2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[iatrogenic]

Disagree. As an example, America advances itself as a tolerant Democracy by disallowing Lieawatha in the White House because of her political views.

 

[Clean]

Elizabeth Warren continues to bribe the electorate, one group at a time. Today she's rolling out her policy (i.e. perks and free stuff) for her blood brothers & sisters, the Native Americans.

Add to her previous promises;

paying off student debt
free higher education
Universal child care
affordable housing
reparations
and on and on.

Must be working. She's up 16% in the polls since March.

 

[LongestHorn]

Elizabeth Warren continues to bribe the electorate, one group at a time. Today she's rolling out her policy (i.e. perks and free stuff) for her blood brothers & sisters, the Native Americans.

Add to her previous promises;

paying off student debt
free higher education
Universal child care
affordable housing
reparations
and on and on.

Must be working. She's up 16% in the polls since March.

Warren wealth tax plan would add 2% tax on $50 million and 3% tax on $1 billion. Guy with $40 million is exempt. Guy with $60 million pays $200,000. Guy with $2 billion pays $50 million.

It comes to over $200 billion in additional revenue, as I understand it.

That gets traction with voters who have seen the trickle down tax cuts fail them. Over and over again. It gets traction with the 99.95% of voters who won’t be paying her new tax.

Are Bezos, Buffet, Gates going to leave the US to avoid the tax? Let’s see how that works out for them should they choose to leave.

 

[Joe Fan]

Hadn't thought of that, but agree that will be said if that is the case.

The gay Obama




(or maybe out of the closet Obama)

 

[iatrogenic]

Warren wealth tax plan would add 2% tax on $50 million and 3% tax on $1 billion. Guy with $40 million is exempt. Guy with $60 million pays $200,000. Guy with $2 billion pays $50 million.

It comes to over $200 billion in additional revenue, as I understand it.

That gets traction with voters who have seen the trickle down tax cuts fail them. Over and over again. It gets traction with the 99.95% of voters who won’t be paying her new tax.

Are Bezos, Buffet, Gates going to leave the US to avoid the tax? Let’s see how that works out for them should they choose to leave.

It does gain traction with losers that want "free stuff". That is the idea right? "I didn't bust my *** to earn it, so I'll just try and steal it."

Never going to happen.

 

[Horn6721]

I a
Millenials want and think they deserve free stuff.
Dems have pander ed to Millenials. Blacks Hispanics and LBGTQ. That is a lot of pandering.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Warren wealth tax plan would add 2% tax on $50 million and 3% tax on $1 billion. Guy with $40 million is exempt. Guy with $60 million pays $200,000. Guy with $2 billion pays $50 million.

It comes to over $200 billion in additional revenue, as I understand it.

That gets traction with voters who have seen the trickle down tax cuts fail them. Over and over again. It gets traction with the 99.95% of voters who won’t be paying her new tax.

Are Bezos, Buffet, Gates going to leave the US to avoid the tax? Let’s see how that works out for them should they choose to leave.

They won't have to leave the US to avoid the tax. First, it has almost no chance of becoming law. Obviously, the GOP isn't going to support a wealth tax, but plenty of Democrats would oppose it as well. Second, even if it became law, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (or more likely someone else) would simply file a lawsuit to invalidate the tax. It's on very weak constitutional grounds.

Here's the problem. The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress extremely broad income taxing authority, so if Warren wanted to impose a 99 percent upper tax bracket, she could do it. However, a wealth tax is not a tax on income. It's a tax on property and assets. That means, the tax would have to be supported by Congress's general taxing authority, which imposes dramatically more onerous limitations. (That's why we had to pass the 16th Amendment to create an income tax in the first place.)

Specifically, Art. I, Sec. 9 requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In other words, the citizens of two states of the same size would have to pay the same amount in taxes, even if one of those states was broke-*** poor. That pretty much kills any chance of a tax being determined or based on wealth.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Good lesson there, Deez. Too damned many people just think "soak the rich" and don't ever bother to understand what's actually being proposed.

 

[iatrogenic]

I a
Millenials want and think they deserve free stuff.
Dems have pander ed to Millenials. Blacks Hispanics and LBGTQ. That is a lot of pandering.

It is sad to see phrases like

That gets traction with voters who have seen the trickle down tax cuts fail them.

Yeah, it was/is tax cuts that "failed them". They couldn't possibly be the cause of their failure, so society must be the problem. Same old story.

 

[VYFan]

They won't have to leave the US to avoid the tax. First, it has almost no chance of becoming law. Obviously, the GOP isn't going to support a wealth tax, but plenty of Democrats would oppose it as well. Second, even if it became law, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (or more likely someone else) would simply file a lawsuit to invalidate the tax. It's on very weak constitutional grounds.

Here's the problem. The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress extremely broad income taxing authority, so if Warren wanted to impose a 99 percent upper tax bracket, she could do it. However, a wealth tax is not a tax on income. It's a tax on property and assets. That means, the tax would have to be supported by Congress's general taxing authority, which imposes dramatically more onerous limitations. (That's why we had to pass the 16th Amendment to create an income tax in the first place.)

Specifically, Art. I, Sec. 9 requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In other words, the citizens of two states of the same size would have to pay the same amount in taxes, even if one of those states was broke-*** poor. That pretty much kills any chance of a tax being determined or based on wealth.

This sort of constitutional “technicality” has not kept the federal government from expanding its powers in almost any context, so good luck with that! Even clearly written clauses are adjusted to be more “modern,” and that one isn’t even very clear to the modern reader in the first place.

 

[VYFan]

As for electing a gay man as president, it made me think about my ninth grade social studies teacher back in 1974 or so. The question was raised by the class whether a woman would be elected president first or a black man would be. My teacher said that it certainly would be a black man first. She pointed out that black men received the right to vote well before women did. So now her prediction has proved correct.

This may be politically incorrect, I don’t know, but I don’t think there is much resistance to supporting a gay man for almost anything if he is not specifically pushing gay rights. For myself, for example, I oppose most of LGBT agendas, but I wouldn’t hesitate to hire a gay man for any purpose. I get no negative vibe from the mayor and I don’t think many people do. If he loses, it will be because his policies aren’t popular.

 

[VYFan]

Nashhorn, you disagree because I oppose LGBT things, or you disagree with my saying there won’t be a large backlash at Mayor Pete for being gay?

Edit—-not “backlash,” just mean political price to pay from voters at large.

 

[nashhorn]

Large backlash may be an exaggeration but I am certain there would be numbers not voting got him simply due to that fact. However, I doubt it would, by itself, jeopardize his defeating a number of current Democrat candidates.

 

[Horn6721]

There would be some if not many who would oppose him for being gay. But how many that oppose that would vote?
I did see an article on black Christians, a pastor was saying black congregations have a dilemma.
His policies do him in more with more people than his orientation imo.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This sort of constitutional “technicality” has not kept the federal government from expanding its powers in almost any context, so good luck with that! Even clearly written clauses are adjusted to be more “modern,” and that one isn’t even very clear to the modern reader in the first place.

We can call it a "technicality" if we want to, but it's pretty clear language. There's a 5-4 majority on the Court that claims to care about that sort of thing and generally is favorable to business. Striking it down follows their judicial philosophy and reaches their preferred outcome.

 

[VYFan]

We can call it a "technicality" if we want to, but it's pretty clear language. There's a 5-4 majority on the Court that claims to care about that sort of thing and generally is favorable to business. Striking it down follows their judicial philosophy and reaches their preferred outcome.

I hope my meaning was not lost. I am about 98% an originalist. I don’t think any part of the constitution is a mere technicality. I just meant that from the 1930s at least, and up through the approval of the ACA, and more, constitutional limitations on federal power have been treated as mere nuisances. So, if a majority of both houses and the president pass such a tax, I could easily see the USSCt okaying it on some basis. Not that I agree with such, on policy or constitutionality.

 

[Joe Fan]

Someone insisted on fact-checking this NH claim

 

[Monahorns]

I'm with VYFan. The Constitution has been that great of an impediment to government power. It works where actual people are willing to fight for it. That is about all. The current interpretation of the commerce and general welfare clauses can virtually allow any government action if you take their meaning to its logical result.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I hope my meaning was not lost. I am about 98% an originalist. I don’t think any part of the constitution is a mere technicality. I just meant that from the 1930s at least, and up through the approval of the ACA, and more, constitutional limitations on federal power have been treated as mere nuisances. So, if a majority of both houses and the president pass such a tax, I could easily see the USSCt okaying it on some basis. Not that I agree with such, on policy or constitutionality.

From the late 1930s until the early 1990s I'd agree, but cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison (when the Court used the commerce clause to limit federal power) complicate this contention. Even NFIB v. Sebelius complicates things. The Right demonizes the case as authorizing Obamacare and deem John Roberts a traitor. The reality is different.

People forget that the Court limited federal power by gutting the Medicaid expansion. Furthermore, Roberts's logic was not crazy. The "mandate" wasn't a true mandate. There was no criminal or civil penalty outside the tax context. It imposed additional tax income tax liability on those who didn't have health insurance. Roberts viewed that as a tax. We can disagree with him, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that logic. For example, we tax people harder if they rent a home rather than buy one. Is that unconstitutional?

In addition, Roberts included language that strongly suggests that he would strike down a wealth tax. He makes it clear that a tax on real or personal property (which is what a wealth tax is) would be a direct tax subject to the capitation requirement, which would kill the tax.

I'm not saying there's no chance that the Court would allow a wealth tax. They can overturn prior opinions. However, there's lot of reason to believe that they wouldn't.

 

[VYFan]

From the late 1930s until the early 1990s I'd agree, but cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison (when the Court used the commerce clause to limit federal power) complicate this contention. Even cases NFIB v. Sebelius complicate things. There Right demonizes the case as authorizing Obamacare and deem John Roberts a traitor. The reality is different.

People forget that the Court limited federal power by gutting the Medicaid expansion. Furthermore, Roberts's logic was not crazy. The "mandate" wasn't a true mandate. There was no criminal or civil penalty outside the tax context. It imposed additional tax income tax liability on those who didn't have health insurance. Roberts viewed that as a tax. We can disagree with him, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that logic. For example, we tax people harder if they rent a home rather than buy one. Is that unconstitutional?

In addition, Roberts included language that strongly suggests that he would strike down a wealth tax. He makes it clear that a tax on real or personal property (which is what a wealth tax is) would be a direct tax subject to the capitation requirement, which would kill the tax.

I'm not saying there's no chance that the Court would allow a wealth tax. They can overturn prior opinions. However, there's lot of reason to believe that they wouldn't.

Awesome explanation. That plus the fact that the proportional tax clause does sit by itself, and the history of needing the amendment for income tax may actually keep it viable. So, my mind may be changed.

Can income tax rates hinge on amount of wealth? That is, could a rate of 90% or even 99% be applicable only to those who have a certain worth?

Another question. What would the direct tax that would be constitutional, that was contemplated in the text , look like?

 

[Horn6721]

So Trump has gotten more in donations in state of Washington than the top 6 Dem Candidates combined.
How it must have killed the Seattle Times to report this.
In blue Seattle, Trump supporters are starting to come out of hiding

 

[Joe Fan]

These people are doing about as much as anyone to increase Republican voter turnout

 

[Clean]

Marianne Williamson, who may be the biggest nut in the Democratic presidential candidate nut bag, calls for a national "atonement" over the treatment of Native Americans. She wants to rescind medals of honor for those who fought against Indians. She also wants to take down President Andrew Jackson's portrait from the Oval Office. I haven't read that she said it so far, but I suppose any statues of him, and of course, his picture on the twenty have to go too.
.

 

[LongestHorn]

Trump: There's something going on at Fox News - CNN Video

 

[Joe Fan]

Trump: There's something going on at Fox News - CNN Video

I didnt read this but this evolution of FNC is not exactly news. When the Murdoch children took over, among the very first things they did was extend Shep Smith. Next, they added Donna Brazile. The consensus at the time was these crazy kids were hoping these actions would increase their party invites on the Upper East Side. I dont know if it worked - is that in the article?

 

[Joe Fan]

Marianne Williamson, who may be the biggest nut in the Democratic presidential candidate nut bag, calls for a national "atonement" over the treatment of Native Americans. She wants to rescind medals of honor for those who fought against Indians. She also wants to take down President Andrew Jackson's portrait from the Oval Office. I haven't read that she said so, but I suppose any statues of him, and of course, his picture on the twenty have to go too.
.

Which is why she needs to be in all the televised debates

 

[VYFan]

Which is why she needs to be in all the televised debates

This is true for a lot of reasons. I've seen a lot of the reality shows where people get eliminated every week--like American Idol or the Bachelorette!--anyway, there's usually some controversial clown that gets left on the show way past any logic, just because they make the show more interesting. She definitely serves that role well. It's actually true that I would be more likely to watch the debate if I knew Marianne was going to be there.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is true for a lot of reasons. I've seen a lot of the reality shows where people get eliminated every week--like American Idol or the Bachelorette!--anyway, there's usually some controversial clown that gets left on the show way past any logic, just because they make the show more interesting. She definitely serves that role well. It's actually true that I would be more likely to watch the debate if I knew Marianne was going to be there.

You would think the DNC wants her in too, if no other reason than to make their other cast of characters look a little saner.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Can income tax rates hinge on amount of wealth? That is, could a rate of 90% or even 99% be applicable only to those who have a certain worth?

If it's a tax on income, then I think the rate could be based on wealth. The 16th Amendment pretty much gave Congress unlimited income tax authority. It was a stupid-*** amendment to pass. Even if we were going to have an income tax, we should have included some protections for taxpayers. We didn't.

Another question. What would the direct tax that would be constitutional, that was contemplated in the text , look like?

I'm not sure I could come up with anything from recent history. You could impose a tax on real estate or wealth and apportion the burden for it according to each state's population. But of course, that would mean that similarly situated people would be paying wildly different amounts depending on where they live, which would make such a tax very politically controversial and difficult not to mention complicated as hell. And of course, this was by design. The founders wanted federal taxes to be hard to impose and state taxes to be easy to impose.

 

[UTChE96]

Oh man, did Biden step in it. You know things are bad when your own wife gives a tepid endorsement.