Helpful ReplyHot!Give me all your moneys

Page: << < ..678 Showing page 8 of 8
Author
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1261
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 12:23:51 (permalink)
I’m not sure why money in politics and taxes are intrinsically linked? It seems like you are putting an additional barrier in front of a possible solution for no reason.

On what legal grounds would it be challenged in court? You haven’t even seen how the tax legislation is written, how do you know it would be so easy to evade paying taxes on it? It seems like you are just looking for any reason to defend the status quo or make excuses to do nothing.

Proposing an additional tax like this on the middle class would be politically disastrous. Which lawmakers could you even imagine supporting it? Certainly not progressive Democrats. It’s also much more difficult to make a tax like this work if you don’t have a ton of assets to begin with.
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 8453
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 13:14:45 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby fishin coyote 2021/10/27 14:44:18
MyWar
I’m not sure why money in politics and taxes are intrinsically linked? It seems like you are putting an additional barrier in front of a possible solution for no reason.

Money in politics = favors.  Whether in the legislative or judicial branches.
 
MyWar
On what legal grounds would it be challenged in court? You haven’t even seen how the tax legislation is written, how do you know it would be so easy to evade paying taxes on it? It seems like you are just looking for any reason to defend the status quo or make excuses to do nothing.

Going off of Sen. Wyden proposal.  This amounts to a property tax, in where they are taxing the unrealized value of their investments.  Unless it is income, it is unconstitutional.  They would need to add an amendment to the Constitution for it not to be.  If they aren't planning to do so, there likely isn't a Federal judge that won't rule it as unconstitutional.  The ones that have a huge amount of donations from these 400 or so billionaires, I wonder if any incentive to buck the system?  As noted, I used to be like you in gung-ho about sticking it to the rich.  I agree, the disparity is sickening.  I watched Clinton and Obama promise it, with no action.  It just won't happen.  It is a political rallying cry.  Just as fixing welfare is for the other side.  It gets people to the polls for their sides.  Which is all they care about.  Keeping themselves in power.  They don't give a flying F about the disparity, most of them aren't far outside of the top 1%.  Not going to tell you how to think, but I live a lot happier after I figured this out.  The system is broken, at best they will add a bandage.  Usually those bandages end up being more in the way of the middle class trying to advance themselves than it is for those at the top.
 
BTW - There would be absolutely no way to say "only you 400 or so", unrealized value of your investments are income.  The rest of you that have money in 401k or other in the market or own property, it isn't income for you...  It is opening up a huge can of worms, that they might not be looking to tax now, but sooner or later they will.  Heck yeah, I am defending status quo on this.  I worked my rear off taking bonuses in company stock instead of cash and have passed on buying many nice things to invest that money.  I want to retire while my mind and body are still able to enjoy.
 
MyWar
Proposing an additional tax like this on the middle class would be politically disastrous. Which lawmakers could you even imagine supporting it? Certainly not progressive Democrats. It’s also much more difficult to make a tax like this work if you don’t have a ton of assets to begin with.

So is the agenda of the progressive Democrats, but yet they keep pushing it...
post edited by Porktown - 2021/10/27 13:37:27
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 8453
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 14:37:49 (permalink)
MyWar
I’m not sure why money in politics and taxes are intrinsically linked? It seems like you are putting an additional barrier in front of a possible solution for no reason.

To not keep going back and editing my response.
 
Can you explain why the Green Party alumni, Kyrsten Sinema is blocking a much easier tax plan to the ultra wealthy that wouldn't be considered unconstitutional by most Constitutional scholars and tax attorneys?  This is what Reuters, AP, NPR and the three major networks are all reporting the Wyden proposal most likely would not hold up.  
 
Are you telling me that you aren't the least bit suspicious that money has anything to do with how she is acting???  Or maybe, the Democratic party has instructed her to hold up their efforts.  We tried to stick it to the billionaires, too bad it didn't work, keep voting for us and we will "keep trying".  I know kind of conspiracy theory type talk, but it isn't some crazy covert action, orchestrated by thousands of people.  I have no doubt the same thing happens with Collins, Murkowski and others.
 
 
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1261
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 16:14:32 (permalink)
Porktown
MyWar
I’m not sure why money in politics and taxes are intrinsically linked? It seems like you are putting an additional barrier in front of a possible solution for no reason.

Money in politics = favors.  Whether in the legislative or judicial branches.
 
MyWar
On what legal grounds would it be challenged in court? You haven’t even seen how the tax legislation is written, how do you know it would be so easy to evade paying taxes on it? It seems like you are just looking for any reason to defend the status quo or make excuses to do nothing.

Going off of Sen. Wyden proposal.  This amounts to a property tax, in where they are taxing the unrealized value of their investments.  Unless it is income, it is unconstitutional.  They would need to add an amendment to the Constitution for it not to be.  If they aren't planning to do so, there likely isn't a Federal judge that won't rule it as unconstitutional.  The ones that have a huge amount of donations from these 400 or so billionaires, I wonder if any incentive to buck the system?  As noted, I used to be like you in gung-ho about sticking it to the rich.  I agree, the disparity is sickening.  I watched Clinton and Obama promise it, with no action.  It just won't happen.  It is a political rallying cry.  Just as fixing welfare is for the other side.  It gets people to the polls for their sides.  Which is all they care about.  Keeping themselves in power.  They don't give a flying F about the disparity, most of them aren't far outside of the top 1%.  Not going to tell you how to think, but I live a lot happier after I figured this out.  The system is broken, at best they will add a bandage.  Usually those bandages end up being more in the way of the middle class trying to advance themselves than it is for those at the top.
 
BTW - There would be absolutely no way to say "only you 400 or so", unrealized value of your investments are income.  The rest of you that have money in 401k or other in the market or own property, it isn't income for you...  It is opening up a huge can of worms, that they might not be looking to tax now, but sooner or later they will.  Heck yeah, I am defending status quo on this.  I worked my rear off taking bonuses in company stock instead of cash and have passed on buying many nice things to invest that money.  I want to retire while my mind and body are still able to enjoy.
 
MyWar
Proposing an additional tax like this on the middle class would be politically disastrous. Which lawmakers could you even imagine supporting it? Certainly not progressive Democrats. It’s also much more difficult to make a tax like this work if you don’t have a ton of assets to begin with.

So is the agenda of the progressive Democrats, but yet they keep pushing it...



Honestly I could provide responses to each of these points but that whole discussion would be missing the bigger issue which is that people with ridiculous amounts of wealth can avoid paying tax by simply keeping all of their wealth tied up in investments. People like Bezos draw only meager salaries that they actually do pay income tax on, but they are compensated by huge piles of stock that they never have to liquidate, and are never taxed on.

You’re arguing that this tax policy *might* hurt the middle class in the future, *if* the government decides to extend it… but the reality is that the current situation is hurting the middle class much more right now, because they have to shoulder more of the tax burden.

As for Sinema, who knows. She’s an enigma. Nobody seems to know what her motivation is. It’s certainly not “the party” tho. If there was some way “the party” could get Sinema and Manchin on board with this stuff they almost certainly would do so. Democrats’ best chance of winning elections in 2022 and 2024 and beyond is delivering on promises, and Sinema and manchin are the most visible obstacles to doing so.

I’m also not sure exactly which tax policy you are referring to (that sinema won’t support) but pretty much any tax policy devised is going to have upsides and downsides. Anything that gets proposed is going to have detractors poking holes in it.
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 8453
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 16:50:43 (permalink)
Most articles that I have read of why the Dems are going the Wyden approach, all point to Sinema not budging on raising taxes on the wealthy by traditional means.
 
I completely agree with you on how they skirt the system.  There are many other ways for them to do it, especially if they own a business.  They have paid for politicians to write the laws to favor them.  Why money needs taken out of politics.  Yes, it is connected.  It is the root of the problem.  You need to attack problems at the root.  Anyone entering politics should have to give up any outside business stakes while in office as well.  It is the cry about Biden's bonehead kid, but fine by Trump to do?  People up in arms about Cheney and the no bid Haliburton contracts, but Clintons can funnel money into their foundations "is different".  That sort of covering for your side, but attacking the other, is exactly what they want.  They are the ones responsible for the uber rich having the ability to skirt taxes like they do.  Any wonder why they do it?  Any time there is talk of "fixing" the issue, they somehow don't find enough votes or put up some sort of bandage that is instantly ripped off...  
 
Trust me, I agree with the issue of the uber wealthy not paying their fare share.  But the fix is much deeper.  There will never be a fix without addressing the source.
 
Adding an additional way to tax everyone, is not a good idea.  No doubt in my mind if this somehow is found constitutional, within 20 years, it will be used on the rest of us.  That is how things have always worked.  That isn't FoxNews talk.
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1261
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/27 19:08:32 (permalink)
The only elected officials that I see making noise about getting money out politics are progressive Democrats. AOC, Bernie Sanders, John Fetterman, even Obama would have waved a magic wand to reverse the Citizens United decision if he could have done so. Can you name a single Republican that has ever earnestly proposed campaign finance reform ideas?

But that’s just such a different issue entirely, and Democrats decided to use what little political capital they have right now to address other things. Remember, they can only get this stuff through via budget reconciliation. Election reform would have to be in a different bill, and even if the entire Democratic caucus got behind it in the senate, we both know that republicans would filibuster it.
ICE NUT
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1082
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/01/11 21:02:12
  • Status: offline
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/28 08:05:48 (permalink)
And it would be the opposite if it was the opposite party in charge 
EMitch
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 816
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2015/12/24 11:48:47
  • Location: Freeport, Pa.
  • Status: offline
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/28 19:36:06 (permalink)
In Washington, there's 535 people responsible for all these predicaments, 'cause they all take money from "special interests". Lobbyists rush to D.C. with only two thoughts in mind. Legislate to help us, and we'll make it worth your while, or, don't hurt us with legislation, and we'll make it worth your while. General statements, but pretty much the case. Note how many congressmen and senators become millionaires after a few terms.

If you agree with the Progressive Democrats, that's freedom of speech. If you disagree, it's hate speech and racism.
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 8453
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Give me all your moneys 2021/10/28 21:26:07 (permalink)
EMitch
In Washington, there's 535 people responsible for all these predicaments, 'cause they all take money from "special interests". Lobbyists rush to D.C. with only two thoughts in mind. Legislate to help us, and we'll make it worth your while, or, don't hurt us with legislation, and we'll make it worth your while. General statements, but pretty much the case. Note how many congressmen and senators become millionaires after a few terms.

100%. End this and at least half of our political problems are solved instantly. No other issue comes close to this for me.
Page: << < ..678 Showing page 8 of 8
Jump to: