The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Omaha 680]

Ha ha. Two percent of the fortunes of the mega-wealthy so basically just arbitrary, random stealing/confiscation of money from rich people. Class warfare.

We needed a constitutional amendment to allow income taxation without direct apportionment to the states. Would a wealth tax as proposed be unconstitutional?

Good grief. These candidates are scaring the crap out of me.

I have been saying this for two years: all the Democrats need to do in order to beat trump is to avoid being insane. They seem increasingly unwilling to fulfill this one requirement.

[wapiti]

Ha ha. Two percent of the fortunes of the mega-wealthy so basically just arbitrary, random stealing/confiscation of money from rich people. Class warfare.

I actually support this idea. I believe that there is a point where it's possible to be too rich and too powerful. Yes, drawing that line is going to be subjective, even arbitrary. It might even make some ultra-rich people sad.

The estate tax was originally intended to combat out-sized generational wealth. But I think the power of the US economy has created winners that the estate tax is too slow to deal with. A wealth tax would help accomplish the same goal.

Having said that, I would only support this if the money raised went toward balancing the budget rather than creating new entitlements.

[Uncle Ted]

Excessive student loans are from people being stupid, making financially unwise decisions.

Exactly. So let's punish the responsible people who saved, worked during school, used family savings, pursued less expensive options, etc.

What do you all have against women?

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

I have been saying this for two years: all the Democrats need to do in order to beat trump is to avoid being insane. They seem increasingly unwilling to fulfill this one requirement.

They can't help it.

[Uncle Ted]

Good grief. These candidates are scaring the crap out of me.

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

Ha ha. Two percent of the fortunes of the mega-wealthy so basically just arbitrary, random stealing/confiscation of money from rich people. Class warfare.

Don't worry Cardiac. Medicare reimbursement will never let you attain that level of wealth

Even if it is class warfare, is it wrong? If there's a societal need for government funding, what else is there besides new taxation?

[Omaha 680]

Don't worry Cardiac. Medicare reimbursement will never let you attain that level of wealth

Even if it is class warfare, is it wrong? If there's a societal need for government funding, what else is there besides new taxation?

We are so screwed.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

We are so screwed.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

All taxation is theft, and any progressive tax scheme is philosophically class warfare. We're already there, bro.

[Omaha 680]

All taxation is theft, and any progressive tax scheme is philosophically class warfare. We're already there, bro.

I'm pretty conservative and I disagree with both of those characterizations. Taxation is clearly necessary to modern society and I am not morally opposed to progressive taxation (even though I think its effectiveness is questionable).

The limits we set on government power are as important (or more) than what we empower the government to do. You think once that bridge is crossed that they will stop at a 2% rate or at the top 750,000 taxpayers?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

I'm pretty conservative and I disagree with both of those characterizations. Taxation is clearly necessary to modern society and I am not morally opposed to progressive taxation (even though I think its effectiveness is questionable).

The limits we set on government power are as important (or more) than what we empower the government to do. You think once that bridge is crossed that they will stop at a 2% rate or at the top 750,000 taxpayers?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

The first characterization was TIC, the second not so much. In general, I agree with the bolded part. But I'm sure we disagree on the practical aspects of that. At any rate, what exactly is the bridge we are crossing with the wealth tax? And who designated it a bridge in the first place? It is a tax proposal, just like any other. And even though I'm sure you're right that the momentum of passing a wealth tax would be hard to contain, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered for that reason only.

Does a wealth tax have merits to society? Yes, absolutely. There are worthy societal programs that would benefit from tax dollars. Are the benefits outweighed by an abstract ideal that increased taxation needs to be fought on all fronts? Not for me, but that's the important political question.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The notion that Wall Street is some kind of evil, greedy, amorphous beast and that we can solve our problems by bleeding the beast is both naive and dangerous.

[frank ryan]

The notion that Wall Street is some kind of evil, greedy, amorphous beast and that we can solve our problems by bleeding the beast is both naive and dangerous.

Evil is not a good word, but amoral is. There is no doubt we benefit when Wall Street flourishes but it is greedy and amoral. Evil is a loaded term and unhelpful, I agree with you there.

The discussion of how much regulation there should be in regards to the financial industry with never be divorced from emotional rhetoric on both sides of the spectrum and that’s unfortunate.

[Northwestcoug]

The notion that Wall Street is some kind of evil, greedy, amorphous beast and that we can solve our problems by bleeding the beast is both naive and dangerous.

This is the 'bridge' I'm talking about. 'Bleeding', 'naive', and 'dangerous' are all inflammatory terms. A wealth tax is a tax proposal, nothing more. There may be an undercurrent of people who believe that Wall Street is characterized like you say. But if there is a bridge, it is the progressive tax scheme. We've already crossed it. As a society we believe wealthy people can and should pay more tax. It's already baked in. If the somewhat wealthy can and should afford to pay more, it's not much of a reach to think that the supremely wealthy can also pay more.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is the 'bridge' I'm talking about. 'Bleeding', 'naive', and 'dangerous' are all inflammatory terms. A wealth tax is a tax proposal, nothing more. There may be an undercurrent of people who believe that Wall Street is characterized like you say. But if there is a bridge, it is the progressive tax scheme. We've already crossed it. As a society we believe wealthy people can and should pay more tax. It's already baked in. If the somewhat wealthy can and should afford to pay more, it's not much of a reach to think that the supremely wealthy can also pay more.

That "undercurrent" is pretty much all the D candidates right now.

The narrative is that we can have all this free stuff they are promising and there is a faceless, nameless rich uncle that is going going to pay for it. Apparently you have bought in to this thinking.

[frank ryan]

This is the 'bridge' I'm talking about. 'Bleeding', 'naive', and 'dangerous' are all inflammatory terms. A wealth tax is a tax proposal, nothing more. There may be an undercurrent of people who believe that Wall Street is characterized like you say. But if there is a bridge, it is the progressive tax scheme. We've already crossed it. As a society we believe wealthy people can and should pay more tax. It's already baked in. If the somewhat wealthy can and should afford to pay more, it's not much of a reach to think that the supremely wealthy can also pay more.

The progressive tax has served us. Most thriving economies utilize a progressive tax.