U.S. Democratic Primary

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

Second bullet:  The new tax from Warren, who recently announced her bid to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, would only apply to Americans with more than $50 million in assets.

Second paragraph:  The new tax from Warren, who recently announced her bid to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, would only apply to Americans with more than $50 million in assets.

Tweet quoted in article:  I’m calling it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax" & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M

Later:  The Post reported that Warren has been advised by Saez and Gabriel Zucman, left-leaning economists affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, on a deal that would levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets.

HTH

Exactly what I read. I read it literally, which does not support your interpretation, but wondered if they really meant...your interpretation. 

I was surprised how much they said it without clarifying. They didn't. Ten oz provided another link that did.

So your interpretation is correct, as it turns out, and as I suspected it should, but it was not clear in that link

"Americans with more than 50 million in assets" are are an identifiable group. That's how that phrase reads. There was nothing in that first link that stated  the first  50 million was not taxed. I would not be surprised to find out the author did not assume it was, and based the projected revenue on 2% of all of that groups assets.

 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly what I read. I read it literally, which does not support your interpretation, but wondered if they really meant...your interpretation. 

I was surprised how much they said it without clarifying. They didn't. Ten oz provided another link that did.

So your interpretation is correct, as it turns out, and as I suspected it should, but it was not clear in that link

 

 

Not to be a-hole but you could've searched other links for yourself if the one provided left you with questions. 

Among the candidates who have thus far announced what are your thoughts? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Not to be a-hole but you could've searched other links for yourself if the one provided left you with questions. 

 

I had a number of questions on it. I expect they will be debated over time, if the idea has legs.

 

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Among the candidates who have thus far announced what are your thoughts? 

I am only somewhat familiar with some of the current candidates.

I think Warren comes off a little awkward, but I like her.

I am interested in Beto O'Rourke, but I don't expect he will be officially in the race for a while.

I already commented on Harris.

[iNow]

538 is suggesting Mayor Bill de Blasio of NY may be next to announce (or that he’s at least testing the waters)

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly what I read. I read it literally, which does not support your interpretation, but wondered if they really meant...your interpretation. 

How are they different?

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I was surprised how much they said it without clarifying. They didn't. Ten oz provided another link that did.

So your interpretation is correct, as it turns out, and as I suspected it should, but it was not clear in that link

What is unclear about saying the tax applies to assets above $50 million?

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Americans with more than 50 million in assets" are are an identifiable group. That's how that phrase reads. There was nothing in that first link that stated  the first  50 million was not taxed. I would not be surprised to find out the author did not assume it was, and based the projected revenue on 2% of all of that groups assets.

I am continually amazed at people who presumably pay taxes in countries that use marginal tax rates, and yet do not appear to understand the concept

(there are some, including politicians and pundits, who I think only pretend to not understand, in order to advance their agenda)

[J.C.MacSwell]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

How are they different?

I explained the difference. I am sure you would understand this if it was a single lump sum tax of, say 1 million, that would only apply to Americans with more than 50 million in assets.

The link referred to the percentage of total wealth in the US that this group owned. They said nothing as to what percentage might be exposed to the tax.

I would expect a considerable difference in the two numbers.

Edit: 1 million was probably a poor choice for example, as it is exactly 2% of 50 million

Also with regard to the "difference in the two numbers", that was not directed at "how are they different", but to why what you assumed (correctly) was actually unstated and not clear in the link.

 

Edited January 27, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I am continually amazed at people who presumably pay taxes in countries that use marginal tax rates, and yet do not appear to understand the concept

(there are some, including politicians and pundits, who I think only pretend to not understand, in order to advance their agenda)

I know what they are. I also see that it is not stated in that link that it applies, You assumed that it did, and the other link indicated your assumption was correct.

I am continuously amazed at how people that have impeccable logic in science threads do not seem to have the same in political ones.

Edited January 27, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I know what they are. I also see that it is not stated in that link that it applies, You assumed that it did, and the other link indicated your assumption was correct.

I am continuously amazed at how people that have impeccable logic in science threads do not seem to have the same in political ones.

Is there a tax of this nature that isn’t marginal? I’m not aware of any.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Is there a tax of this nature that isn’t marginal? I’m not aware of any.

Municipal real estate is most commonly a fixed percentage, Commercial is often a different rate from residential, but neither are marginal.

[swansont]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Municipal real estate is most commonly a fixed percentage, Commercial is often a different rate from residential, but neither are marginal.

But flat-rate applies to all, not just a certain category of the population. It is not of the same nature.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, swansont said:

But flat-rate applies to all, not just a certain category of the population. It is not of the same nature.

So...now you seem to be arguing what is fair to assume, as opposed to what was stated.

If this was from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rather than Warren, would you have made the same assumptions based on reading that link?

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...now you seem to be arguing what is fair to assume, as opposed to what was stated.

If this was from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rather than Warren, would you have made the same assumptions based on reading that link?

Yes. I didn't base my conclusion on who proposed it. To me, it was obviously a marginal rate, because they all are, when there is a number that has to be met, like this. 

I can't imagine anyone dim enough to propose a tax that kicked in at some threshold, that was not a marginal rate. I doubt they would get support for it, and I imagine the constitutionality would be in question (equal protection)

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am only somewhat familiar with some of the current candidates.

I think Warren comes off a little awkward, but I like her.

I am interested in Beto O'Rourke, but I don't expect he will be officially in the race for a while.

I already commented on Harris.

I don't think O'Rourke should run. The Presidency isn't a consolation prize to the White House. I am excited at the prospect of Texas turning Blue but feel that came be accomplished if O'Rourke strong gets behind Castro (who is already in). 

[Nod2003]

My question is do more candidates strengthen the Dem bid, or weaken it?  The jungle primary systems, which often excludes participation from the other party, which both parties use tends to weed out the moderate candidates and push the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.  This may have the effect of a strong primary candidate underperforming in the general election.  Do more choices then tend to hurt that party because the primary voters have more extreme options, or is this simply a misperception I have?  

In 2016, the R’s had like 16 primary candidates to 3 on the D’s.  Trump is pretty extreme and won the primary, Clinton was the more moderate, but there is a chance that the Dem primary was biased in her favor.  Logically she should have won the gen election, but she made some very poor marketing decisions and assumptions that very likely cost her the electoral college vote while winning the popular vote.

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

My question is do more candidates strengthen the Dem bid, or weaken it?  

Currently there seems to be a lot of political pundits predicting that there will be a lot of of Candidates in the Democratic 2020 primary field but I don't suspect that will be the case. media is reporting a wild Democratic Primary Season because that is what they are hoping for. A Wild Primary season would be great for ratings and views. By Iowa (2/3/2020) I will be surprised if the field is larger than 7-8 candidates.

Announcing that one is running and filing the paperwork enables them to start collecting and allocating campaign funds. As some of the campaigns fail to raise supports their candidates will drop. Of the 8 candidates who have currently announced I think only 3 (Harris, Warren, Castro) will absolutely still be running by the time we get to the first the Iowa Caucus. 

Harris is off to such a strong start I think many of the other serious candidates who have been on fence may decide against running and instead select to be a campaign surrogate. It is worth remembering that media reports often speculated about Biden, Bloomberg, Booker, and Kerry back in 2016 too and none of them ended up running. 

51 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Trump is pretty extreme and won the primary, Clinton was the more moderate, but there is a chance that the Dem primary was biased in her favor.

Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley were the only 3 candidates who made it to Iowa and O'Malley got  0.07% of the vote there and it ended his campaign. So the Democratic Primary was a 2 person race between Clinton and Sanders. Bernie Sanders was not and currently is not a registered Democrat. To say the Primary was biased for Clinton is a bit silly. Clinton was the only Democrat running for the Democratic party nomination. It goes without saying she would be the preferred candidate. 

1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:

Logically she should have won the gen election, but she made some very poor marketing decisions and assumptions that very likely cost her the electoral college vote while winning the popular vote.

The DNC getting hacked by Russian Intelligence, a anti Clinton media campaign managed by Russian Intelligence, and voter suppression by Republicans were not marketing choices within Clinton's control. Clinton got 65,853,000 votes in 16'. In 2012 Obama received 65,915, 000. For all the total about all of Clinton's mistakes there really wasn't much of a difference between 2012 and 2016. I think the media runs with whatever narrative is most click worthy and the narrative that Clinton messed up by doing X,Y, and Z was simply better click bait than the more complicating ones relating to Russian interference and and our (USA) convoluted electoral process which is highly susceptible to local political manipulation. Easy answers make better headlines. 

 

 

[Ten oz]

Rep. Ted Lieu Endorsed Kamala Harris. This early in the process it is surprising an endorsement from Congress already. Harris has a lot of steam out of gate having also drawn a huge crowd over the weekend. 

Quote

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) on Monday endorsed Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for president in the 2020 election, saying she "embraces the future." Link

 

[CharonY]

Switching gears a bit, there is an interesting article outlining an analysis of proposed anti-poverty measures by Democratic candidates. From there, it seems that policies targeting housing assistance are some of the most effective means.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Switching gears a bit, there is an interesting article outlining an analysis of proposed anti-poverty measures by Democratic candidates. From there, it seems that policies targeting housing assistance are some of the most effective means.

I wouldn't mind discussing these plans in detail. If you start a thread to do so I will participate. My comments in this thread regarding the plans primarily apply to there potential impact on the Democratic Primary. 

I think focusing on such proposals is a mistake. People are fairly dug in on issues regarding government assistance, what is considered a minimum wage/living standard, and taxes that dredging them up is like poking proverbial hornets nest. Friendly fire on the left will challenge is the plans go far enough while on the right they'll be indigent and throw around labels like socialism. No point in Democrats beating each other up going into the weeds debating proposals that will all look the same via twitter character limits and short news media segments. 

So often we hear the talk about Trump being a Liar, Sexist, Racism, and etc; he is an unethical leader.  I think people lose track of the fact that he is also a bad President. He is bad at the job in additional to being unethical. Under Trump debt has skyrocketed, no decisions have been made to strength or overhaul the ACA, global partnerships have weakened, we have no longer strategy in the Middle East (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), and so on. Trump and Conservative Pundits can trash income percentage based assistance proposals like the Rent Relief Act in their sleep. Most of them build their whole careers out of trashing such ideas. Harder to address are those areas where the nation is currently totally directionless. I rather see Democrats debate Syria, debt, and the the role technology plays in trade between the U.S. and China. Highlight the less discussed areas where Trump is weak and to ill informed to produce quick bumper sticker comebacks. 

 

[Ten oz]

Cory Booker has announced he's running.

Quote

 

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said Friday that he will seek the Democratic nomination for president, adding his name to a growing and increasingly diversified field of 2020 candidates intent on taking on President Trump.

Booker made his announcement via an email and video to supporters, and he had interviews scheduled throughout the day.

Link

 

This is a bit disappointing to me. For the record I like Booker, Warren, and Harris. I just don't see much daylight between them policy wise. They are 3 candidates who all agree on 99.999% of policy. I don't see the use in filling the field with candidates who all share identical policies. 

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Cory Booker has announced he's running.

This is a bit disappointing to me. For the record I like Booker, Warren, and Harris. I just don't see much daylight between them policy wise. They are 3 candidates who all agree on 99.999% of policy. I don't see the use in filling the field with candidates who all share identical policies. 

Which one is the most photogenic and likely to positively reach the most people?

Edited February 1, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Which one is the most photogenic and likely to positively reach the most people?

Which ever one is it will become less so if forced to battle it out vs their own allies. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Ten oz

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This is a bit disappointing to me. For the record I like Booker, Warren, and Harris. I just don't see much daylight between them policy wise. They are 3 candidates who all agree on 99.999% of policy. I don't see the use in filling the field with candidates who all share identical policies. 

Assuming that is an issue and what is supposed to be discussed in this thread I feel that it would be necessary to talk about differences in their policies or other profiles after all. I do think, for example, that the historic stance of e.g. Booker and Harris to criminal justice and the way they think about it now is relevant. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Assuming that is an issue and what is supposed to be discussed in this thread I feel that it would be necessary to talk about differences in their policies or other profiles after all. I do think, for example, that the historic stance of e.g. Booker and Harris to criminal justice and the way they think about it now is relevant. 

I just render my opinion on Booker's announcement. I didn't mean to imply it meant Booker and his policies shouldn't be discussed. 

The only reason I didn't want to get into the weeds about the only proposal but I think there is a good chance a few other posters here will turn into an argument about taxes and the role of govt broadly. 

I think there's more difference between Harris and Gillbrand than there is Booker and Harris. I think Harris, Warren, Castro, and Booker are mostly in agreement on most things. They just split the same core voters. I would like to see more diversity in ideology among candidates. 

[iNow]

Unless perhaps I missed it, there’s no entry in the thread for John Delaney who was first to announce. 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/07/2020-candidate-john-delaney-hires-iowa-staff-plans-six-offices/2495841002/

Quote

Delaney, who just ended his third term as a U.S. representative from Maryland, was the first to announce a 2020 presidential run, launching his campaign in October 2017.

 

Also, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is in Iowa this weekend, so he’s likely up soon, too

[Ten oz]

Trevor Noah hit on one of my concerns.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLfYaklGpIE

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Also, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is in Iowa this weekend, so he’s likely up soon, too

Brown's campaign is called "Dignity of Work". He is blasting Trump for his "phony populism". At a rally a couple days ago he hit on soaring corporate profits and executive compensation. As with the other candidates in the field I feel it is a very weak message. Republicans have their slogans regarding taxes, regulation, profits, and etc on lock. Regardless of what the reality is economics is the one area where Republicans poll higher than Democrats. Polling shows the public prefers Democrats on seemingly every other issue. Democrats have  a statistically significant edge with Heathcare, the Environment, Immigration, drug addiction, and so on. Polling on the issues.

Over the last 40yrs from Reagan - Trump Republicans have consistently preached the same message that tax cuts and deregulation boost profits and empower business to expand and hire more people at better wages. It is total B.S. but it is also very simple and everyone has heard it a gazillion times. My phone can autofill the talking points they are so entrenched in our political vocabulary.

I do not believe any candidate will be able to undo 4 decades worth of Republican messaging about taxes in the next 2yrs. Rather than attacking Trump on the only issue where his approval is strong, the only place where the public believes he is good, I wish Democrats would focus on Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy, and etc. Hard working Americans being left behind is language that only helps Conservatives. "Hard working Americans" should be removed from the Democratic vocabulary and replace with things like "young professionals" and "families looking towards retirement". 

In 2012 Obama didn't go mono e mono with Romney over tax policy and corporate profits. Obama talked about the Dream Act,  ACA implementation, DOD spending/modernization, and the environment. While I realize those are all things every Democratic candidate does care about I don't feel they are doing a good enough bringing them front and center. Democrats need to be more than the pro-tax party. We live in nuance free character limited environment. 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Unless perhaps I missed it, there’s no entry in the thread for John Delaney who was first to announce. 

Just Richard Ojeda  recently ended his campaign I have assumed so to will Delaney sooner than later. Delaney has a generic campaign site  with generic positions. He seems to be purely focused on Iowa. I suppose focusing on Iowa is an okay plan. If he can finish in the top 5 in Iowa I guess that would earn him some buzz.