The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[BigRedBuster]

I’m willing to give Schultz time to talk publicly and get his message out. 

 

I fully expect over the next few months that the full effort of both parties is going to be out in full force to destroy him.  

 

Especially from the left. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Americans are generally more progressive on individual issues than either the Democrat or Republic platforms. 

 

[StPaulHusker]

Is it me that doesn’t understand the marginal rate that’s being thrown around or is it other people?  This is how I understand it.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

Right now the top bracket is 35% on income OVER $500K.  That means if you make $500,001 in a year, that $1 is taxed at 35%.

 

The 70% rate would kick in AFTER you earn $10M.  That means between $500,001 to $10M, you still pay 35%.  Once you hit $10,000,001, you pay 70% on that $1.

[Oade]

19 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm hoping Schultz gets some non-Trump Republicans to vote for him. But I doubt he'll even be running 3 months from now. First, I think he's just trying to drum up sales for his book. Second, I doubt there's many people in the "center". Third, unfortunately the 2 major parties have a stranglehold on the Presidential election and an independent or third party will be lucky to get 1% of the vote, let alone even a single Electoral Vote.

 

At this point, Schultz has a better shot at non-Trump Republicans than Hilary ever had. The real question in my mind is if he has enough sway to win the votes of folks who opted not to vote last time.

 

I think an increase in voter turn out is all but guaranteed, the question is which way that groups vote swings. It could split the Republican vote, or it could galvanize the right..... The further left the dems go, the more likely it seems to me that the right solidifies behind Trump - at least in vote, if not spirit.

 

Unless Schultz can carry the Democratic base, he has no shot of pulling a significantly higher number of Republican votes than what Hilary did imo.

[deedsker]

9 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

Is it me that doesn’t understand the marginal rate that’s being thrown around or is it other people?  This is how I understand it.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

Right now the top bracket is 35% on income OVER $500K.  That means if you make $500,001 in a year, that $1 is taxed at 35%.

 

The 70% rate would kick in AFTER you earn $10M.  That means between $500,001 to $10M, you still pay 35%.  Once you hit $10,000,001, you pay 70% on that $1.

What you stated is correct. 

[Moiraine]

42 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

What are you basing these numbers on?

 

 

The first results in google for "tax bracket amounts" and "number of people making $10M" and math. I did the calculations on my phone while at work so I wasn't thinking about the marginal rate for the amount under $500k and I refuse to calculate that :p. I calculated the full $10M at 37% and everything after at 70%. I didn't bother with any of the brackets below $500K.

 

37% of $10M = 3,700,000

70% of $5M = 3,500,000

Together it's $7.2M

 

The % after that I pulled out of the air. They're just ideas. Instead of doing 70%, which people think sounds crazy, tax more people at a less crazy sounding amount. Make more brackets, for over $1M and $2M.

 

 

Quote

For 2018 through 2025, the tax rates are 10%; 12%, 22%; 24%; 32%; 35% and 37%.

 

http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/12388205/2018-tax-reform-law-new-tax-brackets-credits-and-deductions

 

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Americans are generally more progressive on individual issues than either the Democrat or Republic platforms. 

 

 

 

 

And Nebraska voted to expand Medicaid. Almost across the board, Republican state leaders denied Medicaid funding for purely political reasons, to prevent "Obamacare" from looking good. But when you actually state it in a sentence to your voters, they (in general) think it's a good idea. Even if it's a very Republican state like Nebraska.

[Big Red 40]

Shultz to me seems like another old white billionaire,  who’s worried about old white billionaire stuff, and has no idea how regular people live . Trump was the same thing and he somehow convinced middle class and poor people that he was “for” them . After 4 years of doing nothing for them, and sometimes things that hurt them,  I don’t think they’ll vote for Trump or another guy like him. 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m willing to give Schultz time to talk publicly and get his message out. 

 

I fully expect over the next few months that the full effort of both parties is going to be out in full force to destroy him.  

 

Especially from the left. 

 

Nope. One of them wants him in the race.

 

 

Will he stay in, and will America take the bait?

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

The % after that I pulled out of the air. They're just ideas. Instead of doing 70%, which people think sounds crazy, tax more people at a less crazy sounding amount. Make more brackets, for over $1M and $2M.

A majority of Americans don't think the 70% sounds crazy and are in fact in favor of it.

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

[Big Red 40]

I think we have some very expensive problems in this country and the only way to fix them is to tax the people with the means to make a dent in it . Taxing the lower classes will make their situations worse and not begin to touch billion /trillion dollar problems anyway. 

Question ? Do you think the corporate overlords,  and mega rich,  in this country are going to allow themselves to be taxed 70% though? 

I see them trying to destroy anyone who tries it .

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

A majority of Americans don't think the 70% sounds crazy and are in fact in favor of it.

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

 

 

59%. Approval could be higher, and get the same revenue if you just fiddle with the numbers. Either way, I'm for it. I think people have an obligation to help the society that benefits them.

[knapplc]

If there's one thing the Trump residency has taught us, it's that the Oval Office is no place for rich old guys to get their on-the-job training in politics.

 

If Howard Schultz wants to run for political office, he can start with local politics and work his way up.  No free pass to the top because he's wealthy. 

 

 

[NM11046]

16 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I haven’t looked deep into her policies but I like Elisabeth Warren the few times I’ve heard her talk . Thoughts on her ? 

As one of her current constituents ...

 

I don't think she is POTUS material.  She is not going to fare well on the "likeability" factor (sadly, with women candidates this is a very real issue).  To those who "just couldn't put a finger on why but they didn't like Hillary regardless of her qualifications" they will have the same problem with Liz.  

 

I love her as my Senator, and I think her passions and drive are best served in that role - pushing, advocating for people, moving the ball forward on certain issues - she is very savvy about finance and certainly joins with the "every man" to fight for taxation fair banking etc.   I don't know how she partners across the aisle or how she's thought of in that way.  She's very progressive about many things, which (while it totally gets her vote in MA) I don't think will endure her to middle america.

 

Like I said, LOVE her as my MOC - wouldn't vote for her in the primary with the current options.  Of course if she wins the primary she's my gal!

[NM11046]

12 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Nope. One of them wants him in the race.

 

 

Will he stay in, and will America take the bait?

If he does there are already a couple HB members in his camp.   

 

I'm so heartbroken to see some of you interested in him after what we've been through for 2 years.   Please, please dig in to what he is saying - it's got zero substance.  Zero.  This is truly a vanity project and America can't take 4 more years of that, regardless of the party affiliation (or lack of) associated with the candidate.  You are smart people.  I know last time we debated the value of a vote, and in some situations how voting for the "lesser of two evils" and that got us this frickin' mess.  Your vote counts, and you have to think beyond simplistic "he says what I like".  Those that said a vote for Jill Stein or Gary what his name were not wasted were proven wrong.  This a$$hat is going to do the same thing - don't fall for it.

 

The biggest supporter of this man and his campaign so far?  Steve Schmidt.  Yes, that SS.  The one that has so eloquently spoken up against Trump, the one who dramatically left the Republican party after a lifetime of service because of Trump.  The one that handpicked and supported Sarah Palin as VP candidate for John McCain and took the man's presidential aspirations down the tube.  Yet this choice may be worse than Palin, and one has to wonder his motivation.  Do you trust the man who one could argue turned the tone on politics into what it is today?  Palin became the tv darling because of her catch phrases and personality, not because of her knowledge or ability or history of experience.  And ultimatley her absolute lack of appropriateness for the role took the race away from an otherwise qualified, deserving man.

 

Wealth does not equal intelligence, or an understanding of governing.  Wealth does not necessarily come from being a good business man/woman (see current POTUS).  Being a good business man/woman does not mean someone will make a good leader.  Wealth does however breed ego, and an ability to surround oneself with people who support your thoughts no matter the content.  Wealth does seem to give some the security to assume the best in someone - god knows why.  

 

This man is an asinine joke.  And he's preying on the American people with this joke of a candidacy.