Politics Forum.org | PoFo

I'm just messing with you, House.

So what do you think of our platform?

It actually isn't bad. I can't speak for my party yet, but I have a feeling the PUC would be much more amenable to working with the PNL then the current SN leadership, and the RF is simply beyond the pale.

Dr House wrote:Narcotics – Distribution of hard drugs will be nationalized, and its supply will be restricted. Soft drugs will be legalized and taxed and regulated like tobacco.

What drugs would fall under the hard drug label and what under the soft drug? Would codeine/percocets be considered a soft or hard drug? What about hallucinogens (mushrooms, LSD, and salvia which is currently legal)? What about designer drugs such as 2C-B and 4-HO-DIPT? What about the dissociative DXM which is legally available in pills and cough syrup but which effects on the user can be significant?

I must say this platform is much more moderate than I would have expected.

It actually isn't bad. I can't speak for my party yet, but I have a feeling the PUC would be much more amenable to working with the PNL then the current SN leadership, and the RF is simply beyond the pale.

Both SN and RF are beyond the pale, but I'm absolutely willing to work with the PNL. If they are willing to negotiate parts of their platform in a broader deal with SLD, our three parties could form a very potent and stable coalition.

Brio wrote:What drugs would fall under the hard drug label and what under the soft drug?

Hard drugs: Physiologically addictive drugs.

Interesting. So cocaine and methamphetamine would be soft drugs while opiates, alcohol, tobacco, and benzos would be hard drugs?

Hard drugs would be:

Most opiates (sans codeine and Vicodin), most stimulants (sans already legal stimulants), and benzos.

Dr House wrote:People making the minimum wage will be entitled to receive benefits up to 125% of the poverty line. From there, benefits would scale linearly down ({Y=(-.5)X+M} Y is the received benefits as percent of the poverty line, X is the earned wages as percent of the poverty line and M is the maximum benefit) until employment wages hit 200% of the poverty line. Therefore, the benefits table would look something like this (assuming the poverty line is $10,000):

You totally didn't steal this from me.

Your platform was more moderate than I expected, so I guess my favorite potential coalition would be SLD-PUC-PNL. I'm sure most other members of the SLD would be down with this as well. Maybe we should start a coalition thread.

Your progressive tax is incredibly punishing to those above a certain wage.

Your progressive tax is incredibly punishing to those above a certain wage.

Mhm. I'll stick with the LC/FRP alliance tyvm.

dilpill wrote:You totally didn't steal this from me.

It was a good idea. Kudos.

You did the math wrong on it though.

dilpill wrote:Your platform was more moderate than I expected, so I guess my favorite potential coalition would be SLD-PUC-PNL. I'm sure most other members of the SLD would be down with this as well. Maybe we should start a coalition thread.

I can't discuss a coalition on Dave's behalf without his input. We need to wait for him. I rushed to publish a platform because he's MIA and voting is drawing to an end.

However, I agree we can work something out once he gets back. One important thing about our combined platform that I can say now is that we refuse to pay people not to work. Any welfare policy we come up with must include work programs.

Attica wrote:Your progressive tax is incredibly punishing to those above a certain wage.

No it isn't, actually. For one thing our portfolio income taxes are lower than our earned income tax. For another, we use the Hall-Rabushka model wherein all savings and investment is untaxed, which greatly lowers the tax incidence of high-income individuals. More than anything this is a tax on profligacy for rich people. The real tax incidence on the wealthy would probably end up being lower than in most OECD nations.

Dr House wrote:You did the math wrong on it though.

I just looked back, and it appears that I wrote the equation when my maximum benefit was going to be 100% of the poverty line, and forgot to change it in the thread after I changed my mind to 75%. However, making the maximum benefit another variable definitely makes it more presentable.

Dr House wrote:I can't discuss a coalition on Dave's behalf without his input. We need to wait for him. I rushed to publish a platform because he's MIA and voting is drawing to an end.

Oh, too bad. Hopefully when Dave comes back he'll be sympathetic.

Dr House wrote:However, I agree we can work something out once he gets back. One important thing about our combined platform that I can say now is that we refuse to pay people not to work. Any welfare policy we come up with must include work programs.

That's the PUC's view as well, so that would be the hypothetical coalition's position.

However, I don't really see why any of our parties really have to change any of our platforms to be in one coalition. They're already pretty similar already. The way I see it, the only purpose of a coalition is to form a government and to appoint ministers into that government. Outside of those purposes, we're going to be having free votes on most legislation anyways.

The thing about the platforms is that the ministers will probably have some independent authority, so...for instance, if PUC were in a coalition with SN, I don't think PUC would support an SN foreign minister shipping arms to Maoist rebels.

I am in LOVE with some of your economic ideas, House. And for once he actually supported a higher tax bracket than I did (I would stop at 50-55% for the marginal income rate).

I think a PNL/SLD coalition is a great idea.

Karl_Bonner_1982 wrote:for once he actually supported a higher tax bracket than I did (I would stop at 50-55% for the marginal income rate).

It's the only way to keep the tax incidence progressive, since I am completely untaxing savings and investment. On balance the total tax incidence probably won't exceed 40% even at a $10 million a year income.

DrHouse,

Although I greatly favor an ultra free economy, most of the platform you've created is not too bad in my eyes.

Nationalizing sin industries for examples seems like it wouldn't have any significant 'unintended consequences'.

As a non-PNL member, I respectfully suggest that the following policies though would have very severe unintended negative consequences on the economy:

-A high income tax rate for the top bracket- will create more tax evasion, will reduce the business activity of the most skilled businessmen, will reduce the incentive to take risks and thereby reduce the number of big payoffs, will possibly lead to capital flight/brain drain. Providing deductions for all savings/investments does mitigate this quite a bit, but I think one should still be wary of a high income tax rate for any bracket, simply to not create incentives for tax avoidance/evasion schemes that use up a lot of economic activity.

Banking and finance - Nationalized central bank. All banking debt is to be monetized and full-reserve banking phased in. Consumer debt is to be restricted to short-term paycheck advances and mortgages. All mortgages require a minimum 20% down payment and amortization is limited to 15 years.

This will hamstring the financial sector with too many restrictions/rules/regulations and regulators, making asset allocation less efficient, and cementing the power of the big players and the expense of potential market entrants whose cost of entry will go up significantly.

Monetary Policy – Inflation target of -0.5%. Any monetary expansion must be done without credit being involved, by having the Treasury spend the money into existence.

Will require an enormous amount of regulation, of the prior-restraint type, which will have a chilling effect on innovation in the financial sector, will also significantly reduce options for financial/banking firms.

Just to let everyone know, I am back in town and will be reviewing the extensive and excellent work my fellow PNL members have put forth on policy. The work they have done is more than good enough to publish as is, so if time is of the essence my own input, if even necessary, can follow as a revision.

As for coalition discussions, I am receptive to a coalition with any of the capitalist parties. From the SLD we would likely ask for a restrictionist immigration policy, possible small concessions in the area of social conservatism, and various minor tweaks in economic policy.

Can I join?

I guess, but I thought you were a Marxist?