as someone who hasn't had time to go through the details of Warren's and Sanders' wealth tax plans, do either of them address the various ways the ultra rich use to avoid paying taxes (like storing money off shore, etc.)?
I do think Warren is more likely to push the results angle than the ideals angle, where she would support a more viable/moderate candidate in a traditionally Republican area, whereas Sanders would be more likely to support a more liberal candidate in line with his own ideals and try to convince the electorate that their way of thinking is right. I feel like Sanders' method is what I'd prefer....in blue districts, in the primary, while Warrens' method is more what we need in the general election.
Warren has campaigned for/sent money to all kinds of Democrats.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm all for wealth taxes, but I'm curious about the other effect in that it would essentially destroy a person's ability to run a company they founded, if successful. I mean most of Bezos, Gates, Buffet's wealth are due to ownership of huge tracts of stock in the companies they founded, which give them the votes they need to control the company board, and in turn the company itself. If these founders were forced to sell off 8% of their stock every year to cover a tax, they would quickly no longer have any controlling interest in the company. For good or for bad, does a company that resembles the modern Amazon or Berkshire Hathaway even develop without the guiding hand of the founder?
I do think that Warren's 2% is a little more palatable, but 8% is so aggressive, I can't see anyone able to maintain control of a large successful company. Is this good, is this bad? I don't know. If there were a more of a revolving cast of board members and CEO's in every large company we'd definitely see a lot more churn in the rise and fall of companies, I think. Though potential for these fly-by-night awful CEOs, or even worse Vulture (private) Equity, to crash large companies might become even more common.
Why would they need to sell off? They get dividends and shit.
Wouldn't it be easier, PantsB and Marathon, if ya'll provide evidence of amendments or such that Bernie failed to pass? You're not backing up assertions you're making, only attackin' Sammich as you always have been in this thread and others like it.
Sammich already provided a valid source and ya'll have both decided that wasn't enough. I don't think anyone should continue after that.
How would it be easier to show things that weren't passed then to show things that were? All sorts of things go nowhere in Congress all the time.
Shouldn't there be an aggregated list of his failures that would be an easy source for something like this? It'd certainly save everyone a lot of time.
Why would there be? There's definitely a record of things that have passed though. Failed legislation is usually harder to track because it just sputters out somewhere along the process.
Harder to track, but not impossible at all. I've got a bunch of info and sources saved for my own personal use when it comes down to defining differences between Warren n' Sanders for myself since I'm always lookin' for that as they're both top choices for me and I'm constantly lookin' for comparisons and differences between the two.
I just figured if folks engage as they do, they'd have something similar to pull sources out for times like this rather than putting the onus on whomever they're "debating" with. It's weird to see them slide past sources and ask for more while providing little on their end.
The source Sammich provided was an article from Politifact that spends most of the article discussing Sanders in light of his reputation as “amendment king” because he has added so many roll-call amendments to bills.
But that’s not the entire story, because like Pants pointed out, he can add a million amendments to bills, but until those bills are actually signed into law they are meaningless. We’re not going to be able to get M4A via amendment.
That’s why I think it’s entirely fair to ask for a list of legislation introduced or sponsored by Sanders that actually became law. Especially in a conversation about whether or not he is an effective legislator.
A wealth tax is a necessity, and I'm very glad Warren and Sanders are both pushing for one. Income taxes have mediocre to no effects on the ultra-wealthy and mostly only hit the middle class. Sales taxes hit the poorest the hardest. Capital gains is probably the second-best option, but it's politically difficult because of upper-middle-class resistance and the optics of potential stock market retractions in the short-term.
The proposed wealth taxes pull a much smaller portion of property and purchasing power from the ultra-wealthy than other taxes already pull from everyone else, and they hit specifically the very small number of incredibly lucky people who were either in the exact right place at the exact right time or literally inherited insane fortunes.
Not having them is already a moral disgrace, and we need to do everything we can to A. Put one of these candidates in office and B. Drag Congress along with the idea.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Even the average conservative supports this. Republican voters support it 2 to 1!
interesting!
I guess I don't really feel like I can elaborate further, except to say that I'm going to be very upset about voting for a progressive nominee, if it comes to that.
I'm no Warren stan either, but I at least feel like there's room to negotiate with her.
Regardless, that pretty well solidifies my objection to the progressives in the campaign. Talk about a way to depress turnout.
Depress the turnout of people who believe themselves to be billionaires who have just lost their wallets?
Those people are generally pretty staunchly GOP voters anyway. The people who recognize that taxes aren't theft, and that investing in society is proportional to what you can contribute aren't going to balk at taxing people who have more money than God.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm no Warren stan either, but I at least feel like there's room to negotiate with her.
Regardless, that pretty well solidifies my objection to the progressives in the campaign. Talk about a way to depress turnout.
I'm looking forward to the day you bravely tell us all that your conscience won't let you vote for anything but a third party candidate
spool's not in-line with a lot of the views of most of the forum, but his perspective is appreciated if nothing else to help pierce the echo chamber every now and again. This sort of snark is a bit uncharitable.
Wouldn't it be easier, PantsB and Marathon, if ya'll provide evidence of amendments or such that Bernie failed to pass? You're not backing up assertions you're making, only attackin' Sammich as you always have been in this thread and others like it.
Sammich already provided a valid source and ya'll have both decided that wasn't enough. I don't think anyone should engage with ya'll after that.
That's literally an infinite set. Its an interesting twist on proving a negative though. I still say if you have come to the conclusion that Sanders has a good legislative record there should be one nontrivial passed law or amendment you can point to as the basis for that assertion.
I'm used the idea of taxes on pure income being a one-and-done thing. You pay a tax on your profits and the rest is yours. A yearly recurring wealth tax on money sitting in the bank is interesting. What other countries do this?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
edited September 2019
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
Ilpala on
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Let's say I make $200,000 a year. Let's say I have no expenses and somehow never have to pay taxes. Just $200k of straight income.
It would take me five thousand fucking years to become a billionaire. It would take two hundred and fifty thousand years to get up to Bezos after the most aggressive wealth tax was put into place.
First, I argue after the first billion dollars your life doesn't change at all. You already have access to everything you could ever want or imagine in life.
Two, that kind of wealth is inherently unjust when people go bankrupt for having cancer.
Three, how can anyone look at these numbers and think anything other than this society is so crippled by this grotesque wealth is beyond me.
Let's say I make $200,000 a year. Let's say I have no expenses and somehow never have to pay taxes. Just $200k of straight income.
It would take me five thousand fucking years to become a billionaire. It would take two hundred and fifty thousand years to get up to Bezos after the most aggressive wealth tax was put into place.
First, I argue after the first billion dollars your life doesn't change at all. You already have access to everything you could ever want or imagine in life.
Two, that kind of wealth is inherently unjust when people go bankrupt for having cancer.
Three, how can anyone look at these numbers and think anything other than this society is so crippled by this grotesque wealth is beyond me.
I liked this way of showing it.
Let's say you work full-time and make an absurd 1000/hr. You take no vacation and work 40 hour weeks, 52 weeks of the year. You have had this job and wage, no vacation, since July 4th, 1776, when America was founded.
You have earned less than 1/300th of Bezos's net worth using the numbers on last page.
I'm no Warren stan either, but I at least feel like there's room to negotiate with her.
Regardless, that pretty well solidifies my objection to the progressives in the campaign. Talk about a way to depress turnout.
I'm looking forward to the day you bravely tell us all that your conscience won't let you vote for anything but a third party candidate
spool's not in-line with a lot of the views of most of the forum, but his perspective is appreciated if nothing else to help pierce the echo chamber every now and again. This sort of snark is a bit uncharitable.
As an actual conservative, I think you guys definitely don’t appreciate spool enough. He’s willing to wade into the belly of the beast and give your ideas a listen without too much judgement. He gives me hope that there still can be some reason in politics and it’s not insults and memes all the way down.
To get back on topic, as a conservative I could probably vote for Biden over Trump. I didn’t vote for trump in the last election (I’m in a safe blue state so my vote doesn’t matter much) but I’m more attracted by returning to normal politics than a radical restructuring of the economy. I don’t want a messiah for a president, I just want someone who can smile at state dinners, greet other heads of state without embarrassing himself and stay off social media and leave me free to live my life. That’s all I’m looking for in a president.
I probably won’t be around much in this thread as it should be for Democrats but I just want to give a different perspective and say that finding the best person for president is a worthwhile activity that will benefit all of America and not just one political party.
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't it be easier, PantsB and Marathon, if ya'll provide evidence of amendments or such that Bernie failed to pass? You're not backing up assertions you're making, only attackin' Sammich as you always have been in this thread and others like it.
Sammich already provided a valid source and ya'll have both decided that wasn't enough. I don't think anyone should continue after that.
How would it be easier to show things that weren't passed then to show things that were? All sorts of things go nowhere in Congress all the time.
Shouldn't there be an aggregated list of his failures that would be an easy source for something like this? It'd certainly save everyone a lot of time.
Why would there be? There's definitely a record of things that have passed though. Failed legislation is usually harder to track because it just sputters out somewhere along the process.
Harder to track, but not impossible at all. I've got a bunch of info and sources saved for my own personal use when it comes down to defining differences between Warren n' Sanders for myself since I'm always lookin' for that as they're both top choices for me and I'm constantly lookin' for comparisons and differences between the two.
I just figured if folks engage as they do, they'd have something similar to pull sources out for times like this rather than putting the onus on whomever they're "debating" with. It's weird to see them slide past sources and ask for more while providing little on their end.
The source Sammich provided was an article from Politifact that spends most of the article discussing Sanders in light of his reputation as “amendment king” because he has added so many roll-call amendments to bills.
But that’s not the entire story, because like Pants pointed out, he can add a million amendments to bills, but until those bills are actually signed into law they are meaningless. We’re not going to be able to get M4A via amendment.
But the point was that he knows how to work inside the system or whatever. He clearly does.
Honestly, I don't understand the issue here anyway. If a "good legislative record" is just about how many amendments to successful bills you passed, then it is really not a measure of anything other than perhaps a good opportunistic eye. Just add a "name a thing after John McCain" amendment to every bill you think is going to pass and you get one of the best legislative records ever.
Ha, I always wondered how Mr. Sanders planned to fund all his fiscally ambitious projects; now I know
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's crazy to think about, but honestly, if someone hacked the bank accounts or whatever of all those billionaires for exactly the amount cited on that page, absolutely nothing would change for them. They could live their lives exactly as they're doing today and there would be no visible impact to their lifestyle. They literally would not realize it's gone.
+9
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
I don't..think that's how money works when you get that rich. Like I might be wrong! But I don't know I've ever heard of anyone that wealthy who is liquid.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
It's crazy to think about, but honestly, if someone hacked the bank accounts or whatever of all those billionaires for exactly the amount cited on that page, absolutely nothing would change for them. They could live their lives exactly as they're doing today and there would be no visible impact to their lifestyle. They literally would not realize it's gone.
Mentioned on the previous page is the fact that this wealth is mostly ownership of controlling stock of their company. I think they would realize when they no longer had a majority share
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
like, of course Sanders, in congress since 91, knows how to work inside the system. I think everybody probably does. It isn't a particularly difficult system to understand.
Let's not act like knowing how is the same as actually working inside it though.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
Cash is an asset.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
Cash is an asset.
The tax in the Netherlands very much taxes liquid assets. "vermogen" just means wealth.
Wikipedia (the height of research) suggests contemporary examples exist in Argentina, Canada, France, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
Cash is an asset.
The tax in the Netherlands very much taxes liquid assets. "vermogen" just means wealth.
That was the one I wasn't sure about, partly because of the 31 letter words
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's say I make $200,000 a year. Let's say I have no expenses and somehow never have to pay taxes. Just $200k of straight income.
It would take me five thousand fucking years to become a billionaire. It would take two hundred and fifty thousand years to get up to Bezos after the most aggressive wealth tax was put into place.
First, I argue after the first billion dollars your life doesn't change at all. You already have access to everything you could ever want or imagine in life.
Two, that kind of wealth is inherently unjust when people go bankrupt for having cancer.
Three, how can anyone look at these numbers and think anything other than this society is so crippled by this grotesque wealth is beyond me.
AOC's policy adviser said it best: "Every billionaire is a policy failure."
just want someone who can smile at state dinners, greet other heads of state without embarrassing himself and stay off social media and leave me free to live my life. That’s all I’m looking for in a president.
If you'll permit ME a bit of snark, Biden's probably not your best bet for that, either ;D
I can understand and appreciate that sentiment, but what you're seeing is a frustration that has built up from decades of triangulation: at every stage, where "compromise" is achieved and "status quo" is maintained, it's been at the expense of more liberal ideas (in a fiscal sense - progress has been made in a social sense in areas like gay marriage, thankfully). As a result, we've ended up in a place of such financial imbalance that the robber barons of the days of old would blush.
At the end of the day, when it comes to the wealth tax, I...sorry guys, I don't care that much. I feel that it's one possible (and possibly the most effective) way to work towards ending the imbalance that modern Capitalism has caused, but it's not the most important issue. But at the end of the day, there are three issues which are my main things:
Trying to rebuild/salvage what Trump has destroyed of our reputation and international relationships
Ensuring the integrity of our elections
Climate change/crisis/global warming/<insert your environmental catastrophe term of choice here>
The first one is potentially salvageable, but only with this election. I suspect that any Democrat would be an improvement here, and I think (jokes aside) Biden would do fine. He's probably a bit too set in his ways, but anything short of smearing feces on oneself would be an improvement to the current status quo. I suspect that a lot of our allies would be...if not forgiving, tolerant of what's happened and willing to rebuild relationships were Trump to be ousted. There would probably be consequences in that treaties would have negative impacts for being broken built into them, etc, but that's our own damn fault.
The second one is something that I, unfortunately, have to treat basically all conservatives as an opponent with regards to - there's simply too much history of gerrymandering, attempting to suppress votes of people who don't agree politically on the aggregate to do otherwise. The immediate cry against it is about voter ID (something I actually don't have a problem with in theory!), but there is no credibility on the part of conservative governments that it would not be implemented in such a way to attempt to depress voter turnout, and a WEALTH of evidence that it would be. So I can't support that. Biden is...neutral on this. I haven't seen much from him that indicates that he thinks it's a priority. Other candidates have, which biases me towards them.
The third one, any Democrat is likely better than any Republican in that they would not be actively accelerating the problem, but despite Biden's stated plan, looking at how he responded at the town hall, he seems to actively not really care about this, which basically torpedoes any chance of his being my first choice.
The other stuff (wealth taxes, etc) that candidates are talking about? Some of it I like, some of it I don't. But it all falls by the wayside when considering the above three. And with regards to restructuring our economy, when considering that third bullet point: either we do motions in that direction now, or it's forced upon us soon enough because it's impossible to do otherwise. Better to do so while we have some control in the matter.
So I don't think your goal of status quo is sufficient, personally, although I get the ideal. But if you genuinely, truly want that, then there needs to be consequences for the party which is destroying the status quo: which unfortunately for you, if you want that, means you cannot vote for any Republican until the party changes itself. We live in a first past the post system, which effectively means that the only means of voicing our opinion is to vote against the candidate we least want who is most likely to win: that is the optimal decision to most closely get what we want. Any vote for the Republican Party while they are actively destroying political norms reinforces that doing so is a path to victory for them. So at this point, even if there is a Republican candidate I like, I cannot in good conscience vote for them. if your desire is truly a return to when political norms mattered, I highly recommend taking a look at your personal values and how best to realize them, because if that is genuinely what matters most to you, there's not many other viable options.
Posts
Warren has campaigned for/sent money to all kinds of Democrats.
Why would they need to sell off? They get dividends and shit.
The source Sammich provided was an article from Politifact that spends most of the article discussing Sanders in light of his reputation as “amendment king” because he has added so many roll-call amendments to bills.
But that’s not the entire story, because like Pants pointed out, he can add a million amendments to bills, but until those bills are actually signed into law they are meaningless. We’re not going to be able to get M4A via amendment.
That’s why I think it’s entirely fair to ask for a list of legislation introduced or sponsored by Sanders that actually became law. Especially in a conversation about whether or not he is an effective legislator.
I think Warren would be better at getting things done.
I also think she's more likely to win the general and probably be slightly better on downtickets.
Warren has also proposed one.
It's literally the centerpiece of her campaign.
The proposed wealth taxes pull a much smaller portion of property and purchasing power from the ultra-wealthy than other taxes already pull from everyone else, and they hit specifically the very small number of incredibly lucky people who were either in the exact right place at the exact right time or literally inherited insane fortunes.
Not having them is already a moral disgrace, and we need to do everything we can to A. Put one of these candidates in office and B. Drag Congress along with the idea.
Regardless, that pretty well solidifies my objection to the progressives in the campaign. Talk about a way to depress turnout.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of
Even the average conservative supports this. Republican voters support it 2 to 1!
pleasepaypreacher.net
No Lord's, No Ladies
No Kings, No Queens
Also I believe both Bernie and Warren have laid out ideas for ending the practice of vulture capitalism
Come Overwatch with meeeee
interesting!
I guess I don't really feel like I can elaborate further, except to say that I'm going to be very upset about voting for a progressive nominee, if it comes to that.
I'm looking forward to the day you bravely tell us all that your conscience won't let you vote for anything but a third party candidate
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Depress the turnout of people who believe themselves to be billionaires who have just lost their wallets?
Those people are generally pretty staunchly GOP voters anyway. The people who recognize that taxes aren't theft, and that investing in society is proportional to what you can contribute aren't going to balk at taxing people who have more money than God.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
spool's not in-line with a lot of the views of most of the forum, but his perspective is appreciated if nothing else to help pierce the echo chamber every now and again. This sort of snark is a bit uncharitable.
yeah none of the people with more than 50 million dollars in income a year will vote for it, the democrats are fucked
I have a list of people who ran out of second chances in this thread. If you're on it and you're a dick in this thread, you'll be kicked.
No, I won't tell you who's on the list, but if you think hmmm maybe it's me it's probably you.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
That's literally an infinite set. Its an interesting twist on proving a negative though. I still say if you have come to the conclusion that Sanders has a good legislative record there should be one nontrivial passed law or amendment you can point to as the basis for that assertion.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is a trope for a reason. But I think the behavior of the ultra wealthy has been wearing it down.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A note on the Netherlands one: The first line reads "There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing." and I propose we adopt this naming immediately.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Let's say I make $200,000 a year. Let's say I have no expenses and somehow never have to pay taxes. Just $200k of straight income.
It would take me five thousand fucking years to become a billionaire. It would take two hundred and fifty thousand years to get up to Bezos after the most aggressive wealth tax was put into place.
First, I argue after the first billion dollars your life doesn't change at all. You already have access to everything you could ever want or imagine in life.
Two, that kind of wealth is inherently unjust when people go bankrupt for having cancer.
Three, how can anyone look at these numbers and think anything other than this society is so crippled by this grotesque wealth is beyond me.
I liked this way of showing it.
Let's say you work full-time and make an absurd 1000/hr. You take no vacation and work 40 hour weeks, 52 weeks of the year. You have had this job and wage, no vacation, since July 4th, 1776, when America was founded.
You have earned less than 1/300th of Bezos's net worth using the numbers on last page.
As an actual conservative, I think you guys definitely don’t appreciate spool enough. He’s willing to wade into the belly of the beast and give your ideas a listen without too much judgement. He gives me hope that there still can be some reason in politics and it’s not insults and memes all the way down.
To get back on topic, as a conservative I could probably vote for Biden over Trump. I didn’t vote for trump in the last election (I’m in a safe blue state so my vote doesn’t matter much) but I’m more attracted by returning to normal politics than a radical restructuring of the economy. I don’t want a messiah for a president, I just want someone who can smile at state dinners, greet other heads of state without embarrassing himself and stay off social media and leave me free to live my life. That’s all I’m looking for in a president.
I probably won’t be around much in this thread as it should be for Democrats but I just want to give a different perspective and say that finding the best person for president is a worthwhile activity that will benefit all of America and not just one political party.
I think these are all asset taxes, like a second property tax. What if you're liquid?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But the point was that he knows how to work inside the system or whatever. He clearly does.
Honestly, I don't understand the issue here anyway. If a "good legislative record" is just about how many amendments to successful bills you passed, then it is really not a measure of anything other than perhaps a good opportunistic eye. Just add a "name a thing after John McCain" amendment to every bill you think is going to pass and you get one of the best legislative records ever.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't..think that's how money works when you get that rich. Like I might be wrong! But I don't know I've ever heard of anyone that wealthy who is liquid.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Mentioned on the previous page is the fact that this wealth is mostly ownership of controlling stock of their company. I think they would realize when they no longer had a majority share
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's not act like knowing how is the same as actually working inside it though.
Cash is an asset.
The tax in the Netherlands very much taxes liquid assets. "vermogen" just means wealth.
That was the one I wasn't sure about, partly because of the 31 letter words
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
AOC's policy adviser said it best: "Every billionaire is a policy failure."
If you'll permit ME a bit of snark, Biden's probably not your best bet for that, either ;D
I can understand and appreciate that sentiment, but what you're seeing is a frustration that has built up from decades of triangulation: at every stage, where "compromise" is achieved and "status quo" is maintained, it's been at the expense of more liberal ideas (in a fiscal sense - progress has been made in a social sense in areas like gay marriage, thankfully). As a result, we've ended up in a place of such financial imbalance that the robber barons of the days of old would blush.
At the end of the day, when it comes to the wealth tax, I...sorry guys, I don't care that much. I feel that it's one possible (and possibly the most effective) way to work towards ending the imbalance that modern Capitalism has caused, but it's not the most important issue. But at the end of the day, there are three issues which are my main things:
The first one is potentially salvageable, but only with this election. I suspect that any Democrat would be an improvement here, and I think (jokes aside) Biden would do fine. He's probably a bit too set in his ways, but anything short of smearing feces on oneself would be an improvement to the current status quo. I suspect that a lot of our allies would be...if not forgiving, tolerant of what's happened and willing to rebuild relationships were Trump to be ousted. There would probably be consequences in that treaties would have negative impacts for being broken built into them, etc, but that's our own damn fault.
The second one is something that I, unfortunately, have to treat basically all conservatives as an opponent with regards to - there's simply too much history of gerrymandering, attempting to suppress votes of people who don't agree politically on the aggregate to do otherwise. The immediate cry against it is about voter ID (something I actually don't have a problem with in theory!), but there is no credibility on the part of conservative governments that it would not be implemented in such a way to attempt to depress voter turnout, and a WEALTH of evidence that it would be. So I can't support that. Biden is...neutral on this. I haven't seen much from him that indicates that he thinks it's a priority. Other candidates have, which biases me towards them.
The third one, any Democrat is likely better than any Republican in that they would not be actively accelerating the problem, but despite Biden's stated plan, looking at how he responded at the town hall, he seems to actively not really care about this, which basically torpedoes any chance of his being my first choice.
The other stuff (wealth taxes, etc) that candidates are talking about? Some of it I like, some of it I don't. But it all falls by the wayside when considering the above three. And with regards to restructuring our economy, when considering that third bullet point: either we do motions in that direction now, or it's forced upon us soon enough because it's impossible to do otherwise. Better to do so while we have some control in the matter.
So I don't think your goal of status quo is sufficient, personally, although I get the ideal. But if you genuinely, truly want that, then there needs to be consequences for the party which is destroying the status quo: which unfortunately for you, if you want that, means you cannot vote for any Republican until the party changes itself. We live in a first past the post system, which effectively means that the only means of voicing our opinion is to vote against the candidate we least want who is most likely to win: that is the optimal decision to most closely get what we want. Any vote for the Republican Party while they are actively destroying political norms reinforces that doing so is a path to victory for them. So at this point, even if there is a Republican candidate I like, I cannot in good conscience vote for them. if your desire is truly a return to when political norms mattered, I highly recommend taking a look at your personal values and how best to realize them, because if that is genuinely what matters most to you, there's not many other viable options.