Eric Levitz

@EricLevitz

I am a melancholic child posing for my hockey portrait. Think out loud for New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer. eric.levitz@nymag.com

Joined September 2012

Tweets

You blocked @EricLevitz

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @EricLevitz

  1. Pinned Tweet
    21 Oct 2018

    Tribalism is not the primary cause of democratic dysfunction in the U.S. The extraordinary level of economic power -- and political organization -- that reactionary elites have amassed is.

    Undo
  2. 8 hours ago

    BRING BACK THE IRS. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!

    Undo
  3. Retweeted
    Replying to

    Agree and it’s why I prefer “taking more than their fair share” to “not paying their fair share.” The latter (used by almost the entire left) implicitly treats what they have as *earned* income/wealth.

    Undo
  4. Retweeted
    13 hours ago

    7. Is Gillibrand calling other kinds of donors? Are other potential candidates also reaching out to potential donors in various industries? Is there anything at all unusual or untoward about reaching out to potential supporters? CNBC readers will have absolutely no idea.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. 14 hours ago

    In 1980, the top tax rate was 70%, and it kicked in at about $658,200 in today’s dollars. The idea that it would be extreme to tax incomes over $10 million at 70 percent is ludicrous --especially since the case for soaking the rich is much stronger today.

    Undo
  6. 14 hours ago

    Ocasio-Cortez’s views on top marginal tax rates are much more mainstream than Susan Collins’s.

    Undo
  7. 15 hours ago
    Undo
  8. 17 hours ago

    2) At this point, hard to see how a self-identified democratic socialist *won't* be a leading face/voice of the Democratic Party for the next decade (and a serious contender for its presidential nomination at some point).

    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. 17 hours ago

    1) There were a lot of totally sound takes about how the left didn't have a very fruitful primary season last year. But the fact that their one big win turned out to be preternaturally media-savvy superstar sorta changes things.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. 18 hours ago

    3) And previous research suggested that establishing a maximum income of $1 million -- i.e., taxing all income above that sum at 100% rate -- isn't as unpopular as cutting taxes on the rich.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  11. 18 hours ago

    2) Last year, and YouGov blue polled a *90 percent rate on all income above $1 million,* and found it was MUCH less unpopular than Donald Trump's alternative.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  12. 18 hours ago

    1) It's crazy that "income over $10 million should be taxed at 70 percent" is considered a politically suicidal position, while the GOP's unconditional support for cutting taxes on the rich -- a policy opposed by most *GOP* voters -- is not.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. 18 hours ago

    Putting aside the virtues of AOC's list, is Ozimek under the impression that she's the median Dem? Or that you can't join a political party if you don't share the goals of its most ideologically committed member? Or that Louie Gohmert's list is better?

    Undo
  14. Retweeted
    19 hours ago

    INBOX: Pelosi is giving full support to bill by to grant DC statehood and full voting rights, says keeping it from statehood is part of GOP's "mass disenfranchisement agenda." Unlikely to go anywhere in Senate.

    Undo
  15. Retweeted
    19 hours ago

    A quick thread on the economics of a much higher top rate for the super-rich. TL;DR version is that is on very solid ground here. There is a lot of evidence that from an economic and fiscal perspective, we'd be way better off with top rates approaching 70.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. 21 hours ago

    I understand the Dems want to project an image of impartiality, but this is silly. The publicly-available evidence is more than enough to establish that Trump has had intercourse with multiple mothers.

    Undo
  17. Retweeted
    Jan 3

    Who cares but it’s wild to me that at this rate, by the time the 2020 campaign is in earnest stump speech zingers are just gonna be like “The President is a fat asshole. Fuck him”

    Undo
  18. Retweeted
    21 hours ago

    Prime Age Labor Force Participation is still substantially below where it was pre-crisis. Why not see if the number can get all the way back?

    Show this thread
    Undo
  19. Retweeted
    21 hours ago

    Some will look at today's number and think that more hikes are validates. But you could just as easily say that today's number shows that estimates of "Full Employment" are all nonsense, and that the economy has plenty of capacity to for more hiring

    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. Retweeted

    But every extra bit of LFP we get shows us that we are actually not at the frontier for Supply, hence little reason for the Fed to add to the hlobal slowdown in Demand.

    Undo
  21. Retweeted
    Show this thread
    Undo

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

    You may also like

    ·