Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 149348 times)

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1300 on: November 10, 2019, 02:30:35 PM »
Seems like there would be a lot of big money resistance to raising the capital gains tax beyond 15 percent.  At best a compromise would be reached.  The majority of the elected politicians after the 2020 election will still be those of whom their souls have been sold to the big money interests.

I wonder how much money we would save if we stopped the endless wars. We could fund this stuff without raising taxes. Oh wait that is exactly Tulsi's message.

Sort of.  Except sometimes there are wars you do have to fight.   We tried to stay out of WWII a pretty long time but it turned out to be a good idea to get involved.

I imagine we would not be able to stay out of a conflict with North Korea if they invaded South Korea, or nuked Japan or one of our bases or cities.

I am all for pulling back and not being world police, but it does require that everyone in the world plays nice.  We already see on a smaller scale that people don't play so nice when they know they can get away with it.   

It is easy to be anti-war when there is peace.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1301 on: November 10, 2019, 02:48:22 PM »
Seems like there would be a lot of big money resistance to raising the capital gains tax beyond 15 percent.  At best a compromise would be reached.  The majority of the elected politicians after the 2020 election will still be those of whom their souls have been sold to the big money interests.

I wonder how much money we would save if we stopped the endless wars. We could fund this stuff without raising taxes. Oh wait that is exactly Tulsi's message.

Sort of.  Except sometimes there are wars you do have to fight.   We tried to stay out of WWII a pretty long time but it turned out to be a good idea to get involved.

I imagine we would not be able to stay out of a conflict with North Korea if they invaded South Korea, or nuked Japan or one of our bases or cities.

I am all for pulling back and not being world police, but it does require that everyone in the world plays nice.  We already see on a smaller scale that people don't play so nice when they know they can get away with it.   

It is easy to be anti-war when there is peace.

I am talking about endless war like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria ...

Do you really think we are at peace now? Tell that to all the deployed soldiers.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1302 on: November 10, 2019, 02:56:45 PM »
Seven countries in five years. It was all planned ahead.

https://youtu.be/FNt7s_Wed_4

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1303 on: November 10, 2019, 02:57:40 PM »

I am talking about endless war like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria ...

Do you really think we are at peace now? Tell that to all the deployed soldiers.

No, and I hear what you are saying, but some of it, while distasteful, is needed.  It isn't even really a republican or democrat thing...Obama had eight years to get out of Afghanistan but found you can't always get what you want.

"Troop levels remained roughly constant under U.S. president Barack Obama's predecessor, former president George W. Bush, with around 30,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan.[7][8][9] In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.[10][11]

On 17 February 2009, Barack Obama ordered 17,000 more US troops be sent to Afghanistan to bolster security in the country and thereby boosted the 36,000 US troops already there by 50%.[12][13][14] "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a written statement.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1304 on: November 10, 2019, 07:35:31 PM »
Why did America need to go into Afghanistan to begin with?  It had nothing to do with 9/11 . . . I mean, 15/19 hijackers were Saudi and Osama was in Pakistan.

You think it had anything to do with Cheney's time at Haliburton and his interest in building an oil pipeline through the country?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4699
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1305 on: November 10, 2019, 07:42:45 PM »
Why did America need to go into Afghanistan to begin with?  It had nothing to do with 9/11 . . . I mean, 15/19 hijackers were Saudi and Osama was in Pakistan.

You think it had anything to do with Cheney's time at Haliburton and his interest in building an oil pipeline through the country?

Yep. Total smokescreen.

Some of us knew that then. But GOP voters said we hated America.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2707
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1306 on: November 10, 2019, 08:06:03 PM »

I am talking about endless war like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria ...

Do you really think we are at peace now? Tell that to all the deployed soldiers.

No, and I hear what you are saying, but some of it, while distasteful, is needed.  It isn't even really a republican or democrat thing...Obama had eight years to get out of Afghanistan but found you can't always get what you want.

"Troop levels remained roughly constant under U.S. president Barack Obama's predecessor, former president George W. Bush, with around 30,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan.[7][8][9] In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.[10][11]

On 17 February 2009, Barack Obama ordered 17,000 more US troops be sent to Afghanistan to bolster security in the country and thereby boosted the 36,000 US troops already there by 50%.[12][13][14] "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a written statement.

We've spent $1.8 Trillion since 9/11 on Overseas Contingency Operations. We spent around $70 Billion last year, and plan to spend $67 Billion this year.  The wars aren't nearly as manpower intensive today as they were a decade ago.  I was a part of the Afghanistan surge mentioned above. At the time there were 180,000 US troops between Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we're down to about 20,000.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1307 on: November 10, 2019, 08:37:16 PM »
Well, I guess Afghanistan has some secret strategic importance and if Afghanistan is taken over by the terrorists, Tajikistan could be next.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1308 on: November 11, 2019, 11:13:10 AM »
Re: Warren's Medicare4All and tax plans

I'll note that it really doesn't make sense to me that we don't tax "unearned" income at the same rate as "earned" income, and I'm also probably the most excited about Warren compared to the other primary candidates, so with my biases so stated, I think several pundits have made a good point that these Warren plans seem to really be secondary to her interest in government corruption. I'd really consider her as the preemininent anti-corruption candidate, and that's likely to be her first and maybe only main focus as President, at least during her first term. The problem with these M4A and tax plans is that they will need 2 things 1) the support of a majority of both houses of Congress, and it's still a slim chance that the Democrat's take the Senate in 2020, and 2) absolutely will need the end of the filibuster, since there is literally no way that Democrats reach 60 seats in the Senate. A lot of her anti-corruption agenda is in the realm of the Executive branch, and therefore will be within her power to shape.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1309 on: November 11, 2019, 11:55:33 AM »
Well, I guess Afghanistan has some secret strategic importance and if Afghanistan is taken over by the terrorists, Tajikistan could be next.

Good point. It'd be one more step to the fall of Taiwan and Japan.


RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1310 on: November 11, 2019, 01:24:31 PM »
Seems like there would be a lot of big money resistance to raising the capital gains tax beyond 15 percent.  At best a compromise would be reached.  The majority of the elected politicians after the 2020 election will still be those of whom their souls have been sold to the big money interests.

I wonder how much money we would save if we stopped the endless wars. We could fund this stuff without raising taxes. Oh wait that is exactly Tulsi's message.

There is a lot of controversy swirling around Tulsi G., so while I wouldn't put too much stock in her message or political motives.

Most recent democratic candidates have been philosophically opposed to "endless war". But at the same time I want a candidate who will use their head and adapt to the reality of their position. There is information none of these candidates have about our military positions and geopolitical climate until they step into the roll. I want them to reconsider their position and not adhere to dogma if it turns out they were wrong.

We may not like global conflict, but a world where the USA completely retreats into its shell is a world with a less stable western Europe, and more influence by totalitarian governments like those in China and Russia. Which in no way is good for us. So proxy wars will likely continue to be a reality we need to deal with, and full retreat is playing into the hands of governments like Russia who are seeking to expand their influence beyond their borders.

At the same time we need leaders who will work to stay as positively engaged as possible with Russia and China while still challenging their power grabs. To say all of our current global conflicts are wrong is a gross and dangerous over simplification of reality. And one frankly our less democratic neighbors clearly don't adhere to and wont since their leadership is fixed. Sometimes we need to engage in undesirable conflicts to ensure we don't forfeit to our adversaries.

Our current foreign policy is a disaster for global US influence and our adversaries love it. Some people also felt Obama's foreign policy was a disaster. I can't say I share that view but I don't generally have strong foreign policy views because I lack information to fairly judge any nuanced position or action. At least with Obama I could say his foreign policy was based on nuance. Though we can endlessly argue about whether he executed his diplomatic role well or chose the right policies.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1311 on: November 14, 2019, 08:49:08 AM »
Mayor Pete is picking up steam Iowa and NH. The knives will be out for him at the debate next week. Can he fend off everyone? He's smart and quick on his feet, but he's going to be getting it from Klobuchar, Harris, Bernie, Warren, and maybe Biden too.

Can you believe others are jumping in at this late stage? I'm ready for the field to narrow to Biden, Sanders, Warren, Pete, Yang, and Harris and have some real debates on policy differences instead of collections of soundbites and candidates trying to "dunk" on each other.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1312 on: November 14, 2019, 08:57:59 AM »
Mayor Pete is picking up steam Iowa and NH. The knives will be out for him at the debate next week. Can he fend off everyone? He's smart and quick on his feet, but he's going to be getting it from Klobuchar, Harris, Bernie, Warren, and maybe Biden too.

Can you believe others are jumping in at this late stage? I'm ready for the field to narrow to Biden, Sanders, Warren, Pete, Yang, and Harris and have some real debates on policy differences instead of collections of soundbites and candidates trying to "dunk" on each other.

Yeah... we don't need another billionaire to jump in. But what are you going to do? Billionaires usually come with big egos. And it shouldn't be too hard to buy 3% in the polls.

What annoys me is that Steyer and Bloomberg could use their money to win back the Senate, but instead they're blowing it in order to get what 200-300 words in the debate? I don't even remember what Steyer said. He looked like a deer in headlights.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1313 on: November 14, 2019, 09:01:18 AM »
Mayor Pete is picking up steam Iowa and NH. The knives will be out for him at the debate next week. Can he fend off everyone? He's smart and quick on his feet, but he's going to be getting it from Klobuchar, Harris, Bernie, Warren, and maybe Biden too.

Can you believe others are jumping in at this late stage? I'm ready for the field to narrow to Biden, Sanders, Warren, Pete, Yang, and Harris and have some real debates on policy differences instead of collections of soundbites and candidates trying to "dunk" on each other.

Yeah... we don't need another billionaire to jump in. But what are you going to do? Billionaires usually come with big egos. And it shouldn't be too hard to buy 3% in the polls.

What annoys me is that Steyer and Bloomberg could use their money to win back the Senate, but instead they're blowing it in order to get what 200-300 words in the debate? I don't even remember what Steyer said. He looked like a deer in headlights.

Yep. Instead of vanity campaigns, they could pour money into voter registration efforts and fund litigation to fight against voter suppression efforts. I mean, just look at Bloomberg - the man's worth what, $50 BILLION??? His money could help change the entire political structural landscape...if he was so inclined.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1314 on: November 14, 2019, 11:38:12 AM »
Right, I'd love it if someone really wealthy would use the power that wealth gives them to end the power of money in politics here in the USA. But that's a hard position to expect someone to take, especially as we are only talking about a few dozen individuals who can do it, which is why I don't put any hope on it. They'd essentially be crossing a bridge that many before them have used, and then blowing it up behind them, and that won't win them many friends or allies among the elite. And we've seen that Steyer and Bloomberg seem more interested in "saving" the Democratic party from itself first and foremost, with maybe saving democracy and/or the planet a distant second.

In my opinion, being President should be a shit job, one that only those of us with the highest calling to service and duty to the law should ever want to reach for. The fact that already powerful people, celebrities, etc. seem to come out of the woodwork at the possibility tells me we've let the power and prestige of the position grow too much. I don't hold out much hope that the USA will ever go for a parliamentary-style arrangement, but I'm definitely for reforms that revert more of the power of national government back to Congress, and away from both the executive and to a lesser extent judicial branches, and that's something that would be worth spending personal billions on.

I don't read biographies or frankly know or care much about the people in the billionaire class, but it says something that there appear to be very few Gates and Buffetts, and even among those few, there isn't much appetite to rock the political/social boat in any real way. Probably history will look back on their philanthropy regarding malaria, etc. as ultimately more important that an alternative fiction where they used that wealth to save American democracy, but in the heat of the current moment, I too wonder if this isn't a wasted opportunity. Then again, something earned through mass demonstration and consciousness is probably more lasting than something given by the elite.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2892
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1315 on: November 14, 2019, 02:11:13 PM »
Running for President and being President are different.

A lot of people run for President to enhance their brands.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1316 on: November 14, 2019, 06:57:52 PM »
Running for President and being President are different.

A lot of people run for President to enhance their brands.

Yes - and don't overlook who is paying for their PR and advertising to pay for that enhancement.  Many of us can be fooled into buying a bad product by talented sales forces.  Which product is best for you?

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1317 on: November 15, 2019, 04:07:55 AM »
now Sanders is coming up with some crazy tax scheme to increase tax on companies who pay their CEO too much more than the workers.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/lawmakers-want-to-penalize-companies-for-outrageous-ceo-pay-205334224.html


What about extending that to sports teams?   Why does one player on a football team get millions while another player might only make $300,000 a year?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2892
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1318 on: November 15, 2019, 08:49:15 AM »
I'm in favor of that.

Provided it's NCAA football teams.


Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1319 on: November 15, 2019, 08:54:56 AM »
We can extend it past sports teams and into all aspects of work.

Why does Taylor Swift make $100 million or whatever per year and Patty Beck singing at the local pub in town only makes $20,000?

Why does a plastic surgeon make $600,000 per year and a janitor at the hospital only makes $30,000?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1320 on: November 15, 2019, 09:30:57 AM »
now Sanders is coming up with some crazy tax scheme to increase tax on companies who pay their CEO too much more than the workers.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/lawmakers-want-to-penalize-companies-for-outrageous-ceo-pay-205334224.html


What about extending that to sports teams?   Why does one player on a football team get millions while another player might only make $300,000 a year?

I'm not sure that the easily measurable benefit/advantage of physical prowess in sports is directly comparable to the amorphous possible benefit that a given CEO brings to a company.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1321 on: November 15, 2019, 09:46:01 AM »
I'm not sure that the easily measurable benefit/advantage of physical prowess in sports is directly comparable to the amorphous possible benefit that a given CEO brings to a company.

If Elon Musk were to step down from Tesla, the company would instantly drop billions in market cap.

This would seem to place a higher value on Elon than a worker on one of his battery assembly lines.

YoungGranny

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1322 on: November 15, 2019, 09:46:21 AM »
Meh I think the CEO pay is an interesting point. So back in 1965 the average CEO compensation compared to typical worker compensation was 20-to-1, in 1989 it was 58-to-1 and in 2018 it was 278-to-1. I think it's one thing if you are the CEO who started a company (take Bill Gates). He built it from nothing and his early shares exploded, high risk, high reward. But for other CEO's to walk into a well oiled machine and make as much it's a slippery slope to income inequality. Plus, if the CEO leaves a company (as Bill Gates did) it almost always still survives because at some point that person is only as good as the sum of the parts (ie all the worker bees).

Hard to compare to sports or singers because essentially Taylor Swift is her own corporation and the face of it, without her the sum of the parts would not be successful because there would be no new music so no more sales. I think that comparison would be more in line if we were trying to set CEO pay in relation to other CEO's. So, if Starbucks does better than Dunkin Donuts in a given year, then salaries or bonuses will be higher. (ie when Taylor Swiftt sells more albums than Patty Beck her bonus is higher). I think the point is that the CEO shouldn't get ALL of the profit sharing to line his pockets and instead should reward other employees for a job well done.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1323 on: November 15, 2019, 10:06:00 AM »
I'm not sure that the easily measurable benefit/advantage of physical prowess in sports is directly comparable to the amorphous possible benefit that a given CEO brings to a company.

If Elon Musk were to step down from Tesla, the company would instantly drop billions in market cap.

This would seem to place a higher value on Elon than a worker on one of his battery assembly lines.

I agree with you on that.  I'd also argue that Musk is a special case.  The company's marketability is built mostly on an idea of who he is, rather than the product or numbers that they produce.

Most companies would not drop billions in market cap because one CEO was swapped for another one.

I'd never argue that a CEO should make the same amount as a jr employee in a minimum wage position.  But I also feel that CEO salaries that are three hundred times what an average employee is making are out of line.  There's a happy medium somewhere between the two.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1324 on: November 15, 2019, 10:06:35 AM »
Hot off the press: Warren Medicare For All transition plan was released today!
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1325 on: November 15, 2019, 10:10:09 AM »
We can extend it past sports teams and into all aspects of work.

Why does Taylor Swift make $100 million or whatever per year and Patty Beck singing at the local pub in town only makes $20,000?

Why does a plastic surgeon make $600,000 per year and a janitor at the hospital only makes $30,000?

You are the King of bad analogies.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1326 on: November 15, 2019, 10:19:04 AM »
The CEOs are today's kings and we toil for them.  Fellas it's just the way capitalism works,.......until it breaks.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1327 on: November 15, 2019, 10:21:42 AM »
Meh I think the CEO pay is an interesting point. So back in 1965 the average CEO compensation compared to typical worker compensation was 20-to-1, in 1989 it was 58-to-1 and in 2018 it was 278-to-1. I think it's one thing if you are the CEO who started a company (take Bill Gates). He built it from nothing and his early shares exploded, high risk, high reward. But for other CEO's to walk into a well oiled machine and make as much it's a slippery slope to income inequality. Plus, if the CEO leaves a company (as Bill Gates did) it almost always still survives because at some point that person is only as good as the sum of the parts (ie all the worker bees).

Other countries with multinationals, like Japan and Germany, pay their CEOs much less. It was 67:1 in Japan in 2012. Somehow, Honda and Toyota compete in the world marketplace even with subpar leadership.

Paying the CEO is a symptom of the exec comp committees being stacked with the CEO's cronies and (fellow CEO) peers. You scratch my back and I'll scratch mine.

YoungGranny

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1328 on: November 15, 2019, 11:03:43 AM »

Other countries with multinationals, like Japan and Germany, pay their CEOs much less. It was 67:1 in Japan in 2012. Somehow, Honda and Toyota compete in the world marketplace even with subpar leadership.

Paying the CEO is a symptom of the exec comp committees being stacked with the CEO's cronies and (fellow CEO) peers. You scratch my back and I'll scratch mine.


Totally agree. Plus it starts to spread and the entire C-level suite makes ridiculous money (CFO, CTO, etc) while pay freezes hit the middle-income workers of a company (happened at the first job I was at).

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1329 on: November 15, 2019, 12:10:56 PM »

You are the King of bad analogies.

No, you just think that because you don't perceive the value of something, it must not be there.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1330 on: November 15, 2019, 12:37:01 PM »
Hot off the press: Warren Medicare For All transition plan was released today!
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition
I got to the "I have put out a plan to fully finance Medicare for All when it’s up and running without raising taxes on the middle class by one penny" part and then stopped reading. It appears that she's so afraid of being hit with a "you'll raise taxes" soundbite that she's completely given up on the more believable "your taxes will go up, but costs will go down" espoused by Sanders.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1331 on: November 15, 2019, 12:40:00 PM »

You are the King of bad analogies.

No, you just think that because you don't perceive the value of something, it must not be there.

We're in agreement that the proposed tax law is a bad idea. In my opinion the pay disparity is a problem but I think using this somewhat arbitrary system of taxation would be an emotional reaction to the symptom rather than fixing the underlying problem.

But seriously, that's a bad analogy.

I can think of a lot of reasons that these two examples are very different, but the primary one would probably be the way they arrived at that income. A musician makes millions because millions of people decided that they liked the music and chose to give their money for it. A CEO makes millions because a small number of people (with potentially perverse incentives) on a board decided they should.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1332 on: November 15, 2019, 01:34:44 PM »
There is an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Warren's taxes may add up to more than 100% for some people.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1333 on: November 15, 2019, 01:43:39 PM »
There is an article in the Wall Street Journal about how Warren's taxes may add up to more than 100% for some people.

100% of what?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1334 on: November 15, 2019, 03:44:05 PM »
Investment gains

Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1335 on: November 15, 2019, 05:06:57 PM »
Investment gains

Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

Damn.  How will those poor billionaires afford 95$?

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1336 on: November 15, 2019, 05:11:32 PM »

Damn.  How will those poor billionaires afford 95$?

Attacking the rich and vilifying them is really only a good strategy during a revolution.   If a Democrat wants to actually not throw the 2020 election to Trump, they would do well to not alienate all of the people who actually have money to spend to help them get elected.

Selling Billionaire Crying mugs is not really a great way to do this and really seems more of a Trump type of tactic.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1337 on: November 15, 2019, 07:04:12 PM »

Damn.  How will those poor billionaires afford 95$?

Attacking the rich and vilifying them is really only a good strategy during a revolution.   If a Democrat wants to actually not throw the 2020 election to Trump, they would do well to not alienate all of the people who actually have money to spend to help them get elected.

Selling Billionaire Crying mugs is not really a great way to do this and really seems more of a Trump type of tactic.

Trump ain't no revolutionary. He's just a rich stooge playing president.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1338 on: November 15, 2019, 07:11:47 PM »
Trump ain't no revolutionary. He's just a rich stooge playing president.

Who said Trump was a revolutionary?

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1339 on: November 15, 2019, 10:00:06 PM »

 - SNIP -

Attacking the rich and vilifying them is really only a good strategy during a revolution.   If a Democrat wants to actually not throw the 2020 election to Trump, they would do well to not alienate all of the people who actually have money to spend to help them get elected.

Selling Billionaire Crying mugs is not really a great way to do this and really seems more of a Trump type of tactic.

Bernie's organization is "Our Revolution."  Seems like he is doing quite well money wise without the fat cats.

However, the rich people own the media and can mold public opinion.  If his popularity reaches a certain level, it will be like a switch is triggered and he will be sold as public enemy #1.  Warren may also scare the rich folks.  Stories may come out just before an election to ensure the public will vote the proper way.  There really is "fake news."

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1340 on: November 15, 2019, 10:04:46 PM »
Investment gains

Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

A wealth tax is not a tax on investment gains. Why would the percent relative to investment gains be relevant?

If I own enough property that my property taxes are greater then my total income, would you say I'm paying over 100% taxes?

I'm not in favor of Warren's plan and I have reservations about a wealth tax in general, but I don't understand this argument. Or rather, I do understand that the point of this argument is to provide a headline that people can grab onto and be outraged by, but I don't think it's a sound argument.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1341 on: November 16, 2019, 05:00:58 AM »
In another thread it looks like the Netherlands has a reasonable wealth tax, except that it starts at a level that many of us on this forum have reached.

They tax your invested wealth with a fictitious gain, which works out to be a yearly tax on investments of something around 1.3% to 1.6% depending on the bracket.

The trick here is they don't have a capital gains tax.

In the USA, we have a pretty big capital gains tax, varying from 0% to 39% depending on short vs long term and your tax bracket.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1342 on: November 16, 2019, 10:47:01 AM »
Investment gains

Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

Damn.  How will those poor billionaires afford 95$?

Poor early retirees, they should have to work until 62.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1343 on: November 16, 2019, 11:11:42 AM »

Poor early retirees, they should have to work until 62.

Exactly.   This is what strikes me as kind of amusing when you see people on MMM sort of laughing at the billionaires.   We really should not be allowed to retire at 30 or 35 or what have you.   If you consider the effort society put into training a person until they are 22, getting just 8 to 13 years of work out of that person is silly ridiculous and is not sustainable if everyone were put on equal footing.

The only reason some of us are able to retire so early is because other people are forced to work until they are 50 or 60 (or longer)

Until we get robots to do everything....which is coming I guess.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1344 on: November 16, 2019, 01:12:41 PM »
"Until we get robots to do everything....which is coming I guess."

For many years they've been saying that leisure time will increase with the increase in technology.  Labor saving devices were to decrease the amount people have to work.  Yet today, a lot of people have to work over 40 hours a week.  Women used to stay home and watch the kids.  Now, they work.  Many people have no retirement savings.

Just seems like it is going the other way.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1345 on: November 16, 2019, 02:47:18 PM »

Poor early retirees, they should have to work until 62.

Exactly.   This is what strikes me as kind of amusing when you see people on MMM sort of laughing at the billionaires.   We really should not be allowed to retire at 30 or 35 or what have you.   If you consider the effort society put into training a person until they are 22, getting just 8 to 13 years of work out of that person is silly ridiculous and is not sustainable if everyone were put on equal footing.

The only reason some of us are able to retire so early is because other people are forced to work until they are 50 or 60 (or longer)

Until we get robots to do everything....which is coming I guess.

Actually I think this would be sustainable, but ideally those 16,000 to 26,000 hours would be spread out over a normal career length. Unfortunately it's very difficult to find this arrangement with an employer, especially in higher paying jobs, so mustachians save up a lot quickly and live off the interest instead.

And very few people are retiring at 30-35. I think those who do realize it's a rare privilege. 40 to 55 seems much more common. based on this poll:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/age-at-fire/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1346 on: November 16, 2019, 04:24:38 PM »
"Until we get robots to do everything....which is coming I guess."

For many years they've been saying that leisure time will increase with the increase in technology.  Labor saving devices were to decrease the amount people have to work.  Yet today, a lot of people have to work over 40 hours a week.  Women used to stay home and watch the kids.  Now, they work.  Many people have no retirement savings.

Just seems like it is going the other way.

That's because people are more productive than ever before, but share less in the products of their labour than in most periods of history.  It's a large part of the reason that billionaires even exist today.  But it's really important that we pretend that a guy with a billion dollars operate under the same rules that the rest of us do because . . . something something communism?

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1347 on: November 16, 2019, 04:33:40 PM »

That's because people are more productive than ever before, but share less in the products of their labour than in most periods of history.  It's a large part of the reason that billionaires even exist today.  But it's really important that we pretend that a guy with a billion dollars operate under the same rules that the rest of us do because . . . something something communism?

This is quite a load of BS.

The poorest of workers today live with way more luxuries than workers did in most periods of history.   Except for very recent history, laborers rarely could read, had to get up at 6am and work sometimes until dark, six days a week.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1348 on: November 16, 2019, 04:57:17 PM »

That's because people are more productive than ever before, but share less in the products of their labour than in most periods of history.  It's a large part of the reason that billionaires even exist today.  But it's really important that we pretend that a guy with a billion dollars operate under the same rules that the rest of us do because . . . something something communism?

This is quite a load of BS.

The poorest of workers today live with way more luxuries than workers did in most periods of history.   Except for very recent history, laborers rarely could read, had to get up at 6am and work sometimes until dark, six days a week.

Pay no attention to the giant pile of money behind the curtain.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14653
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1349 on: November 16, 2019, 05:15:12 PM »

That's because people are more productive than ever before, but share less in the products of their labour than in most periods of history.  It's a large part of the reason that billionaires even exist today.  But it's really important that we pretend that a guy with a billion dollars operate under the same rules that the rest of us do because . . . something something communism?

This is quite a load of BS.

The poorest of workers today live with way more luxuries than workers did in most periods of history.   Except for very recent history, laborers rarely could read, had to get up at 6am and work sometimes until dark, six days a week.

The average standard of living has certainly improved.  I agree with you completely on that point - we have a lot to be thankful for.  The disparity of wealth between the richest and the poorest, or hell . . . even between the richest and the median salary has steadily increased though.  Mechanization, computerization, and automation are not benefitting everyone equally.  The radically increasing productivity is disproportionately benefitting the ultra-wealthy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the dregs that the ultra-wealthy have bestowed on us.  But thanks to these dregs I'm educated enough to see how unfair (and unsustainable) the current process of wealth accumulation in our system today is.