What governments can do to oppose the rise of fascism.

[Eyeball_Kid]

1. Narrow the gap between rich and poor. Shift wealth downward. You can call it anything you want, as long as you shift wealth downward. If you want political and socioeconomic stability, you must shift wealth downward. Paradoxically, the wealthy would benefit more than could ever be imagined right now.

2. Do #1 by virtually giving away or heavily subsidizing education. Educating the workforce can't just be a campaign slogan. Make education a defining value in the 21st century. Raise the status of educators. The downward shift of wealth can materialize as a vastly educated workforce on the cusp of a coming technological leap. Liberal Arts and Humanities improve our quality of life beyond an increase in income. Say it and back it up with money.

3. There must be a real promise of prosperity for a growing middle class. Voters have to feel invested in the system and should expect real benefits from their place in the world. Voters are investors in a system that works for them.

4. Governments have a tendency to get pushed back on their heels in the face of "anti-government" instability and fascism. They need to listen to the instability and ask questions about how to enable stability. We cannot advance with a lopsided rich/poor gap. It won't work.


Fascism is rising for reasons. Reacting with rigidity will make matters worse. If governments don't do something about it, they'll get swallowed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. I'm the US that means ending the filibuster

So that government can actually work for the people.

That includes passing voting rights to end the tyranny of the minority.

[llashram]

2. ++

would be a good start...also marginalize fascist leaders such as the one building his cult in America and Canada now.

[VarryOn]

3. How practically would #1 be achieved?

I’m guessing you’d first have to determine who is wealthy and who is poor? So, what would those definitions be?

Suppose, my wife and I saved over our careers and built our dream home. Let’s say it’s $500,000. Would the govt confiscate that? What would we get in its place? Just trying to understand what “shift[ing] wealth downward” looks like.

Thanks!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Taxation, duh, for starters. btw, your post is a right wing talking point and nonsensical. . . nt

[Amishman]

8. The devil is in the details, but likely the line would be an order of magnitude or two higher

One aspect of the extreme concentration of wealth in this country is that tapping into the top tenth of a percent hits a huge slice of the total wealth pie.

The line would be at least an order of magnitude or two higher than your scenario.

The main challenge is not triggering a flight of capital from the US

[VarryOn]

10. I'd agree the top tenth of a percent is wealthy...

I just get concerned that many, many would consider wealthy to be anyone owning a few dollars more than whoever’s defining the term. For instance, someone who’s worked hard to save up a nest egg over a modest career finds themselves considered wealthy by politicians trying to get votes from the supposed poor.

[Poiuyt]

11. #1 can be achieved several ways

Change tax policies—Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, increase income taxes on the very wealthy.

Wealth tax—Have a 2% tax on wealth of $50million or more. This would not affect most Americans.

Raise the minimum wage. That would have an immediate effect on leveling the economic inequality in America.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Who's talking about government confiscation of family homes?

Nobody except for your own RW strawman.

How about going back to Eisenhower era tax rates?

[Eyeball_Kid]

17. How would #1 be achieved?

Hell, I don't know. You're going to a political place in which it must be decided who would take a hit from a downward shift in wealth. Someone isn't going to like a change in policy, or tax structure for personal reasons. Lots wouldn't like it. But what do we do? Are we to freeze in place knowing the risks? Must everyone be on board with the notion of an intentional downward shift of wealth in order for it to be effectuated? How many people have a suffering form of quality of life right now, and how many people would have a suffering form of quality of life were a downward shift of wealth realized?

Can we vote on details?

I don't know.

[Eyeball_Kid]

4. Leaders have to cut through the euphemisms and get down to business.

Oh, yeah, it's not popular to speak out loud about a downward distribution of wealth. The right wingers would be foaming at the mouth, calling such a shift in policy "communist" or socialist, as if they would NOT benefit from the shift. Beliefs can't be litigated. Leaders just have to walk past all of it and do the right thing. Policy shifts must result in increased stability because, right now, our social infrastructure is becoming increasingly unstable.

The more I think about it, the more clear the issue becomes: the repercussions of a downward distribution of wealth would be generally beneficial or all segments of societies.

[nuxvomica]

13. They need to message how these progressive policies increase individual freedom

Connecting the dots between what they call "socialist" and the enhancement of individual freedom should not be difficult to do.

[modrepub]

5. You'll Never Get Past #1

As much as I agree that a lot of our problems stem from wealth disparity I can't condone a redistribution via some government pathway; politicians are too corrupt and will use their position to protect their interests, which rarely align with the public in general.

We'd be much better served if we'd concentrate on rewarding innovation and those who are resilient. Too much of government is controlled by people who protect their interests and stifle innovation that would benefit everyone. The fossil fuel industry is a perfect example. They project government policies that stifle any form of alternative energy. Knock their subsidies, take away their regulatory protections and I'd bet we wouldn't be so reliant on them.

And put the power back at the local level with some ground rules to prevent folks from manipulating the system to exclude those they don't like or agree with. Our centralized government is too easy to gum up. A single Senator can hold up any legislation. Better to have multiple pathways to success so they can't be blocked by the privileged.

These are hard things to make come about but we really need change and I'm afraid doing it in one grand sweep at the federal level isn't going to work. Better to try things out at a smaller scale and then scale the things up that actually work.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. So you don't condone taxation and closing loopholes? THAT'S a big government pathway. . nt

[modrepub]

16. Couldn't A State or County Impose A Tax To Close That Loophole?

Or give out their own tax breaks for to folks who do do the right thing?

For example, if a federal tax credit on solar panels expires a state could offer something similar or tax fossil fuels on their own. Of course there is a limit to what taxes can do and the increments would have to be smaller at the local scale but it is possible, isn't it?

[Eyeball_Kid]

18. To reduce societal instability...

what, I ask, are the factors that can best contribute to a relatively stable social and economic system? And how can those factors be directly and effectively implemented?

[thatdemguy]

9. I hate the word loophole.

A loophole is simply following the law as written, but not liking the law so you call it a loop hole. Its a catch phrase, that means I just dont like it. We need to be more specific, what dont you like and how would you want it changed.

My example...I am all for any capital gains being taxed at regular income rates, except housing profits.

The holy grail is Jimmy carter era taxes, but the loop hole was pretty much all interest was tax deductible. No one paid 70%, infact the effective tax rates where very close to what they are today.

This will go over like a lead balloon, we need more tax income. BUT I feel we also need to spend less. I would bet it would be a lot easier to raise the max tax brackets a few % points, if we also made a law that made the gov spend a little less. Benefits everyone esp our grand children. Heck keep it as simple as not increasing the fed spending at a rate that exceeds the growth in the gdp for a few years.

[AntiFascist]

12. Taxing the wealthy is all good and well...

but one of the most nefarious things we have to watch out for is the stratification of wealth among the (big L) Libertarian elite. The prime example of this being Russia's kleptocracy under control of Putin and his oligarchs. Trump would love nothing more than to model his form of government after Putin's example. Of course, most of the Republican Party would fall in line. This would also, in effect, provide aid and comfort to other authoritarians around the world. As these Libertarian-based governments gain control of world resources, true democracies could get strangled and may begin to die off. Putin's ultimate threat may be far more dangerous than many people realize.

[Silent3]

15. Great advice... for a future generation

We're way too out of kilter now on so much of this stuff that none of this could possibly be acted on fast enough to save us from Republicans grabbing power in the upcoming elections.

And with voting rights legislation dead in the water, I think our only near-term hope is for inflation to be tamed before November, and for enough Republican scandal to finally break through to our idiot voters that they realize what an existential danger supporting Republican is.

I'm very worried right now, because the odds of the latter are low. That over 70 million idiots voted for Trump in the last election is a sign of monumental, staggering obliviousness and/or addiction to misinformation.

[Eyeball_Kid]

19. I get it.

the prospects are bleak. What I'm doing is noting that there's a way out-- an exit ramp. There are few pathways to avoid a dark future.

Good luck to all of us.