Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Chris-]

Passing on $6 billion to own the libs.

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

Well then Bernie can make it a priority when he stays in the Senate. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Good point let's move that 2% down to $15 million

[Massdriver]

On 1/24/2019 at 1:06 PM, mclumber1 said:

 

lol nope.

I second that nope. Thankfully it's unconstitutional and there is no realistic chance it will pass anytime in the near future. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

So it's a good thing that the wealthy continue to amass the Lions share of national income?

[mclumber1]

18 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So it's a good thing that the wealthy continue to amass the Lions share of national income?

 

I'd rather have 100,000 billionaires in America than 100,000,000 people below the poverty line. 

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'd rather have 100,000 billionaires in America than 100,000,000 people below the poverty line. 

 

And yet, the latter is more likely than the former because the few with cash can dictate all policy.

[mclumber1]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

And yet, the latter is more likely than the former because the few with cash can dictate all policy.

 

Why would it be in the ultra wealthy's interests to institute policies that make the poor even poorer?  It's the poor and middle class's consumption of goods and services that make them billions of dollars.

[Joe]

21 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'd rather have 100,000 billionaires in America than 100,000,000 people below the poverty line. 

 

I'll take False Choices for $100, Alex.

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Why would it be in the ultra wealthy's interests to institute policies that make the poor even poorer?  It's the poor and middle class's consumption of goods and services that make them billions of dollars.

 

Because they have the power when they have the money and take advantage of poor people's lack of knowledge, e.g. predatory lending in the 2000s.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

I second that nope. Thankfully it's unconstitutional and there is no realistic chance it will pass anytime in the near future. 

Explain to me how it would be "unconstitutional" if an estate tax -- which it is conceptually identical to -- isn't?

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Explain to me how it would be "unconstitutional" if an estate tax isn't?

 

I could be wrong, but isn't an estate tax levied upon the person who receives the estate?  The estate transfer is in essence income to the receiver, and income is taxable.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I could be wrong, but isn't an estate tax levied upon the person who receives the estate?  The estate transfer is in essence income to the receiver, and income is taxable.  

The tax is levied upon the estate of the deceased which is an entity in and of itself upon death.

[CitizenVectron]

Bernie is running:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html

[RedSoxFan9]

Our Republican controlled Supreme Court would strike down a wealth tax so I in a sense it’s unconstitutional 

[RedSoxFan9]

21 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Bernie is running:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html

 

Much better timing than the scrubs who announced their candidacy during the shutdown 

[Firewithin]

27 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Bernie is running:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html

Oh God 

[Massdriver]

45 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Explain to me how it would be "unconstitutional" if an estate tax -- which it is conceptually identical to -- isn't?

They aren’t the same. If I’m not mistaken, the estate tax was upheld as constitutional. A wealth tax has not. From wiki:

 

Quote

In the United States, depending upon how Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 of the United States Constitutionwould be interpreted, the implementation of a wealth tax not apportioned by the populations of the States would require a Constitutional amendment in order to be passed into law. The United States Constitutionprohibits any federal direct tax on asset holdings (as opposed to income tax or capital gains tax) unless the revenue collected is apportioned among the states on the basis of their population.[40][41][42]

My claim may have overstated the certainty of its unconstitutionality, but it would certainly be legally controversial and challenged in court. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'd rather have 100,000 billionaires in America than 100,000,000 people below the poverty line. 

Lol we're gonna have both before too long. But more likely the hundred million below the poverty live

[SaysWho?]

22 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Lol we're gonna have both before too long. But more likely the hundred million below the poverty live

 

It'll be a billion poor people before we get 100k billionaires.

[Massdriver]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So it's a good thing that the wealthy continue to amass the Lions share of national income?

 

Sometimes you should zoom out a bit. The world is a much better place than it used to be. It is a good thing that billionaires exist. I'm happy to be alive during a time when someone could accumulate so much wealth while at the same time humanity is flourishing worldwide.

 

 

While the system isn't perfect, the accumulation of wealth through market based systems has resulted in humanity flourishing in a lot of tangible, objective ways. In general, people alive today are far better off than they were throughout history, with few exceptions. I don't believe in implementing radical populist ideas that could result in severe economic harm to the people in the country for the same reasons many of you support them. I care about people, and that includes the middle and lower class.  Wealth taxes such as the one Warren proposes could have serious adverse effects and lead to a decrease in growth, capital flight, and many innovators leaving the U.S. That doesn't mean they should not have to pay anything, but this isn't the way to go to produce the best balance of innovation, growth, and income distribution.

 

But to solve these problems, it isn't as simple as soak the rich, although they should be taxed more than they are now. We need innovation in the market place, and we also need more redistribution. I posted this once here and got few responses, but here are some ideas off the top of my head one day that include a land value tax, a form of wealth tax, that wouldn't result in massive tax avoidance, capital flight, and sheltering as well as some other proposals that doesn't risk the system: 

 

• Mandatory IRA/401k deductions for workers. Mandate a certain percentage has to go into index funds that track U.S. and world equities. 
• Look into a sovereign wealth fund with conditions. Its goal is to distribute gains to middle and lower income individuals/families. Its strategy is passive, low cost indexing. It is to be audited twice a year with rotating auditors with the results published publically. It is prohibited from investing in individual stocks/companies/REITS or being used for counter-cyclical economic policy during downturns. 
• Implement a land value tax on the Federal level (and replace less efficient taxes where possible)
• Education reform, including emphasis on vocational tracks starting in 10th grade and financing reform 
• Wage subsides and a Negative Income Tax 
• Prohibit zoning or pass Federal guidelines similar to Japan 
• Abolish or severely limit occupational licensing
• Universal healthcare

Part of the problem with the system is too many people are not participating. Some of my ideas would allow the system to work better for the middle and lower class.

 

Encouraging investing and saving should be part of the goal of tax policies, and wealth taxes will just result in huge distortions to the market, with capital not being invested and instead consumed, depressing long-term growth and wages of those in the middle and lower class. 

With a NIT, you could effectively have extremely efficient forms of taxation resulting in tons of growth while having an effective and efficient tool to redistribute gains to the lower classes. All the while, we don't have to implement policies that will drag us down and make us less innovative. 

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

All of that could have been accomplished without billionaires 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

16 hours ago, Massdriver said:

with capital not being invested and instead consumed, depressing long-term growth and wages of those in the middle and lower class.

What the devil do you think is happening now?

 

I WISH capital was actually being consumed beacuse at least then it would be circulating in the broader economy.  Instead, capital is merely accumulating for its own sake or being put to totally unproductive use.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

44 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

make us less innovative. 

Oh geeze -  this utterly baseless neoliberal false god again!

 

My skin crawls whenever the old, tired canard of "innovation" is trotted out as a nebulous justification for practically anything.  "Innovation" has been proven to overwhelmingly accumulate to the upper societal strata with only the slightest crumbs trickling down to the rest and more often than not outright working against them.  

 

If such punishing economic policies gets rid of such useless "innovators", then all the better.

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Oh geeze -  this utterly baseless neoliberal false god again!

 

My skin crawls whenever the old, tired canard of "innovation" is trotted out as a nebulous justification for practically anything.  "Innovation" has been proven to overwhelmingly accumulate to the upper societal strata with only the slightest crumbs trickling down to the rest and more often than not outright working against them.  

 

If such punishing economic policies gets rid of such useless "innovators", then all the better.

 

I propose mechanisms to redistribute wealth, address root causes of the distribution of assets and wealth in the country, and the response seems as if you're addressing a minarchist.  

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

26 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

I propose mechanisms to redistribute wealth, address root causes of the distribution of assets and wealth in the country, and the response seems as if you're addressing a minarchist.  

Would these mechanisms prevent the creation of such obscene levels of wealth concentration to begin with?

 

That should be the objective and not trying to put the genie back into the bottle which would require necessarily "radical" measures.

[Kal-El814]

5 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Why would it be in the ultra wealthy's interests to institute policies that make the poor even poorer?  It's the poor and middle class's consumption of goods and services that make them billions of dollars.

You’re acting as though the ultra wealthy aren’t often irrational actors with shitty long term planning skills. I mean hell, if what you’re describing isn’t in the interest of the ultra wealthy, how did we get here and why does this problem keep getting worse? Policy that most Americans support isn’t getting passed, I wonder who’s benefitting...

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

You’re acting as though the ultra wealthy aren’t often irrational actors with shitty long term planning skills. I mean hell, if what you’re describing isn’t in the interest of the ultra wealthy, how did we get here and why does this problem keep getting worse? Policy that most Americans support isn’t getting passed, I wonder who’s benefitting...

 

It's not getting worse - Compare the conditions of the poor in America 100 years ago to today and they are much better off in every imaginable way, despite the fact that there is a huge gap between the poor and rich today.  I simply reject the idea that income inequality, on it's own, is a nefarious thing, given the increasing standard of living and government benefits that afforded to the poor in America. 

[Massdriver]

51 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Would these mechanisms prevent the creation of such obscene levels of wealth concentration to begin with?

 

That should be the objective and not trying to put the genie back into the bottle which would require necessarily "radical" measures.

If these mechanisms were in place, I wouldn't view wealth concentrations as a large concern since everyone would be guaranteed a decent standard of living. Between universal healthcare, a negative income tax, and wage subsides, I think that should alleviate enough net suffering. Inequality would still exist, but inequality itself is not a real concern in this context.  The concern is the well-being of the poor and middle class. That is the issue of moral significance. If the poor and middle class are doing well, then I don't feel compelled to destroy the upper class just because I want less inequality. 

 

I am also concerned about the global poor and absolute poverty, which is getting better. Markets and trade are giving billions of people better lives. The poor throughout the world mean something to me. I don't just consider how the system affects America. 

 

Edited

[Anathema-]

The rich don't need the middle class, only the working poor. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

What is being lost in this discussion is the disproportionately concentrated political power of the ultra-wealthy represents a significant barrier to the enaction of the "reasonable" mechanisms described above.  The creation and accumulation of obscene levels of wealth doesn't occur in a political vacuum - it's effectively a virtuous/vicious cycle (depending on one's point-of-view).

 

The only way those mechanisms can ever be enacted is through the clear and present "threat" or partial reality of annihilating those levels of obscene wealth through more punishing/radical measures so that the reasonable ones enumerated above become the "least worst option".  If those punishments aren't at least a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, then there is no incentive for those against whom they would be directed to even bother considering anything far less draconian.

[SaysWho?]

Ojeda just dropped out.

[CitizenVectron]