Jump to content

Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

snafu

By snafu
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

4merper4mer Hall of Famer

4merper4mer

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I'm arguing reality.  A 1% tax rate will have 100% compliance because the cost of avoidance will be more than 1%.

 

The perfect tax rate would be set at the exact intersection of tax compliance and tax avoidance costs.  Miraculously than number is always around 20%-25%.  Funny how that works.

But what about their fair share?  Liz only wants two pennies and all the rich people cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Buffalo_Gal
Buffalo_Gal
Hedge
Hedge
Deranged Rhino
Deranged Rhino

Posted Images

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

But what about their fair share?  Liz only wants two pennies and all the rich people cry.

 

Do they get a refund if the stock markets or real estate values decline a year after they pay the tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LSHMEAB Veteran

LSHMEAB

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I'm arguing reality.  A 1% tax rate will have 100% compliance because the cost of avoidance will be more than 1%.

 

The perfect tax rate would be set at the exact intersection of tax compliance and tax avoidance costs.  Miraculously than number is always around 20%-25%.  Funny how that works.

I think it would probably be lower than 20-25 percent; probably somewhere close to 15 percent in terms of that intersectionality. There's always the option of aggressively targeting tax avoiding corporations that operate chiefly in America and/or have outsourced their HQ's, yet mainly sell their goods here. Be very tough to get anything done considering we have a congress(both sides) largely beholden to corporate/special interest groups, but it's worth a shot. The concept itself is not far removed from trade wars and tariffs, which I SUPPORT.

 

As is the case with the trade wars, the NUMBER 1 asset America possesses is it's market. Want to use our market? Pay your taxes.

 

In reality, you may very well believe that corporations/1 percenters already pay enough. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LSHMEAB Veteran

LSHMEAB

Posted
Posted

Really hope Bernie doesn't get sucked into pandering to the #MeToo, PC police crowd.

 

That stuff flies in DC and Cali, but NOWHERE else. These PERSONAL attacks on Bloomberg do nothing but turn off voters in AMERICA. 

 

My honest assessment is that "liberal," (not of the neoliberal variety) policies are actually popular. It's the fringy assaults on free speech that serve as the Dem's greatest detriment in places like Ohio, PA, WI, and Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Really hope Bernie doesn't get sucked into pandering to the #MeToo, PC police crowd.

 

That stuff flies in DC and Cali, but NOWHERE else. These PERSONAL attacks on Bloomberg do nothing but turn off voters in AMERICA. 

 

My honest assessment is that "liberal," (not of the neoliberal variety) policies are actually popular. It's the fringy assaults on free speech that serve as the Dem's greatest detriment in places like Ohio, PA, WI, and Michigan.


You’re not familiar with the history of the intersectional movement?

 

It was started by communist activists, who came to realize that their class warfare dogma had failed, and set upon racial strife hoping to create divides.

 

It was the same people.

 

At this point you don’t get one without the other because the dogma was intertwined.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


You’re not familiar with the history of the intersectional movement?

 

It was started by communist activists, who came to realize that their class warfare dogma had failed, and set upon racial strife hoping to create divides.

 

It was the same people.

 

At this point you don’t get one without the other because the dogma was intertwined.

Minor correction.   The communists were always after racial strife as a weapon, and came close in the 60s.  Intersectionality is a reboot of their strategy from 50 years ago.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are correct that the top tax rates were once up to 90%. What you don't say though is that at that time there were so many loopholes that nobody paid anywhere near that rate. Nobody. 

Bob Hope did. 
 

Kennedy cut the rates and got rid of a lot of the loopholes. People should Duck Duck Go Billy Sol Estes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buffalo_Gal All Pro

Buffalo_Gal

Posted
Posted

Who knows if it is true, it is a Bloomberg internal poll trying to help... Bloomberg (or at least make sure Bernie is not  the nominee).  However, it is nothing except what realistic people have been saying for a while now, so probably at least a smidgen of true.
 

Bloomberg internal poll claims Bernie would sink downballot Dems
 

Mike Bloomberg's campaign is shopping an internal survey that shows the liberal Vermont senator could be a millstone around the necks of vulnerable House Democrats.
 

</snip>
 

The poll of voters in more than 40 battleground House districts currently held by Democrats — conducted by Global Strategy Group for the Bloomberg campaign and obtained by POLITICO from two sources — found that Sanders is less popular than Trump and loses significant support when hit for holding socialist positions. Sanders is a self-described Democratic socialist, a distinction that his opponents are starting to draw more frequently in the days following the Vermont senator’s dominance in Nevada. His agenda of "Medicare for All," the "Green New Deal" and guaranteed tuition and debt-free public colleges has rankled more establishment members of the party.
 

</snip>

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

I think it would probably be lower than 20-25 percent; probably somewhere close to 15 percent in terms of that intersectionality. There's always the option of aggressively targeting tax avoiding corporations that operate chiefly in America and/or have outsourced their HQ's, yet mainly sell their goods here. Be very tough to get anything done considering we have a congress(both sides) largely beholden to corporate/special interest groups, but it's worth a shot. The concept itself is not far removed from trade wars and tariffs, which I SUPPORT.

 

Most large American companies now earn more overseas than they do in the US.  If you go back on tax reform and raise corporate taxes, you will re-incentivize these companies to keep the profits overseas where taxes are lower or to spin off the foreign operations.   

 

 

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

As is the case with the trade wars, the NUMBER 1 asset America possesses is it's market. Want to use our market? Pay your taxes.

 

It's the other way around.  The global market is larger than the US market and Trump has done a pretty good job of beating up the closed economies to open them up to American companies, without being extorted.

 

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

In reality, you may very well believe that corporations/1 percenters already pay enough. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I disagree.

 

The numbers back it up.  The worst thing about recent tax laws was the elimination of a huge chunk of the American public from income taxes.   You've seen the stats in how 47% of the population doesn't pay any income tax.  Conversely, the top 20% pays 80% of the tax burden, and the top 1% pays about 50% of income taxes.   That's not a very good tax base to implement the liberal agenda.   And that's exactly how the socialist downward spirals begin.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SoCal Deek Hall of Famer

SoCal Deek

Posted
Posted

I live in California and I’m a high end earner. My taxes went up not down. (By eliminating the ability to write off my state income tax.) The same is true for high end earners in NY state. Do not be fooled by the deceptive rhetoric coming out of the mouths of those running for President. It’s way over simplified if you look only at federal rates.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just Joshin' Veteran

Just Joshin'

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I live in California and I’m a high end earner. My taxes went up not down. (By eliminating the ability to write off my state income tax.) The same is true for high end earners in NY state. Do not be fooled by the deceptive rhetoric coming out of the mouths of those running for President. It’s way over simplified if you look only at federal rates.

In the same boat until moved to Texas.  It is really a NY / California issue, not a federal.

 

In addition to no state tax, my property taxes are 1/2 with similar valuation.  Services are equivalent.  Why can some states get by on less?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
3rdnlng Hall of Famer

3rdnlng

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

In the same boat until moved to Texas.  It is really a NY / California issue, not a federal.

 

In addition to no state tax, my property taxes are 1/2 with similar valuation.  Services are equivalent.  Why can some states get by on less?

Start with municipal and state pensions. Then move on to the unicorn mindset that creates projects such as the bullet train. When you're done with that, look at all the unintended consequences of a good share of their policies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxx All Pro

Foxx

Posted
Posted
On 2/25/2020 at 9:16 AM, Foxx said:

 

it all began with:

 usa-2008-elections-south-carolina-primar

 

obama_hope_progress_change-300x162.jpg

 

look at the imagery of the last image, does it remind anyone of anything?

 

 

Sanders is the ultimate next guy who the globalists want to implement their 'agenda'. the problem is, they are not sure he is the right guy at the right time, he is too early. he was supposed to be the 'next guy', after the next guy that could bring us just down the road a little further in the plan unveiled under the obamanation. we just need to be pushed a bit further down the socialist road so that we will eagerly accept the full blown ideology when it is adopted. of course, it may be that Trump has so thwarted their plans that they are left with no other alternative than to try and force that change upon us in the current paradigm. damn the torpedoes and deal with the fallout after the fact may be the revised plan to put us back on their planned track.

 

long ago they found that in order for them to implement their globalist desires, they understood that it is going to be much easier to reduce the US to third world status than it would be to raise third world countries to first world status and would take entirely too long to do, if it is even possible.

 

Sanders is their wet dream, don't fall for their rhetoric.

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1232654285122494464

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, GG said:

Minor correction.   The communists were always after racial strife as a weapon, and came close in the 60s.  Intersectionality is a reboot of their strategy from 50 years ago.  


It was a secondary focus however.

 

Their main focus was class strife, but when it failed to materialize due to massive quality of life improvements, of course facilitated by technology leaps, economies of scale, etc. in a largely capitalist economy; the shift was to make racial strife central.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


It was a secondary focus however.

 

Their main focus was class strife, but when it failed to materialize due to massive quality of life improvements, of course facilitated by technology leaps, economies of scale, etc. in a largely capitalist economy; the shift was to make racial strife central.

 

Definitely agree on the timeline, considering the movement started in Europe.  But as soon as it crossed the Atlantic, racial strife became a central plank.   A race war was always promoted by Soviet elements in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Veteran

Westside

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

The FBI wouldn't have launched an investigation against him ten days before the election...or maybe they would have...

She's lucky she wasn't thrown in prison much less investigated. What she did is highly illegal, but she's a democrat so that makes it ok.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, westside2 said:

She's lucky she wasn't thrown in prison much less investigated. What she did is highly illegal, but she's a democrat so that makes it ok.

For not doing anything wrong? Ya, ok. 

 

Trump's people are doing the exact same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...