Dem Party Budget Ideas 2019 Mega Thread

[Big Red 40]

I don’t think there’s any chance of getting a 70% tax on the rich, and honestly don’t believe that would work if we did. I do agree they need to contribute more to the country than they currently do I just don’t think that’s the way to do it . I would definitely want to see the massive, unnecessary, tax breaks they already got reversed, and put the corporate tax rate back where it was . I would also  tighten the loopholes that allow many wealthy people to get out of paying anything at all  . 

Personally I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if the money was used for universal healthcare , social programs , education , infrastructure , national parks , the environment etc instead of massive military spending , corporate handouts , border walls , etc . 

[Moiraine]

I’m fine with a 70% tax if they’re not going to close loopholes and stop letting the uber wealthy have so much influence on laws.

 

I would prefer if they would do it the other way around, though. Stop giving the wealthy the upperhand when it comes to politics, close loopholes, make whatever laws you can to keep their taxes here instead of out of the country. Then don’t do the 70% tax.

[RedDenver]

Could also simply make capital gains income get taxed as regular income instead of at lower rates.

[methodical]

24 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Could also simply make capital gains income get taxed as regular income instead of at lower rates.

 

Here's where I am torn, as one of the most liberal on this board, I have no problem with most sensible taxes (just with funding SO MUCH military industrial complex, rather than actual good).  That being said, I'd want to see actual analysis of what that would mean beyond just taking money out of corporations.  Investments are one of the few areas where you can actually create some social mobility in this country and yes, the wealthy benefit more but that's a product of having more capital in the first place, ultimately I'd worry that would make investing in anything that wasn't tax advantaged basically non-existent and lead to more real-estate speculation, because then you'd get several more labor intensive but larger tax advantages to up your ROI.  At least until we create another bubble plus the boomers die off, then it all comes crashing down.

 

I'd bet that it'd probably be much more effective to tax things like trades, which would hit HFT outfits and day traders so as to not discourage long term investing in the equities and bond markets.

 

[TGHusker]

We now have the 'ying and the yang' in operation regarding health care.  The Repubs couldn't pass the Obamacare repeal and replace while Obama was president - all for show as evidenced by their unwillingness/inability to repeal and replace when they had control of the HOUSE, SENATE AND WH! 

So what are the Dems proposing  :  Single payer.    Is it all for show?  Senate won't pass it and Trump won't sign it.   So both parties are 

Neither wants to solve it because it is too good of a campaign red meat issue.  They could instead, with this divided Congress work together towards a solution that works.  But progress means compromise, compromise means weakness - thus we have terrible government and polarization that won't end. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/democratic-chairman-begins-prep-work-for-legislation-to-enact-single-payer-healthcare

 

Quote

 

House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., has asked the Congressional Budget Office to analyze the effects of shifting all healthcare costs onto the federal government, a first step toward the "Medicare for all" legislation sought by progressives.

"Members of Congress developing proposals seeking to establish a single-payer system will face many important decisions that could have major implications for federal spending, national healthcare spending, and access to care," Yarmuth said in a letter to Keith Hall, the director of the CBO.

Yarmuth didn't ask for an analysis of a specific bill, but asked the nonpartisan scorekeeping agency various questions lawmakers should consider as they seek to overhaul the healthcare system.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, methodical said:

 

Here's where I am torn, as one of the most liberal on this board, I have no problem with most sensible taxes (just with funding SO MUCH military industrial complex, rather than actual good).  That being said, I'd want to see actual analysis of what that would mean beyond just taking money out of corporations.  Investments are one of the few areas where you can actually create some social mobility in this country and yes, the wealthy benefit more but that's a product of having more capital in the first place, ultimately I'd worry that would make investing in anything that wasn't tax advantaged basically non-existent and lead to more real-estate speculation, because then you'd get several more labor intensive but larger tax advantages to up your ROI.  At least until we create another bubble plus the boomers die off, then it all comes crashing down.

 

I'd bet that it'd probably be much more effective to tax things like trades, which would hit HFT outfits and day traders so as to not discourage long term investing in the equities and bond markets.

 

Here's some analysis on why the capital gains tax should be raised: https://www.cbpp.org/research/raising-todays-low-capital-gains-tax-rates-could-promote-economic-efficiency-and-fairness

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

We now have the 'ying and the yang' in operation regarding health care.  The Repubs couldn't pass the Obamacare repeal and replace while Obama was president - all for show as evidenced by their unwillingness/inability to repeal and replace when they had control of the HOUSE, SENATE AND WH! 

So what are the Dems proposing  :  Single payer.    Is it all for show?  Senate won't pass it and Trump won't sign it.   So both parties are 

Neither wants to solve it because it is too good of a campaign red meat issue.  They could instead, with this divided Congress work together towards a solution that works.  But progress means compromise, compromise means weakness - thus we have terrible government and polarization that won't end. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/democratic-chairman-begins-prep-work-for-legislation-to-enact-single-payer-healthcare

 

 

I think sooner or later we are going to have universal healthcare in this country . My opinion is that if it’s done too fast or drastically it won’t work though . Crashing the big insurance companies,and all the people they employ,  all at once could have dire effects . My solution would be to gradually expand Medicare til everyone is covered . Start with everyone over 50 ? And go from there . 

[TGHusker]

14 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I think sooner or later we are going to have universal healthcare in this country . My opinion is that if it’s done too fast or drastically it won’t work though . Crashing the big insurance companies,and all the people they employ,  all at once could have dire effects . My solution would be to gradually expand Medicare til everyone is covered . Start with everyone over 50 ? And go from there . 

Sounds like a plan - I nominate you as commissioner to oversee its implementation.   I too looking at the way the wind is blowing can see the time in the not distant future when Medicare for everyone will be the 'solution'.  Like you, I'm concerned by what it will do to this large sector of our economy and also how restraining it may be in our choices and limiting in our care.