Options

Dem Primary: Shut Up About 2016

11920222425100

Posts

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ha, I always wondered how Mr. Sanders planned to fund all his fiscally ambitious projects; now I know

    Warren has similar funding for her ambitious plans.

  • Options
    Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    "the wealth tax is less important than rebuilding america's reputation" is way more confusing to me, as an opinion, than "i just want a sensible moderate who does nothing"

  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    "the wealth tax is less important than rebuilding america's reputation" is way more confusing to me, as an opinion, than "i just want a sensible moderate who does nothing"

    The third bullet point is the overriding thing for me, and any actual solutions to the problem will require working international efforts. So it's kinda in service to the other problem.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ha, I always wondered how Mr. Sanders planned to fund all his fiscally ambitious projects; now I know

    Warren has similar funding for her ambitious plans.

    Yeah, but his plans stand to cost a lot more, so it's fitting that his wealth tax is much more ravenous

    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.
  • Options
    AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    re: billionaires losing their controlling interests in their companies

    * nobody forces you to take your company public in the first place
    * you're not required to sell your shares, presumably you have other assets you could use to cover the tax
    * since you have the controlling interest, you could award yourself enough compensation to cover it
    * or have the stock pay dividends

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    re: billionaires losing their controlling interests in their companies

    * nobody forces you to take your company public in the first place
    * you're not required to sell your shares, presumably you have other assets you could use to cover the tax
    * since you have the controlling interest, you could award yourself enough compensation to cover it
    * or have the stock pay dividends

    Doable but difficult for a growing company.

    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.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    re: billionaires losing their controlling interests in their companies

    * nobody forces you to take your company public in the first place
    * you're not required to sell your shares, presumably you have other assets you could use to cover the tax
    * since you have the controlling interest, you could award yourself enough compensation to cover it
    * or have the stock pay dividends

    Doable but difficult for a growing company.

    $32 MILLION IS EXEMPT from Bernie's plan! And this is personal wealth!

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    re: billionaires losing their controlling interests in their companies

    * nobody forces you to take your company public in the first place
    * you're not required to sell your shares, presumably you have other assets you could use to cover the tax
    * since you have the controlling interest, you could award yourself enough compensation to cover it
    * or have the stock pay dividends

    Doable but difficult for a growing company.

    $32 MILLION IS EXEMPT from Bernie's plan! And this is personal wealth!

    I assumed we knew I was talking about CEO wealth. It's a ridiculous concept anyway since pretty much every mega huge tech company is still growing.

    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.
  • Options
    wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sonia this a top income tax rate? Or does it just year by year carve out a % of wealth until you're under the line?

    Like a property tax, it is yearly. That top rate is still below the long term average of 10% of the stock market.

    Seriously????

    I'm not even sure that's Constitutional, nevermind whether or not I agree with it. With property tax you still have the property. This is like if my property tax bill said "give us your back porch".

    fk u bernie, I' now at "still voting for you but actively working against your primary candidacy"
    Not "your back porch". Not "your". We're not talking about your money, or my money, but their money. We are not billionaires.

    ("Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." – quote popularly attributed to John Steinbeck)

    wandering on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I wonder if we're still going to have a recession in the next administration with all 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.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    There is precisely zero harm a wealth tax will cause to people with that much wealth. Meanwhile there is massive, tangible societal benefit.

    Hell I'd prefer it higher but both campaigns provide a good start.

  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    .
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ha, I always wondered how Mr. Sanders planned to fund all his fiscally ambitious projects; now I know

    Warren has similar funding for her ambitious plans.

    Step 1: TAX THE FUCKING RICH

    There. Paid for.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I still can't fathom that kind of wealth.

    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 just did it for the bare minimum.

    If you started with a $100K job straight out of high school, had zero expenses, got a 10K a year pay bump, and worked for 47 years (until 65), you'ld have amassed $15.51M.

    Or less than half the threshold needed to pay anything under the Sanders plan.

    The money these people have accrued, are so far beyond what people seem to be able to truly comprehend, is part of the problem.

    A thousand minutes is just under 16 hours. A million minutes is the better part of two years. A billion minutes is almost 2,000 years. People just can't comprehend big numbers.

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I think Sanders and the "wealth tax" nonsense both need to disappear forever.

    Personally I rather like the idea of a Wealth tax.

    Of course I am to your left. So that factors into it. Whenever people say "Freedom isn't free." I always think, "Yeah you have to pay your fucking taxes. Want a first class country that defends liberties, protects you and makes shit better? Well then cough it up because that shit costs money. Paying your taxes isn't an obligation and it isn't a penalty. It is your civic fucking duty and I have as little patience for tax evaders as I have for traitors (I am not for the death penalty for tax evasion, but harsh prison time for intentional tax evasion would not bother me)."

    But I also like the idea of the Wealth Tax because it could spur investment.

    Think about it. Wealthy people like to stay wealthy right? So they are going to be motivated to earn more in returns than the wealth tax takes.

    That means riskier returns with potentially higher profits. So maybe more start up and venture capital action.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    This is why I just don't care about the "burden" of a wealth tax starting at $32 million. They have enough money to ensure financial stability and material for their families for generations to come. Meanwhile the money can go to programs that actually help everyone else.

    There is literally no downside beyond the hurt feelings of the greedy ultra rich and their sympathizers.

  • Options
    CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ha, I always wondered how Mr. Sanders planned to fund all his fiscally ambitious projects; now I know

    Warren has similar funding for her ambitious plans.

    Step 1: TAX THE FUCKING RICH

    There. Paid for.

    Wait, do we get to eat them after taxing them?

    Does anyone know the context behind this Nate Silver Tweet? It seems like he really dislikes the Berniebros or something.


    "Not sure Bernie should get credit for having more diverse support than last time given that he has far less support than last time. A lot of voters have left him. White liberals have been particularly likely to leave him (for Warren) so the residue of what's left is more diverse."

    ckr1waumze7z.png

    from:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Options
    CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Nate really doesn't like Bernie because his rhetoric is so opposed to Nate's conception of politics as a game. At least imo

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    The context is Silver is a self described centrist libertarian with a bad case of pundit brain.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I'm not sure if its true, but it seems like Nate is saying the opposite, that Bernie bros left him?

    More broadly, hes saying Bernie didn't gain more support from minorities, but instead lost the support of white people. What's left is more diverse, but not because he picked up people but lost them.

    Anyway, its kinda silly to be talking like that. Its still early, and I don't think the top 3 have 75% of the vote. Lots of undecideds and second/third choice voters to pick up.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    The context is Silver is a self described centrist libertarian with a bad case of pundit brain.

    Yet another example of the Ben Carson syndrome. Just because you're really smart in one field, doesn't mean you're not a complete fucking numbnut in every other.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    I would think you should be able to make a guess at whether that's what happened with Sanders from 2016 to now. Like, the person with the info and knowledge here would be ... Nate Silver. Maybe instead of speculating randomly on twitter he could run the numbers.

    But, regardless of the demographics, it is true that Sanders lost a ton of supporters between 2016 and now because those supporters were more anti-Clinton/establishment/etc or more-left or whatever then they were Sanders supporters and so once they had more options then just Sanders they all wandered away to different candidates, leaving him with his core support base (which is still a good chunk of people).

    Nate proposes those were all the white college educated people or something. I'm ... skeptical. I guess it might be possible but I'd need something more then just a tweet for it to be worth thinking about.

    shryke on
  • Options
    XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    I like Biden allright, but I would absolutely LOVE IT if Trump shoots himself in the foot here abusing power and getting caught for it to attack Biden now, only for Warren or some other late surger to overtake Biden and end up running against Trump instead. Airbaaaaaaaaaall!

    My sincerest thanks, Uncle Joe, for being the straw that broke the camels back re: official Trump impeachment investigation. You done good, now go home.

  • Options
    Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    I’m afraid of the opposite. I’m afraid that Trump’s horseshit will garner sympathy for Biden in the primary and it carries him through Iowa.

    I just hope people voting in the Dem primary can separate Trump’s crimes from Biden’s policies.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    wandering wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sonia this a top income tax rate? Or does it just year by year carve out a % of wealth until you're under the line?

    Like a property tax, it is yearly. That top rate is still below the long term average of 10% of the stock market.

    Seriously????

    I'm not even sure that's Constitutional, nevermind whether or not I agree with it. With property tax you still have the property. This is like if my property tax bill said "give us your back porch".

    fk u bernie, I' now at "still voting for you but actively working against your primary candidacy"
    Not "your back porch". Not "your". We're not talking about your money, or my money, but their money. We are not billionaires.

    ("Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." – quote popularly attributed to John Steinbeck)

    Edit: that sounded too snarky and flippant. What I mean is that I try not to let my personal stake in a policy be the deciding factor in whether or not I support it.

    spool32 on
  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sonia this a top income tax rate? Or does it just year by year carve out a % of wealth until you're under the line?

    Like a property tax, it is yearly. That top rate is still below the long term average of 10% of the stock market.

    Seriously????

    I'm not even sure that's Constitutional, nevermind whether or not I agree with it. With property tax you still have the property. This is like if my property tax bill said "give us your back porch".

    fk u bernie, I' now at "still voting for you but actively working against your primary candidacy"
    Not "your back porch". Not "your". We're not talking about your money, or my money, but their money. We are not billionaires.

    ("Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." – quote popularly attributed to John Steinbeck)

    I prefer not to align my principles based on whether or not I'm personally impacted by a policy.

    Well good news, because the concentration of wealth in the upper classes also constitutes a theft of the profits of labour from the working classes!

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    I'm actually a little more worried about Biden being the nominee than I was before. I know the "Biden did the exact same thing I just did, why don't you impeach him?" angle is total horseshit, but we all know that both sidesism works on the American public. I think it'll spread and enough people would view Biden as just as corrupt as Trump that he might win again in the muddy waters.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Xantomas wrote: »
    I'm actually a little more worried about Biden being the nominee than I was before. I know the "Biden did the exact same thing I just did, why don't you impeach him?" angle is total horseshit, but we all know that both sidesism works on the American public. I think it'll spread and enough people would view Biden as just as corrupt as Trump that he might win again in the muddy waters.

    Polls have been swinging towards warren, and if anything this bs hurts him because of the what aboutism. But long time between now and the primaries.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Xantomas wrote: »
    I'm actually a little more worried about Biden being the nominee than I was before. I know the "Biden did the exact same thing I just did, why don't you impeach him?" angle is total horseshit, but we all know that both sidesism works on the American public. I think it'll spread and enough people would view Biden as just as corrupt as Trump that he might win again in the muddy waters.

    Polls have been swinging towards warren, and if anything this bs hurts him because of the what aboutism. But long time between now and the primaries.

    That's what I'm hoping. Biden is on the decline and hopefully will be overtaken and so all this shady effort Trump takes in smearing him will be wasted. If this aids in Biden's early exit because Dems start to worry about another both sides situation then all the better. Trumps ranting against Warren will be SOCIALISM fearmongering and racist attacks and I think those will be less effective than a Clinton-like both sides are corrupt and evil situation.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Warren campaign released an updated strategy document. Spending 10 million+ on ads (mostly digital) and hiring more staff in states, with a particular focus on states with competitive Senate races (Maine, the two in Georgia), recent major gains in the House (CA/IL), or state legislatures we can flip in 2020 (MI/MN).

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Warren campaign released an updated strategy document. Spending 10 million+ on ads (mostly digital) and hiring more staff in states, with a particular focus on states with competitive Senate races (Maine, the two in Georgia), recent major gains in the House (CA/IL), or state legislatures we can flip in 2020 (MI/MN).

    Fuck ya!

    With a legitimate impeachment on top on an unpopular president? Now is the time to pick up those Senate seats.

    I know it’s not a great map for the the Dems this year, but if they can get the Presidency, Senate, and expand the House as well as local elections?

    /swoons

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Wait, nevermind

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Warren campaign released an updated strategy document. Spending 10 million+ on ads (mostly digital) and hiring more staff in states, with a particular focus on states with competitive Senate races (Maine, the two in Georgia), recent major gains in the House (CA/IL), or state legislatures we can flip in 2020 (MI/MN).

    Fuck ya!

    With a legitimate impeachment on top on an unpopular president? Now is the time to pick up those Senate seats.

    I know it’s not a great map for the the Dems this year, but if they can get the Presidency, Senate, and expand the House as well as local elections?

    /swoons

    One thing it does is put impeachment-vote pressure on Collins.

  • Options
    lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Warren campaign released an updated strategy document. Spending 10 million+ on ads (mostly digital) and hiring more staff in states, with a particular focus on states with competitive Senate races (Maine, the two in Georgia), recent major gains in the House (CA/IL), or state legislatures we can flip in 2020 (MI/MN).

    Fuck ya!

    With a legitimate impeachment on top on an unpopular president? Now is the time to pick up those Senate seats.

    I know it’s not a great map for the the Dems this year, but if they can get the Presidency, Senate, and expand the House as well as local elections?

    /swoons

    One thing it does is put impeachment-vote pressure on Collins.

    GOOD

    which I know you weren't saying this was a bad thing

    I just wanted a chance to yell at Collins some more.

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    From what I understand, Collins is already in big trouble for her Kavanaugh vote.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    From what I understand, Collins is already in big trouble for her Kavanaugh vote.
    GOOD

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    "the wealth tax is less important than rebuilding america's reputation" is way more confusing to me, as an opinion, than "i just want a sensible moderate who does nothing"

    making sure people in the US don't die from poverty or lack of health care is great, but it's more important to make clear to the rest of the world that you're still the same warmongering maniacs you were before.

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sonia this a top income tax rate? Or does it just year by year carve out a % of wealth until you're under the line?

    Like a property tax, it is yearly. That top rate is still below the long term average of 10% of the stock market.

    Seriously????

    I'm not even sure that's Constitutional, nevermind whether or not I agree with it. With property tax you still have the property. This is like if my property tax bill said "give us your back porch".

    fk u bernie, I' now at "still voting for you but actively working against your primary candidacy"
    Not "your back porch". Not "your". We're not talking about your money, or my money, but their money. We are not billionaires.

    ("Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." – quote popularly attributed to John Steinbeck)

    At first they came for the billionaires, and then we realized there were like less than 600 of them in the USA and those bastards had way more money than they could ever spend in the first place, so everyone was okay with it.

  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.

    yeah none of the people with more than 50 million dollars in income a year will vote for it, the democrats are fucked

    "Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is a trope for a reason. But I think the behavior of the ultra wealthy has been wearing it down.

    It's kind of funny because we've just waited long enough that even if the temporarily embarrassed millionaire won the lottery the would most like still be laughably poor in the context of who this wealth tax is targeting.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    "the wealth tax is less important than rebuilding america's reputation" is way more confusing to me, as an opinion, than "i just want a sensible moderate who does nothing"

    making sure people in the US don't die from poverty or lack of health care is great, but it's more important to make clear to the rest of the world that you're still the same warmongering maniacs you were before.

    If you'd read people's responses you'd note that rebuilding the US's reputation was in service to making climate agreements.

    i.e. making sure more people don't die than in those warmongering maniac's wildest dreams.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.

    yeah none of the people with more than 50 million dollars in income a year will vote for it, the democrats are fucked

    "Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is a trope for a reason. But I think the behavior of the ultra wealthy has been wearing it down.

    It's kind of funny because we've just waited long enough that even if the temporarily embarrassed millionaire won the lottery the would most like still be laughably poor in the context of who this wealth tax is targeting.

    The largest single win on a lottery in the US to date was last year, for $1.53B. The cash value payout (else it's done over 30 years) was $877M. Google says that the IRS requires ~25% to be withheld for taxes. Leaving $657M for the winner.

    First $32M, wealth tax free.
    $32M-$50M, 1% (on $18M = $180K)
    $50M-$250M, 2% (on $200M = $4M)
    $250M-$500M, 3% (on $250M = $7.5M)
    On his remaining $157M, another 6.28M).

    So the liability that first year, on those assets, is $17M. Assuming only half of his assets goes into money generation (investments, etc), he would need a return of 5% above inflation, to break even for perpetuity.

    Yeah, my heart, it isn't bleeding for this. And these are the low end of the spectrum newly rich. Bezos/Gates/Waltons/etc, of the new rich, and the decades if not centuries old wealth of the old money rich, I'm not giving a shit. If you can't have a happy life with $32M, then increasing exponentially isn't going to make you happy either.

This discussion has been closed.