Keep in mind Sander’s tax is even higher, so Bloomberg would pay 3 billion in the first year alone. So him spending a billion dollars on politics is a pretty good investment, it is 1/3 of what he would pay in one year with a wealth tax.
Also taxes are passed via budget reconciliation, which only require 50 senators and a democratic president. Granted, even if it doesn’t pass in 2021, the momentum can built to pass it in 2025 or 2027.
Heh. Nice snark, and I’m not saying Warren’s Republican past shouldn’t be held against her at all, but she switched parties, like, 20-some years ago and never ran for office as a Republican. Bloomberg IIRC ran on a Republican ticket as recently as 2011.
OK. I think Warren and Wikipedia agree that Bloomberg has $61 billion. I see
She shortens this to “two cents” in the debates.
But even at “three cents” for billionaires, Bloomberg’s tax should be “only” $1.8 billion. Where does the $3 billion come from? Did she raise her rates recently?
But whether $2 billion or $3, you didn’t answer my questions. Do you think all politicians are motivated by personal greeds? Or just billionaires? Do you think Bloomberg has a short interest in Smith & Wesson stock?
I mean Bloomberg isn’t a political neophyte, I suspect he has very little fear of either Sanders or Warren actually getting a wealth tax passed. For one the odds of a Dem Senate are quite low, the odds of all the moderate Dems disappearing from Congress and being replaced by Democratic Socialists is nil.
We had a thread on this and it would be difficult for ANY SCOTUS to rule it Constitutional as it is a direct tax and thus must be apportioned to the states by population.
The problem is that the Warren camp has fallen for their own bullshit. No, the billionaires aren’t running scared of Warren’s many plans. If they want to thwart them, there’s a million easier ways than running for president.
It’s now up to 6% on billionaires.
FWIW, I am willing to believe that Bloomberg wants to raise his own taxes because he thinks it is a good idea, whether he favors a wealth tax or not.
One of those quizzes about who I should support came up with Bloomberg and Yang as my first two among Democrats. UBI is a non-workable idea, and Bloomberg’s record as mayor shows he can work as well as can be expected with diverse interests. He has financial experience, to say the least, and he seems to be the only Democrat - heck, the only candidate - that even mentions the deficit.
If he gets the nom, I would consider voting for him in a way that I would not if it was Bernie Sanders.
Regards,
Shodan
Whether it’s Warren or Sanders supporters or others, the idea Bloomberg would run for president because of a tax proposal is being presented as an unfalsiable claim. ‘Here’s what Bloomberg would owe, it’s a lot of money, case closed, that’s why he’s running’.
I find it highly implausible, but obviously some people are going to stick to calculating how much he’d owe and challenging anyone to prove that isn’t why he’s running. Other more plausible explanations don’t directly prove that personal tax reasons aren’t why he’s running Such as to review,
-personal ambition to be president, genuine belief the ‘nation needs him’ (these two are intertwined in essentially every presidential run IMO, just make it ‘him, her, etc’),
-the relative unlikelihood of such a proposal becoming law under President Sanders or Warren
-or IOW IMO it’s mainly symbolic or a marker for the future, latter pointing to how preventing it in 2021-2025 term doesn’t mean you’ve defeated it permanently anyway.
-defeating it for now could involve all kind of easier and more practical efforts than running for president (such as not contributing to Democrats in key Senate races, lobbying after the election, etc). You know, the kind stuff some very wealthy Democrats are probably actually going to do. 
Its impossible to know Bloomberg’s motives, we can only speculate.
However Bloomberg trying to create a brokered convention so he can play a meaningful role in selecting the nominee would give him a lot of influence in the party. Arguably far more than running and dropping out like Booker or Harris have done. If Bloomberg siphons enough delegates to lead to a brokered convention, then offers millions if not billions in financial incentives he will have a gigantic influential role within the democratic party.
And Bloomberg recently spoke out in favor of tax hikes for the rich, but didn’t include a wealth tax in his proposals. These seem to be taxes on estates and income, all of which I’m fine with raising the tax rates on.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/01/michael-bloomberg-tax-plan-110105
Lol, you sure are trying hard to be a conspiracy theorist.
People run all the time because their ego tells them they’re the best or they’ve got some issues to push. Both those reasons are easy to attribute to Bloomberg’s run. But nope, the rich jew has a plot to take over the party through sneaky bribery. Yes, that’s more plausible. Thanks, Wesley.
Do you present this as evidence that Bloomberg’s aim is a brokered convention where he intends to bribe the delegates?
True enough. We can speculate with plausibility. Or we can speculate like a conspiracy theorist. Are you one of those who calls billionaires evil?
“Billions in financial incentives”? Which billions are those? It sounds like he’s taking a loss even if the wealth tax that-won’t happen … happens.
(BTW, did we ever figure out why Warren thinks “three cents” of $61 billion is over $3 billion?)
How does this fit your conspiracy theory? He’s got a Bloomberg-only loophole up his sleeve?
Thank you. (I’m surprised yours gets no Warning, but I won’t report it! )
I may root for a brokered convention. But I may request that my brokers choose … Amy Klobuchar! (Young, moderate, female, Midwestern. What’s not to like?)
Yeah, unleash that raw Minnesota energy and charisma!
Eh, I’m pretty sure his plan is just to be the moderate backup plan for when Biden falls flat on his face.
If you guys have to resort to name calling and accusing people of being anti-semites then you aren’t winning the argument.
Bloomberg has a track record of using personal funds to build coalitions in his political agenda.
But yes, I’m an anti-semite conspiracy theorist and you are all rational actors who resort to name calling to win debates.
If you honestly think that making deals behind the scenes to build coalitions in politics is a conspiracy theory, then I don’t know what to tell you.
What?!? I never thought you were anti-Semitic.
You present examples of Bloomberg altruism — who called this “conspiracy theory”? I do NOT support rule by the wealthy, but still find it almost magnificent that Bloomberg used his wealth single-handedly to improve such a great city. I am NOT saying that’s the way politics should trend BUT your own examples imply Bloomberg is unselfish. Did he spend money and power to further his political goals? Sure! The greatest American politicians spent their power this way … and didn’t have sufficient wealth to make a dent as Bloomberg can.
Yet after all this evidence of Bloomberg spending his own personal wealth in causes he thought or thinks further the interests of New York and the country, you want us to believe that he’s suddenly reversed course 180 degrees, and is now running for the main purpose of avoiding the wealth tax. This from a billionaire who supports higher taxes on the rich. :smack: 
To quote a Star Trek character: “This does not compute.”
You are accusing him of planning to bribe people once he throws a monkey wrench into the primaries. Do you have any theories about any other Dem candidates’ secret criminal plans?
I posted an article about his campaign advisers saying his plan is a contested primary and an article showing he has a history of offering financial incentives to create allies and quiet dissidents.
Not really.