Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets

1246716

Comments

  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    HHusky said:

    You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?

    Asking for a friend.
    You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.

    Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
  • MariotaTheGawdMariotaTheGawd Member Posts: 1,441
    SFGbob said:

    You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.

    Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
    I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this board :D
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,183

    Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense

    Like a wall

    Shit the government is supposed to do

    That was how they were able to get it passed in Congress. The interstate system was seen as not only adding in National Defense but it's text book definition of Federal spending on behalf of the "General Welfare."
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,229 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    After saying you don't care how the tax cut was sold. Now you care how the interstate system was sold?
    Fuck off.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 47,622 Standard Supporter
    edited January 2019
    HHusky said:

    I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.
    Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.

    Problem solved.

    Next.



  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,183

    I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this board :D
    I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.


    Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 23,300
    edited January 2019

    Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.

    Problem solved.

    Next.



    I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 112,310 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.
    Which is a proven horrible idea

    Good one
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,138 Founders Club
    edited January 2019
    SFGbob said:

    Yeah, no doubt that's what he had in mind dams and aqueducts when he said:

    Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.

    You'd be hard pressed to any significant new dams built in this country these days anyway. Something tells me he was thing about roads and ports when he made that statement. All of those would fall into the category of "general welfare."
    I’m just breaking your balls, Bob, with a friendly reminder that throughout our history, government has improved our standard of living immensely. This is especially true of the State of California.

    True though it would be damned hard to build anymore dams in today’s climate. Good thing for all you SFO folks that your forefathers damned up Yosemite before anyone cared about the environment.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 23,300

    Which is a proven horrible idea

    Good one
    Proven how?
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.

    Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
    Read the general welfare clause.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    2001400ex said:

    Read the general welfare clause.
    Read repeating your same line of bullshit doesn't improve it Hondo.

    If "general welfare" was supposed to mean providing citizens with healthcare why didn't it start doing so until the 20th Century Hondo?


  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,183

    I’m just breaking your balls, Bob, with a friendly reminder that throughout our history, government has improved our standard of living immensely. This is especially true of the State of California.

    True though it would be damned hard to build anymore dams in today’s climate. Good thing for all you SFO folks that your forefathers damned up Yosemite before anyone cared about the environment.
    Government has a role in building infrastructure and facilitating trade and enforcing the rule of law all of these are collective goods and part of the general welfare.

    Where government fails and where far too many people now think that it is a proper role of government is when it starts trying to deal with the certainties of life instead of leaving that up to the individual.

    You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. It's not the role of a Federal government deal with the certainties of life on a individual basis.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    The wealth tax is an excise tax on wealth. I agree it's not Constitutional. But my point stands.

    It’s not though. The term “Excise tax” has a definition. And a tax on property is not an excise tax.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.

    The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
    The leftists mentality...the government is responsible for making my life better.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    2001400ex said:

    Read the general welfare clause.
    Read it for comprehension. I don’t think you have.
  • dhdawgdhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    ah nothing like a thread of HCH whining about the evils of taxing the uber wealthy.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,138 Founders Club
    SFGbob said:

    Government has a role in building infrastructure and facilitating trade and enforcing the rule of law all of these are collective goods and part of the general welfare.

    Where government fails and where far too many people now think that it is a proper role of government is when it starts trying to deal with the certainties of life instead of leaving that up to the individual.

    You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. It's not the role of a Federal government deal with the certainties of life on a individual basis.
    Agree.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 47,622 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.
    You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.

    It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.
Sign In or Register to comment.