Generational battle at the heart of Democratic primary?

7,319 Views | 96 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by LMK5
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

Anarchistbear said:

They weren't fake salad days. They were real. By every measure growth has declined an
inequality has increased and with it a decline in life expectancy, quality of life, increased addiction, increased tearing apart of social fabric, and other social malaise. The sports analogy is a poor one because it's population is all gifted, but ironically that is increasingly the trend- "haves" and nothing. If you make return on capital the sole basis of your society you will reap consequences which will eventually tear it down.
Which period were the salad days? Pick a decade. Here's a graph from the federal reserve on real disposable income, which is up: Real Disposable Income. Disposable income doesn't rise in an economically-declining society.

The point I was trying to make using sports is that in any game, whether it be sports or jobs, the requirements are ever-increasing. There is no aspect of a thriving society where the requirements for participating are declining.


Real disposable income is a garbage stat.

A rabbi, a priest, a pauper, and Michael Bloomberg walk into a bar. Their real disposable income is millions of dollars.

Look at median income.
Median income? That's up too. Here's the data from the Fed: US Personal Median Income


It's up but far less than other metrics since it decoupled from productivity around 1980
You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

Anarchistbear said:

They weren't fake salad days. They were real. By every measure growth has declined an
inequality has increased and with it a decline in life expectancy, quality of life, increased addiction, increased tearing apart of social fabric, and other social malaise. The sports analogy is a poor one because it's population is all gifted, but ironically that is increasingly the trend- "haves" and nothing. If you make return on capital the sole basis of your society you will reap consequences which will eventually tear it down.
Which period were the salad days? Pick a decade. Here's a graph from the federal reserve on real disposable income, which is up: Real Disposable Income. Disposable income doesn't rise in an economically-declining society.

The point I was trying to make using sports is that in any game, whether it be sports or jobs, the requirements are ever-increasing. There is no aspect of a thriving society where the requirements for participating are declining.


Real disposable income is a garbage stat.

A rabbi, a priest, a pauper, and Michael Bloomberg walk into a bar. Their real disposable income is millions of dollars.

Look at median income.
Median income? That's up too. Here's the data from the Fed: US Personal Median Income


It's up but far less than other metrics since it decoupled from productivity around 1980
You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.
Integrity? That won't work either.

What elitists always do not get is that 1) people look at their paychecks and see that they're large than when the Dems were in office, that's all it's about for many folks (which is PERFECTLY reasonable) and 2) Dems need to campaign more like straight shooters and less than their typical PC-victim/victimizer-identity politics rhetoric.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The problem for all voters is this: Trump runs the WH a little too much like a mob boss runs his family. But the bigger problem for Democrats is that, impressively, Trump wins at everything he does, even if you have to hold your nose sometimes. After all, when was the last time we heard about ISIS beheading people? Or North Korea firing missiles towards Japan? Or al-Assad using chemical weapons on his own people? Even the inundation at the southern border has been quelled. The unemployment rate is as low as it's been since 1969. All the economic indicators are up. The Dow is pushing at 30,000, something only shameless click-baiters would have said just a couple years ago. It looks like we will be winding down the Afghan War here pretty soon with a peace treaty.

I mean, whether the orange man suits your taste or not, the guy has built an impressive record, and all against the gusting winds of the left wing media.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.


Trump ran on the "economy" and it wasn't any worse under Obama than it is now. Trump has been destructive to American wallets from the disastrous trade war (that he idiotically said would be "easy to win") to the massive increase in the federal deficit that will make it far more challenging to recover from the ensuing recession.

I think that Bernie can credibly claim that this economy isn't working for everyone. The vast majority of stock market gains and income gains are accruing to the top 10%. If you ask people whether their personal financial circumstances are materially better than they were 4 years ago - the reality for the vast majority of people is that they are about the same. There are plenty of disaffected people who take to Bernie's message.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.


Trump ran on the "economy" and it wasn't any worse under Obama than it is now. Trump has been destructive to American wallets from the disastrous trade war (that he idiotically said would be "easy to win") to the massive increase in the federal deficit that will make it far more challenging to recover from the ensuing recession.

I think that Bernie can credibly claim that this economy isn't working for everyone. The vast majority of stock market gains and income gains are accruing to the top 10%. If you ask people whether their personal financial circumstances are materially better than they were 4 years ago - the reality for the vast majority of people is that they are about the same. There are plenty of disaffected people who take to Bernie's message.


Lmk5 is actually right about this. The big difference in the economy from 2016 to 2020 is that the media took the same economy but as soon as Trump became President they started saying how good the economy is. Call it the Fox News affect.
American Vermin
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:



Lmk5 is actually right about this. The big difference in the economy from 2016 to 2020 is that the media took the same economy but as soon as Trump became President they started saying how good the economy is. Call it the Fox News affect.
BF2 was right, you live in a bubble
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why Sanders Will Probably Win the Nomination


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.amp.html

" Successful presidential candidates are mythmakers. They don't just tell a story. They tell a story that helps people make meaning out of the current moment; that divides people into heroes and villains; that names a central challenge and explains why they are the perfect person to meet it.

In 2016 Donald Trump told a successful myth: The coastal elites are greedy, stupid people who have mismanaged the country, undermined our values and changed the face of our society. This was not an original myth; it's been around since at least the populist revolts of the 1890s. But it's a powerful us vs. them worldview, which resonates with a lot of people.

Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation's wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It's been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.

For example, if you look at Mike Bloomberg through a certain lens you see a successful entrepreneur who took his management skills into public service and then started giving his wealth away to reduce gun violence and climate change. If, on the other hand, you look at Bloomberg through the Bernie lens you see a rapacious billionaire who amassed a gross amount of wealth, who became an authoritarian mayor and targeted young black men and then tried to buy his way to power.

Same person through different lenses."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.


Trump ran on the "economy" and it wasn't any worse under Obama than it is now. Trump has been destructive to American wallets from the disastrous trade war (that he idiotically said would be "easy to win") to the massive increase in the federal deficit that will make it far more challenging to recover from the ensuing recession.

I think that Bernie can credibly claim that this economy isn't working for everyone. The vast majority of stock market gains and income gains are accruing to the top 10%. If you ask people whether their personal financial circumstances are materially better than they were 4 years ago - the reality for the vast majority of people is that they are about the same. There are plenty of disaffected people who take to Bernie's message.
But you're wrong. You only parrot what CNN et al are peddling. 61% say they are better off: More in US say they are better off. Are you now going to say Gallup is owned by Fox?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

Trump wins at everything he does

You have got to be kidding me!

According to the WaPo Trump has broken about 43 percent of 60 key promises and kept about 35 percent. He settled for a compromise on 12 percent. These aren't just promises he spouted off about in a debate. They are stated in his "Contract with the American Voter."

The most damning failures:

Build a wall on the southern border and have Mexico pay for it ("Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall")

Expand the economy 4 percent a year

Repeal and replace Obamacare

Reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three and insure largest tax reductions were for the middle class ("A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut.")

Build $1 trillion in infrastructure and have it be revenue-neutral (he hasn't even started on this one)

End Common Core

Impose term limits on all members of Congress

Yogi17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.
You're 100% right. Campaigning on the economy has been working out terribly for Sanders.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Why Sanders Will Probably Win the Nomination


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.amp.html

" Successful presidential candidates are mythmakers. They don't just tell a story. They tell a story that helps people make meaning out of the current moment; that divides people into heroes and villains; that names a central challenge and explains why they are the perfect person to meet it.

In 2016 Donald Trump told a successful myth: The coastal elites are greedy, stupid people who have mismanaged the country, undermined our values and changed the face of our society. This was not an original myth; it's been around since at least the populist revolts of the 1890s. But it's a powerful us vs. them worldview, which resonates with a lot of people.

Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation's wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It's been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.

For example, if you look at Mike Bloomberg through a certain lens you see a successful entrepreneur who took his management skills into public service and then started giving his wealth away to reduce gun violence and climate change. If, on the other hand, you look at Bloomberg through the Bernie lens you see a rapacious billionaire who amassed a gross amount of wealth, who became an authoritarian mayor and targeted young black men and then tried to buy his way to power.

Same person through different lenses."
David Brooks thinks Sanders' message is a myth? The hell you say!
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor David Romer said:

LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.
You're 100% right. Campaigning on the economy has been working out terribly for Sanders.
Free sh*t -- healthcare and college -- is putting Sanders in 1st
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

But you're wrong. You only parrot what CNN et al are peddling. 61% say they are better off: More in US say they are better off. Are you now going to say Gallup is owned by Fox?


Lol you really have a hard time with this. I will refer you to the last time we discussed this poll which shows that right wing propaganda is effective but it can't change the underlying fact that the vast majority of the economic growth is going to the top of the pyramid. This poll talks about people's feelings and is not an evaluation of financial condition.
Yogi08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

Anarchistbear said:

They weren't fake salad days. They were real. By every measure growth has declined an
inequality has increased and with it a decline in life expectancy, quality of life, increased addiction, increased tearing apart of social fabric, and other social malaise. The sports analogy is a poor one because it's population is all gifted, but ironically that is increasingly the trend- "haves" and nothing. If you make return on capital the sole basis of your society you will reap consequences which will eventually tear it down.
Which period were the salad days? Pick a decade. Here's a graph from the federal reserve on real disposable income, which is up: Real Disposable Income. Disposable income doesn't rise in an economically-declining society.

The point I was trying to make using sports is that in any game, whether it be sports or jobs, the requirements are ever-increasing. There is no aspect of a thriving society where the requirements for participating are declining.


Real disposable income is a garbage stat.

A rabbi, a priest, a pauper, and Michael Bloomberg walk into a bar. Their real disposable income is millions of dollars.

Look at median income.
Median income? That's up too. Here's the data from the Fed: US Personal Median Income. Next?!
Wow. $12K in about 40 years? What growth!!!!
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:


Free sh*t -- healthcare and college -- is putting Sanders in 1st
Yeah, health care and education should only be available to those that can afford it. Anyway, you can take out big loans to cover it if you really need to.

What we really need most as a nation is the $170B ($935B versus $767B) more per year spent by the DoD than in Obama's last term in office.

That's what I call free sh*t!
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:


You're going to have to grudgingly admit one thing: If the Democrats try to campaign on the economy they will fail miserably. "It's up but far less than other metrics" is not a base-rallying slogan. They have to campaign on bringing integrity back to the Office of the Presidency. It's an uphill battle--people tend to vote with their wallets.


Trump ran on the "economy" and it wasn't any worse under Obama than it is now. Trump has been destructive to American wallets from the disastrous trade war (that he idiotically said would be "easy to win") to the massive increase in the federal deficit that will make it far more challenging to recover from the ensuing recession.

I think that Bernie can credibly claim that this economy isn't working for everyone. The vast majority of stock market gains and income gains are accruing to the top 10%. If you ask people whether their personal financial circumstances are materially better than they were 4 years ago - the reality for the vast majority of people is that they are about the same. There are plenty of disaffected people who take to Bernie's message.
But you're wrong. You only parrot what CNN et al are peddling. 61% say they are better off: More in US say they are better off. Are you now going to say Gallup is owned by Fox?


We've been through this before. It appears you don't understand how the data you cite works. You posted a link to median income as evidence of Trump's improvement in the economy but it only reflects 2017 and 2018 and shows a sharp drop off in growth after 2017. I guess, like Trump, you believe he deserves credit for every positive thing that happened before he was elected.

As for the Gallup poll of people's feelings, please elucidate for all of us why it is that 90% of Republicans say they are better off but only 30% of Democrats do?

Do you believe that the economy is working better for Trump voters? In red states? Or are the Republicans all telling the truth but the Democrats lying? I've already explained my position on independents. This poll is evidence of what dajo9 has repeatedly noted about media coverage of the economy. Sanders has a big megaphone and may be able to make people examine whether this economy is working for them or just the top 10%.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

GBear4Life said:


Free sh*t -- healthcare and college -- is putting Sanders in 1st
Yeah, health care and education should only be available to those that can afford it. Anyway, you can take out big loans to cover it if you really need to.

What we really need most as a nation is the $170B ($935B versus $767B) more per year spent by the DoD than in Obama's last term in office.

That's what I call free sh*t!

So we agree?
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.
American Vermin
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?


Just more delusion or disingenuous posting from you. I'm more worried about catastrophe resulting from wealth and income inequality eroding the benefits of my hard work. I am under no misimpression that I would be on the receiving end of aid just as I do not currently benefit from Republican welfare like military expenditures or farm subsidies. I imagine others here are in similar positions.

I get that there are other people who don't want to share what they have but I think there see ways our tax dollars could be used that would have a broad based positive impact on my fellow citizens rather than narrowly benefiting people who currently profit from political power.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?


Just more delusion or disingenuous posting from you. I'm more worried about catastrophe resulting from wealth and income inequality eroding the benefits of my hard work. I am under no misimpression that I would be on the receiving end of aid just as I do not currently benefit from Republican welfare like military expenditures or farm subsidies. I imagine others here are in similar positions.

I get that there are other people who don't want to share what they have but I think there see ways our tax dollars could be used that would have a broad based positive impact on my fellow citizens rather than narrowly benefiting people who currently profit from political power.
Bingo. Some of us can see benefits beyond our own pocketbooks. I think having wealth more evenly distributed is a long-term benefit to the economy. If the free market can't do that, the government needs to step in.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.

I appreciate your honest input dajo9. Couple of questions for clarification:

1) Can you please explain what you mean by "but I also want my deductions back"? What if that tax money is needed to create the income/wealth balance that is sought?
2) When you say "The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board," I'm interested in what your opinion of the wealth tax is if it did impact the majority on this board.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Words like redistribution are hollow when our current system is regressive against the interests of wage earners. The payroll tax is an artifact of another era when payroll meant wealth and should be reduced, eliminated or re-thought. Income taxes should be reduced. Capital gains taxed. EITC expanded.

The corporate tax cuts should be reversed.

Our health system punishes the middle class at the expense of those receiving employer offered insurance. The latter receive a non taxable benefit for good coverage while the former face a large bill for s$itty coverage. The penalty for opting out of Obamacare is roughly $700 a year but for some 5 million taxpayers who earn too much to not qualify for medicare and have no corporate insurance, paying the government $700 for nothing is preferable to the cost of insurance and they have no insurance.

As others have noted spending priorities- corporate and military subsidies- should be realigned
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.

I appreciate your honest input dajo9. Couple of questions for clarification:

1) Can you please explain what you mean by "but I also want my deductions back"? What if that tax money is needed to create the income/wealth balance that is sought?
2) When you say "The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board," I'm interested in what your opinion of the wealth tax is if it did impact the majority on this board.
1. Higher income / capital gains / wealth taxes should resolve income / wealth extremes. Limiting state deductions penalizes states that spend on education and health care. Those are goods that should be encouraged and that is the reason why those deductions existed in the first place. Let's be honest - Trump's deduction limits are a tax for blue states. I want them back.

2. A wealth tax that impacted the majority on this board wouldn't be a wealth tax it would be an asset tax. At the current time I support a wealth tax for those with at least $100 million.
American Vermin
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.

I appreciate your honest input dajo9. Couple of questions for clarification:

1) Can you please explain what you mean by "but I also want my deductions back"? What if that tax money is needed to create the income/wealth balance that is sought?
2) When you say "The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board," I'm interested in what your opinion of the wealth tax is if it did impact the majority on this board.
1. Higher income / capital gains / wealth taxes should resolve income / wealth extremes. Limiting state deductions penalizes states that spend on education and health care. Those are goods that should be encouraged and that is the reason why those deductions existed in the first place. Let's be honest - Trump's deduction limits are a tax for blue states. I want them back.

2. A wealth tax that impacted the majority on this board wouldn't be a wealth tax it would be an asset tax. At the current time I support a wealth tax on billionaires.
I do agree that the state tax deduction limit was a de facto punishment for the coastal high tax blue states.

Weather you call it a wealth tax or an asset tax, it's a tax on wealth. What asset level do you feel should be the lower threshold for these special taxes?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.

I appreciate your honest input dajo9. Couple of questions for clarification:

1) Can you please explain what you mean by "but I also want my deductions back"? What if that tax money is needed to create the income/wealth balance that is sought?
2) When you say "The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board," I'm interested in what your opinion of the wealth tax is if it did impact the majority on this board.
1. Higher income / capital gains / wealth taxes should resolve income / wealth extremes. Limiting state deductions penalizes states that spend on education and health care. Those are goods that should be encouraged and that is the reason why those deductions existed in the first place. Let's be honest - Trump's deduction limits are a tax for blue states. I want them back.

2. A wealth tax that impacted the majority on this board wouldn't be a wealth tax it would be an asset tax. At the current time I support a wealth tax on billionaires.
I do agree that the state tax deduction limit was a de facto punishment for the coastal high tax blue states.

Weather you call it a wealth tax or an asset tax, it's a tax on wealth. What asset level do you feel should be the lower threshold for these special taxes?
$100 million in wealth - not assets. That means after deducting debt.

American Vermin
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

dajo9 said:

LMK5 said:

I really think the wealth distributors in this thread are somehow convinced that they are going to be on the receiving end of the Sanders policies. Do you really think that's the plan for Cal graduate Bay Area real estate owning white collar workers? I'd wager most or all are in the 80-95% percentile in regards to income and wealth. It's a slam dunk that you are headed for the contribution end of the exercise.

Honest question: How much are you willing to give to balance the income and wealth inequality scales? What's a reasonable figure for you?
I have consistently voted to raise taxes on myself, including for Obamacare. I support income tax rates where Bill Clinton put them (maxing out at 40% - that would raise my taxes (but I also want my deductions back). Sanders proposes a higher marginal rate than that. I'm fully onboard with having that discussion in Congress. I am also in favor of higher capital gains taxes on myself - I believe they should be the same as income taxes.

The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board.

I appreciate your honest input dajo9. Couple of questions for clarification:

1) Can you please explain what you mean by "but I also want my deductions back"? What if that tax money is needed to create the income/wealth balance that is sought?
2) When you say "The wealth tax is also a good idea and I don't think that will impact anybody on this board," I'm interested in what your opinion of the wealth tax is if it did impact the majority on this board.
1. Higher income / capital gains / wealth taxes should resolve income / wealth extremes. Limiting state deductions penalizes states that spend on education and health care. Those are goods that should be encouraged and that is the reason why those deductions existed in the first place. Let's be honest - Trump's deduction limits are a tax for blue states. I want them back.

2. A wealth tax that impacted the majority on this board wouldn't be a wealth tax it would be an asset tax. At the current time I support a wealth tax on billionaires.
I do agree that the state tax deduction limit was a de facto punishment for the coastal high tax blue states.

Weather you call it a wealth tax or an asset tax, it's a tax on wealth. What asset level do you feel should be the lower threshold for these special taxes?
$100 million in wealth - not assets. That means after deducting debt.


OK, fair enough. Appreciate the input.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.