The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Landlord]

27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The idea of taxing net worth is just wrong in my opinion.

 

 

Is the idea of hoarding unreal amounts of excess wealth wrong? 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Is the idea of hoarding unreal amounts of excess wealth wrong? 

I don't see a problem with someone being a billionaire.  

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Understood.

 

We're at a precarious situation right now in time with the 1% being richer than anytime in recorded history.  If tax havens and tax reform had happened, we probably wouldn't be at the current place.  I think a temporary wealth tax would do well...it can be peeled back...much like Iceland did in 2007 and then re-enabling it in 2010 temporarily.  Just my opinion though.

 

If you have a few minutes, check this out:  https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf

 

It's eye opening on just how much the 1% has changed over time.  It used to be that there were very few people with high net worth...but now, there are almost 5 MILLION people with high net worth in the US alone...we lead all countries with that number.  Those 5 million people control almost 30% of world wealth and they do so by not paying taxes at all.  To me, that's a crime.  If you want to stay in a country that enables your wealth...you should be willing to pay taxes.

 

Anyway, just some food for thought in that document above.

 

 

 

I agree that there is an issue with income disparities.  I just don't agree with the thought process and proposal being discussed.  

[Landlord]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't see a problem with someone being a billionaire.  

 

 

 

So you see no issue with individuals hoarding more wealth than they could possibly need, often at the expense of others under them who have to fight and break their backs to survive, 

 

but you do see issue with taking some wealth away from people who, even after it's taken away, will still have more wealth than they could possibly need, but the taken away part will help to create a more equitable ability to live well for everyone else? 

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

So you see no issue with individuals hoarding more wealth than they could possibly need, often at the expense of others under them who have to fight and break their backs to survive, 

 

but you do see issue with taking some wealth away from people who, even after it's taken away, will still have more wealth than they could possibly need, but the taken away part will help to create a more equitable ability to live well for everyone else? 

 

I see an issue with taxing paper wealth. 

Let's say I built a company up to be worth 1 billion dollars.  That's my net worth.  SO.......the government is going to force me to sell half of my company because of that?

I have a real problem with that.  

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I see an issue with taxing paper wealth. 

Let's say I built a company up to be worth 1 billion dollars.  That's my net worth.  SO.......the government is going to force me to sell half of my company because of that?

I have a real problem with that.  

 

 

 

Per your link, Sanders' tax plan would tax 4% of your billion dollar wealth/business.

[DevoHusker]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

So you see no issue with individuals hoarding more wealth than they could possibly need, often at the expense of others under them who have to fight and break their backs to survive, 

 

but you do see issue with taking some wealth away from people who, even after it's taken away, will still have more wealth than they could possibly need, but the taken away part will help to create a more equitable ability to live well for everyone else? 

 

I haven't made up my mind on the redistribution issue...but one question that no one seems to answer: who decides how much is "too much"?

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

Per your link, Sanders' tax plan would tax 4% of your billion dollar wealth/business.

Yes, with the goal of cutting my net worth in half in 15 years.  So, over the next 15 years, the government is going to force me to sell half my company.

 

 

From Bernie's own website.

Quote

Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

 

[Redux]

Bernie's plan sounds great to some of us wallowing in poverty or living paycheck to paycheck or even those of us setting a little to the side.  "Taxing Billionaires", that's the start.  Eventually it will turn into multi millionaires, then millionaires, then half millionaire's until eventually the government is taking all tax payers money to give to those who don't earn wages so that we can all be closer to equal.

 

Apparently the American dream in his mind is Communism.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Corprorate Taxing and private taxing are two different things.  That's not what this is about.  Your company is NOT you.

My ownership in it IS ME!!!!

 

That is MY personal wealth and it's based on the equity I have in my business.  

[sho]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

My ownership in it IS ME!!!!

 

That is MY personal wealth and it's based on the equity I have in my business.  

 

I agree with you, Bernie's plan takes it too far.   That said, even if Bernie gets the nod or gets selected to be the running mate, there are too many millionaires in congress and even more lobbyists that have members of Congress in their pocket to allow that bill to pass.   it's a great talking point for Bernie, for his base, but the reality of something like that getting through both houses of Congress is zilch, IMO.   Also, for Bernie, I think his MFA and education reform, criminal reform will be higher on his agenda.   That may mean an increase in taxes for mega-millionaires and billionaires, but not to the extent he touts over the next 15 years.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, sho said:

 

I agree with you, Bernie's plan takes it too far.   That said, even if Bernie gets the nod or gets selected to be the running mate, there are too many millionaires in congress and even more lobbyists that have members of Congress in their pocket to allow that bill to pass.   it's a great talking point for Bernie, for his base, but the reality of something like that getting through both houses of Congress is zilch, IMO.   Also, for Bernie, I think his MFA and education reform, criminal reform will be higher on his agenda.   That may mean an increase in taxes for mega-millionaires and billionaires, but not to the extent he touts over the next 15 years.

 

 

Well....the policy disqualifies him for my vote.  Everyone else will need to decide on their own.

[Redux]

Trump appeals to blue collar workers and racists, Bernie appeals to those on welfare and making minimum wage part time jobs a career.  Boy the popular vote is important (sarcasm).  We should start charging $5 to vote on presidential ballots, that would pay for some of the outlandish salaries these term seats have managed to turn into lifetime gigs.

[sho]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Well....the policy disqualifies him for my vote.  Everyone else will need to decide on their own.

 

Hypothetically speaking, and I don't pay enough attention to names to know your level of support for Trump.  What happens if Trump gets through this impeachment, and gets to the 2020 election and it's Trump/Pence (R) and Warren/Sanders (D) on the top?  You voting third party? abstaining?   Does this become a deterrent to make you go away from Dems completely (assuming you are a not Trump again currently)?

[Landlord]

52 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I haven't made up my mind on the redistribution issue...but one question that no one seems to answer: who decides how much is "too much"?

 

 

I'm not sure, but I think someone who's wealth is 25,000x more than a very livable wage is a reasonable place to start.