in everyone’s office so they could claim the tax preferences for orange groves.
Some are hyper-litigious and petty in how they interact with the world. Most in my experience are not, and most don’t catastrophize nearly to the level you seem to when you share here on IPR.
Let’s take it from the top:
z: The government only engages in consumption.
me: I simply disagree. Governments are how civil societies and their members provide for domestic tranquility and contract enforcement. Contracts involve both consumption and saving/investments.
I used to find the idea of a consumption tax somewhat alluring, until I stepped back and considered what services governments perform. They enforce contracts, many of which are financial investments. My thought, then, is that to only tax income/profits or consumption allows for massive free-riding by those who benefit from the services governments provide (poorly and overly, I’m sure we agree).
I’ve stipulated a few times that HOW that’s done might look something like an FTT or some variation on the theme. Whether everyone flees, whether everyone will demand getting their paycheck in cash (which is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a VERY long time…do I need to explain why?) seems ludicrous on its face. Of course how the transaction tax is structured is mightily important, of course.
Given your propensity to catastrophize, by your logic, given the high level of income, SS and other taxes now, why is there not wholesale (nearly everyone) tax evasion? Clearly that is not happening! Some do. Some live off the grid in the underground economy, etc. ANSWER THIS FIRST, IF YOU CAN.
Most want to remain engaged in the above-ground economy, for it offers them many choices and they don’t have to live on the lamb!
Aside: the VAT? Really? Personally, I think tax visibility is important, so that taxpayers see the cost of government, hopefully agitating for less of it. The VAT lacks visibility, as I understand it.
RC and Zapper: thank you for moving the FTT discussion here as opposed to the presidential nomination debate/discussion. It’s fine here, although I would still be interested if one of you, or Guess Who or anyone else who is interested, can submit an essay or article for us on this issue. I’d be open to publishing more than one as well.
Finally, logically, it only makes since to tax consumption.
The government only engages in consumption. Most government expenditures involve payroll for government employees or transfer payments – all consumption. There is almost nothing that can be considered an investment – in fact the government shouldn’t be investing.
Further, although few economists understand infrastructure at all, all infrastructure spending by Federal, State and Local governments is AT BEST a consumption expenditure. In reality, it’s worse, because nearly all governmental infrastructure expenditures are and ALWAYS have been for the wrong infrastructure. These expenditures have a negative economic value, causing more economic damage than benefit.
In order to cause the least economic damage, only consumption should be taxed in order to fund government consumption.
To keep the resulting consumption tax low – a 10% VAT perhaps – to fund all government at all levels, with a Constitutional Cap at 10%, cutting govt expenditures to match, mandated balanced budget, repealing all other taxes, would be a reasonable first step position for an LP candidate.
Now lets get to more FTT crazyness. Since you seem to intend to tax ALL financial transactions, lets think about what that means:
Joe Worker gets his paycheck. This is a Financial Transaction for each party. (Workers will begin to demand payment in cash, because …)
JW goes to the bank to cash his check. Another FT and another tax.
or JW deposits his check in the bank. Another FT. Actually this would be an FT for both JW and the bank, but would banks be able to accept any deposits if they were taxed on their FTs? No, if banks were taxed on their side they would be unable to accept deposits.
JW withdraws money to make a purchase … Yup another FT and another tax.
JW goes to the store to spend his cash … more tax.
JW writes a check to pay a bill. TAX
JW uses a debit card to make a purchase or withdraw cash. TAX
No one would stand for this. Not even at low rates.
With about 2,000 market makers in the US taking one side in nearly every major market transaction, most will be making billions of dollars in trades annually and they will face very large taxes even at small percentages. **** Expect nearly all of them to move offshore.
The top 20% of households with 90% of stocks can also be expected to move nearly all their transactions offshore.
Among the 80% of households, a large percentage would also be compelled to move their transactions offshore. Anyone with a relatively large portfolio and any significant dollar volume of trades will move.
As a result, we can expect that nearly all TRADES will be moved off shore, the NYSE would close.
We can also expect that in addition to market makers, large institutions, and wealthy individuals, who will nearly all move offshore, many middle class investors will follow. So, it is reasonable to expect 50% or more of all TRADERS to move offshore.
Re: market maker on major exchanges in the US:
As of October 2008 there were over two thousand market makers in the USA. – Wikki
In liquid markets like the New York Stock Exchange, nearly every asset has open interest,
providing two bene?ts: price takers can buy or sell at any time, and observers can continually monitor a precise price of every asset.
*******
Nearly every transaction has a market maker on one side on the NYSE.
******
The top 20% of US households hold 90% of all stocks in the US. You should expect that their transactions would be relatively large so that even a small tax would encourage them to move their transactions overseas.
******
About 50% of American adults own some stocks. However, the bottom 80% of US households only own 10% of corporate stocks.
PF, probably not the best way to put it, then. Now it could be that the marginal transaction doesn’t happen when the tax is, say, 0.2%.
To say that all transactions don’t happen when that’s the tax rate seems preposterous to me.
All or nothing-ism misses the marginal revolution!
Transactions happen, or they don’t.
In the latter case, the regime doesn’t get the revenue it thinks it needs to do all the things it thinks it needs to do, while the economy does not get the market signals that enable large portions of capital investment to take place, along with losing the financial markets and ancillary businesses which themselves form a large portion of the economy of some major cities. Both the regime and the economy tank. Doesn’t sound very optimal.
one of the alluring things for me about transaction taxes generally is that they are not prone to much manipulation, like profit or income taxes. Transactions happen, or they don’t. They are, in a sense, always marked to market, be it a loaf of bread or a credit default swap.
Civil societies run on the ability to make and enforce contracts. A tiny, known tax that matches up with each transaction seems way more economic than the convoluted system we have now.
Two of the big problems with the FAIR tax is that the rate is ridiculously high and that all the transactions that are not considered consumption are not taxed at all. This misses the fact that the rule of law protects the ability to make non-consumption-based transactions. Why single out consumption? And why penalize it so heavily?
more…
Actually, in broad strokes, I would be open to a sales- and FTT replacing all other taxes to be slightly more progressive than the current regime from a static perspective. But with no capital gains, no individual or corporate income taxes, etc., I would see an S/FTT combo as unleashing much entrepreneurial creativity, as there would be tiny marginal tax rates on capital and labor.
Z: One side of nearly every trade is made by a high frequency trader called a market maker. That means nearly all trades would go off shore just based on the needs of market makers.
me: Nearly all? Do you have a percentage?
z: Buyers would have every incentive to transfer their cash overseas, then buy their shares in a free market. Unless you plan some draconian form of currency control, there is no way to prevent this. They would be able to get the best price when buying, have their shares held by an overseas broker, and sell them again without the transaction tax.
me: Again, do you have a percentage? There are probably fairly straightforward ways to capture trades that are being made on behalf of a US person or institution. Tobin and others don’t see this as such a big deal.
z: Finally, the major exchanges would shut down.
me: Well, if you are so sure, and you possess perfect knowledge and prescience, then that would indeed be a bad thing.
z: Sure, you could propose a tax so low that it generated little revenue and didn’t drive everyone away. But the biggest traders would still move to other exchanges around the world. Even at a very low level, more than half of all trades would flee.
me: OK, now you’ve offered a number. Are you Carl Icahn or Bill Ackman slumming here on IPR?
z: Major banks and corporations already have traders moving money around the planet 24 hours per day to gain tiny slices of interest and to take advantage of tiny price differences – buying in one market and selling in another. They are already set up to move any and all financial transactions offshore.
me: A good thing.
z: And yes, a FTT is a tax on wealth. You have an asset worth a certain amount, you may have a capital gain, no change or loss while holding that asset, but you are taxed on its value. That is a wealth tax. Sure, it’s only assessed when you trade, but it’s not based on P/L so it’s not an income tax. It’s not a sales tax on a good or service produced, it’s not a value added tax since there is no value added – it’s not a consumption tax. It is a wealth tax that can be avoided by not buying, not selling or buying and selling in an overseas market – so it’s a selective, discriminatory and foolish tax on wealth.
me: OK, if you really need to call it an “avoidable wealth tax,” you can. It looks to me more like a sales tax to fund contract enforcement and general domestic tranquility purposes.
z: Burger King merged with a Canadian doughnut company in a reverse merger where BK becomes a subsidiary of Tim Hortons as the parent to save on US taxes. Hundreds of US companies have gone through difficult mergers to legally avoid US income taxes, and you sit there with a straight face pretending that people and businesses who can move their trades offshore with a phone call and a few computer keystrokes that will save them thousands, millions and billions of dollars somehow won’t do it … you’ve got to be trolling.
me: Thanks I’m familiar with tax inversions. Given that you call yourself “Zapper,” I’m assuming that’s short for the ZAP or ZAPsolutism. To the absolutist mind, everything is all or nothing, and the absolute certainty with which you write strikes me as emblematic of that mindset. I do not take the position that a shift to transaction taxes is necessarily the Yellow Brick Road. It, like any tax, has downsides. It might not be workable, although the cases I’ve read for it and against it tells me it *might* be a good way to go versus the CURRENT tax system, which is deeply dysfunctional, don’t you agree, Mr. Ackman? 😉
z: Banks and other businesses make millions of dollars by watching out for little details, such as rounding fractions of a penny up or down, and you think they won’t make a phone call to avoid a wealth tax on trades? Really? You really don’t have a clue about markets? I’m truly surprised that you don’t know how financial markets work.
me: Again, you wildly swing to false conclusions. I agree that some banks and businesses sweat down to the penny in some things. Most don’t in my experience. Care would need to be taken in crafting a transaction tax, of course. If there was a risk that a house would be barred from trading US government debt, for instance, for evading an FTT, that risk might not be worth 0.1% tax dodges. Dunno. Don’t claim to be an expert like you, Mr. Ackman! I like the politics and economics of a tiny transfer tax on all transactions, in broad concept. Might well be a non-starter, but your vociferousness has gotten my attention.
z: … and btw, a FTT would not be lower than a capital gains tax for most of the participants in the trades you see every day on the big exchanges.
me: Sorry, grandiose conclusion based on almost no information that I can see.
z: For every seller with a loss or no gain, the FTT would obviously exceed their zero capital gains.
me: Here we agree.
z: For market makers, where their net income is a fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny spread between buy and sell prices – and they are taking one side of most trades – the FTT would exceed their normal margins (which is why margins would have to widen significantly causing buyers, sellers and market makers to flee). They have to balance their stock buys eventually with stock sales..
me: I see. You are the Ghost of Milton Friedman residing in Bill Ackman’s body, eh? 😉
Executive branch disloyalty to Constitution sets new record
http://news.firedoglake.com/2015/01/16/white-house-approved-cia-hacking-of-senate-computers/
Via FB
Marc S. Ragusa
Today at 3:25pm
Major News Today: The Supreme Court announced it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution. The court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to two-and-a-half hours. The justices will consider two related questions. The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under the equal protection clause. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere under the full faith and credit clause.
http://theantimedia.org/nypd-reimposes-ticket-writing-reinstates-authoritarianism/
As Zawadzinski said,
“It’s like any other business; you don’t perform, you’re shown the door.”
http://www.goldusagroup.com/diary/427/january-2015-liberty-for-america Now no longer a physical newsletter but still being published online…
Interesting reading, as usual. Thanks for the posts!
Ballot access is very difficult for it and very short time frame.
I thought you’d like him. Have you checked out his other videos?
http://scuzztwittly.com/videos.html
I wonder if the Greens, CP, LP or even one of the shades of the different Socialist Parties will run someone in the Staten Island special election? Or, yawn, just the D’s and R’s.
paulie, I owe you big time for introducing me to Scuzz Twittly. That guy is hilarious.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-arrested-aggravated-assault/21547875/
See the latest from The Saturnalian:
The Saturnalian Stands with Charlie Hebdo
http://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/the-saturnalian-stands-with-charlie-hebdo/
Jim Webb Passages in Context
http://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/jim-webb-passages/
Pastor Manning Demands the Truth, Calls for Al Sharpton’s Release
http://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/pastor-manning-demands-the-truth-calls-for-al-sharptons-release/
I am as well.
As am I!
“To some degree it is principle, not just priorities. Many right-libertarians support strong immigration restrictions, outlawing abortion, and/or a hawkish foreign policy. They side with the police in Ferguson, believe we should “pave the earth” rather than “save the earth,” believe climate destabilization is a hoax. A few are racist/chauvinist/misogynist, but more are “anti-anti-racist” or aggressively “anti-PC.” Many of them support theocratic values at the state/local level, although they support a much smaller federal government. Right-libertarians frequently see existing big business as roughly equivalent to a theoretical free market, and laud present day big corporations as heroes who are unfairly oppressed by government. They tend to believe that poor people and racial minorities are themselves to blame if they are not doing as well as other groups of people, and that they tend to be the primary beneficiaries of big government at the expense of the rich and the middle class, and of straight white men.
Left libertarians generally side with protesters against police, see corporate bosses and the super-wealthy more often that not as beneficiaries allies rather than opponents or victims of big government, see poor folks, women and racial, sexual and religious minorities as more often harmed than helped by government, tend to be skeptical of or opposed to corporate noncontractual limited liability and personhood, tend to see absentee ownership of large tracts of property as not necessarily sacrosanct property rights, believe white collar criminals should not be treated better than blue collar criminals, believe anthropogenic acceleration of climate change is real (even if government is not the solution), sometimes see voluntary socialism and communalism as a good thing, don’t really see “political correctness” as bad unless it’s being coerced, tend to have a far less rosy or idealized view of US founders and Biblical patriarchs than right-libertarians tend to have. Those are a few of the differences.
It’s true that man people are a composite of both. But many tend to be strongly oriented in one direction or the other. These groups may have little in common, other than wanting government, especially federal and international level government but really government at all levels, to be much smaller and less intrusive.
It’s not true that this division among libertarians did not exist in 1974-1985. During that time, there was an Adequate Defense Caucus in the LP that sought to make the LP less anti-interventionist. There was Rothbard and his circle complaining about “modal” libertarians. There were Randians glorifying big business, decrying environmentalists, and scorning feminists and “hippies,” and on the other hand there were those self same hippies, feminists and environmentalists in the LP. If NF does not remember any of this in the LP from that era, it must be due to fading memories with time.”
An excellent summary, and I am very much a left libertarian by that definition.
Interesting read: http://irregulartimes.com/2015/01/08/i-am-not-charlie-hebdo-the-kouachi-brothers-are-not-islam/
In other news of emerging third parties, Mitt Romney has indicated that he may run for President again, while focus groups asked about Jeb Bush think the name makes him a joke. Oddly, none of the Republicans have yet noted the Bush-Bush ticket, in that HW is still eligible for another term as President.
Both may well be factors.
“If NF does not remember any of this in the LP from that era, it must be due to fading memories with time.”
Possible, of course, or the fact that I was a county chair building from the precinct level up rather than a player at the state or national level.
To some degree it is principle, not just priorities. Many right-libertarians support strong immigration restrictions, outlawing abortion, and/or a hawkish foreign policy. They side with the police in Ferguson, believe we should “pave the earth” rather than “save the earth,” believe climate destabilization is a hoax. A few are racist/chauvinist/misogynist, but more are “anti-anti-racist” or aggressively “anti-PC.” Many of them support theocratic values at the state/local level, although they support a much smaller federal government. Right-libertarians frequently see existing big business as roughly equivalent to a theoretical free market, and laud present day big corporations as heroes who are unfairly oppressed by government. They tend to believe that poor people and racial minorities are themselves to blame if they are not doing as well as other groups of people, and that they tend to be the primary beneficiaries of big government at the expense of the rich and the middle class, and of straight white men.
Left libertarians generally side with protesters against police, see corporate bosses and the super-wealthy more often that not as beneficiaries allies rather than opponents or victims of big government, see poor folks, women and racial, sexual and religious minorities as more often harmed than helped by government, tend to be skeptical of or opposed to corporate noncontractual limited liability and personhood, tend to see absentee ownership of large tracts of property as not necessarily sacrosanct property rights, believe white collar criminals should not be treated better than blue collar criminals, believe anthropogenic acceleration of climate change is real (even if government is not the solution), sometimes see voluntary socialism and communalism as a good thing, don’t really see “political correctness” as bad unless it’s being coerced, tend to have a far less rosy or idealized view of US founders and Biblical patriarchs than right-libertarians tend to have. Those are a few of the differences.
It’s true that man people are a composite of both. But many tend to be strongly oriented in one direction or the other. These groups may have little in common, other than wanting government, especially federal and international level government but really government at all levels, to be much smaller and less intrusive.
It’s not true that this division among libertarians did not exist in 1974-1985. During that time, there was an Adequate Defense Caucus in the LP that sought to make the LP less anti-interventionist. There was Rothbard and his circle complaining about “modal” libertarians. There were Randians glorifying big business, decrying environmentalists, and scorning feminists and “hippies,” and on the other hand there were those self same hippies, feminists and environmentalists in the LP. If NF does not remember any of this in the LP from that era, it must be due to fading memories with time.
I think left-libertarian and right-libertarian (if we’re talking about actual libertarians and not just confused or still-changing liberals/conservatives) is mainly a difference of assessed priority, not principle. You can argue that fiscal issues trump all in importance, because all other sins flow from taxes and the budget, or you can argue that fiscal/size-of-government issues are less important than opposing the particular bad things the government is doing with its money. I think it actually has relatively little to do with “personal values” about whether somebody lives more like a social-con or social-lib. I’ve hear straight-laced churchgoers argue for the need to focus on marijuana legalization and marriage equality, and I’ve heard militant openly gay atheists argue for making tax cuts front and center. I don’t think any of us really disagree on the merits of those policies, it’s just a question of which is the best to campaign on.
Personally, I always strive to keep a deliberate left/right balance in my public presentations and campaign materials for the LP, and describe myself as “libertarian without any qualification.”. I think that is what works the best for us, not just as a pragmatic compromise within the party, but also in terms of smart politics.
With the response my request has already had it would appear there most certainly is an article and probably a lively and enlightening debate in the offing. I hope William Saturn can get to this topic in the near future.
I suppose I identify more with left libertarians because my top issues are stopping all war and foreign interventions and marriage equality, which traditionally have been more easily identified with left ideology (although less so lately). It may have to do with the issues a person finds most important. I don’t understand “right libertarians” at all, but I’m happy to have them in our movement as long as they practice libertarianism in their lives.
I think “radical” is a better category for me, though. NF, I’d be happy to post something about this if I find any articles discussing it. I don’t think it’s something I’ll have a chance to do research and write an original article about, though, at least for now.
My two cents on the “left libertarian” vs. “right libertarian” issue:
The more charitable answer: Different people interpret the NAP differently, and people tend to join together with others who interpret it similarly to themselves.
The less charitable answer: Some people are more strongly committed to their own personal cultural baggage than they are to the NAP, and pretending that there are different “strains” of libertarianism is their solution to the cognitive dissonance that they inevitably experience.
I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide which of these two explanations is the more plausible.
Look at it this way:
There are some people in the libertarian movement who support family values, not necessarily in the public policy sense but in their own lives. They go to church on Sunday, they don’t let their kids see bad words or watch TV the parents find offensive, they’re likely to support peoples’ right to do and say offensive things but don’t personally want such things in their own lives. They tend to be pro-life, as they believe in the natural rights of a child from conception. They may disagree with or oppose same-sex marriage, but do not think the federal government or government in general should be involved. They would tend to look at libertarianism from a right-wing perspective.
There are also some people in the libertarian movement who support a radical liberalization of culture, not necessarily using government force but rather through radical social change. These are people who are likely to protest in favor of legal gay marriage, marijuana and drug legalization, and in anti-war demonstrations. They may raise their children in a more casual, liberal, sex positive fashion, which is contrary to traditional social norms. They may support people’s right to their religious & cultural views, while personally finding them Puritanical & outdated. They tend to be pro-choice, as they believe a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body & her life. They may support same-sex marriage legalization, while also recognizing that the ultimate goal should be to get government out of marriage all together. They would tend to look at libertarianism from a left-wing perspective.
These two classes of people are very different, but both are libertarians & should be welcome within the Libertarian Party.
It’s because we have different cultural and social values, and to some extent different policy stands, even after we join the LP/movement. The party is to some extent a broad coalition, with some people having more affinity for alliances with, outreach to, rhetoric appealing to (etc) the left and some more so to the right.
And I want to thank Rob Banks for his post. It was very enlightening and does address the issue of why a libertarian party should be formed. I am still very curious as to why now that a libertarian party has been formed there is still this divide of “left libertarians” and “right libertarians”. Thanks, William for considering my request!
Rob Banks did some research on it and posted Jan 6 at 9:37 pm above.
NewFederalist said:
It may be a while before I can do some research on this subject. Perhaps I’ll be able to do it in March, unless someone gets to it before me.
Once again the Onion is more accurate than “serious” reporting…
http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/
Nancy Worley is a special kind of special, alright.
The text portion of the Onion story:
WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.
Darryl, the article about the Alabama Democrats and the toilet is hilarious!
If the media would stop reporting on this stuff and if we’d stop killing people in their countries and trying to force our way of life on them, I’m willing to bet most of it will go away, Jose.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
I am a Libertarian and . . .
“We would rather die standing than live on our knees.”
Charlie Hedbo
Free speech is a basic human right. From the founding of our republic free speech has been one of the cornerstones of our liberties. From the drawing depicting the Boston Massacre to the words of Patrick Henry, Samuel Clemens, and H L Mencken, Americans have stood strong when the light of injustice has been shown so that Americans could act upon that injustice. When will the madness stop?
That’s true, although it is still the overwhelming choice of black Alabamians when and if they are still allowed to and bother to vote. If not for that, we might see the Democrats have to petition to get on the ballot here every couple of years.
from the article
They are pretty close to becoming a minor party in Alabama, it’s true. I don’t think they are quite there yet but clearly headed in that direction.
I know this isn’t third party related, it is however is HILARIOUS, and involves the Chair of a “minor party” in Alabama. http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/in_holiday_message_alabama_dem.html
“The chairwoman of the Alabama Democratic Party, Nancy Worley, sent a holiday letter to friends and Democrats all over the state describing, among other things, how she got stuck on the toilet and couldn’t get up.”
“Jesus turned water into wine, I turned it into damn likker” – Popcorn Sutton
“The Appalachian region displays a unique example of resistance to arbitrary authority. It was not until the mid 20th century until the various governments had much affect on the region. For much of its history, the region was largely operated on a stateless model. Disputes to this day are often settled without interference of state sanctioned law enforcement. Federal revenue agents tasked with capturing moonshiners and busting up distilling operations in years past often never returned home after entering the mountains.”
http://zerogov.com/?p=3766
Popcorn Sutton: Whiskey Rebel by John Meyers
NF, the left/right divide among libertarians is older than the LP. Here’s David Nolan from 1971 quoted in part:
http://elfsoft2000.com/politics/nolan.htm
1) ANYONE else at the CES show? (Vegas until the end of the week).
2) I’m here looking for technologies related to advancing independent parties and candidate; as well as anything more generally related to increasing voter participation/education/involvement AND government vote counting technologies (not much on any of this, but there is this
INNOVATIVE STATE: How New Technologies Can Transform Government
With INNOVATIVE STATE: How New Technologies Can Transform Government, Aneesh Chopra, the country’s first Chief Technology Officer, provides an essential guide for how we can create a government that is more transparent, participatory, and collaborative, one that harnesses the full potential of today’s technologies and is defined not by its size but by its smarts.
Interview: Thursday, January 8, 12:30 – 1 PM
Book Signing: Thursday, January 8, 1 – 2 PM
http://cesweb.org/bookclub
3) Looking for ideas from the meta-brain of IPR readers and contributors. Anything you want me to check out for you, let me know ([email protected]) 435 602 0798
Also from Shawn DuBravac, CES CHief Economist —
https://prezi.com/eymjjhjr7yo5/2015-ces-unveiled-ny-holiday-2015-and-ces-trends-to-watch
Joe
I have a request for an article. I became aware of the libertarian movement when I was in high school because of FEE. In college I was aware of YAF and the libertarian streak it once had (or perhaps still does). I joined the LP in 1974 and officially ceased membership in 1985. I had no contact with the party or the movement again until 1995. It now seems there are “left-libertarians” and (perhaps) “right-libertarians”. When did this occur? My introduction to libertarianism was that the party was “neither right nor left or both right and left”. I would really like to know more about this. I think William Saturn could make an interesting article about this because he seems to be able to keep one guessing as to just where he stands when he writes. I think that would be important for an article of this nature. Thanks for considering this request.
Andy, being a hacktivist sounds like a pretty good gig. D’ya know where I can apply? 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdn9cER-OfY
I wonder how many of these people have posted
Paid Government Trolls/Shills/Disinformation Agents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiIy1B4tmzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gscM2vpUXIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUFfXB_cv-g
Green Party Green TV started in the summer of 2014.
Green Party Green TV does shows a week. Focus of Green TV is Independent Green Party, Green Party candidates for local, state, and federal office. Green New Deal positive eco jobs for the economy solutions. Solar jobs. Rail jobs. Geothermal jobs. Wind jobs. Conservation jobs. Weatherization jobs. Efficiency jobs. Green TV has done over 60 shows in 6 months. Pat LaMarche, Green Party 2004 nominee for Vice President, and author of the new book “Daddy What’s the Middle Class”, and the 2012 republished “Left Out in America” hosts Green TV.
Green Party candidate for Governor Dr. Isa Infante, former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader, Green Party 2014 congressional candidate Matt Funiciello are among the guests appearing on Green TV.
Watch Green Party Green TV for the latest in Green politics across the U.S. and around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/user/IndependentGreens
101 Reasons: Liberty Lives in New Hampshire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxCNeK97_C8
Good stuff!
Gotcha, will keep in mind in the future. I wasn’t sure about that, but then you suggested it be posted so I assumed you meant i should.
In other news, here’s the summary of Wisconsin results via fb.com/LPWIS:
2014 by the numbers:
-237,692 votes were cast for Wisconsin Libertarian candidates, a new all-time record..
-11 Libertarian candidates were on the ballot in Wisconsin, more than ever before.
-26.4%: the highest-ever percentage for a Libertarian in a partisan election in Wisconsin was achieved by Wendy Friedrich for 5th State Senate.
-Our 2014 convention in Neenah was the best-attended on record.
-All 5 statewide elections had Libertarian candidates, another first, and due to their performance the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin is a legally recognized party for the next 4 years, with our own ballot column and automatic Presidential ballot access.
In other third-party Wisconsin news, both the Constitution Party and Green Party also qualified for party status, with their one (Green) and two (Con.) candidates for lower statewide executive office. Speaking of the “Peoples Party” aka the Populists- an attempt to revive that label in Wisconsin fizzled out when their self-appointed 23-year-old nominee for Governor got 0.4%. A Pirate Party and a self-described “Serving Liberty and the People” candidate also ran for state legislature, the latter getting 8% in a 3-way race.
Actually, I meant one of us should post it for you (I can do it), which is how we usually handle that. I’ve had a few of my editorials published by others here and have done the same for them. But I see you already have it posted, so I think it’s OK if we make an exception this time. Sorry I didn’t explain that better.
Sure, I’ll post it as such. Wasn’t quite sure, since it’s original commentary, but it’s a point plenty of others have made before and covers general third-party history.
Well, at least it will all be over once and for all on April 1st of this year. 🙂
AC
Interesting list. I think it should be an article, not just a comment…what do you think?
I was challenged in a discussion about my assertion that “strong third-party results always presage shifts in major-party policy” so I compiled the following list which I thought I’d share. Some of them are a bit of a stretch I’ll concede, but the general pattern seems to hold up and does have an underlying validity to it I think. Also of relevance to the discussion paulie and I were having about if getting 3rd place in the Presidential campaign is important for the LP. Any suggestions or corrections are welcome.
1856: John C. Fremont gets 33.1% of the vote as the nominee of the new anti-slavery Republican Party. Four years later Lincoln is elected, nine years later the 13th Amendment is ratified. (The GOP-was-a-third-party meme is debatable, since they never actually placed third and were formed from a coalition of existing parties, but worth including anyway I think)
1888-1916: The Prohibition Party runs a Presidential nominee every four years, usually getting between 1% and 3%. The 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol in the US is ratified in 1919.
1892: James B. Weaver gets 8.5% of the vote as the nominee of the Populist Party. The Democratic Party adopts most of the Populist platform over the next decade, most notably free coinage of silver and an inflationary monetary/fiscal policy.
1912: ex-President Theodore Roosevelt runs as a Progressive (“Bull Moose Party”), comes in 2nd defeating the incumbent Republican President. Eugene Debs gets 6% as a Socialist, the most of his several Socialist Party campaigns from 1900-1920. Over the next decades, the Democratic Party takes a hard-left turn on economic issues, culminating in FDR and the New Deal.
1924: ‘Fighting Bob’ La Follette runs as a Progressive, wins 16.6% of the vote. Opposition to Prohibition, condemning WWI and interventions in Latin America, and increased economic regulation become major-party policy within a decade, all of which were in opposed by both 1924 major party nominees.
1948: Strom Thurmond runs as a segregationist “States Rights Democrat” (aka Dixiecrat) and gets 2.4%. Former Vice President Henry Wallace also runs to the left as a Progressive, tying Thurmond with 2.4% of the vote. By 1964, the GOP would nominate a states-rights conservative, and the Democrats had firmly entrenched their modern position as the party for progressive/left-leaning politics.
1968: George Wallace, segregationist Governor of Alabama, runs as an “American Independent Party” candidate, and gets 13.5%. Over the next four years, Nixon implements his ‘Southern Strategy’. By 1980 Ronald Reagan, though no segregationist, has made socially conservative localism a key GOP plank.
1980: John Anderson, a liberal Republican Congressman, ran as an independent and got 6.6%. In a year where Reagan won in a landslide, Anderson’s campaigned presaged the final defection of liberal Northeastern Republicans to the Democratic Party.
1988: Ron Paul comes in third place as the Libertarian nominee, with less than 1% of the vote. Later returns to Congress as a Republican, seeks the GOP nomination in 2008 and 2012, then endorses third-party general election candidates both times. The libertarian/paleoconservative-leaning faction within the GOP grows to become a distinct but active minority within the party, with roughly a dozen members of Congress by 2014.
1992: Ross Perot, running as an independent, gets 18.9% after appearing in the televised debates. Makes a strong focus on the balancing the budget, which became major-party policy (briefly) by the late 1990s, and an ongoing feature of GOP rhetoric. Also opposes gun control and supported abortion rights, which respectively became more firmly entrenched planks of the GOP and Dems.
1996: Perot runs again as the nominee of the new Reform Party, gets 8%, unlike 1992 is excluded from debates. See above.
2000: Ralph Nader gets 2.74% of the vote as the Green Party nominee, is widely blamed for costing Gore the election. Anti-corporate rhetoric, increased regulation, and a greater focus on environmentalism all sweep the Democratic party over the next decade, in part fueling more-liberal Obama’s defeat of more-centrist Clinton in the 2008 primary. Nader also runs, less successfully, in 2004 and 2008.
2012-2014: Gary Johnson pushes the Libertarian Party firmly into third place with 1% of the vote, as Libertarian candidates across the country “beat the spread” or threaten to in several close Senate and Governor races. Efforts within the GOP to push the party in a less-socially-conservative, more free-market and fiscally-conservative direction increase, while some Democrats begin to signal a renewed focus on socially-liberal issues such as marriage equality, drug policy reform, civil liberties, and police reform.
“Too many!!!”
Agreed. If it’s about the real LPO, fine. I for one will not be posting any articles about the “Reeves group”.
…any bets on how many Oregon Articles we will have on IPR in 2015?!?!
Too many!!!
An Oregon article made it on DAY 1 — any bets on how many Oregon Articles we will have on IPR in 2015?!?!
Happy New Year everybody!