What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

dxmnkd316 said:
Um, first, woosh
Second, even if I did make 2x, I’m of the opinion the government should take more.
Click to expand...

And I am not that of that opinion, even though I'd probably benefit in the long run.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

I can say with 100% certainty that if the rich paid more, you would be better off.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Lets just go back to the Clinton Era taxes. We dont need to go ridiculous we balanced the budget with those numbers.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

The Rube said:
I don't believe in punishing the rich for making money..
Click to expand...

are the rich punished for buying a car? a boat? a house? a watch?
are you punished for buying a jeep? a hat?

societies have costs. for what they need to be paid.

roads, jails, bridges, defense, food testing, police, administration of such, etc. are to supplied by government on behalf of society.

the founders also wrote, early on, that government was tasked with promoting the general welfare.

government also does not hoard these funds. even now king tD nor king bho pocket these inflows. they spend them again and recycle into the economy of the taxed. rich who contract for these funds get richer and recycle again and again.

genius mookie has the 0% bracket up to 200k. that frees up cash to keep flowing into the economy. poor people love to spend :)
then have that 49% bracket over 200k. no usury at all. why the government isn't even interested in half your income (:D)

wealth/assets for all car taxed at 2% to start. when one plays cards there is an ante for all. everyone has a chit in the game.

people will continue to pay socsec taxes. nobody gets off w/o paying into the system. and since for some reason nobody considers these "income taxes" now, the +200k bracket can't going forward :p

if people want to hide money and assets overseas, good luck. algos can be written now to track this and that, wait until the irs has one to track asset flows and claims on valuations and ownership.

and this asset tax applies to all ownership in the US. foreigners and corporations (corps are people too.... just like your political contributions :))

nothing "fair" about this mookienomics. life isn't fair. it just is.
if someone decides to stop working after they made their 200k cause they don't want to 'give away' $0.51 of that next dollar, they so what? screw the lazy bastid. real entrepreneurs will continue to accumulate wealth.
 
The Rube said:
"I think you have too much money. You need to give some to the poor."
"I worked for this. Ok, maybe I inherited some of this because of hard work."
"Doesn't matter, you have too much, so now you have to give some away."

Sorry, that is serious bullsh*.

THAT BEING SAID, I commend the rich that VOLUNTARILY give to causes and such. That is awesome. My point is one should not be penalized simply because they have more money.
Click to expand...
I think your views on society and taxes are serious bull****.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

The Rube said:
"I think you have too much money. You need to give some to the poor."
"I worked for this. Ok, maybe I inherited some of this because of hard work."
"Doesn't matter, you have too much, so now you have to give some away."

Sorry, that is serious bullsh*.

THAT BEING SAID, I commend the rich that VOLUNTARILY give to causes and such. That is awesome. My point is one should not be penalized simply because they have more money.
Click to expand...
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
I think your views on society and taxes are serious bull****.
Click to expand...
Exactly, nobody cares about your stupid philosophical argument that can be broken down pretty easily (the idea that "hard work" is how billionaires accrued their wealth lmfao). Society runs better when billionaires pay a higher share of taxes, period. We can see this from our country's history and other countries that have similar tax structures currently.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Since we're on the topic of taxes, two of the leading economists on wealth taxation have gone over Bernie and Liz's tax plans.

Addendum: Comparison of the Warren and Sanders wealth tax proposals Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax with a tax rate of 2% for wealth between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3% above $1 billion (using the same brackets for married and single taxpayers). The table below lists basic statistics on the two wealth tax proposals by brackets. Our data show that the Warren wealth tax raises $200 billion (in 2019) while the Sanders wealth tax raises $335 billion (in 2019).4 Hence the Sanders tax raises $135 billion more (68% more) than the Warren wealth tax.

There are three differences between the Warren and the Sanders wealth taxes, two small differences and a big one.

The first small difference is that the Sanders tax halves the brackets for single taxpayers (relative to married taxpayers) while the Warren tax uses the same brackets for singles and married. As mentioned above, the halving of the brackets for singles increases the wealth tax revenue by $11 billion (in 2019), which accounts for 8% of the $135 billion difference in revenue (in 2019) between the two plans.

The second small difference is that the Sanders wealth tax starts at $32 million with a tax rate of 1% before ramping up at 2% at $50 million while the Warren wealth tax starts directly with a 2% rate at $50 million. This implies that the Sanders tax applies to the richest 180,000 families (top .1%) while the Warren tax applies to the richest 70,000 families (top .04%). This extra 1% tax bracket from $32 million to $50 million raises only $19 billion in extra tax revenue (in 2019) and hence accounts for only 14% of the $135 billion difference in revenue (in 2019) between the two plans. Hence, below the ultra rich, the Sanders and Warren plans are very similar.

The big difference is that the Sanders wealth tax applies a much more progressive tax on the ultra rich (the top .005% or richest 8000 families with wealth above $250 million) with graduated rates from 3% (starting at $250 million) up to 8% (above $10 billion). This extra progressivity raises an extra $106 billion (in 2019) and accounts for 78% of the $135 billion difference in revenue (in 2019) between the two plans. This additional graduation can have a large impact on very top fortunes in the long-run as we illustrate below drawing on our recent work where we use the Forbes 400 data since 1982 to simulate the long-term impact of wealth taxation on top fortunes.5 The wealth tax erodes fortunes over time. Billionaires still arise but under a wealth tax but they cannot stay billionaires (and especially deca-billionaires) for as long.

The table below lists the name, source of wealth, and wealth in 2018 of the top 15 richest Americans (Forbes magazine estimates). The last two columns depict what their wealth would have been if the Warren wealth tax and the Sanders wealth tax had been in place since 1982 (the tax thresholds apply in 2018 and are indexed to the average wealth per family economy wide in prior years). Both taxes have a strong impact in the long-run on top wealth holders. The richest 15 own $943 billion. Under the Warren tax, their wealth would be halved down to $434 billion. Under the Sanders tax, their wealth would be halved twice down to $196 billion. Under the Sanders tax, most decabillionaires would still be multi-billionaires but not decabillionaires anymore.
Click to expand...
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-sanders-online.pdf?mod=article_inline
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

The Rube said:
"I think you have too much money. You need to give some to the poor."
"I worked for this. Ok, maybe I inherited some of this because of hard work."
"Doesn't matter, you have too much, so now you have to give some away."

Sorry, that is serious bullsh*.

THAT BEING SAID, I commend the rich that VOLUNTARILY give to causes and such. That is awesome. My point is one should not be penalized simply because they have more money.
Click to expand...

If charity as a system worked no one would go hungry and everyone would have health care. Since that doesn't work, we need taxes. And yes, there is such a thing as too much. And it's getting worse every single day.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

ScoobyDoo said:
If charity as a system worked no one would go hungry and everyone would have health care. Since that doesn't work, we need taxes. And yes, there is such a thing as too much. And it's getting worse every single day.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if humans are selfish and human nature needs to be countered in some way to benefit society. Good thing people smarter than Rube figured this out 5 thousand years ago.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

mookie1995 said:
are the rich punished for buying a car? a boat? a house? a watch?
are you punished for buying a jeep? a hat?
Click to expand...
Everybody's punished for buying a Jeep. They're outwardly admitting that they're dumb enough to purchase a Fiat-Chrysler product and the torments they bring to each and every customer of that company.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Oh, Tulsi.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OK. I HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS. WHAT DO YOU THINK?<a href="https://t.co/I1xoBQMu9z">https://t.co/I1xoBQMu9z</a>…<a href="https://t.co/rq8zloT3Fe">pic.twitter.com/rq8zloT3Fe</a></p>— Tomthunkit™ (@TomthunkitsMind) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomthunkitsMind/status/1177077133174300672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

She is what she is. Dr. Mrs. has known her for more than a decade. She was never anything but this.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

I think in that vid she's just trying to announce her bill re election security? That said I know she has been back peddling on impeachment which is utterly absurd because even without the Russia investigation or this latest Ukraine thing he's committed a number of impeachable offenses.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

After today no candidate with any stance other than "Impeach" might as well quit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top