The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Nebfanatic]

The idea that the left is radical is a bit absurd. Maybe radical through our countries right wing perspective, but many of these ideas are only slightly left of center and have been in practice successfully in many countries around the world.

[knapplc]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

The tax is based on net worth not income...etc..  I personally don't believe that is appropriate and could cause some unintended consequences.  A "Wealth tax" is a great sound bite that really needs to be studied before it's put in place.

 

When you say "the tax," what, specifically, are you talking about?  Whose proposal?

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

When you say "the tax," what, specifically, are you talking about?  Whose proposal?

LINK

[knapplc]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

LINK

 

 

Quote

 

The wealth tax has been one of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s signature policy proposals on the campaign trail, what she sells as a “two-cent tax” on the 75,000 wealthiest families in the country: She’s proposing a 2 percent tax on household assets above $50 million and 3 percent for households with assets worth more than $1 billion.

 

Here’s how it would work. Sanders wants to levy a 1 percent tax on wealth above $32 million, for married couples, and then slowly increase the tax for wealthier households: a 2 percent for wealth between $50 to $250 million; 3 percent for wealth from $250 to $500 million; 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. Same thing goes for super-rich single people, except the wealth thresholds are cut in half. In other words, an unmarried person with $16.5 million in wealth would pay a $5,000 tax, as would a married couple with $32.5 million in net worth.

 

As Vox’s Matt Yglesias explained, most middle class Americans already pay a version of a wealth tax: a property tax to their local government on their homes, the most common asset among middle-income Americans. But property taxes don’t get at all the wealth super-rich people keep in stocks or other assets. Sanders also has a proposal to dramatically expand the estate tax, topping out at a maximum rate of 77 percent. Currently, the estate tax maxes out at 40 percent.

 

Taxing the ultra-rich has become increasingly popular in progressive circles. This is in part a reaction to the drastic Trump tax cuts, which have not led to the kind of middle class income growth that was promised.

 

 

 

 

I'm having a super hard time finding flaws in this.  What's wrong with either proposal, especially considering the bolded/underlined?

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm having a super hard time finding flaws in this.  What's wrong with either proposal, especially considering the bolded/underlined?

First off. Wealthy people pay property taxes also....and a lot of them.

 

I am uncomfortable with taxing net worth because those assets are not a lot of times liquid assets.  When you get someone who starts a company, grows that company to be a very big business and, let's say, it's worth 10 billion dollars.  The vast majority of their net worth is tied up in the value of their stock in their company.  It could potentially cause them to sell parts of their own company just to pay the taxes.  I'm uncomfortable with that. Let's look at Jeff Bezos.  I can't imagine anyone saying he shouldn't pay an appropriate amount in taxes which is probably more than what he pays now.  Then, let's understand that Bernie has proclaimed when proposing this tax, that "billionaires should not exist".

 

So, his net worth is roughly $110 billion.  With Bernies proposal, anything more than $10 billion would be taxed at 8%.  That means he would be roughly $8.8 billion on the $110 billion.  (I understand that it's a progressive tax and anything under $10 billion is less than 8%.  But, for ease of discussion, I lumped it all together)

 

Bezos's stock value in Amazon is $109.4 billion.   That means, $600 million is something else.  He also owns Washpo...etc.  

 

So, this tax of $8.8 billion, would require him to sell possibly a significant amount of his stock in his own company.  

Now...on top of Bernie's proposal, like I said, he feels "billionaires should exist".  So, I have to believe, he really believes that Bezos should be taxed to the point where his wealth is less than $1 billion....which...would require one of two things to happen.  The Amazon stock to crash to the point his networth decreases that much...or....Jeff to sell almost all of his stock to get to that point.

 

Again, the sound bite of "Wealth tax" sounds great.  But, when you put it into perspective of what that really means and the ideas behind it from the candidate....I'm not comfortable with it. Now, let's take it down to a much smaller level.

Let's say I start a company and it grows to $500 million.  It's very possible my balance sheet would look like this:

 

Company stock $500,000,000

House and other assets $500,000

Cash and investments   1,000,000

Net worth                  $501,500,000

 

Now, using these percentages:

 

Quote

Here’s how it would work. Sanders wants to levy a 1 percent tax on wealth above $32 million, for married couples, and then slowly increase the tax for wealthier households: a 2 percent for wealth between $50 to $250 million; 3 percent for wealth from $250 to $500 million; 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. Same thing goes for super-rich single people, except the wealth thresholds are cut in half. In other words, an unmarried person with $16.5 million in wealth would pay a $5,000 tax, as would a married couple with $32.5 million in net worth.

 

The above balance sheet would be taxed $11,740,000.  Where should the tax payer get the funds to pay the taxes?  Should they be forced to sell company stock in a company that might not be publicly traded?

 

PS...to show my math on this.

 

Net worth $501,500,000

Exempt        $32,000,000

Taxable wealth $469,500,000

 

1% $18,000,000 = $180,000

2% $200,000,000 = $4,000,000

3% $250,000,000 = $7,500,000

4% $1,500,000 = $60,000

Total Tax = $11,740,000

 

 

 

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Interesting that every one of these deals, fundamentally, with money.  Money is the thing Republicans most want to protect. Seems there's a pretty clear Bible verse about that, too.

 

But let's look at this:

 

Federal Jobs Guarantee - this is a plank of Bernie's platform. No other candidate has espoused this idea.

 

Green New Deal - Again, no candidate other than Bernie endorses this. It's AOC's proposal and it hasn't got a snowball's chance at passing. But the major argument against it: It's too expensive. Again, money.

 

$15 Minimum Wage - We've finally got a major party plank. Current Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour and hasn't increased in ten years. To become match inflation from when minimum wage was at its peak it'd have to be at least $10/hour right now, and the $15/hour proposal would be enacted in 2024. What's wrong with this plan? Why should we keep such a hugely devalued minimum wage? That idea is radical.

 

Student Debt Forgiveness - Only really supported by Bernie and Warren. Oh, and a Trump appointee's disciple who quit the administration after recognizing the destructive nature of the current student debt crisis. 

 

Wealth Tax - calling this "radical" is comical. Why shouldn't the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes?

 

Free College - Broad support amongst current Democrat candidates. Congrats, this is three of the six items on your worst ideas list that is actually a major part of the party's platform.  So you're only partially misrepresenting the Democrats. Progress?  But again, why is this a "worst" idea? What's wrong with it, other than it will cost money?

 

OK I'll stick with the staples that you claim:

 

$15 minimum wage - Most importantly, a $15 minimum wage hurts the very people it intends to help. It prices low-skill and young workers out of the job market. These people inevitably end up jobless and on government assistance, creating and advancing a welfare state that perpetuates itself by not allowing those young and low-skill workers to go to work and develop employable skills. It also disproportionately hurts small family businesses, while large corporations are able to handle the added expenses (or automate processes sooner than they would have otherwise). The other large issue is that of the mutual contract agreement. If a person is willing to agree to do a job for $5/hr and the business is willing to hire that person for $5/hr, why would you consider it moral for a 3rd party (the government) to not allow that agreement?

 

Wealth Tax - The hilarity of this proposal is the idea of "rich paying their fair share." The top 1% of income earners already pay a greater amount of taxes than the bottom 90% combined. At what point will the left say that the rich pay their fair share? Answer: they won't. Taxing the rich is built upon the logical fallacy that the market is a zero-sum game. There should definitely be incentive for wealthy people to spend, invest, and re-invest their money, but as soon as the government siphons that money out of the economy, it stops that from happening.  

 

"Free" College - Mainly, it doesn't solve the main problems with the system. It just shifts those burdens onto the taxpayers at-large. Like most issues, the biggest problems with college (the high cost and massive student debt as a result) are a direct result of an over-reach of government. If student loans are so abhorrent, why not have the government stop making these student loans?... The gov guaranteeing student loans is the single biggest factor in the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. With the current state of college education (many degrees have zero value in the job market), less people should be going to college - not more.

 

EDIT: The government doesn't have a revenue issue. It has a spending issue, of which both parties are culpable. We've got $150 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, and that's going to destroy not just our economy, but will make our country vulnerable to outside threats.

[ActualCornHusker]

And to be clear so you know where I stand @knapplc, I'll tell you again that I'm not a Republican. I'd be far more likely to vote R than D, but that does not mean I'm a Republican. I'm fiscally conservative (actually conservative, unlike the GOP) & socially extremely libertarian.

[Ratt Mhule]

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

First off. Wealthy people pay property taxes also....and a lot of them.

 

I am uncomfortable with taxing net worth because those assets are not a lot of times liquid assets.  When you get someone who starts a company, grows that company to be a very big business and, let's say, it's worth 10 billion dollars.  The vast majority of their net worth is tied up in the value of their stock in their company.  It could potentially cause them to sell parts of their own company just to pay the taxes.  I'm uncomfortable with that. Let's look at Jeff Bezos.  I can't imagine anyone saying he shouldn't pay an appropriate amount in taxes which is probably more than what he pays now.  Then, let's understand that Bernie has proclaimed when proposing this tax, that "billionaires should not exist".

 

So, his net worth is roughly $110 billion.  With Bernies proposal, anything more than $10 billion would be taxed at 8%.  That means he would be roughly $8.8 billion on the $110 billion.  (I understand that it's a progressive tax and anything under $10 billion is less than 8%.  But, for ease of discussion, I lumped it all together)

 

Bezos's stock value in Amazon is $109.4 billion.   That means, $600 million is something else.  He also owns Washpo...etc.  

 

So, this tax of $8.8 billion, would require him to sell possibly a significant amount of his stock in his own company.  

Now...on top of Bernie's proposal, like I said, he feels "billionaires should exist".  So, I have to believe, he really believes that Bezos should be taxed to the point where his wealth is less than $1 billion....which...would require one of two things to happen.  The Amazon stock to crash to the point his networth decreases that much...or....Jeff to sell almost all of his stock to get to that point.

 

Again, the sound bite of "Wealth tax" sounds great.  But, when you put it into perspective of what that really means and the ideas behind it from the candidate....I'm not comfortable with it. Now, let's take it down to a much smaller level.

Let's say I start a company and it grows to $500 million.  It's very possible my balance sheet would look like this:

 

Company stock $500,000,000

House and other assets $500,000

Cash and investments   1,000,000

Net worth                  $501,500,000

 

Now, using these percentages:

 

 

The above balance sheet would be taxed $11,740,000.  Where should the tax payer get the funds to pay the taxes?  Should they be forced to sell company stock in a company that might not be publicly traded?

 

PS...to show my math on this.

 

Net worth $501,500,000

Exempt        $32,000,000

Taxable wealth $469,500,000

 

1% $18,000,000 = $180,000

2% $200,000,000 = $4,000,000

3% $250,000,000 = $7,500,000

4% $1,500,000 = $60,000

Total Tax = $11,740,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie is talking about the system in general.  Not that he will tax Jeff Bezos until he only has $999,999,999.

 

The system is rigged.  The rich lobby and donate to politicians for their benefit.  This is no secret.  The trump tax cuts raise taxes on anyone making $75,000 or less after 5 years while the tax cuts for rich and corporations remain.  Forgive me if I don't feel bad for them at all when more than 50% of our population makes $30,000 or less.  60% cant afford a $400 emergency and live paycheck to paycheck and 50,000 veterans are homeless.

 

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

"Free" College - Mainly, it doesn't solve the main problems with the system. It just shifts those burdens onto the taxpayers at-large. Like most issues, the biggest problems with college (the high cost and massive student debt as a result) are a direct result of an over-reach of government. If student loans are so abhorrent, why not have the government stop making these student loans?... The gov guaranteeing student loans is the single biggest factor in the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. With the current state of college education (many degrees have zero value in the job market), less people should be going to college - not more.

I would agree that there are too many people going to 4 year college costing $100,000 +.  But, your proposal would mean that the only ones that can go to college then are the ones with parents that can afford it.

I'm not for that.

We need to be funding higher education at the levels we have in the past instead of constantly cutting funding.  This would drive down tuition costs over time making it more affordable.

[Nebfanatic]

@ActualCornHusker green new deal?

[Ratt Mhule]

9 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

OK I'll stick with the staples that you claim:

 

$15 minimum wage - Most importantly, a $15 minimum wage hurts the very people it intends to help. It prices low-skill and young workers out of the job market. These people inevitably end up jobless and on government assistance, creating and advancing a welfare state that perpetuates itself by not allowing those young and low-skill workers to go to work and develop employable skills. It also disproportionately hurts small family businesses, while large corporations are able to handle the added expenses (or automate processes sooner than they would have otherwise). The other large issue is that of the mutual contract agreement. If a person is willing to agree to do a job for $5/hr and the business is willing to hire that person for $5/hr, why would you consider it moral for a 3rd party (the government) to not allow that agreement?

 

Wealth Tax - The hilarity of this proposal is the idea of "rich paying their fair share." The top 1% of income earners already pay a greater amount of taxes than the bottom 90% combined. At what point will the left say that the rich pay their fair share? Answer: they won't. Taxing the rich is built upon the logical fallacy that the market is a zero-sum game. There should definitely be incentive for wealthy people to spend, invest, and re-invest their money, but as soon as the government siphons that money out of the economy, it stops that from happening.  

 

"Free" College - Mainly, it doesn't solve the main problems with the system. It just shifts those burdens onto the taxpayers at-large. Like most issues, the biggest problems with college (the high cost and massive student debt as a result) are a direct result of an over-reach of government. If student loans are so abhorrent, why not have the government stop making these student loans?... The gov guaranteeing student loans is the single biggest factor in the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. With the current state of college education (many degrees have zero value in the job market), less people should be going to college - not more.

 

EDIT: The government doesn't have a revenue issue. It has a spending issue, of which both parties are culpable. We've got $150 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, and that's going to destroy not just our economy, but will make our country vulnerable to outside threats.

 

They pay more because they have all the wealth.  They pay a lower percentage of their income than middle class Americans.  That's the difference.

 

So now only rich people can go to college?  Because at this point, they are the only ones that can afford it without student loans.  You complain about low skilled workers making a minimum wage and say they should learn a skill and then in the same post say less people should go to college.  Make up your damn mind!

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I would agree that there are too many people going to 4 year college costing $100,000 +.  But, your proposal would mean that the only ones that can go to college then are the ones with parents that can afford it.

I'm not for that.

We need to be funding higher education at the levels we have in the past instead of constantly cutting funding.  This would drive down tuition costs over time making it more affordable.

 

There would still be scholarships for top students, grants, private loans, etc. 

 

There are also alternatives to 4-year colleges such as community colleges, as well as certificate programs.

 

But until the government stops inflating the cost of higher education, it won't solve any issues.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Bernie is talking about the system in general.  Not that he will tax Jeff Bezos until he only has $999,999,999.

 

The system is rigged.  The rich lobby and donate to politicians for their benefit.  This is no secret.  The trump tax cuts raise taxes on anyone making $75,000 or less after 5 years while the tax cuts for rich and corporations remain.  Forgive me if I don't feel bad for them at all when more than 50% of our population makes $30,000 or less.  60% cant afford and $400 emergency and live paycheck to paycheck and 50,000 veterans are homeless.

 

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/

 

 

 

I don't disagree that wealthy people should be paying more.  It's the structure of the tax that I have a problem with.

 

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, Frott Scost said:

 

They pay more because they have all the wealth.  They pay a lower percentage of their income than middle class Americans.  That's the difference.

 

So now only rich people can go to college?  Because at this point, they are the only ones that can afford it without student loans.  You complain about low skilled workers making a minimum wage and say they should learn a skill and then in the same post say less people should go to college.  Make up your damn mind!

 

I'm only 30, so I know a LOT of people who have gone to college, graduated with 30, 40 50 grand in debt (which you can't even get rid of through filing for bankruptcy!!), and they go work jobs that not only don't have anything to do with their degree, but those jobs don't require a degree or higher education AT ALL! 

 

You don't have to go to college to learn employable skills...

[QMany]

14 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I'd be far more likely to vote R than D, but that does not mean I'm a Republican.

...

I'm fiscally conservative (actually conservative, unlike the GOP) & socially extremely libertarian.

 

It seems hard to square those two statements.