I think the point is that there is currently a kind of wealth tax, which is property taxes. Property is one of the very few assets we tax as such. iamthewalrus(:3= is saying it seems unfair that the only effective wealth tax we have is highly regressive, so it makes sense to have the kind of wealth tax being proposed which starts at very high amounts of wealth.
Guess I missed that, sorry. :o
Well, aiui Warren’s proposal starts with people having assets of $50M being taxed at 2% and people over a billion bumped up to 3%. Not much of a worry for the middle class.
Yes, which is why iamthewalrus(:3= supports it as a rebalancing of the current situation. The question is why does it seem like you are arguing with someone who agrees with you. 
I guess I didn’t understand his point. And I really didn’t think of property tax as a wealth tax as it’s so specific and in my jurisdiction, purely a municipal thing.
Yes my point was that property tax is a de facto wealth tax for the vast majority of people in the lower 99 percentiles.
I saw this story on another website and wondered the same thing.
As you quoted,
I’m reminded of how Henry Ford increased pay and reduced weekly work hours and Ford improved as a result, and the attendant business community was surprised, perhaps shocked by this outcome. While it may be counter-intuitive that corporations no longer acting purely to increase stockholder value may actually be good for the company overall, we need a similar “Fordian” mindset today to take hold, in order to save capitalism from itself.
The dogma of “increasing shareholder value” has led to any number of activities – mergers, spin-offs, LBOs and offshoring, to name a few off the top of my head – that have no other motivation whatsoever. They don’t improve the company’s offerings, they don’t open new markets, they don’t create jobs. All they do is make shareholders wealthier.
(I’m not saying that these activities *never *have other benefits, but I spent 16 years working with Wall Street and I saw too many maneuvers that were little more than glorified arbitrage plays.)
The end result of nearly 40 years of “increasing shareholder value?” A 26X rise in the DJIA, and flat real incomes for most Americans.
As I had said, we’re of a similar mind on the Pocahontas name-calling. It’s a self inflicted wound for Trump.
With regard to the economic stuff that Warren is discussing:
I first became aware of her when she was a Harvard professor who was appearing on the Daily Show to discuss with Jon Stewart her advocacy for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She often talks about the fact that she has, quite literally, studied what causes people to go broke. Her pedigree comes from the world of research and education.
I see Warren as somebody who isn’t governed so much by ideology as by a quest for good and practical solutions to the challenges in society. Except, perhaps, for her consistent advocacy for the middle class/working poor of this country, she isn’t looking to serve some particular faction or impart some pre-planned result. And, of course, she can’t govern by fiat.
The effect, then, of a Warren administration is that she steers the American conversation toward the welfare of the “average American” while the she leads the debate on how best to improve that situation.
The bully pulpit used for maximum benefit, as it were. That is vastly more important than the specifics of any particular plan or proposal, which would need to survive congressional review, anyway.
When I couple that with my perception that she’s more pragmatic and less dogmatic than Sanders (who also consistently advocates for the average American) she has my vote locked up.
Great analysis, Moriarty. I agree entirely.
The thing about Warren that I find appealing is that she comes across as genuinely fascinated by the intricate complex machinery of the economy, and genuinely interested in seeing it work efficiently and productively for the maximum number of Americans.
I’m not even sure what historical precedent there might be for that sort of person running for President. (Carter has a similar freedom from self-focus and self-aggrandizement. But he wasn’t as interested in the workings of the economy, I don’t think.)
At any rate, I’d like to see her get the chance to do some good.
Here’s why I’m starting to think Warren may actually win this thing:
It takes one hell of a politician to be able to do that.
OK, so she can work a crowd when she’s in the same room and can see their faces. That’s a very valuable skill to have… but how much is it worth in a Presidential race, where 99.99% of the people you’ll need to engage will be over television, when you can’t possibly see their faces? Sure, there’s going to be some multiplier effect, from those folks she met personally going home and telling their friends and families how great Warren is… but that multiplier isn’t going to be a factor of ten thousand.
It’ll take more than a glowing GQ article to convince me she’s suddenly a good campaigner. But she’s moving her numbers, so I hope it’s true.
Hell Im not sure if it’s good or bad in the long run, or if it’s just self-serving, or selfish, or heck maybe it’s even a good idea. But at this point if ANY candidate promises to erase my student loan debt, I’ll vote for that person, I suspect there are many millions more like me. I’m going to vote my own self interest above anything else. The giant companies that lobby, spend millions, pay no income tax are all about their own self interest and profits, I’m going to do the same.
I doubt she could have moved her numbers the way she has while being a mediocre campaigner.
A couple of things.
First, we don’t have a single national election - we’ve got 51 state elections for President in our screwy system, and maybe a dozen of those will be close enough to matter. Warren’s already spoken to thousands of voters in Michigan, for instance, and the general election is still over 14 months away.
Second, by the time we get to the fall of 2020, she will have spoken to many thousands of voters in each of those states directly, more than enough that she and her team will have a pretty good sense of what’s likely to work to reach them via television.
Third, she’s regularly going to places where Dems don’t do too well, and talking with and listening to the people who live there. She’s not keeping herself in anything like a safe bubble, and there are few better ways for a politician to strengthen her message and widen its appeal. And if she can win them over, that’s icing on the cake.
And a 30% tax on firearms. I’ve read it was designed to curb gun owners behavior. Seriously, would this change a terrorists behavior? Can’t you just see all of the wrong people reconsidering the firearms of their choice, downgrading and or and limiting their kills due to the 50% tax on ammo? I’m sure they are thinking, god damn, this tax is really killing us, maybe just use dynamite, or go with some good ole fashioned ammonion nitrate fertilizer.
I’d really like to get behind a Democrat, mainly because of the two parties, they are known best for the environment and planet earth, and they are not so damn hostile to the media. That and other things are far more important to me than my guns. Although I have a few guns and rifles, I’m not fanatical about 'em, and all for stricter gun laws if they can show to really make a difference. I’m not worried about Democrats taking my firearms away from me. But I would like to see it not so easy to get firearms, and give some hotheads a chance to chill out instead of going off like a bottle rocket.
Example: Attended another gun show in Mesquite, TX this Saturday. Found a Remington 700 series I liked with scope. Man said, since it’s an estate sale, there would be no sales tax to collect on it since he is not a dealer, and also no paperwork to fill out. Just pay him cash, and out the door I can go with it. All of this is legal too, at least in the state of TX, and a few other states, I believe.
I’ve got a lot of studying to do still on all of their positions though, does anyone know where they stand on being tough on China? This really isn’t a partisan issue for many, I don’t think, even the Democrat Sherrod Brown was wanting to get tough on them over a decade ago, IIRC. CNN is doing quite a few positive things on what Trump is doing here, which is quite rare. Personally, I think a Democrat should expound on this, by aligning more with our allies to do similar things against China, or what is left of them.
Yeah, that’s really stupid. It will mean less well trained police, and the gangbanger thugs who do drivebys only need a few rounds anyway.
Horrible answer. You’re not winning people over in the democratic primary by having a dig at Hillary Clinton. Moreover she already got embarrassed by Trump goading her into that DNA test.
America’s 40,000 gun deaths per year are not about terrorists or even mass shootings. In fact, all that death isn’t really about the “wrong” people buying guns. It is about their sheer number and availability of guns (and a certain American paranoid culture that leads to guns being kept in really unsafe circumstances). If I want to kill myself, or kill the guy who assaulted my cousin, I can get my hands on a gun legally or illegally as easily as a college freshman can get beer.
We’re not about to ban hand guns, much less confiscate them. Even if it were politically possible, it would be unconstitutional. Pretty much the only meaningful, rational policy that leaves is efforts to reduce the overall supply of and demand for guns. Taxes seem like a good tool to me. If it means someone buys two handguns instead of three, that’s a clear win. If the concern is that people will practice at the range less, that seems like a problem we can avoid. Just heavily license and regulate ranges and have them provide ammo that is exempt from the tax.
Yup. She has to show she can handle attacks and do so well. That sort of response is not reassuring that she has those skills.