Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277122 times)

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1400 on: November 18, 2019, 11:00:43 AM »
The big question to me is, are people cool with you being required to sell of something you have simply to pay the government to exist here? This is the heart of the issue with me. It only gets more complicated with Warren's nutso ideas of taxation on unrealized capital gain appreciation. Man I hope Pete gets the nomination...
Considering every state charges property taxes, which you pay directly if you own and indirectly if you rent, it would seem that the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1401 on: November 18, 2019, 11:06:43 AM »
...snip

I can see that property tax is not as related to income as income tax is, of course. However, to be frank, it's still tax; that's pretty clear too... You are still expressing the sentiment that I'm talking about, which I believe I was pretty clear on - that if the government taxes in whatever the capacity is more than what you actually generate in liquid money that year, that's a serious problem. That's not a bad logic argument, it's pretty dang straight forward - the government took from you more than you generated in liquid money that year.  I could have copied plenty of people on it - FIPurpose, bwall (from the other Warren tax thread), etc. but I copied you because you more clearly than anyone else expressed that you see literally no issue whatsoever with the government taking more wealth than you generate liquidly per year. You expressed it clearly, but again, plenty of others seem not just to see it as an unfortunate necessity because otherwise things will simply be so far tilted as to cause sever problems. It feels to me like it's well beyond that into the punitive nature of it - into the screw them they're rich, we don't like them territory. They're not saints, and I understand the frustration, but to piggy back a little bit off of what others are saying on this thread who are talking against the wealth tax - even if it's only for selfish reasons for people pursuing FI, punitive measures for those who have more don't typically stop at a couple of ultra billionaires. Anyone on here really pursuing FI will almost certainly appear pretty much in need of punitive measures if we pursue this route as a country.

So you think that someone who has zero income in a given year should pay no property, sales, gas, or any other tax? These taxes, like a wealth tax, are all unrelated to income, so by your logic it is a serious problem that they must pay any form of tax whatsoever.

Also, you didn't answer this question
If I own property worth $10 million and pay a property tax of 1% then I owe $100,000 in taxes. If my income is less than $100,000, would you say I'm paying >100% taxes?

Last question first, yes I would consider it that they were paying >100% taxes, but that's more verbiage/semantics to me. If someone makes no income in the year, yes, I have a philosophical problem with them being required to pay those taxes. In that situation for them to actually exist (i.e. not a theoretical construct for an argument), they would have to have worked and saved up money, already paid tax and not be making income off of that money in the present that they are spending, the equivalent of having it under their mattress and pulling it out to pay for their food and being charged for it. The big question to me is, are people cool with you being required to sell of something you have simply to pay the government to exist here? This is the heart of the issue with me. It only gets more complicated with Warren's nutso ideas of taxation on unrealized capital gain appreciation. Man I hope Pete gets the nomination...

But there are reasons we pay a property tax, to pay for services associated with the property like roads to access it and fire departments to protect it. Do those reasons cease to exist when someone has no income?

As for needing to sell something in order to pay the tax bill, the same issue can occur with property taxes or even income taxes if someone is paying too little throughout the year and plans poorly.

A wealth tax has more justifiable reasoning behind it than 'paying the government to exist here' as I've detailed in my previous post. It seems many people take the existence of currency and the costs to maintain it for granted.

We may have taken a different route to get there, but I'm pulling for Pete too at the moment.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 12:45:08 PM by Davnasty »

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1402 on: November 18, 2019, 12:29:58 PM »
Lots of discussion over the weekend, why can't you all just read on weekdays like me so that I can keep up?!

We all need to remember that this is a primary, not a general election.

Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more? I really feel that I don't understand the commenters who keep describing certain taxes as theft, or taking, and who describe wealth as "earned". Markets are social creations, grounded mostly in law, as well as some tradition and force. No one is arguing for confiscation here, yet that's what some keep claiming. Instead, some are suggesting that the old rules may have unexpected consequences, many negative, and that a change may be needed to eliminate those while keeping the benefits that we all mostly agree about.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1403 on: November 18, 2019, 01:21:41 PM »
Rich people for whom a wealth tax would have any relevance have found ways to give heirs their money and avoid the estate tax.
One such method is to form a Family Limited Partnership, in which the heirs were limited partners.
I know members of a rich New York City commercial real estate family, not the Dursts, but an equivalent family. These members of the family got salary from a Trust. The Trust is a way to continue the wealth of the family and avoid the estate tax.
A wealth tax is one way to even the playing field of taxation by making the super rich pay some more.
Additionally, our democracy is being threatened by wealthy individuals, the Koch brothers for example, and by moneyed interests, like corporations.
I see a wealth tax as decreasing some of the wealth inequality and thereby also preventing these wealthy people from distorting our government to bend to their interests.
If there's one message that really resonates with me about Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders it is their desire to prevent our political system from being corrupted by the billionaires and super rich corporations.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4524
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1404 on: November 18, 2019, 01:27:36 PM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?

I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.

It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1405 on: November 18, 2019, 02:20:54 PM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?
I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.
It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).
Perhaps it might work, but some people are assholes, and for transaction costs and perhaps a slight premium you could evict anyone from their own home. Giving people that power would not be good.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1406 on: November 18, 2019, 02:24:45 PM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?

I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.

It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).

I don't think so. I think if that were to happen, you'd quickly find private equity groups that would be built around finding people trying to undervalue their property. I imagine whole hedge funds would be created around finding deals where people undervalue their belongings.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1407 on: November 19, 2019, 06:11:31 AM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?
I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.
It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).
Perhaps it might work, but some people are assholes, and for transaction costs and perhaps a slight premium you could evict anyone from their own home. Giving people that power would not be good.

Yes, wouldn't that be weird.  You wouldn't feel like you ever owned or controlled your own property.  Ew.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1408 on: November 19, 2019, 09:13:04 AM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?
I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.
It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).
Perhaps it might work, but some people are assholes, and for transaction costs and perhaps a slight premium you could evict anyone from their own home. Giving people that power would not be good.

Yes, wouldn't that be weird.  You wouldn't feel like you ever owned or controlled your own property.  Ew.

You don't control your own property now.  You're not allowed to cook meth on your own property.  You're not allowed to sell knock off Nike stuff on your own property.  You're not allowed to keep slaves - even if they're only on your property.  And if you fail to pay taxes, you will eventually lose your property.

It's a myth that you ever really own or control property.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1409 on: November 19, 2019, 09:20:41 AM »
Re: property/wealth tax difficulties, what about a self-assessed taxation scheme, something like what's called the Harberger tax? Declare the value of your wealth, pay a small tax on it, and then be prepared to sell if someone agrees to pay you more?
I've long thought a scheme like this would work with property values and lazy county/municipal appraisers.
It might not work with high dollar property though. It seems like we'd get into the same situation as CEO pay, where an informal cabal of peers helps each other out to make more money (or, in this case, to save money).
Perhaps it might work, but some people are assholes, and for transaction costs and perhaps a slight premium you could evict anyone from their own home. Giving people that power would not be good.

Yes, wouldn't that be weird.  You wouldn't feel like you ever owned or controlled your own property.  Ew.

You don't control your own property now.  You're not allowed to cook meth on your own property.  You're not allowed to sell knock off Nike stuff on your own property.  You're not allowed to keep slaves - even if they're only on your property.  And if you fail to pay taxes, you will eventually lose your property.

It's a myth that you ever really own or control property.

Agreed, but I think there's still a big difference between those limitations and the ability for anyone with enough money to be able to force you out of your home or for businesses to buy up their competitors. It's an interesting thought in that it would incentivize people to be honest about the value of their property but I see too many flaws for it to be a practical solution.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1410 on: November 19, 2019, 09:21:43 AM »

You don't control your own property now.  You're not allowed to cook meth on your own property.  You're not allowed to sell knock off Nike stuff on your own property.  You're not allowed to keep slaves - even if they're only on your property.  And if you fail to pay taxes, you will eventually lose your property.

It's a myth that you ever really own or control property.

It actually is far worse than that.   In Washington state you can't even operate a snowmobile entirely on your own property if that snowmobile is not registered.  You can't build or remodel on your own property without getting various approvals inspections and permits.  If you have a pool, you have to have a certain type of fence or locking cover even if you have no kids.

Most of it is based on rules and protections but sometimes it does make one question why they even try to claim to own something.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1411 on: November 19, 2019, 09:44:52 AM »
I think most suggestions about this type of tax revolves more around patents, IP, or for only high net worth individuals rather than personal homes. This would obviously be a terrible idea for personal homes as poor people would be far more vulnerable to predatory purchasing.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4524
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1412 on: November 19, 2019, 09:57:43 AM »
I think most suggestions about this type of tax revolves more around patents, IP, or for only high net worth individuals rather than personal homes. This would obviously be a terrible idea for personal homes as poor people would be far more vulnerable to predatory purchasing.

This tax method usually has the stipulation that if you accept the appraisal district's offer, your property is safe. It's only when you try and cheap out does the risk arise.

cari8285

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1413 on: November 19, 2019, 02:15:30 PM »
A wealth tax is one way to even the playing field of taxation by making the super rich pay some more.
Additionally, our democracy is being threatened by wealthy individuals, the Koch brothers for example, and by moneyed interests, like corporations.
I see a wealth tax as decreasing some of the wealth inequality and thereby also preventing these wealthy people from distorting our government to bend to their interests.
If there's one message that really resonates with me about Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders it is their desire to prevent our political system from being corrupted by the billionaires and super rich corporations.

+1

I am really in favor of doing something about wealth inequality. Warren and Sanders are my personal top picks for a variety of reasons, but one of the main reasons is their sincerity in fighting for working class Americans. At the end of the day, I'll vote for whoever ends up running against Trump, but the fact that Sanders has been able to raise so much money and appeal to so many people without the help of big corporations and rich people? What other candidates have been able to successfully do this?

Anyways, also posting because I want to follow this discussion. You all are some seriously smart people, and I've been able to learn a lot from this thread.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1414 on: November 19, 2019, 06:47:06 PM »
...snip

I can see that property tax is not as related to income as income tax is, of course. However, to be frank, it's still tax; that's pretty clear too... You are still expressing the sentiment that I'm talking about, which I believe I was pretty clear on - that if the government taxes in whatever the capacity is more than what you actually generate in liquid money that year, that's a serious problem. That's not a bad logic argument, it's pretty dang straight forward - the government took from you more than you generated in liquid money that year.  I could have copied plenty of people on it - FIPurpose, bwall (from the other Warren tax thread), etc. but I copied you because you more clearly than anyone else expressed that you see literally no issue whatsoever with the government taking more wealth than you generate liquidly per year. You expressed it clearly, but again, plenty of others seem not just to see it as an unfortunate necessity because otherwise things will simply be so far tilted as to cause sever problems. It feels to me like it's well beyond that into the punitive nature of it - into the screw them they're rich, we don't like them territory. They're not saints, and I understand the frustration, but to piggy back a little bit off of what others are saying on this thread who are talking against the wealth tax - even if it's only for selfish reasons for people pursuing FI, punitive measures for those who have more don't typically stop at a couple of ultra billionaires. Anyone on here really pursuing FI will almost certainly appear pretty much in need of punitive measures if we pursue this route as a country.

So you think that someone who has zero income in a given year should pay no property, sales, gas, or any other tax? These taxes, like a wealth tax, are all unrelated to income, so by your logic it is a serious problem that they must pay any form of tax whatsoever.

Also, you didn't answer this question
If I own property worth $10 million and pay a property tax of 1% then I owe $100,000 in taxes. If my income is less than $100,000, would you say I'm paying >100% taxes?

Last question first, yes I would consider it that they were paying >100% taxes, but that's more verbiage/semantics to me. If someone makes no income in the year, yes, I have a philosophical problem with them being required to pay those taxes. In that situation for them to actually exist (i.e. not a theoretical construct for an argument), they would have to have worked and saved up money, already paid tax and not be making income off of that money in the present that they are spending, the equivalent of having it under their mattress and pulling it out to pay for their food and being charged for it. The big question to me is, are people cool with you being required to sell of something you have simply to pay the government to exist here? This is the heart of the issue with me. It only gets more complicated with Warren's nutso ideas of taxation on unrealized capital gain appreciation. Man I hope Pete gets the nomination...

But there are reasons we pay a property tax, to pay for services associated with the property like roads to access it and fire departments to protect it. Do those reasons cease to exist when someone has no income?

As for needing to sell something in order to pay the tax bill, the same issue can occur with property taxes or even income taxes if someone is paying too little throughout the year and plans poorly.

A wealth tax has more justifiable reasoning behind it than 'paying the government to exist here' as I've detailed in my previous post. It seems many people take the existence of currency and the costs to maintain it for granted.

We may have taken a different route to get there, but I'm pulling for Pete too at the moment.

Cheers to that.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1415 on: November 20, 2019, 02:32:14 AM »
A wealth tax has more justifiable reasoning behind it than 'paying the government to exist here' as I've detailed in my previous post. It seems many people take the existence of currency and the costs to maintain it for granted.


Except the wealth tax is not being proposed to cover the costs of "maintaining currency".  It is being proposed to provide "Medicare for all", and re-distribute assets.

We should not pay the government so we can exist, the government should only exist to serve the people, and only in ways that the people are not able to serve themselves.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1416 on: November 20, 2019, 07:14:06 AM »
A wealth tax has more justifiable reasoning behind it than 'paying the government to exist here' as I've detailed in my previous post. It seems many people take the existence of currency and the costs to maintain it for granted.


Except the wealth tax is not being proposed to cover the costs of "maintaining currency".  It is being proposed to provide "Medicare for all", and re-distribute assets.

We should not pay the government so we can exist, the government should only exist to serve the people, and only in ways that the people are not able to serve themselves.

Irrelevant. Does every other tax go only towards what it relates to?

But if that's how you feel, would you accept that a wealth tax is justified if every dollar was earmarked to pay for the maintenance and protection of currency?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1417 on: November 20, 2019, 07:19:45 AM »
We're already operating the currency without a wealth tax. Why do we need more tax to provide existing services, and what is your estimated annual cost of operating the currency? 

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1418 on: November 20, 2019, 08:04:56 AM »
We're already operating the currency without a wealth tax. Why do we need more tax to provide existing services, and what is your estimated annual cost of operating the currency?

That doesn't answer the question, it's hypothetical. If the money was needed to maintain the currency, would a wealth tax have justification?

As a reminder, at no point have I argued in favor of Warren's plan. I'm mostly against it, but for practical reasons, not because I fundamentally disagree with a wealth tax. My arguments have been centered around refuting the idea that a wealth tax has no justification.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1419 on: November 20, 2019, 05:32:43 PM »
Hmmmmmm,.....wealth tax.  Government needs money to pay for the stuff promised to the citizens.

The best rationale for a wealth tax has been provided by Willie Sutton.

When asked why do you rob banks, Willie a bank robber replied, "Because that's where the money is".

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1420 on: November 20, 2019, 08:27:00 PM »
I just had a good chuckle listening to Buttigieg criticizing Trump's 17th century foreign policy strategy of using alligators in moats around a wall.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1421 on: November 21, 2019, 05:52:22 AM »
I just had a good chuckle listening to Buttigieg criticizing Trump's 17th century foreign policy strategy of using alligators in moats around a wall.

Trump only wants to use alligators because angry seabass are not sustainable.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3266
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1422 on: November 21, 2019, 07:07:08 AM »
Hmmmmmm,.....wealth tax.  Government needs money to pay for the stuff promised to the citizens.

The best rationale for a wealth tax has been provided by Willie Sutton.

When asked why do you rob banks, Willie a bank robber replied, "Because that's where the money is".

Suppose we are starting from today, with no new major government programs (if it helps, imagine that a Republican Senate will block m4all or whatever).

Would you implement a wealth tax as your only policy? (in other words, do you feel like the budget deficit is a big enough problem that using a wealth tax to shrink it makes sense?)

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1423 on: November 21, 2019, 07:51:13 AM »
We all know that to kill debt you need to increase income or control spending, or both.
If you don't control your spending you will get absolutely nowhere.
It sounds like candidates want to SPEND a wealth tax, NOT pay down debt.  So let's not pretend otherwise.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 07:54:02 AM by KBecks »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1424 on: November 21, 2019, 08:17:51 AM »
Seeing as M4A saves trillions of dollars, I would see that as priority over any wealth tax. Warren only had to come up with a plan because every debate was filled with "But but but how you gonna pay for it?" Sometimes government spending is the cheapest way to spend money.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5279
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1425 on: November 21, 2019, 08:26:12 AM »
I just had a good chuckle listening to Buttigieg criticizing Trump's 17th century foreign policy strategy of using alligators in moats around a wall.

Trump only wants to use alligators because angry seabass are not sustainable.
He could breed the sea bass to use in his hotels.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1426 on: November 21, 2019, 08:42:17 AM »
We all know that to kill debt you need to increase income or control spending, or both.
If you don't control your spending you will get absolutely nowhere.
It sounds like candidates want to SPEND a wealth tax, NOT pay down debt.  So let's not pretend otherwise.

And we all know that every single time in modern history that Republicans have been in power (since Reagan and beyond) they always spend more and tax less, thereby creating the debt in the first place.
They only pretend to care about paying down the debt when talking about Democrats.
It sounds like Democrats are the only fiscally responsible party, and that PAYING for your spending is miles ahead of NOT PAYING for your spending like Republicans do. So let's not pretend otherwise.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 08:45:53 AM by sherr »

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1427 on: November 21, 2019, 09:04:03 AM »
We're already operating the currency without a wealth tax. Why do we need more tax to provide existing services, and what is your estimated annual cost of operating the currency?

That doesn't answer the question, it's hypothetical. If the money was needed to maintain the currency, would a wealth tax have justification?

As a reminder, at no point have I argued in favor of Warren's plan. I'm mostly against it, but for practical reasons, not because I fundamentally disagree with a wealth tax. My arguments have been centered around refuting the idea that a wealth tax has no justification.
We all know that to kill debt you need to increase income or control spending, or both.
If you don't control your spending you will get absolutely nowhere.
It sounds like candidates want to SPEND a wealth tax, NOT pay down debt.  So let's not pretend otherwise.

Again, my argument has nothing to do with any politician or any of their plans. You and others have claimed that a wealth tax is fundamentally unjustified and/or unfair. I'm arguing against that idea.

Based on your attempts to change the subject rather than acknowledge the points I've made or answer my direct questions, I'll have to assume you have no counter argument. We can leave it at that.

If anyone else has an argument as to why a wealth tax is unjustified and/or unfair, I'm more than open to it. I've enjoyed thinking this through and reading up on the topic and I'm not committed to my current conclusion. If there really are logical arguments against the points I've made I'd be interested in hearing them.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1428 on: November 21, 2019, 09:24:38 AM »
The flaw is thinking that taxes (or life for that matter) must be fair.

As a society we can pretty much do whatever the majority wants to do, fair or not fair.   We may suffer consequences for it, but whatever.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1429 on: November 21, 2019, 09:32:57 AM »
The flaw is thinking that taxes (or life for that matter) must be fair.

As a society we can pretty much do whatever the majority wants to do, fair or not fair.   We may suffer consequences for it, but whatever.

I don't think that taxes or life must be fair. In fact I believe forced fairness would be detrimental to society.

Once again, I do not support a wealth tax for the US at the moment because I see too many practical barriers. I do however, disagree with the idea that a wealth tax is unfair or that it is a "tax on existing".

As far as what legislation I do support, I tend to look for what will bring the best results for the most people with fairness as a secondary (but still important) consideration.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1430 on: November 21, 2019, 09:52:34 AM »
Ok, so who watched the debate last night?

My takeaways:

1) Biden is just...dreadful. Not just at debating, but at putting even one sentence together without fumbling or screwing up. When you compare him to the sharp wits of Booker, Pete, Harris, etc., it makes Biden look even worse. I like Booker, but him scoring points Biden almost felt too easy, like Biden couldn't land a glove on him in a million years (even if he keeps saying, "keep punching!")

2) Bernie, Pete, Warren, Klob, Booker, Harris all came away, to me, looking like candidates I would feel very comfortable with as the Dem nominee. I don't think Biden will be the nom, and I think the nom will come from one of these half-dozen, so I am content. From an articulation standpoint, I think any combination of Harris, Pete, and Booker would be devastatingly effective against the GOP.

3) Gabbard looks great in a white pants suit, but other than that...? I don't know why she's even there. Just to bash the party?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1431 on: November 21, 2019, 10:39:07 AM »
1) I agree how is Biden still polling at 30%? I have to imagine that after Iowa/NH where he will come in 4th place, his national support will plummet.

2) The questions were terrible. Why are we asking questions about Trump getting booed at the World Series? Don't care.

3) Gabbard I think will score a few points, but yeah I think she's capped at 5% at most. She'll never be a top contender.

4) So why did they have Klobuchar talk so much in the first half? It seems like someone in the media really really wants Klobuchar to take off. They also gave pretty much equal talking time to most of the people there. Why? Why are candidates that still can't break 2% after 4 other debates getting as much talking time as the leaders? Does the DNC want to make sure that Biden has as little talking time as possible? Heck, even Steyer talked more than Yang. Though I have to wonder if that's Yang's fault more than the moderators.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5186
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1432 on: November 21, 2019, 10:50:46 AM »
1) I agree how is Biden still polling at 30%? I have to imagine that after Iowa/NH where he will come in 4th place, his national support will plummet.

2) The questions were terrible. Why are we asking questions about Trump getting booed at the World Series? Don't care.

3) Gabbard I think will score a few points, but yeah I think she's capped at 5% at most. She'll never be a top contender.

4) So why did they have Klobuchar talk so much in the first half? It seems like someone in the media really really wants Klobuchar to take off. They also gave pretty much equal talking time to most of the people there. Why? Why are candidates that still can't break 2% after 4 other debates getting as much talking time as the leaders? Does the DNC want to make sure that Biden has as little talking time as possible? Heck, even Steyer talked more than Yang. Though I have to wonder if that's Yang's fault more than the moderators.

1) I think it's worth remembering that most people don't actually watch these debates.

2) Agreed. That was ridiculous.

3) Honestly, Gabbard only appeals to a few libertarians and non-Trump Republicans anyway.

4) She really didn't, though. She was near the bottom of the pack in terms of time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/who-spoke-most-at-democratic-debate-november/


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1433 on: November 21, 2019, 11:19:19 AM »
Overall yes, but Klobuchar's speaking time was stuffed at the front of the debate. CNN has a few graphs on talking time at different points. Klobuchar had 50% of her talking time in the first half hour. They packed in a lot of questions to her right at the start.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-11-20-2019/index.html


Well did you know there's a December debate? lol.

Good news though, looks like it will be narrowed down a bit more. We'll know the final list next week. But currently Gabbard, Steyer, Booker, and Yang haven't qualified, and it looks like they won't be able to qualify. Yang is the only one with enough donors out of the four.

Klobuchar and Kamala have just barely squeaked by for a spot.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1434 on: November 21, 2019, 11:41:03 AM »
Any international member care to comment about the length of our elections with regards to your home ones? It's absolute insane that this primary is nearly a year old, still has 6+ months, and that there's a general election to follow. Are we unique here in the USA, and if so why? I can't help but think that part of it is explained by our two-party system plus are like-clockwork election timing, or at least those are absent mostly in the few parliamentary governments that I'm vaguely familiar with. Could this never ending election reality also depress voting?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5186
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1435 on: November 21, 2019, 11:51:13 AM »
Any international member care to comment about the length of our elections with regards to your home ones? It's absolute insane that this primary is nearly a year old, still has 6+ months, and that there's a general election to follow. Are we unique here in the USA, and if so why? I can't help but think that part of it is explained by our two-party system plus are like-clockwork election timing, or at least those are absent mostly in the few parliamentary governments that I'm vaguely familiar with. Could this never ending election reality also depress voting?

So, I'm not an international member, but we are pretty much unique. Other countries have fairly strict laws about the length of presidential campaigns and the kinds of campaigning that can be done.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1436 on: November 21, 2019, 12:14:22 PM »
In Canada election campaigns are regulated.  They have to be between a minimum of 36 days and a max of 50.  A 50 day election campaign is pretty long . . . we get burned out from them.  :P

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1437 on: November 21, 2019, 01:04:22 PM »
1) I agree how is Biden still polling at 30%? I have to imagine that after Iowa/NH where he will come in 4th place, his national support will plummet.

2) The questions were terrible. Why are we asking questions about Trump getting booed at the World Series? Don't care.

3) Gabbard I think will score a few points, but yeah I think she's capped at 5% at most. She'll never be a top contender.

4) So why did they have Klobuchar talk so much in the first half? It seems like someone in the media really really wants Klobuchar to take off. They also gave pretty much equal talking time to most of the people there. Why? Why are candidates that still can't break 2% after 4 other debates getting as much talking time as the leaders? Does the DNC want to make sure that Biden has as little talking time as possible? Heck, even Steyer talked more than Yang. Though I have to wonder if that's Yang's fault more than the moderators.

1) I think it's worth remembering that most people don't actually watch these debates.

2) Agreed. That was ridiculous.

3) Honestly, Gabbard only appeals to a few libertarians and non-Trump Republicans anyway.

4) She really didn't, though. She was near the bottom of the pack in terms of time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/who-spoke-most-at-democratic-debate-november/


Biden has robust numbers b/c he has very solid support from black voters, who have not shown much interest in other candidates so far.  And while I personally prefer Mayor Pete policy-wise, I am very concerned that he will turn the black vote off and we'll end up with the same gap in enthusiasm that we had last election. 

We'll see what happens if Mayor Pete wins big in Iowa (Obama was not the first choice of the black vote until he won Iowa either, though for different reasons, I suspect).  I fear black voters (and wavering independent swing-state voters) simply won't rally behind a gay man, though I hope to hell I'm wrong.   Maybe if he got Stacy Abrahms or someone like that as a running mate?   I have a similar fear re: Warren, who I greatly admire personally (even if I find some of her stated policies questionable).

I dunno, but Dems cannot afford to have apathetic black voters this time around if they want to win. 

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1438 on: November 21, 2019, 01:43:29 PM »
I could see regulating campaigning being a free speech problem here. But what stops your candidates in Canada, or other places, from constantly raising money and effectively campaigning without saying so outright? Or maybe they do, and the media just doesn't cover it? I'm a strong supporter of radical democracy, but I feel like the extended primary season for president, at least for the out of power party, plus to need for House members to be constantly raising money and campaigning given their short tenure, are glaring detriments to fair representation in this country.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5279
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1439 on: November 21, 2019, 02:21:30 PM »
In the UK party political spending is heavily regulated and limited by the Electoral Commission.

Individual candidates can spend 8.7k plus either 6p or 9p per voter depending on type of constituency.

A political party can spend 30k per candidate in the year running up to a general election.  Because only a few weeks' notice of an election is given, the regulated period gets backdated, and a political party that wants to spend its money on an election will spend very little at any other time for fear of being caught out by the backdating rule. 

Campaigners that aren't political parties are limited to spending 50k total.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk

The spending limits generally rule out television advertising.  Broadcast television companies are subject to impartiality requirements, giving equal time/mentions to candidates.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-six-elections-referendums


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1440 on: November 21, 2019, 02:27:17 PM »
I honestly can't stand Pete. He's probably at the bottom of the list for me right next to Biden. Pete won his mayorship with 8500 votes. Not by 8500, but with a total of 8500 votes.

Add to that, he isn't a particularly effective mayor.

Add to that that he doesn't actually say anything of substance in these debates.

If he wants to run for a Senate spot in 2022, God bless him, but he looks like a politician bot to me.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1441 on: November 21, 2019, 02:28:32 PM »
I could see regulating campaigning being a free speech problem here. But what stops your candidates in Canada, or other places, from constantly raising money and effectively campaigning without saying so outright? Or maybe they do, and the media just doesn't cover it? I'm a strong supporter of radical democracy, but I feel like the extended primary season for president, at least for the out of power party, plus to need for House members to be constantly raising money and campaigning given their short tenure, are glaring detriments to fair representation in this country.

My understanding is that they can raise money at any time.  They just can't campaign (run ads, hold town halls, etc.).  We also have some pretty strict rules on the legal amount that a party can spend while campaigning, so raising a ton of extra money doesn't have the same impact on an election here that it does south of the border.

Malkynn

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2836
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1442 on: November 21, 2019, 02:37:46 PM »
Any international member care to comment about the length of our elections with regards to your home ones? It's absolute insane that this primary is nearly a year old, still has 6+ months, and that there's a general election to follow. Are we unique here in the USA, and if so why? I can't help but think that part of it is explained by our two-party system plus are like-clockwork election timing, or at least those are absent mostly in the few parliamentary governments that I'm vaguely familiar with. Could this never ending election reality also depress voting?

To me, it seems like you guys are just *always* in campaign mode, and it's really exhausting to watch. I can't even fathom what it's like to live with.

We just had our nastiest election I've ever seen and we're all deeply fatigued from it. I can't imagine if it dragged on much longer. It was absolutely terrible for our collective national mental health.

Here campaigns are these awful things we have to suffer through briefly as a brutal cost of democracy, for you guys it seems more like a fundamental way of life.


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5186
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1443 on: November 21, 2019, 02:39:09 PM »
I could see regulating campaigning being a free speech problem here. But what stops your candidates in Canada, or other places, from constantly raising money and effectively campaigning without saying so outright? Or maybe they do, and the media just doesn't cover it? I'm a strong supporter of radical democracy, but I feel like the extended primary season for president, at least for the out of power party, plus to need for House members to be constantly raising money and campaigning given their short tenure, are glaring detriments to fair representation in this country.

In France, there are limits on campaign spending, campaign advertising, and campaign donations.

Oh, and special interest groups cannot donate money to campaigns or political parties.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1444 on: November 21, 2019, 02:40:34 PM »
That's because the French don't believe that money is free speech.  Those weirdos.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1445 on: November 21, 2019, 03:11:00 PM »
Our local elections are limited in time.  File for candidacy in early January, Primary in late February, Election in early April.

Of course, people are getting organized before January if they are smart.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2877
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1446 on: November 21, 2019, 04:43:58 PM »
Any international member care to comment about the length of our elections with regards to your home ones? It's absolute insane that this primary is nearly a year old, still has 6+ months, and that there's a general election to follow. Are we unique here in the USA, and if so why? I can't help but think that part of it is explained by our two-party system plus are like-clockwork election timing, or at least those are absent mostly in the few parliamentary governments that I'm vaguely familiar with. Could this never ending election reality also depress voting?

To me, it seems like you guys are just *always* in campaign mode, and it's really exhausting to watch. I can't even fathom what it's like to live with.

We just had our nastiest election I've ever seen and we're all deeply fatigued from it. I can't imagine if it dragged on much longer. It was absolutely terrible for our collective national mental health.

Here campaigns are these awful things we have to suffer through briefly as a brutal cost of democracy, for you guys it seems more like a fundamental way of life.

House of Representative members serve two year terms. In order to afford to participate in the next election they need to be in campaign-mode almost a year out.  When you count the number of days in a year our Congress is actually in session we get almost no work out of them.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1447 on: November 21, 2019, 04:49:55 PM »
I'm giving some high school students optional daily quizzes on items from the US Citizenship test, and was thinking about the 2-year terms of representatives.  On the one hand, they are nearly always in campaign mode, on the other hand, there are opportunities for opposition to go after it, and that's good too.  Waiting 6 years for senators is a long time.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2877
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1448 on: November 21, 2019, 04:53:08 PM »
I'm giving some high school students optional daily quizzes on items from the US Citizenship test, and was thinking about the 2-year terms of representatives.  On the one hand, they are nearly always in campaign mode, on the other hand, there are opportunities for opposition to go after it, and that's good too.  Waiting 6 years for senators is a long time.

Even longer when you consider how rare it is for one of them to be voted out of office.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5279
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1449 on: November 22, 2019, 03:15:05 AM »
I honestly can't stand Pete. He's probably at the bottom of the list for me right next to Biden. Pete won his mayorship with 8500 votes. Not by 8500, but with a total of 8500 votes.

Add to that, he isn't a particularly effective mayor.

Add to that that he doesn't actually say anything of substance in these debates.

If he wants to run for a Senate spot in 2022, God bless him, but he looks like a politician bot to me.

Can I ask why the number of votes he got is a concern?  He could only win the race in front of him, and did it twice .

There aren't many stepping stones for someone in the minority party in their State , so ruling out someone with local experience pretty much means that ruling a candidate out on the grounds of not having State wide or Washington experience is ruling out a lot of people who are in the political minority in their part of their State, which seems a shame - they have a different experience than being a Democrat in a heavily democrat State.  And having watched some of the impeachment hearings I have to say that being an elected member of the House of Representatives with many more votes than Pete does not seem to be a guarantee of quality - although there are some impressive individuals

One reason for liking Pete for President would be that the homophobe Putin would be completely nonplussed by it.  Also having a gay US President would probably do more for attitudes to LGBT rights across the globe than anything else I can of.