Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 21:16:32 GMT
linkFrom FiveThirtyEight... “The political risks of a wealth tax are still very much real for Elizabeth Warren, especially if her critics decide to focus on the details.” The FiveThrityEight article.. “Warren’s Wealth Tax Isn’t The Slam Dunk Progressives Want It To Be”“Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made a name for herself in the Democratic primary as a woman with a plan. Her liberal policy proposals are sweeping and often expensive, a fact that her rivals have seized upon as she has risen in the polls. And the policy that is intended to fund her vision is no less ambitious. Warren wants to tax the country’s richest citizens on their accumulated wealth, not just their income. Instead of a more traditional approach to raising money from the rich, like hiking income tax rates, Warren’s wealth tax plan proposes a radical new approach to taxation that would target the fortunes of the nation’s wealthiest people by imposing a tax on all household assets — not just income — above the $50 million mark. And Sen. Bernie Sanders has even announced a more aggressive proposal that would cut some billionaires’ wealth in half in 15 years. The idea of using a wealth tax to fund some of 2020’s bigger policy proposals is seductive. If it works, it could kill two birds with one stone — both curbing rising income inequality by redistributing some of billionaires’ wealth and providing a new source of tax money to fund social programs. It’s pretty popular, too, among Democratic primary voters. But while most Democratic candidates are united around the idea that the rich should be paying more in taxes, they’re not all convinced that a wealth tax is the best way to do it. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang has expressed skepticism about how it would work in practice, saying that it would have “massive implementation problems,” while Sen. Amy Klobuchar has said, “When I look at this, I think about Donald Trump,” suggesting that the plan might be too divisive for a general election. How serious a problem are these criticisms for Warren? Could her rivals in the primary undercut one of her signature ideas by arguing that a wealth tax is the wrong solution to the problem of income inequality? There is a debate percolating among experts about whether her plan is practical or even constitutional. But there’s also disagreement about how fatal those flaws would be. Part of the problem in trying to gauge the potential flaws of a wealth tax is it simply hasn’t been tried in the U.S. before, so we don’t know exactly how much money it would raise or how it would fare in the courts. Economists on Warren’s team have estimated that her wealth tax could raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years while Sanders’s camp has estimated their version would raise over $4 trillion in new revenue over the same span. That is quite a windfall — if they can pull it off. But even some left-leaning experts are skeptical it’ll raise that much money. Additionally, a wealth tax would almost certainly face a legal challenge from well-funded conservative opponents. And it’s genuinely unclear whether it would ultimately be ruled constitutional. The issue isn’t that Congress can’t enact a wealth tax. It’s that if a wealth tax counts as a “direct” tax, Congress would have to ensure that the amount of money coming from each state was roughly the same on a per-capita basis, as there is a provision of the Constitution that bans direct taxes unless the amount collected is drawn equally from the states based on their populations. Given that wealth is not evenly distributed across the states, that equal distribution would be functionally impossible to ensure. Me: This I did not know. It’s sounds like this could be problematic for those hoping to finance their programs with revenue from a wealth tax. The fate of a wealth tax, then, would hinge on whether it counts as a direct tax. That’s a tough question to answer, because the Constitution itself doesn’t really define what a direct tax is, beyond the fact that the category includes a poll tax, which is a fixed amount charged for every person. Taxes like tariffs and certain others that can’t be fairly distributed on a per-person basis are generally not considered direct taxes. But how all of this would apply to a wealth tax isn’t entirely clear. The Supreme Court weighed in on this question more than 100 years ago — and not in the wealth tax’s favor. In 1895, the court struck down a federal income tax law because it taxed income generated from property, including land and other kinds of personal property, like stocks and bonds. The decision was controversial, and Congress and the states effectively reversed part of it 20 years later with the passage of the 16th Amendment which allowed Congress to tax income without worrying about how evenly it was distributed. But Congress’s authority to tax wealth wasn’t addressed by the amendment, and the Supreme Court hasn’t really returned to the issue in the past century.Warren’s defenders argue, however, that the court simply got it wrong back in 1895, and that a modern wealth tax wouldn’t count as a direct tax. ( well of course they believe that because they need to make a case opposite of what was decided in 1895 to get what they want) But the court’s right-leaning justices might approach the tax with a less favorable eye. And the existence of the old precedent could give the court’s conservative justices a way to dispatch a wealth tax relatively easily, which gives experts like Daniel Hemel pause. “A wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars — or, if it’s struck down by the Supreme Court, it could raise nothing,” said Hemel, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “That’s a really big risk if you care about the redistribution of income and you’re trying to figure out how to get it done.” Then there are the critics who have argued that even if a wealth tax could survive a legal battle, it would be a nightmare to implement and might not raise as much money as Warren and Sanders have claimed. Yang, in particular, has homed in recently on the practical shortcomings of a wealth tax. In the October debate, he pointed out that many European countries tried wealth taxes of their own but eventually abandoned them, in part because they proved so difficult to administer. True, the comparison between the U.S. and Europe may not be entirely apt. For one thing, many European millionaires simply moved to neighboring countries to escape the wealth taxes, which would be harder for Americans to pull off. But one lesson that probably would translate, according to Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, is that a wealth tax would be difficult to enforce. One central concern is that the rich, who are already good at evading taxes, would find new and creative ways to avoid paying taxes on their wealth. Part of the issue is that while income and certain kinds of wealth, like stocks, are easily verifiable, the value of a privately held company or a piece of art is genuinely hard to pin down. And the people targeted by the wealth tax also have the means to hire tax lawyers and accountants to sift through the law in search of loopholes. “I think a wealth tax would certainly raise a significant amount of money,” Holtzblatt said. “But will it raise enough money to pay for everything that’s been suggested? That’s a much harder question to answer.”From a practical perspective, several experts told me that if the goal is to squeeze more tax revenue out of the rich, there is lower-hanging fruit politicians can go after. But the aspects of a wealth tax that make some tax professors and economists squirm — its newness and its focus on the super-rich — are likely part of what makes it so appealing to voters. A New York Times/SurveyMonkey poll conducted in July, for instance, found that two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support Warren’s proposal. Other tax plans floated by the candidates, like lowering the threshold for the estate tax or establishing a universal basic income, have received significantly less support in polls. So if nothing else, the wealth tax has been a very successful symbol of the idea that the wealthy should pay their fair share. Sanders’s version of the wealth tax would affect more people and explicitly seeks to make billionaires an endangered species, which could make it more vulnerable to criticism. Warren, meanwhile, has so far taken pains to downplay the radicalness of a wealth tax, painting it as a modest strategy for tackling a broken tax system. But the political risks are still real for Warren, especially if her critics decide they want to focus on the details. Heaven forbid that anyone should dare focus in on the details as that could be seen as “dragging down the candidate”.
So my question, if either Sanders or Warren are elected president, what are people suppose to do about health care while Sanders or Warren work their way through the maze that may or may not get them the revenue they are building their programs on? How long are people suppose to wait?
The reality is, if the Democrats push trump out of the White House in 2020, trump will be leaving behind a health care system in shambles. Fixes have to come sooner as opposed to later. Sick people don’t have time to wait to let either Warren or Sanders reinvent the wheel by putting together this revenue stream they need to pay for what they are promising.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 3, 2019 21:29:26 GMT
I don't like it. I don't like it looking like they are punishing the wealthy.
I'd rather they look at closing the loopholes that are used to get out of paying their taxes
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,585
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 3, 2019 21:37:34 GMT
If she becomes our candidate with the wealth tax, we might as well hand the election to Trump. She will lose so many blue voters that I know: socially liberal and fiscally moderate. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in America. We tend to be very liberal here - pro-choice; pro LGBTQ; pro reasonable gun restrictions. She will lose here if she goes after the wealthy, plain and simple. And maybe she doesn't need my neighbor's votes - but I think she does. They will never vote for Trump - but they aren't going to vote for their taxes to go up dramatically either. They'll stay home.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 21:38:06 GMT
I like it.
But like I the automated payments tax better.
apttax.
" How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.7% they would pay $210 (.35% x $60000) on their income receipts and $210 on their expenditures for a total tax of $420. Their employer would pay $210 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $70 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family's $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $140 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $840. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns.
How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although "day trading" and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these "hot money" transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets.
Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So it's inherently progressive. "
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 21:53:05 GMT
I like it. But like I the automated payments tax better. apttax. " How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.7% they would pay $210 (.35% x $60000) on their income receipts and $210 on their expenditures for a total tax of $420. Their employer would pay $210 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $70 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family's $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $140 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $840. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns. How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although "day trading" and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these "hot money" transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets. Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So it's inherently progressive. " If I understand this tax correctly, in order for it to work, all financial transaction will have to be done electronically and will eliminate all cash payments for goods and services. If I’m understanding this correctly, how soon to you think people can be forced to do away with cash? San Francisco just passed a law requiring all businesses to accept cash.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 3, 2019 22:04:33 GMT
To me a wealth tax is double taxation. Most of the accumulated wealth would have already been taxed as income somewhere along the way or would be taxed as income eventually - IRA's and other tax deferred investments.
Where would it end? When you didn't get enough from the $50 million and over, what about the $25 million or the $10 million? Then you are starting to get into families who made their money in relatively small businesses and were frugal about saving and investing.
This sends a direct message that we are punishing the savers and the high achievers.
I agree that closing loopholes is a better way to go. Plus Warren and every other candidate still has the problem of paying our current bills which are mounting at an unprecedented rate thanks to the last tax cut that didn't cut spending. Taxes are going to have to go up somewhere even before new programs are funded.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Nov 3, 2019 22:16:41 GMT
I don’t like it. This is an enormous mistake. She will not win with this.
This is also a form of punishment for those who have done well for themselves financially speaking.
I hope she reconsiders this.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 3, 2019 22:19:16 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo.
I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money.
I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you.
People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are.
I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets.
I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves?
|
|
luckyexwife
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,067
Jun 25, 2014 21:21:08 GMT
|
Post by luckyexwife on Nov 3, 2019 22:27:59 GMT
I like it. But like I the automated payments tax better. apttax. " How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.7% they would pay $210 (.35% x $60000) on their income receipts and $210 on their expenditures for a total tax of $420. Their employer would pay $210 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $70 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family's $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $140 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $840. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns. How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although "day trading" and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these "hot money" transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets. Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So it's inherently progressive. " Maybe I haven't had enough coffee today, but can you explain the first part? If a family makes $60,000, spends $20,000 on mortgage and taxes and $40,000 on other stuff, how do they have $120,000 of total transactions? Is that assuming they spend $60,000 on credit cards every year? Maybe I just need more coffee in are not understanding at all?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 22:37:51 GMT
I like it. But like I the automated payments tax better. apttax. " How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.7% they would pay $210 (.35% x $60000) on their income receipts and $210 on their expenditures for a total tax of $420. Their employer would pay $210 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $70 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family's $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $140 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $840. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns. How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although "day trading" and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these "hot money" transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets. Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So it's inherently progressive. " If I understand this tax correctly, in order for it to work, all financial transaction will have to be done electronically and will eliminate all cash payments for goods and services. If I’m understanding this correctly, how soon to you think people can be forced to do away with cash? San Francisco just passed a law requiring all businesses to accept cash. Cash is discussed at the link. But rather than focus on the cash, how about we focus on the $1TRILLION DOLLARS TRADED DAILY ACROSS ALL INSTRUMENTS IN THE US, MOST OF WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTAXED!?!?!?
Why don't people mind double and triple taxation on the poorest by taxing their income, then retaxing them on gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, etc, but then they get the vapors at double taxation of those w/10 yachts and 3 chateaux and $40MILLION weddings, etc.
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,585
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 3, 2019 23:43:10 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? I know exactly what I’m saying: I want to beat Trump and this proposal will not beat him. It won’t. The Republicans will kill us with this. It’s too extreme; it sounds too much like the bogey-man “socialism” and I don’t think it will draw enough voters to the Democrats. It will siphon them off. I hope I’m wrong. I will vote blue, no matter who. But I know many who won’t.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 3, 2019 23:46:58 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? I know exactly what I’m saying: I want to beat Trump and this proposal will not beat him. It won’t. The Republicans will kill us with this. It’s too extreme; it sounds too much like the bogey-man “socialism” and I don’t think it will draw enough voters to the Democrats. It will siphon them off. I hope I’m wrong. I will vote blue, no matter who. But I know many who won’t. So we have to be Republican-lite in order to hopefully win the votes of a tiny fraction of people, even though the Republicans will cast even our most moderate candidates as socialists? I don't buy it.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,170
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Nov 3, 2019 23:49:48 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? I know exactly what I’m saying: I want to beat Trump and this proposal will not beat him. It won’t. The Republicans will kill us with this. It’s too extreme; it sounds too much like the bogey-man “socialism” and I don’t think it will draw enough voters to the Democrats. It will siphon them off. I hope I’m wrong. I will vote blue, no matter who. But I know many who won’t. I have the same concern, and also about the Medicare for all. People have visceral reactions to proposals like these. And while I know that much of what candidates campaign on never gets done in that form, the platform they put forth gets people to vote for them or not. The biggest concern for me is that people will not turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate and Trump will win again because HIS people will turn out. I will vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination, but I’m worried that others just won’t vote if they are turned off by the platform.
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,585
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 4, 2019 0:01:33 GMT
I know exactly what I’m saying: I want to beat Trump and this proposal will not beat him. It won’t. The Republicans will kill us with this. It’s too extreme; it sounds too much like the bogey-man “socialism” and I don’t think it will draw enough voters to the Democrats. It will siphon them off. I hope I’m wrong. I will vote blue, no matter who. But I know many who won’t. So we have to be Republican-lite in order to hopefully win the votes of a tiny fraction of people, even though the Republicans will cast even our most moderate candidates as socialists? I don't buy it. The essential question lies in do we become more centrist or more progressive to win. I understand both perspectives but my gut says we get more people under the umbrella going centrist. And that’s probably because I’m more of a moderate anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 0:26:52 GMT
If I understand this tax correctly, in order for it to work, all financial transaction will have to be done electronically and will eliminate all cash payments for goods and services. If I’m understanding this correctly, how soon to you think people can be forced to do away with cash? San Francisco just passed a law requiring all businesses to accept cash. Cash is discussed at the link. But rather than focus on the cash, how about we focus on the $1TRILLION DOLLARS TRADED DAILY ACROSS ALL INSTRUMENTS IN THE US, MOST OF WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNTAXED!?!?!?
Why don't people mind double and triple taxation on the poorest by taxing their income, then retaxing them on gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, etc, but then they get the vapors at double taxation of those w/10 yachts and 3 chateaux and $40MILLION weddings, etc. There is a whole chunk of people out there that don’t care or understand about the $1TRILLION DOLLARS TRADED DAILY THAT ISN’T TAXED.What they do care is what affects them personally. I did the math for folks that want to continue to pay for most things with cash. If they do, then they will be penalized. That is not how you close a loophole by penalizing people that will probably hurt the poor and seniors the most.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 0:29:41 GMT
I know exactly what I’m saying: I want to beat Trump and this proposal will not beat him. It won’t. The Republicans will kill us with this. It’s too extreme; it sounds too much like the bogey-man “socialism” and I don’t think it will draw enough voters to the Democrats. It will siphon them off. I hope I’m wrong. I will vote blue, no matter who. But I know many who won’t. I have the same concern, and also about the Medicare for all. People have visceral reactions to proposals like these. And while I know that much of what candidates campaign on never gets done in that form, the platform they put forth gets people to vote for them or not. The biggest concern for me is that people will not turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate and Trump will win again because HIS people will turn out. I will vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination, but I’m worried that others just won’t vote if they are turned off by the platform. See, what I see/hear is that we're worried that wealthy, white people will be turned off and won't turn out. No one's giving a thought to all the progressive Obama voters and disaffected millennials who stayed home in 2016 because we nominated a centrist. I really wish we'd quit worrying so much about what the fraction-of-one-percent thinks. A lot of those people are going to vote for Trump anyway, whether they admit it or not. But the poor, working class and minority voters who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't see a candidate who represented their views - those folks are ripe for the taking. So are all the millennials who stayed home in 2016 - they're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans and make sure they have healthcare and an environment that won't kill their kids, and they didn't see anyone in 2016 who was committed to helping them with those problems. Nationwide poll numbers simply don't reflect the heebie-jeebies about Warren's progressive policies that I see floated here. With all due respect to everyone, we liberals on this board skew overwhelmingly white and relatively wealthy, and very middle-aged. What our friends in our various social bubbles think is only a tiny fraction of national opinion. Nominate Biden or someone like him, and I guarantee you the folks who stayed home in 2016 will stay home again. And we'll lose. Something I think everyone here forgets about Warren is that she's not stupid. She's not a wild-eyed ideologue like Bernie, either. She used to be a Republican and understands that "fiscally conservative" mindset very well. I guarantee you that her people have done their homework on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Nov 4, 2019 0:35:49 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? So you’re ok with being taxed 2 times when you earn your money? Because that’s what this sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 0:38:56 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? So you’re ok with being taxed 2 times when you earn your money? Because that’s what this sounds like. We’re all taxed multiple times on the same money. I pay my income taxes and then have to pay sales tax on what I spend that remains - and because I’m not super wealthy, I spend most of it. Somehow it’s only the people who can afford to squirrel away 50 million dollars without spending it, who feel they shouldn’t have to pay any additional tax.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 1:27:13 GMT
So you’re ok with being taxed 2 times when you earn your money? Because that’s what this sounds like. We’re all taxed multiple times on the same money. I pay my income taxes and then have to pay sales tax on what I spend that remains - and because I’m not super wealthy, I spend most of it. Somehow it’s only the people who can afford to squirrel away 50 million dollars without spending it, who feel they shouldn’t have to pay any additional tax. Yes cry me a river. While the middle class and low income are taxed over and over and the wealthy make more in INTEREST ALONE on their billions in ONE YEAR than normal workers will earn BUSTING THEIR ASSES FOR 40 years * 20 lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Nov 4, 2019 1:36:18 GMT
So you’re ok with being taxed 2 times when you earn your money? Because that’s what this sounds like. We’re all taxed multiple times on the same money. I pay my income taxes and then have to pay sales tax on what I spend that remains - and because I’m not super wealthy, I spend most of it. Somehow it’s only the people who can afford to squirrel away 50 million dollars without spending it, who feel they shouldn’t have to pay any additional tax. Yes but they also have to pay sales tax. And they are spending their money. I am worried about the slippery slope that comes with this move. It will start out at a very high, and then it will be gradually lowered. And that combined with the vilification of the wealthy that is happening worries me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 1:40:48 GMT
We’re all taxed multiple times on the same money. I pay my income taxes and then have to pay sales tax on what I spend that remains - and because I’m not super wealthy, I spend most of it. Somehow it’s only the people who can afford to squirrel away 50 million dollars without spending it, who feel they shouldn’t have to pay any additional tax. Yes but they also have to pay sales tax. And they are spending their money. I am worried about the slippery slope that comes with this move. It will start out at a very high, and then it will be gradually lowered. And that combined with the vilification of the wealthy that is happening worries me. Funny. It’s the vilification of the poor that worries me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 1:46:05 GMT
I have the same concern, and also about the Medicare for all. People have visceral reactions to proposals like these. And while I know that much of what candidates campaign on never gets done in that form, the platform they put forth gets people to vote for them or not. The biggest concern for me is that people will not turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate and Trump will win again because HIS people will turn out. I will vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination, but I’m worried that others just won’t vote if they are turned off by the platform. See, what I see/hear is that we're worried that wealthy, white people will be turned off and won't turn out. No one's giving a thought to all the progressive Obama voters and disaffected millennials who stayed home in 2016 because we nominated a centrist. I really wish we'd quit worrying so much about what the fraction-of-one-percent thinks. A lot of those people are going to vote for Trump anyway, whether they admit it or not. But the poor, working class and minority voters who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't see a candidate who represented their views - those folks are ripe for the taking. So are all the millennials who stayed home in 2016 - they're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans and make sure they have healthcare and an environment that won't kill their kids, and they didn't see anyone in 2016 who was committed to helping them with those problems. Nationwide poll numbers simply don't reflect the heebie-jeebies about Warren's progressive policies that I see floated here. With all due respect to everyone, we liberals on this board skew overwhelmingly white and relatively wealthy, and very middle-aged. What our friends in our various social bubbles think is only a tiny fraction of national opinion. Nominate Biden or someone like him, and I guarantee you the folks who stayed home in 2016 will stay home again. And we'll lose. Something I think everyone here forgets about Warren is that she's not stupid. She's not a wild-eyed ideologue like Bernie, either. She used to be a Republican and understands that "fiscally conservative" mindset very well. I guarantee you that her people have done their homework on these issues. One question. Do you think if Sanders has been the nominee instead of Hillary he would have beaten trump?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 1:50:25 GMT
We’re all taxed multiple times on the same money. I pay my income taxes and then have to pay sales tax on what I spend that remains - and because I’m not super wealthy, I spend most of it. Somehow it’s only the people who can afford to squirrel away 50 million dollars without spending it, who feel they shouldn’t have to pay any additional tax. Yes but they also have to pay sales tax. And they are spending their money. I am worried about the slippery slope that comes with this move. It will start out at a very high, and then it will be gradually lowered. And that combined with the vilification of the wealthy that is happening worries me. Sales tax disproportionately affects people who are able save very little, because they spend and are taxed on a higher percentage of their income. People with many millions or billions socked away are not spending all of that - and they're not being taxed on the portion that is tied up in some tax-sheltered account. Slippery slope arguments are, with all due respect, the last resort of folks who don't have a good argument. Think of the people who want no restrictions on guns because they think the "slippery slope" will someday lead to an outright ban and confiscation. It's not logical. I'm not interested in vilifying wealthy people. I am interested in waking up wealthy people who fail to acknowledge that the generational wealth they inherit and pass down is due in large part to one, belonging to the lucky sperm club, and two, getting to participate in an economic system in which both major political parties help to make sure that they get to keep their wealth and earn more of it. Trump and Kylie Jenner think they're "self made;" we know that they were born on third base and shouldn't pat themselves too hard on the back for hitting a home run. I think a wealth tax on assets above a certain amount acknowledges our understanding that the majority of people who become that rich do so in large part because of their privilege in being born into a wealthy and well-connected family, and that it is their duty to give something back to the society that continues to lift them up while oppressing others.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 1:52:14 GMT
See, what I see/hear is that we're worried that wealthy, white people will be turned off and won't turn out. No one's giving a thought to all the progressive Obama voters and disaffected millennials who stayed home in 2016 because we nominated a centrist. I really wish we'd quit worrying so much about what the fraction-of-one-percent thinks. A lot of those people are going to vote for Trump anyway, whether they admit it or not. But the poor, working class and minority voters who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't see a candidate who represented their views - those folks are ripe for the taking. So are all the millennials who stayed home in 2016 - they're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans and make sure they have healthcare and an environment that won't kill their kids, and they didn't see anyone in 2016 who was committed to helping them with those problems. Nationwide poll numbers simply don't reflect the heebie-jeebies about Warren's progressive policies that I see floated here. With all due respect to everyone, we liberals on this board skew overwhelmingly white and relatively wealthy, and very middle-aged. What our friends in our various social bubbles think is only a tiny fraction of national opinion. Nominate Biden or someone like him, and I guarantee you the folks who stayed home in 2016 will stay home again. And we'll lose. Something I think everyone here forgets about Warren is that she's not stupid. She's not a wild-eyed ideologue like Bernie, either. She used to be a Republican and understands that "fiscally conservative" mindset very well. I guarantee you that her people have done their homework on these issues. One question. Do you think if Sanders has been the nominee instead of Hillary he would have beaten trump? Honestly? Don't know. I think it's possible. But he also doesn't campaign as well as Warren does, and Trump's star has fallen much further during his presidency, which makes him easier to beat IMO.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 4, 2019 2:17:28 GMT
So we have to be Republican-lite in order to hopefully win the votes of a tiny fraction of people, even though the Republicans will cast even our most moderate candidates as socialists? I don't buy it. This is where I'm at. The Republicans are calling *all* DNC candidates socialists. Every single one. They're making no distinction. The DNC *is* the Socialist Party if you listen to the GOP, watch their commercials, and read their social media. And the DNC is headed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And all Dems want the Green New Deal. I don't know if there's any point in chasing after a few moderates who MAY stay home (but at least won't vote for Trump), at the risk of losing a lot of far-left Dems, who will refuse to vote for a moderate Dem and WILL stay home (according to their social media).
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Nov 4, 2019 2:18:57 GMT
If she becomes our candidate with the wealth tax, we might as well hand the election to Trump. She will lose so many blue voters that I know: socially liberal and fiscally moderate. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in America. We tend to be very liberal here - pro-choice; pro LGBTQ; pro reasonable gun restrictions. She will lose here if she goes after the wealthy, plain and simple. And maybe she doesn't need my neighbor's votes - but I think she does. They will never vote for Trump - but they aren't going to vote for their taxes to go up dramatically either. They'll stay home. I agree!
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 4, 2019 2:22:35 GMT
One question. Do you think if Sanders has been the nominee instead of Hillary he would have beaten trump? No. I know SO many people who cannot. stand. Sanders. Absolutely cannot stand the man. They held their nose and voted for Clinton (I'm in a very, very red part of a swing state, but Trump turned some conservatives off even back in 2016), but they would not have voted for Sanders. They'd have stayed home or written in someone (effect> same as staying home.)
|
|
|
Post by stingfan on Nov 4, 2019 2:26:16 GMT
How would her plan be sustainable year after year?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 23, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 2:32:43 GMT
How would her plan be sustainable year after year? That’s why I prefer the APT.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 4, 2019 2:42:26 GMT
So we have to be Republican-lite in order to hopefully win the votes of a tiny fraction of people, even though the Republicans will cast even our most moderate candidates as socialists? I don't buy it. This is where I'm at. The Republicans are calling *all* DNC candidates socialists. Every single one. They're making no distinction. The DNC *is* the Socialist Party if you listen to the GOP, watch their commercials, and read their social media. And the DNC is headed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And all Dems want the Green New Deal. I don't know if there's any point in chasing after a few moderates who MAY stay home (but at least won't vote for Trump), at the risk of losing a lot of far-left Dems, who will refuse to vote for a moderate Dem and WILL stay home (according to their social media). and when trump wins again, they can continue to post memes about it and complain while trump continues destroying the country and the world
|
|