U.S. Democratic Primary

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and I’ve gotta say, he was decidedly NOT on my radar. 

Harris, Warren, and Castro are the only ones I know much about. I am aware of Gillbrand but not much more than that. 

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am aware of Gillbrand but not much more than that. 

I’m familiar with her. She’s been working hard to build a national profile since taking the seat after Clinton.

She seems to be framing her candidacy to present herself as m a young mom (despite being in early 50s) who’s gonna go all “momma-bear” and protect the nations citizens like her own kids. Policy-wise, she supports same stuff as Warren, but with fewer bonafides.

Suspect Cory Booker will come next (or even Biden given his recent comments tackling race and women’s issues). 

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Suspect Cory Booker will come next (or even Biden given his recent comments tackling race and women’s issues). 

I hope neither run. Biden handled Anita Hill poorly and in the wake of Kavanaugh I think it is best he doesn't run. He had his day. As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running. His policy positions are already fully represented. I don't want the primary to turn into a circus with a hundred candidates. Harris and Warren are both A+ candidates in my opinion.

From a tactical standpoint I hope Holder runs. I suspect the right would love to pile on and obsess over him. That would provide a window for others to get going prior to fielding full scale attacks. I also think Holder would remind some moderates of how much better things use to be just a couple years ago. Holder is a seasoned veteran at dealing with the rights propaganda and others can learn a thing or two from him if he runs. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m familiar with her. She’s been working hard to build a national profile since taking the seat after Clinton.

She seems to be framing her candidacy to present herself as m a young mom (despite being in early 50s) who’s gonna go all “momma-bear” and protect the nations citizens like her own kids. Policy-wise, she supports same stuff as Warren, but with fewer bonafides.

Suspect Cory Booker will come next (or even Biden given his recent comments tackling race and women’s issues). 

Always good to see a gladiator enter the Coliseum...

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running

More than anything else, he stands out to me for his focus and consistent efforts around criminal justice reform and his ability to build coalitions across the aisle.

He’s also got some interesting ideas around wealth building opportunities for those in poverty. They’re called opportunity accounts and could really help shrink inequality and lift people up in generational terms: https://socialequity.duke.edu/news/exclusive-look-cory-booker’s-plan-fight-wealth-inequality-give-poor-kids-money

He's got some other interesting back story around meditating and frequent fasting, and he seems to really understand “the common man” on a personal level, but that’s perhaps less relevant. 

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't want the primary to turn into a circus with a hundred candidates

We’ll see. I do understand, but... Good luck with that.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

Not sure whether yo have it in the US, but in Canada we used to have a child benefit, which was received monthly until 18 yrs of age. So this is an interesting idea.
( I seem to remember $25 or $35 when I was a child/teen )
And there were no restrictions on its use; this sounds somewhat similar, but with more restrictions.

I believe these days, our child benefit has been changed to a tax credit; not entirely sure, and haven't looked into it.

Edited January 24, 2019 by MigL

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running. His policy positions are already fully represented.

Booker has a semi-good record of being good at negotiating, as iNow pointed out.

Being able to negotiate well is an attribute that I'd like to see in a president, especially following Trump.

That being said, I'm not all that familiar with the other candidates' ability in negotiating.

[rangerx]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Cory Booker will come next (or even Biden given his recent comments tackling race and women’s issues). 

I think Cory would be a strong candidate. I'm impressed by his committee work. He's very pointed in his questions and firm in demeanor.

At one time I may have thought Joe was a bit of a gaffer, but in the post-Trump era, he'll be remembered in the height of eloquence.

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

More than anything else, he stands out to me for his focus and consistent efforts around criminal justice reform and his ability to build coalitions across the aisle.

At the time of his election (landscape has changed since) Bill Clinton was moderate as they come. Looking back there really wasn't much ideological difference between Clinton, Dole, and H.W. Bush. It didn't help Clinton pull support across the aisle. Likewise with Uber pragmatic Obama. In 2008 Edwards and Richards represented the liberal wing  of the party. On key issues like marriage equally Obama and Hillary Clinton were the most conservative among the field. Let's not forget that the ACA (Obamacare) was previously a Republican proposal Obama selected because he thought it could win support across the aisle. It didn't win Obama support across the aisle. Republicans screamed bloody murder over the ACA. Whomever the next Democratic President is, whenever they serve, it is safe to assume they will face combative Republicans in Congress determined to subvert them on everything. Cory Booker isn't going to win any support across the aisle on anything. 

Cory Booker is great on Criminal Justice. I have seen him address the issue in person on a two occasions and was impressed both times. He is able to personalize the issue for a broad audience. However I don't think any of his policy ideas on the issue differ from Warren or Harris. I also think with Harris's background she is far more qualified to oversee a criminal justice policy change that would have the biggest impact. She was the Attorney General of the countries most populated state. Cory Booker might have a softer touch discussing Criminal Justice issue but I doubt that would translate into policy the same way Harris's no fuss experienced approach would. 

Then there is Holder. He was the Attorney General for the whole country. If Holder runs I can not imagine Booker bringing anything but fluff to a serious Criminal Justice debate between himself, Harris,and Holder. Don't get me wrong; If Booker is the nominee I will send his campaign money and vote for him. I like Cory Booker. 

[iNow]

Your mention of Holder interests me. I hadn’t seriously considered him running, but do see him as strong and capable. The fast and furious scandal will surely come up (it’d be like Benghazi hearings all over again), and (whether justified or not) so will the criticisms of him from the black community for not doing more to increase fairness in the criminal justice system as the first African American AG.

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your mention of Holder interests me. I hadn’t seriously considered him running, but do see him as strong and capable. The fast and furious scandal will surely come up (it’d be like Benghazi hearings all over again), and (whether justified or not) so will the criticisms of him from the black community for not doing more to increase fairness in the criminal justice system as the first African American AG.

I don't think Holder would win the nomination. I do think the way Holder deals with the whataboutism and crying wolf from the right would help every other candidate fortify their own campaigns.So I see benefit in it. I also think that Holder running will help dispel the idea that there's difference in policy goal between the black community Holder, Obama, or Democrats at large regarding criminal justice. The Right will help Holder deliver that message by labeling him anti-police. The Black community isn't anti-police. Democrats are not anti-police. 

[iNow]

It’s a good point. Holder as lightening rod protecting the surrounding environment, and in parallel an anchor to help recenter the Overton window. 

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed a "wealth tax" on some of the richest Americans.

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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabeth-warren-to-propose-new-wealth-tax-economic-advisor.html

 

I am not a fan of this. Part of being in leader in my opinion is responding to the environment as it exists rather than merely pursuing ones own priorities. The U.S. is in a state of chaos at the moment. Our Military is operating without clear direction in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We have broken with numerous international agreements regarding everything from Climate Change to Nuclear Proliferation . We just had the first full year of Stock Market losses in a decade. Public support for institutions are at record lows with Conservatives losing faith in Federal courts and Federal Law Enforcement institutions while Liberal have lost faith in local ones. Attitudes about race, gender, religion,  education, and etc are increasingly divisive as well. A "wealth tax" doesn't address the current state of affairs directly enough in my opinion. 

While a wealth tax would address the deficit which has been climbing under Trump so too would addressing DOD's budget, fixes to the ACA, and a roll back of Trump's tax cuts. If Elizabeth Warren wantsto become President she will need to talk about more than how much taxes rich people pay. POTUS is  a bigger job than IRS Commissioner. We are currently in the middle of an Immigration battle with some criminal justice on opioid crisis overlap. Warren need to speak to those issues, in my opinion, if she is going to bother to step forward and propose things. 

[iNow]

She will speak about many issues. This is only one. 

There’s still 647 days until the election. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

My first thoughts on Warren's wealth tax are: 

At what rate? How much revenue becomes available? Do you just pay based on the excess over 50 million? Can a wife and husband with 100 million in assets avoid the tax?

How do you do the accounting? What are the costs involved of doing the accounting for everyone and policing by the Government?

What will the costs be to the economy if it is necessary to liquify business assets to pay for doing the accounting, and to make payments if the 50 million threshold is reached?

How long before it's 1 million? (Then you get questions like "what is the value of a tenured position at a University, a commercial fishing license, the real vs book value of a small business etc. which could contribute to the totals)

In principle, I'm not against it. It is a matter of doing it efficiently and fairly (There won't be much agreement on that, but that is true of taxes in general.)

Hard conservatives will of course see it as "stealing" even more of their money.

Edited January 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

She will speak about many issues. This is only one. 

There’s still 647 days until the election. 

This is the only issue I have really ever heard her speak on. 

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My first thoughts on Warren's wealth tax are: 

At what rate? How much revenue becomes available? Do you just pay based on the excess over 50 million? Can a wife and husband with 100 million in assets avoid the tax?

The answers to those questions are in the link I provided. 

"2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets. For Americans with assets above $1 billion, that tax rate would increase to 3 percent."

My issue isn't that the plan isn't a good plan. Rather my issue is that the nation has more pressing problem her proposal doesn't speak to directly. 

Over that last 35 years we (USA) has had 5 rounds of major tax cuts with out any major increases. As a result debt as a percentage of GDP has doubled during that timeframe. It is a serious problem. Taxes absolutely need to go up. Just since Bill Clinton was President and the we (USA) had a annual budget surplus there have been 3 rounds of tax cuts. It is unsustainable. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

The answers to those questions are in the link I provided. 

"2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets. For Americans with assets above $1 billion, that tax rate would increase to 3 percent."

 

So a person with 50 million in assets pays 1 miilion, and a wife and husband with 49 million each avoid the tax? I didn't see the answer to that, but thank you for the rates.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So a person with 50 million in assets pays 1 miilion, and a wife and husband with 49 million each avoid the tax? I didn't see the answer to that, but thank you for the rates.

A person with $50 million assets pays nothing. The tax is on amounts over that threshold. It says so several times in the link - the tax is on assets more than $50 million.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A person with $50 million assets pays nothing. The tax is on amounts over that threshold. It says so several times in the link - the tax is on assets more than $50 million.

Odd. I keep reading that it is a wealth tax on Americans with more than 30 million in assets. 

I don't doubt you should be correct, but I don't see your wording once never mind several times.

Edited January 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So a person with 50 million in assets pays 1 miilion, and a wife and husband with 49 million each avoid the tax? I didn't see the answer to that, but thank you for the rates.

A person with $50m pays nothing. A person with $51m pays 2% of $1m, or 2% on all assets over $50m up to $1bn, then it rises to 3%.

Edited January 26, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Odd. I keep reading that it is a wealth tax on Americans with more than 30 million in assets. 

I don't doubt you should be correct, but I don't see your wording once never mind several times.

Here is a Forbes article which provides examples using famous wealthy people to show how it would apply. 

Quote

 

The plan would not directly affect anyone worth less than $50 million, but it would subject those with fortunes of more than $50 million to a 2% incremental wealth tax. The rate would rise to 3% for any fortune that crossed the $1 billion threshold.

That means billions of dollars would be transferred from the richest Americans to the larger population. Jeff Bezos, whose $137 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest person in the world, would have to fork over $4.1 billion annually under such a plan. Bill Gates would pay an additional $2.9 billion in taxes, and Warren Buffett would owe $2.5 billion more. President Donald Trump, whose estimated $3.1 billion fortune made him the 259th-richest person in America as of September, would owe an additional $80 million.

Link

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Here is a Forbes article which provides examples using famous wealthy people to show how it would apply. 

 

Thanks. I wonder who all has to file a list of assets. Businesses have book values and accepted depreciation practices. It will be interesting to see how they might try to regulate it.

I wouldn't want to pay 2% on all my stuff, but if someone had to value it and I got to give up the 2% of my choice, I might be more than happy to have them come and get it, LOL.

[iNow]

I thought this thread was about the Democratic Primary. Perhaps continued discussion of progressive tax bracket functionality and plans to alter those thresholds and rates can be moved into their own thread?

[iNow]

After consuming a bunch of Sunday morning political media, I have to imagine Eric Swalwell from California is going to be one of the next to announce. 

Separate, but related: My intuition is that Rubio has formally begun positioning himself as a Republican primary challenger to Trump (or replacement if he’s removed from office beforehand). 

[swansont]

21 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Odd. I keep reading that it is a wealth tax on Americans with more than 30 million in assets. 

I don't doubt you should be correct, but I don't see your wording once never mind several times.

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