concordtom said:

---

issue number 1: we need the blue and red lines to meet.
Issue number 2: we need both lines to be flatter, and lower. Less government, not as steep a growth rate (expansion of govt, or inflation since this is in dollars, not %)

---

In general I agree, but really the gap between the two lines should be 2% of GDP and the growth rate should be equal to the GDP growth rate during normal economic times

concordtom said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

EW on a slow, steady roll. Communicating very effectively.

---

The proposal is interesting in that it would suddenly produce an immediate windfall of cash.

HOWEVER!
It's a completely immature thought which hasn't even begun to be vetted and had holes poked in it. For instance,

-how many families does this affect?
-how many of those families' wealth is tied up in company stock which cannot be sold for various reasons?
-how many individuals would relocate to a foreign country? You laugh at the concept? Don't. This is an ANNUAL 2% tax. Not one-time. After just 10 years, the US government has taken 20% of your net worth and likely screwed up your ownership structure.

So many more questions.
The concept needs some major work, rather than just holding up 2 fingers and saying "2 cents". I get pissed off every time I hear her simplify it as that.

Having said that, i am for closing the wealth gap.

---

Think of it like an investment fund expense ratio. If you're worth that much, your money is probably making significantly more than that on average every year. If it isn't you need a new investment advisor. These people won't be losing wealth; they just won't be accumulating it quite so fast

---

Not all holdings are as simple as receiving 5% and yielding 2% year over year.
Why I said it needs to be detailed in much greater extent.

For instance, let's say Bezos is 99% invested in AMZN. Is he supposed to sell 2% of his holdings every year?
Eventually, he loses control.
Why should that happen whence he's already paying income taxes the whole time.
I'd just like to see it spelled out in MUCH greater detail than simply, "2 cents".

---

Concordtom continues to misrepresent Warren's proposal and ignore the $50 million untaxed threshold. Furthermore, billionaires are exactly the ones whose wealth we need to tax and break up. Amazon, in particular, may need to be broken up at some point.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

issue number 1: we need the blue and red lines to meet.
Issue number 2: we need both lines to be flatter, and lower. Less government, not as steep a growth rate (expansion of govt, or inflation since this is in dollars, not %)

---

In general I agree, but really
the gap between the two lines should be 2% of GDP and the
growth rate should be equal to the GDP growth rate during normal economic times

---

1. Why do you want spending to outpace receipts by 2% of GDP? That would only continue to grow the Debt! (Or, did I misunderstand you?)

2. So, if you have the Govt Budget growth rate be the same as GDP growth rate, then you are implicitly suggesting that the size of govt right now is good. I went to see that it is currently more than 20% of GDP. I don't think we should have Govt that is that big.

In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up about 21 percent of the U.S. economy (as measured by GDP)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

dajo9 said:

---

Trump is the biggest identity politician America has seen since George Wallace.

He won because of racism and Russian and FBI actions that directly harmed Hillary's campaign - and because even when the American people voted for Hillary, the Electoral College denied the American people their choice.

---

LOL nope and nope.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Yang has some good ideas but it's clear you haven't learned anything from the Trump failed experiment at having a political outsider and bomb thrower to run the country. Maybe the fact that Yang isn't a "low IQ" baby boomer will help but I wouldn't bet this country's future on it. We need stability to recover from the Trumpocalypse.

---

Probably the most nonsensical, poorly reasoned post I've read of yours. And that's saying something.

Trump's presidency (presumed a failure on your part) is evidence that, based on the variable of being an outsider who's failed, all that follow, regardless ideology or policy or character, are doomed to fail?

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

EW on a slow, steady roll. Communicating very effectively.

---

The proposal is interesting in that it would suddenly produce an immediate windfall of cash.

HOWEVER!
It's a completely immature thought which hasn't even begun to be vetted and had holes poked in it. For instance,

-how many families does this affect?
-how many of those families' wealth is tied up in company stock which cannot be sold for various reasons?
-how many individuals would relocate to a foreign country? You laugh at the concept? Don't. This is an ANNUAL 2% tax. Not one-time. After just 10 years, the US government has taken 20% of your net worth and likely screwed up your ownership structure.

So many more questions.
The concept needs some major work, rather than just holding up 2 fingers and saying "2 cents". I get pissed off every time I hear her simplify it as that.

Having said that, i am for closing the wealth gap.

---

Think of it like an investment fund expense ratio. If you're worth that much, your money is probably making significantly more than that on average every year. If it isn't you need a new investment advisor. These people won't be losing wealth; they just won't be accumulating it quite so fast

---

Not all holdings are as simple as receiving 5% and yielding 2% year over year.
Why I said it needs to be detailed in much greater extent.

For instance, let's say Bezos is 99% invested in AMZN. Is he supposed to sell 2% of his holdings every year?
Eventually, he loses control.
Why should that happen whence he's already paying income taxes the whole time.
I'd just like to see it spelled out in MUCH greater detail than simply, "2 cents".

---

Concordtom continues to misrepresent Warren's proposal and ignore the $50 million untaxed threshold. Furthermore, billionaires are exactly the ones whose wealth we need to tax and break up. Amazon, in particular, may need to be broken up at some point.

---

I do not misrepresent that she has not been discussing an overall plan for the multiple issues I previously submitted. She's allowed this plan, which affects a sliver of society negatively, to be the solution for the masses. Look, as I said, the discussion is an immature one. Hopefully we can have it without resorting to immediately slamming of one another.

Lots of articles out there so I can become better acquainted with it, including her own website.

- Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California, Berkeley, who helped design the Warren proposal
- a yearly 2% tax on household net worth above $50 million, with a 3% rate on net worth above $1 billion.
- The tax would affect about 75,000 households, with fewer than 1,000 exposed to the 3% rate on net worth above $1 billion.

This has a discussion of pros and cons.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/understanding-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-proposal-51549560874

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

GBear4Life said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

---

They should have tied the amount to Inflation. It's been stuck on those amounts for a while now.

And in considering that this is the greatest asset and retirement fund for so many, I'll just add the oddity that real estate is actually considered a depreciating asset, no?

GBear4Life said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Why should long time property owners get a break compared to working stiffs? Particularly in California where those property owners already get a break on property taxes.

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

---

GBear4Life said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

---

Why should long time property tax owners get a break compared to working stiffs? Let's tax everybody the same. Particularly in California where those property owners already get a break on property taxes.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

issue number 1: we need the blue and red lines to meet.
Issue number 2: we need both lines to be flatter, and lower. Less government, not as steep a growth rate (expansion of govt, or inflation since this is in dollars, not %)

---

In general I agree, but really
the gap between the two lines should be 2% of GDP and the
growth rate should be equal to the GDP growth rate during normal economic times

---

1. Why do you want spending to outpace receipts by 2% of GDP? That would only continue to grow the Debt! (Or, did I misunderstand you?)

2. So, if you have the Govt Budget growth rate be the same as GDP growth rate, then you are implicitly suggesting that the size of govt right now is good. I went to see that it is currently more than 20% of GDP. I don't think we should have Govt that is that big.

In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up about 21 percent of the U.S. economy (as measured by GDP)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

---

I should have been more clear. The gap should be about equal to inflation. In my mind I'm thinking 4% nominal GDP, 2% inflation, and 2% real GDP. this keeps the deficit constant in inflation adjusted terms. You want some debt. Investments in U.S. treasuries are an important part of the investor portfolio.

Government should be a bigger percent of GDP and it will be once we fix our disastrous private health care system.

dajo9 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

---

Why should long time property tax owners get a break compared to working stiffs? Let's tax everybody the same. Particularly in California where those property owners already get a break on property taxes.

---

I'm not a fan of prop 13, but it's different because property ownership -- something we want to encourage and incentivize -- is different than wages (and the working renter hasn't paid any property tax). I think the working stiff should be paying much less in income tax too, but that's another story (though many of them have effective tax rates of little or nothing)

Again, this is on primary residence only.

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Capital gains and dividend taxes are too low so thus far Bezos has been undertaxed

---

I believe capital gains and dividends over 200k should be taxed as ordinary income.

---

No way Jose! For most middle class Americans, real estate appreciation will be their greatest asset and retirement fund.

Should be no less than a million. What is it now? 250k single/500k married?

---

Why should long time property tax owners get a break compared to working stiffs? Let's tax everybody the same. Particularly in California where those property owners already get a break on property taxes.

---

I'm not a fan of prop 13, but it's different because property ownership -- something we want to encourage and incentivize -- is different than wages (and the working renter hasn't paid any property tax). I think the working stiff should be paying much less in income tax too, but that's another story (though many of them have effective tax rates of little or nothing)

Again, this is on primary residence only.

---

Why do we want to encourage home ownership?

Why should home ownership be subsidized by government through tax and capital gains breaks . We have needs for housing not necessarily ownership. In fact you could argue that the emphasis on ownership means less housing not more , higher prices incentives to speculation and geographical biases

Anarchistbear said:

---

Why do we want to encourage home ownership?

---

Seriously? It's the number one wealth builder for most middle class Americans, which is a bi-partisan universal good. It's an asset that can be used to leverage additional and increased investing. Increased property ownership improves neighborhoods and gives more Americans a "stake" in the economy. Stabilizes costs for individuals and families.

When hedge funds and property investors swoop up on millions of properties after the crash, the housing boom that followed it coincided with record-low home ownership rates, meaning a small group increased their share of owned properties to rent and leverage, leaving more middle class wanna be homeowners without access to the #1 wealth building asset.

My first property set me up to build on my net worth in ways I could have never come close to matching as a perma-renter even with a healthy income and positive spending habits.

That's just off the top of my head, this is a Forbes column on why home ownership rates are important in an economy.

Quote:

---

Why should home ownership be subsidized by government through tax and capital gains breaks . We have needs for housing not necessarily ownership. In fact you could argue that the emphasis on ownership means less housing not more , higher prices incentives to speculation and geographical biases

---

I guess I don't view the absence of a tax as a subsidy from the government. It's quite the opposite: the existence of a tax is a subsidy for the government (or public services by virtue of government collected revenue).

You can tame speculation -- which I agree has become excessive and harmful in real estate -- through interest rates and penalties on properties owned additional to primary residence, or limiting foreign nationals from owning mass properties, etc. There's any number of ways to control speculation and affordability and bubbles without penalizing home ownership with a capital gains tax up to certain threshold.

Nor do I think the absence of a capital gains tax on primary residences (or one secondary residence) is effectively much of an incentive to purchase property, but rather its existence is effectively a penalty on the wealth gained from it at time of sale, which I don't support.

Why should this be incentivized at all via mortgage deduction and deduction of other taxes? You haven't answered that. It seems to me the only benefit you should have is stable cost of housing and stability. Whether it increases in value should be like any other investment. I also think public services like schools should not fall on home owners.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Why should this be incentivized at all via mortgage deduction and deduction of other taxes? You haven't answered that. It seems to me the only benefit you should have is stable cost of housing and stability. Whether it increases in value should be like any other investment. I also think public services like schools should not fall on home owners.

---

I don't want to punish homeowners with what in my view is a frivolous tax.

How would you "incentivize" home ownership, which assumes you can see the merit of incentivizing it.

Who should the cost of public services like public k-12 fall on in your view? And if not home owners, why not lower their property taxes then.

GBear4Life said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Why should this be incentivized at all via mortgage deduction and deduction of other taxes? You haven't answered that. It seems to me the only benefit you should have is stable cost of housing and stability. Whether it increases in value should be like any other investment. I also think public services like schools should not fall on home owners.

---

I don't want to punish homeowners with what in my view is a frivolous tax.

How would you "incentivize" home ownership, which assumes you can see the merit of incentivizing it.

Who should the cost of public services like public k-12 fall on in your view? And if not home owners, why not lower their property taxes then.

---

I don't see any reason to incentivize it. The incentive is a lifetime of stable housing costs. The rest is like any other investment.

I'd agree that property taxes are an inequitable way of funding schools. Schools are a public trust. We all should contribute

GBear4Life said:

---

Don't be ridiculous, Yang wouldn't have a chance to win the Dem nomination if he was a popular celebrity.

---

It's true, Democrats do tend to demand actual experience in public office more than Republicans do.

Home ownership use to be the way America lifted many into the middle class. It worked well until the RE market went nuts. A few way to readjust it are:

a) limited foreign RE investors (many countries do this)
b) tax vacant properties that are investments (some countries are doing this)
c) kill the tax benefit for a second vacation home

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'd agree that property taxes are an inequitable way of funding schools. Schools are a public trust. We all should contribute

---

I have 5 kids, but my best friend and his wife decided to have zero kids.
Should he subsidize my kids?

Yes, he has benefits from living in a society where people are educated.

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'd agree that property taxes are an inequitable way of funding schools. Schools are a public trust. We all should contribute

---

I have 5 kids, but my best friend and his wife decided to have zero kids.
Should he subsidize my kids?

---

Yes

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'd agree that property taxes are an inequitable way of funding schools. Schools are a public trust. We all should contribute

---

I have 5 kids, but my best friend and his wife decided to have zero kids.
Should he subsidize my kids?

---

No

Anarchistbear said:

---

Yes, he has benefits from living in a society where people are educated.

---

I mean, if that's the game we're playing...

(I actually don't have a huge problem with property taxes, ie home owners, paying for k-12 for kids of renting parents. I want my kids to go to a good, nice school with facilities commensurate with property values, and this is also a gatekeeper to poor kids from poor families going to school with my kids and living in my neighborhood).

Anarchistbear said:

---

Yes, he has benefits from living in a society where people are educated.

---

And we all get benefit from having Mexicans here, too!

Agreed, Biden sucks.

Though he is fundamentally liberal across the board, he sure is pissing off the base of the Democratic establishment and regressive wing of the Left. He simply won't toe the line of leftist ideology.

GBear4Life said:

---

Though he is fundamentally liberal across the board, he sure is pissing off the base of the Democratic establishment and regressive wing of the Left. He simply won't toe the line of leftist ideology.

---

Who?

dajo9 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Though he is fundamentally liberal across the board, he sure is pissing off the base of the Democratic establishment and regressive wing of the Left. He simply won't toe the line of leftist ideology.

---

Who?

---

Try google. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang

What is the evidence that Democrats are "pissed off" at Yang? Dems here either seem to like him or don't know him.

Not being at the top of the polls isn't good evidence, since so much of that is about name recognition and Yang just isn't very famous.

sycasey said:

---

What is the evidence that Democrats are "pissed off" at Yang? Dems here either seem to like him or don't know him.

Not being at the top of the polls isn't good evidence, since so much of that is about name recognition and Yang just isn't very famous.

---

You've got it all wrong sycasey. I'm angry at this guy I know nothing about. How do you know I'm angry with him? Because I don't support him for President.

Warren riding a wave.

Trump's big, early lead in Facebook ads deeply worries Democratic strategists - Los Angeles Times


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-democrats-facebook-campaign-election-20190612-story.html