Will Trump win again???

[Splenda88]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Interestingly (or not, given what I said before), some people are not at all bothered of all the ongoing nepotism in the White House. Just that, and it would be enough for me not to elect.

Also, somebody who plays quid-pro-quo with Ukraine about a political opponent would never do that when about the family business? All those governmental trips of Jared Kushner and Ivanka were only about the national interest? Is anybody really as naive as to believe that?

We are no naive; we just are tribal. We just find a way to justify any behavior when our side does it... Remember how the tea party cares about national debt, deficit, excessive spending and all those craps..

 

[BoolaHI]

I still haven’t heard where all these billionaires will move to if we raise taxes? According to Wikipedia, California and New York have the largest number of billionaire residents in the United States. Those two states are not exactly known for being tax havens.

Exactly, as with many things in life, the alternative dictates are current position.

 

[Mikkel]

I still haven’t heard where all these billionaires will move to if we raise taxes? According to Wikipedia, California and New York have the largest number of billionaire residents in the United States. Those two states are not exactly known for being tax havens.

Caribbean? Ireland? Australia?

 

[deleted643396]

But its okay to steal from someone as long as they didn't EARN their money, and we all know all rich people got their money nefariously.

Also, its okay to punch Nazis.

No one is stealing from you. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to move.

As you pointed out, there will be a mass exodus of rich people from the United States if taxes are raised. It will become a post-apocalyptic communist wasteland. Bezos will have to sell counterfeit Chinese-made goods with two day delivery back to the Chinese from his own personal island because the U.S. economy will have collapsed without his presence.

 

[Matty44]

No one is stealing from you. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to move.

As you pointed out, there will be a mass exodus of rich people from the United States if taxes are raised. It will become a post-apocalyptic communist wasteland. Bezos will have to sell counterfeit Chinese-made goods with two day delivery back to the Chinese from his own personal island because the U.S. economy will have collapsed without his presence.

You guys can keep saying they won’t move, but it doesn’t mean they won’t. When you got lefties like Bill Gates scared of Warren, it’s with good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted87051]

Caribbean? Ireland? Australia?

Ireland has a higher top marginal tax rate than the United States.

 

[deleted643396]

If the govt has the moral right to tax billionaires at 90 percent and millionaires at 75 percent then don’t complain when they come for 1/2 your income over $400,000. As the debt mounts and social programs like Medicare for all begin to take hold you should expect the definition of “wealthy” to include a lot more citizens with incomes just over $125,000.

The end result of these massive taxes is a lot less productivity and an underground economy to avoid taxes. These policies never work and always result in a poorer nation for all of us.

Where is all this morality stuff coming from? I’m not exactly known as a good Christian, but I do know that Jesus didn’t always speak favorably of the rich. And wasn’t greed one of the seven deadly sins in the movie with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman?

 

[Mikkel]

You guys can keep saying they won’t move, but it doesn’t mean they won’t. When you got lefties like Bill Gates scared of Warren, it’s with good reason.

I think he's also scared about Warren's rhetoric, primarily demonization of the wealthy purely based on their wealth.

Warren's policies are strikingly "National Socialistic" in principle....

 

[Mikkel]

Ireland has a higher top marginal tax rate than the United States.

No wealth tax. Marginal rate don't matter jack if you're not losing billions of existing wealth from a confiscation program.

 

[BoolaHI]

Where is all this morality stuff coming from? I’m not exactly known as a good Christian, but I do know that Jesus didn’t always speak favorably of the rich. And wasn’t greed one of the seven deadly sins in the movie with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman?

Indeed, and when Jesus said to care for the poor, with food and housing, I’m rather certain it was not with a preface and a condition that we do so relative to their immigration status....

 

[deleted87051]

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999

www.cnn.com

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
By Phil Hirschkorn/CNN



November 9, 1999
Web posted at: 6:24 p.m. EST (2324 GMT)



NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

	MESSAGE BOARD
Framing The Issues​

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning.

"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.

"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individual's principal home from the net worth total.

"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.

"The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government $200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.

Trump said depositing $100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate $3 trillion "over the next 30-years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke" and instead keep the fund "solvent through the next century."

The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax "which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else," Trump said.

Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated $5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted.

"Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it," Trump said.

Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business start-ups, more jobs, and more prosperity.

"It is a win-win for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward," Trump said.

Last month, Trump formed a committee to explore seeking the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, which will automatically be on the ballot in 21 states next year.

 

[Splenda88]

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999

www.cnn.com

Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
By Phil Hirschkorn/CNN



November 9, 1999
Web posted at: 6:24 p.m. EST (2324 GMT)



NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

​

	MESSAGE BOARD
Framing The Issues​

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.


The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning.

"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.

"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individual's principal home from the net worth total.

"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.

"The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government $200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.

Trump said depositing $100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate $3 trillion "over the next 30-years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke" and instead keep the fund "solvent through the next century."

The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax "which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else," Trump said.

Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated $5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted.

"Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it," Trump said.

Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business start-ups, more jobs, and more prosperity.

"It is a win-win for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward," Trump said.

Last month, Trump formed a committee to explore seeking the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, which will automatically be on the ballot in 21 states next year.

No one believes anything Trump has said...

 

[deleted87051]

No one believes anything Trump has said...

I just thought it would be more palatable for some to see it come out of DJT’s mouth.

 

[Matty44]

I just thought it would be more palatable for some to see it come out of DJT’s mouth.

Nope. Still a bad idea in my opinion. Doesn’t matter who’s saying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Wow, if the National Review is one of your more ardent supporters and advocates, who needs detractors and stinging critiques....

Verbatim: What we saw on display Wednesday were two dedicated, experienced career foreign policy officials who had been desperately trying to figure out what the president wanted — and inferring his intentions based on snippets of information from others. But their efforts to divine Trump’s desires presume that the president knew what he wanted. It’s not clear he did. His handling of Ukraine seemed less the execution of an intelligible plan than a chaotic mishmash of constantly changing urges and demands. According to Sondland, “President Trump changes his mind on what he wants on a daily basis.”

Trump surrounded himself with a toxic brew of individuals whispering into his ear and appealing to his worst instincts...

Wow, quite the endorsement-not.

 

[anbuitachi]

I think the question ultimately depends on how rich is TOO rich. Bezos was worth like 140b at one point? lets say some decades later, at the rate the richest is growing now, some BILLIONAIRE becomes a TRILLIONAIRE. Now is that too rich? How many of these billionaires actually spend 100% of their money by the time they die? Not even close i bet. most donate it or pass it on. That's why i'm OK with high taxes, i highly doubt the billionaire will be crying a river if they are taxed at 70% on their income above 100M/yr. I dont even support such a high tax rate on the billionaires. just increase it so their total tax percentage is higher than someone making 500k/yr w2. Close the 10000 loopholes they can take advantage to reduce their tax to the max.

What if one day, with the way our debt is growing... a person exists that has more money than the entire state/country? Money roughly = power in this country and most countries in the world. it quickly becomes unfair in a lot of things (like presidential elections) when someone has near unlimited funds

 

[BoolaHI]

On a related note, from another National Review writer (Eli Lake): Trump’s Best Defense on Impeachment Undermines His Case for Re-Election
Insubordinate bureaucrats may save him from being removed from office, but they also show him to be a weak president.

Tough crowd— Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[d9sccr]

No one is stealing from you. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to move.

As you pointed out, there will be a mass exodus of rich people from the United States if taxes are raised. It will become a post-apocalyptic communist wasteland. Bezos will have to sell counterfeit Chinese-made goods with two day delivery back to the Chinese from his own personal island because the U.S. economy will have collapsed without his presence.

If you read those articles that were posted you’d see that Portugal was a popular destination for their low one time tax rate for the fleeing wealthy. I’m sure other countries would be more than happy to accept the wealth and creativity these people bring.

And if Warren gets her wish, they’ll have to find alternative markets regardless of whether they move or not. The dirty little “secret” is that her proposed M4A plan mandates 60%+ tax rates for EVERYONE. Not just the billionaires or millionaires or upper 5% or 10%, everyone that already doesn’t have a net draw will has to contribute the majority of their income—and this is based on far healthier populations. The other 40% of your gross pay will have to be rationed among everything else..assuming no other wacky proposals make it through. On the plus side, we probably won’t have to bicker about illegal immigration anymore

 

[d9sccr]

Where is all this morality stuff coming from? I’m not exactly known as a good Christian, but I do know that Jesus didn’t always speak favorably of the rich. And wasn’t greed one of the seven deadly sins in the movie with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman?

Envy also happens to be one of the 7 deadly sins. Then there are the 10 commandments—you know “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor”.

Quoting the Bible is a losing argument though.
The confiscation of personal property is an infringement on your individual rights. Everyone has to accept some infringement to live in a society, the question is where is that line drawn? Is it a dollar amount? A power amount?

 

[deleted643396]

Envy also happens to be one of the 7 deadly sins. Then there are the 10 commandments—you know “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor”.

Quoting the Bible is a losing argument though.
The confiscation of personal property is an infringement on your individual rights. Everyone has to accept some infringement to live in a society, the question is where is that line drawn? Is it a dollar amount? A power amount?

Oh I agree, why would anyone quote a work of fiction to make an argument? I just don’t understand the morality argument for paying a tax to live in a society that provides an awful lot in return. You are not getting robbed. If you think you are then make sure you don’t use a road on your way to work tomorrow. I think we already get a pretty decent return on our tax-paying investment, so I don’t look at it as a “confiscation of personal property.” Maybe you should look into Portugal? You may not agree, but even the billionaires benefit quite a bit from everything the public provides. Bezos would probably not be the billionaire he is today if he were born and grew up in Portugal.

Sure, there is always a give and take in a society. Having billionaires pay a bit more in taxes won’t change the fact that they are still multi-billionaires. The funny thing is, the Trump supporters on this thread are in the minority even in his own base. The one thing that the left and right agreed on last election is the problem of worsening wealth inequality. That problem is not going away by giving out corporate tax cuts. If history is any guide, wealth inequality will get fixed somehow. We either do it democratically or eventually all those guns lying around become a little too tempting.

 

[BLADEMDA]

An income tax is legal as set forth by the U.S. Constitution. Even tax rates as high as 90% are legal but immoral (IMHO). A "wealth tax" is confiscation and not legal (IMHO) as Congress does not have the authority to tax money which has already been taxed once for individuals.

Regardless, our social contract does rely on taxes. But, the tipping point occurs when the wealth is stripped from the earning class to those who do not earn income at rates over 70-75%. For the vast majority of WORKERS, those who actually put in hours at a job, that taxation rate means less productivity.

You may disagree at the 75% number but we can all agree that at 100% taxation that is pure redistribution and going to work is pointless. What about 90%? 80%? My point is that taxation at these high rates does cause productivity to drop and each time you ratchet it up we lose more productivity.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Unlike most Republicans I think the MAXIMIZING revenue % is probably 50-55%. But, I guess we will all find out if Warren or Sanders wins the election.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Matty44]

Oh I agree, why would anyone quote a work of fiction to make an argument? I just don’t understand the morality argument for paying a tax to live in a society that provides an awful lot in return. You are not getting robbed. If you think you are then make sure you don’t use a road on your way to work tomorrow. I think we already get a pretty decent return on our tax-paying investment, so I don’t look at it as a “confiscation of personal property.” Maybe you should look into Portugal? You may not agree, but even the billionaires benefit quite a bit from everything the public provides. Bezos would probably not be the billionaire he is today if he were born and grew up in Portugal.

Sure, there is always a give and take in a society. Having billionaires pay a bit more in taxes won’t change the fact that they are still multi-billionaires. The funny thing is, the Trump supporters on this thread are in the minority even in his own base. The one thing that the left and right agreed on last election is the problem of worsening wealth inequality. That problem is not going away by giving out corporate tax cuts. If history is any guide, wealth inequality will get fixed somehow. We either do it democratically or eventually all those guns lying around become a little too tempting.

Jeez, I seriously start to feel bad for people that think like you. Majority opinion doesn’t equal good opinion. Consensus doesn’t equal fact. And you don’t need to hate people just cause they have been more successful than you.

I’ll ask you guys again, please tell me how Jeff Bezos being rich hurts anyone. I’ll wait patiently....

And Mr Boo, before you link 30 articles, just save some time and give me a few simple bullet points. If it’s such a problem, it should be easy to sum it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BLADEMDA]

I still haven’t heard where all these billionaires will move to if we raise taxes? According to Wikipedia, California and New York have the largest number of billionaire residents in the United States. Those two states are not exactly known for being tax havens.

Would it really surprise you to see the Democrats grant exemptions just like Putin does for his buddies in Russia? The more you "donate" to the "party" the less likely they will be to truly investigate your actual wealth. This has been going on for centuries and Warren won't be changing the game in Washington.

So, the wealth tax only affects those "out of favor" by the ruling party. As for "income taxes" the upper middle class will bear the brunt of these high taxes and receive nothing in return. The Middle class will get a sight tax hike and also get nothing in return. The poor will get more poorly run govt. programs where 1/2 the money is wasted or squandered. For example, look at the Veterans Administration. Do you realize that every Veteran could be given a Medicare card or Tricare card and be sent on his/her way. The VA hospitals would close and the taxpayer saves billions each year.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, the same idiots who run the VA will be in charge of Medicare for all?! And, you are going to vote in the Socialist Warren or Sanders to make sure we go bankrupt in my lifetime while getting much worse medical care.

When the pendulum swings back to the middle (left of center again) Medicare for all will be seen as a huge, costly mistake. But, by then it will be too late and the govt. will have to accept a two tier health care system of straight Medicare vs Private Insurance Medicare Advantage plans with $1,000 per month co-pays to be truly insured.

The poor will be "insured" but nobody will accept them or those that do will be backed-up for months. As for "forcing" physicians to accept Medicare I am pretty sure SCOTUS will be voting 5-4 against that policy.

 

[deleted643396]

Would it really surprise you to see the Democrats grant exemptions just like Putin does for his buddies in Russia? The more you "donate" to the "party" the less likely they will be to truly investigate your actual wealth. This has been going on for centuries and Warren won't be changing the game in Washington.

So, the wealth tax only affects those "out of favor" by the ruling party. As for "income taxes" the upper middle class will bear the brunt of these high taxes and receive nothing in return. The Middle class will get a sight tax hike and also get nothing in return. The poor will get more poorly run govt. programs where 1/2 the money is wasted or squandered. For example, look at the Veterans Administration. Do you realize that every Veteran could be given a Medicare card or Tricare card and be sent on his/her way. The VA hospitals would close and the taxpayer saves billions each year.

First of all, please do not mistake me for a “team color wearing” Democrat. I’m an equal opportunity politician hater. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 simply because I find Trump to be an absolute joke of a human being. I have vote Democrat, Republican, and third party in the past. So your theory that the California and New York billionaires are getting political favors from friendly politicians wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Of all issues that are important to me, fixing the system where money buys power would be my top priority. I think it is extraordinarily detrimental to democracy and to capitalism. However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the two highest tax states still have the most billionaires. Your theory that they are getting political favors is plausible, but still just speculation. Now California has the climate. Is New York just proximity to the center of commerce?

 

[BLADEMDA]

First of all, please do not mistake me for a “team color wearing” Democrat. I’m an equal opportunity politician hater. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 simply because I find Trump to be an absolute joke of a human being. I have vote Democrat, Republican, and third party in the past. So your theory that the California and New York billionaires are getting political favors from friendly politicians wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Of all issues that are important to me, fixing the system where money buys power would be my top priority. I think it is extraordinarily detrimental to democracy and to capitalism. However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the two highest tax states still have the most billionaires. Your theory that they are getting political favors is plausible, but still just speculation. Now California has the climate. Is New York just proximity to the center of commerce?

The whole system is corrupt. That's my point. Both parties are full of poop and neither has done much to help this nation over the past 2 decades. The debt is out of control and neither party cares. One wants tax cuts we can't afford while the other wants to raise taxes but spend twice as much on more social programs. There is nobody responsible at the wheel and this election will just make it worse.

The desire to get elected and stay in power is all that matters. period.

 

[Matty44]

The whole system is corrupt. That's my point. Both parties are full of poop and neither has done much to help this nation over the past 2 decades. The debt is out of control and neither party cares. One wants tax cuts we can't afford while the other wants to raise taxes but spend twice as much on more social programs. There is nobody responsible at the wheel and this election will just make it worse.

The desire to get elected and stay in power is all that matters. period.

Agreed. Hence, a vote for the party that will do the least damage to the structure of our great republic is where your vote should go, regardless of if you like them as a person.

I know it’s shocking and unbelievable to some of you, but I don’t particularly love Trump either. I don’t think he’s the awful racist monster that the left thinks he is, and I think the nonstop smearing of everything he does as racist or sexist or whatever -ist is the smear-du-joir is unfair and bad for our country. So I’ll defend him against nonsense when I see it. I’d much rather have a Reagan than a Trump, but when the choice is awful leftism/socialism/identity politics/social justice/climate justice nonsense, it’s still an easy choice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[d9sccr]

Oh I agree, why would anyone quote a work of fiction to make an argument? I just don’t understand the morality argument for paying a tax to live in a society that provides an awful lot in return. You are not getting robbed. If you think you are then make sure you don’t use a road on your way to work tomorrow. I think we already get a pretty decent return on our tax-paying investment, so I don’t look at it as a “confiscation of personal property.” Maybe you should look into Portugal? You may not agree, but even the billionaires benefit quite a bit from everything the public provides. Bezos would probably not be the billionaire he is today if he were born and grew up in Portugal.

Sure, there is always a give and take in a society. Having billionaires pay a bit more in taxes won’t change the fact that they are still multi-billionaires. The funny thing is, the Trump supporters on this thread are in the minority even in his own base. The one thing that the left and right agreed on last election is the problem of worsening wealth inequality. That problem is not going away by giving out corporate tax cuts. If history is any guide, wealth inequality will get fixed somehow. We either do it democratically or eventually all those guns lying around become a little too tempting.

There's no argument that we all benefit from some of our tax dollars, but there's no reason to think billionaires haven't paid their "fair" share to use the roads or any number of other public utilities. Aside from defense spending, there's also little to no reasonable argument to be made that roads, police, etc. wouldn't exist w/o the government.

Like I said, I don't think the majority of people in here think equality at it's extremes isn't an issue. The question is have we crossed that line or have things like social media just made the differential profoundly apparent and readily accessible? What's the goal of your ideal wealth redistribution? When I read that WSJ article about the inequality, I gotta say I'm not overly concerned about the current perceived gap.

Rather than declare class warfare, why not help Americans where it matters, namely healthcare and student loans? Government should largely be kicked out of the student loan business. Compounding 6-7% interest on the back of loan takers is just asinine. Talk about taking advantage of an unprotected class. We all know the major issues in healthcare. I'm not sure why any of us, after having worked in VAs, think complete control being handed over to the government will be better than what we currently have, let alone be better.

 

[deleted643396]

Jeez, I seriously start to feel bad for people that think like you. Majority opinion doesn’t equal good opinion. Consensus doesn’t equal fact. And you don’t need to hate people just cause they have been more successful than you.

I’ll ask you guys again, please tell me how Jeff Bezos being rich hurts anyone. I’ll wait patiently....

And Mr Boo, before you link 30 articles, just save some time and give me a few simple bullet points. If it’s such a problem, it should be easy to sum it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t feel bad for me. Of course majority opinion is not good opinion. But that’s how democracy works.

I don’t hate Jeff Bezos. I have a lot of problems with Amazon as a company, but I don’t hate Jeff Bezos. I do hate Facebook, though. I never said Jeff Bezos being rich hurt anyone, so I’m not sure what you are waiting for? A bus?

I simply think that billionaires could afford to pay more in taxes. I think an anesthesiologist making $500k a year could afford to pay more in taxes. Why? I like my country and I want it to be in a nice, successful place to live. Public schools, public libraries, and other public resources have been good for us. I think we can figure out a way to offer some form of basic healthcare because frankly, the public wants it. Is Medicare for all the answer? I don’t know, but it’s at least a conversation we should have. Higher education has been a net positive thing for our country. I want an educated citizenry. However, the current student loan business is a scam. I was able to pay my way out of it quickly, but others aren’t so lucky. Providing our citizens with affordable options to get educated seems like a net benefit to our society. I’m willing to pay for it. I don’t see why Bezos wouldn’t be either other than simple greed.

Sorry, but I think the United States has done some incredible things throughout its history using public resources. While I hate the act of paying taxes, my rational brain usually points out all the important things my tax dollars pay for. I think those who just say taxes = stealing have a very immature mindset. Taxes are not immoral despite the rantings of whatever immature libertarian blogger you read. Taxes are very moral because they prioritize the general good.

 

[deleted643396]

There's no argument that we all benefit from some of our tax dollars, but there's no reason to think billionaires haven't paid their "fair" share to use the roads or any number of other public utilities. Aside from defense spending, there's also little to no reasonable argument to be made that roads, police, etc. wouldn't exist w/o the government.

Like I said, I don't think the majority of people in here think equality at it's extremes isn't an issue. The question is have we crossed that line or have things like social media just made the differential profoundly apparent and readily accessible? What's the goal of your ideal wealth redistribution? When I read that WSJ article about the inequality, I gotta say I'm not overly concerned about the current perceived gap.

Rather than declare class warfare, why not help Americans where it matters, namely healthcare and student loans? Government should largely be kicked out of the student loan business. Compounding 6-7% interest on the back of loan takers is just asinine. Talk about taking advantage of an unprotected class. We all know the major issues in healthcare. I'm not sure why any of us, after having worked in VAs, think complete control being handed over to the government will be better than what we currently have, let alone be better.

Sorry, I stopped reading when you said the roads and police could exist without the government. So now we have roads that can only be used if you can afford it? No more police, just a personal security detail if you can afford it? I’m glad I don’t live in that country. We’re not going to agree on much.

 

[Matty44]

Don’t feel bad for me. Of course majority opinion is not good opinion. But that’s how democracy works.

I don’t hate Jeff Bezos. I have a lot of problems with Amazon as a company, but I don’t hate Jeff Bezos. I do hate Facebook, though. I never said Jeff Bezos being rich hurt anyone, so I’m not sure what you are waiting for? A bus?

I simply think that billionaires could afford to pay more in taxes. I think an anesthesiologist making $500k a year could afford to pay more in taxes. Why? I like my country and I want it to be in a nice, successful place to live. Public schools, public libraries, and other public resources have been good for us. I think we can figure out a way to offer some form of basic healthcare because frankly, the public wants it. Is Medicare for all the answer? I don’t know, but it’s at least a conversation we should have. Higher education has been a net positive thing for our country. I want an educated citizenry. However, the current student loan business is a scam. I was able to pay my way out of it quickly, but others aren’t so lucky. Providing our citizens with affordable options to get educated seems like a net benefit to our society. I’m willing to pay for it. I don’t see why Bezos wouldn’t be either other than simple greed.

Sorry, but I think the United States has done some incredible things throughout its history using public resources. While I hate the act of paying taxes, my rational brain usually points out all the important things my tax dollars pay for. I think those who just say taxes = stealing have a very immature mindset. Taxes are not immoral despite the rantings of whatever immature libertarian blogger you read. Taxes are very moral because they prioritize the general good.

You seem to be missing a clear distinction that I (and others like Blade) have made. Taxation is not immoral. 100% taxation is immoral. Taxation of money that’s already been taxed, immoral. I agree with you about wanting a good society and safety nets for those who truly need them. I don’t think confiscating wealth and extreme taxation of rich people who just ‘really don’t need all that money, right?’ is the way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted643396]

The whole system is corrupt. That's my point. Both parties are full of poop and neither has done much to help this nation over the past 2 decades. The debt is out of control and neither party cares. One wants tax cuts we can't afford while the other wants to raise taxes but spend twice as much on more social programs. There is nobody responsible at the wheel and this election will just make it worse.

The desire to get elected and stay in power is all that matters. period.

I knew we agreed on something!

 

[deleted643396]

You seem to be missing a clear distinction that I (and others like Blade) have made. Taxation is not immoral. 100% taxation is immoral. Taxation of money that’s already been taxed, immoral. I agree with you about wanting a good society and safety nets for those who truly need them. I don’t think confiscating wealth and extreme taxation of rich people who just ‘really don’t need all that money, right?’ is the way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is suggesting 100% taxation? I’m not sure what that even means? You’re talking about a communist revolution?

 

[Matty44]

Who is suggesting 100% taxation? I’m not sure what that even means? You’re talking about a communist revolution?

I’m talking everyone who is suggesting rich people should pay 100% tax over x amount of wealth that they have. Look back through the thread if you missed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

Agreed. Hence, a vote for the party that will do the least damage to the structure of our great republic is where your vote should go, regardless of if you like them as a person.

I know it’s shocking and unbelievable to some of you, but I don’t particularly love Trump either. I don’t think he’s the awful racist monster that the left thinks he is, and I think the nonstop smearing of everything he does as racist or sexist or whatever -ist is the smear-du-joir is unfair and bad for our country. So I’ll defend him against nonsense when I see it. I’d much rather have a Reagan than a Trump, but when the choice is awful leftism/socialism/identity politics/social justice/climate justice nonsense, it’s still an easy choice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some people think and rightly so that republicans have done the most damage... Trump is acting the way he is when he will be facing the voters in less than a year, so Imagine how he will act when he won't be facing an electorate.

The left is sometimes quick to call people on the right racist, but Trump has said a lot things that many would consider racist.

I am not sure what taxation proposal that Warren has proposed that would amount to confiscating wealth.... Can some educate me about her proposal?

 

[AMEHigh]

Some people think and rightly so that republicans have done the most damage... Trump is acting the way he is when he will be facing the voters in less than a year, so Imagine how he will act when he won't be facing an electorate.

The left is sometimes quick to call people on the right racist, but Trump has said a lot things that many would consider racist.

I am not sure what taxation proposal that Warren has proposed that would amount to confiscating wealth.... Can some educate me about her proposal?

My basic understanding is a 2% tax will start at 50million to 1 billion on that amount of assets. Then an additional 1% tax on anything above 1 billion. So for people with total assets above 1 billion they’d be paying a total of 3% tax on any assets above 1 billion.

 

[Splenda88]

My basic understanding is a 2% tax will start at 50million to 1 billion on that amount of assets. Then an additional 1% tax on anything above 1 billion. So for people with total assets above 1 billion they’d be paying a total of 3% tax on any assets above 1 billion.

So what is with all the hyperbole that Warren will be confiscating wealth... 0.001 % might be affected by her tax proposal. People don't understand what what socialism is if they call that socialist.

 

[Matty44]

So what is with all the hyperbole that Warren will be confiscating wealth... 0.001 % might be affected by her tax proposal.

There’s this pesky thing called principles....

Some people don’t base their thinking off of, “oh, it’s just gonna affect some evil billionaires so who cares?”

Also, as others have pointed out already, what starts as a tax on a very small few has a way of expanding its reach down lower and lower as the definition of ‘evil rich’ changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

Some people think and rightly so that republicans have done the most damage... Trump is acting the way he is when he will be facing the voters in less than a year, so Imagine how he will act when he won't be facing an electorate.

Yup, that’s why we have political parties. People think differently than one another.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

There’s this pesky thing called principles....

Some people don’t base their thinking off of, “oh, it’s just gonna affect some evil billionaires so who cares?”

Also, as others have pointed out already, what starts as a tax on a very small few has a way of expanding its reach down lower and lower as the definition of ‘evil rich’ changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't give me that crap about principles when it comes to US politics... You will agree to it if your guys do it. You probably voted for Trump and he said at many instances during the campaign that he will raise taxes on the wealthy people.

 

[Matty44]

Don't give me that crap about principles when it comes to US politics... You will agree to it if your guys do it. You probably voted for Trump and he said at many instances during the campaign that he will raise taxes on the wealthy people.

Ummmm, I only support policies that I agree with, and I base that support on personal principles, so please spare me your condescension and telling me what I will and won’t agree with. I did vote for Trump. I in no way agree with every single thing he’s ever said and done. I know it’s real tough for you to conceptualize that someone can vote Trump and not be lock step with every thing he does, but try your best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

Ummmm, I only support policies that I agree with, and I base that support on personal principles, so please spare me your condescension and telling me what I will and won’t agree with. I did vote for Trump. I in no way agree with every single thing he’s ever said and done. I know it’s real tough for you to conceptualize that someone can vote Trump and not be lock step with every thing he does, but try your best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a spectrum on everything and you have made tax policies your signature issue in this thread. Accept it. You are just tribal.

Be honest! How many times you have voted for a candidate who does not have R after his/her name?

 

[Matty44]

There is a spectrum on everything and you have made tax policies your signature issue in this thread. Accept it. You are just tribal.

Be honest! How many times you have voted for a candidate who does not have R after his/her name?

Lol, yeah. That’s my signature issue. Sure.
Maybe read the thread before making silly accusations. But please, keep telling me more stuff about myself that I’m not aware of.

So far you’ve informed me that I’ll agree with anything Trump says and that I’m a tax policy wonk. Haha [emoji23]

And yes my friend, you are correct that I’ve voted consistently Republican....because I have conservative principles, which typically line up with the person with that R after their name.

Was that supposed to be a gotcha question or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

Lol, yeah. That’s my signature issue. Sure.
Maybe read the thread before making silly accusations. But please, keep telling me more stuff about myself that I’m not aware of.

So far you’ve informed me that I’ll agree with anything Trump says and that I’m a tax policy wonk. Haha [emoji23]

And yes my friend, you are correct that I’ve voted consistently Republican....because I have conservative principles, which typically line up with the person with that R after their name.

Was that supposed to be a gotcha question or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That answers my question... Thanks.

 

[epidural man]

Wow. How do you all keep up with this thread?

I suggest spending your time listening to this wonderful podcast Instead. It’s between Left leaning mathematician Eric Weinstein And right Peter Theil. It covers many of the inequality, education, American dream, etc issues we’ve been talking about.

It’s fascinating and scary. Both guys are brilliant. By the way, Eric Weinstein was the guy who coined the term “intellectual desk web.”

1: Peter Thiel

Podcast Episode · The Portal · 07/17/2019 · 2h 53m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[epidural man]

Wow. How do you all keep up with this thread?

I suggest spending your time listening to this wonderful podcast Instead. It’s between Left leaning mathematician Eric Weinstein And right Peter Theil. It covers many of the inequality, education, American dream, etc issues we’ve been talking about.

It’s fascinating and scary. Both guys are brilliant. By the way, Eric Weinstein was the guy who coined the term “intellectual desk web.”

1: Peter Thiel

Podcast Episode · The Portal · 07/17/2019 · 2h 53m

podcasts.apple.com

Oh and by the way, it’s a great example of how politically opposite people SHOULD talk to one another.