Do you think a "white privilege tax" would pass a future Democratic Congress?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Have to laugh at everyone laughing this off. There are people who support reparations. A lot. I think it's not far-fetched at all that Democrats will ultimately support special reparations taxes on white people.

There's also "a lot" of people who want to return to the gold standard, but that doesn't mean that has any chance of ever happening or of getting majority support amongst the Republican Party.

Also do you seriously think the Democrats would do something that would utterly ensure a Republican landslide next election? Which this would.

While this is definitely too far, the Democrats basically tried to lose the 2016 election.

Nominating a bad candidate is not the same thing as passing an insanely unpopular policy.

Look at how the Republicans couldn't get Paul Ryan's entitlement "reform", Obamacare repeal, or Bush's Social Security privatization passed. And now ask if this would be any more popular.

[Torie]

Bronz please do not make a habit of putting up threads like this, where you posit a hypothetical that is about as likely to happen as the moon having a rain storm, is supported by very few, if any, Dems,  is totally unconstitutional (as our noted legal scholar BRTD noted, but I digress) and is intended to create buzz and annoy the opposition. Yeah, it is a form of trolling perhaps. And if this genre of thread metastasizes, then it becomes a form of spam. It certainly is a waste of bandwidth. Thank you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could see the Democrats beefing up the estate tax.  After all, it is a fairly effective "privilege tax" by helping to reduce inherited privilege.  That said, while I think the exempt amount should be fairly low, say $500,000 or $1,000,000, the top rate should also be modest, say 20%.

[Santander]

I could see the Democrats beefing up the estate tax.  After all, it is a fairly effective "privilege tax" by helping to reduce inherited privilege.  That said, while I think the exempt amount should be fairly low, say $500,000 or $1,000,000, the top rate should also be modest, say 20%.

That would make most white people subject to the estate tax.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I could see the Democrats beefing up the estate tax.  After all, it is a fairly effective "privilege tax" by helping to reduce inherited privilege.  That said, while I think the exempt amount should be fairly low, say $500,000 or $1,000,000, the top rate should also be modest, say 20%.

That would make most white people subject to the estate tax.

(Bronz voice) Democrats want to include white privilege in assets so Democrats want all white people to have to pay estate tax on their white privilege. (/bronz)

[wxtransit]

I almost want to explain how making blanket statements about groups is just plain wrong (there are whites living out on the streets, should they be taxed, too?), but I feel the stupidity of the question is just too great.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could see the Democrats beefing up the estate tax.  After all, it is a fairly effective "privilege tax" by helping to reduce inherited privilege.  That said, while I think the exempt amount should be fairly low, say $500,000 or $1,000,000, the top rate should also be modest, say 20%.

That would make most white people subject to the estate tax.

Hardly.  Median net worth for most families ($97,300 in 2016) is well under $500,000 let alone $1,000,000. The average is above $500,000 ($692,000 in 2016) , but that's because of a few at the very top that are well over that limit. The estate tax is a tax on unearned wealth that helps level out privilege. That said, I think the rate needs to be kept reasonable so that small family businesses can be inherited reasonably intact without causing undue burden.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/files/BulletinCharts.pdf

[Torie]

I could see the Democrats beefing up the estate tax.  After all, it is a fairly effective "privilege tax" by helping to reduce inherited privilege.  That said, while I think the exempt amount should be fairly low, say $500,000 or $1,000,000, the top rate should also be modest, say 20%.

That would make most white people subject to the estate tax.

Hardly.  Median net worth for most families ($97,300 in 2016) is well under $500,000 let alone $1,000,000. The average is above $500,000 ($692,000 in 2016) , but that's because of a few at the very top that are well over that limit. The estate tax is a tax on unearned wealth that helps level out privilege. That said, I think the rate needs to be kept reasonable so that small family businesses can be inherited reasonably intact without causing undue burden.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/files/BulletinCharts.pdf

Why do you favor reducing the top rate from 40% to 20% no matter how large the estate? Beyond the loss of revenue, that has a host of policy implications (many of them negative) that I will not get into now.

[America Needs R'hllor]

bronz,

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

bronz,

[Politician]

bronz,

[MAINEiac4434]

I certainly hope so

[mvd10]

This won't happen, it's unrealistic. But in the future female HR managers will be hiring less and less white men for professional functions because of ''diversity'' (diversity meaning that white males can be 6.8% of the workplace). White males will be ''subtly encouraged'' to stay at home or enter sh**t careers because it's so woke. And guess what? In the future they don't even need the HR help because schools and the educational system are setting up (white) boys for failure. Our future will be a dystopian matriarchy if we don't stand up now.

[Suburbia]

Bronz please do not make a habit of putting up threads like this, where you posit a hypothetical that is about as likely to happen as the moon having a rain storm, is supported by very few, if any, Dems,  is totally unconstitutional (as our noted legal scholar BRTD noted, but I digress) and is intended to create buzz and annoy the opposition. Yeah, it is a form of trolling perhaps. And if this genre of thread metastasizes, then it becomes a form of spam. It certainly is a waste of bandwidth. Thank you.

I understand, but this is an issue that the Democratic Party needs to reckon with. The vast majority of their base, minorities, millennials, LGBTQ people want to have 100% conversation on race.

Let's have this discussion. But I understand.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mb45j8/progressive-activists-to-democratic-leaders-talk-about-race-or-step-aside

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bronz please do not make a habit of putting up threads like this, where you posit a hypothetical that is about as likely to happen as the moon having a rain storm, is supported by very few, if any, Dems,  is totally unconstitutional (as our noted legal scholar BRTD noted, but I digress) and is intended to create buzz and annoy the opposition. Yeah, it is a form of trolling perhaps. And if this genre of thread metastasizes, then it becomes a form of spam. It certainly is a waste of bandwidth. Thank you.

I understand, but this is an issue that the Democratic Party needs to reckon with. The vast majority of their base, minorities, millennials, LGBTQ people want to have 100% conversation on race.

Let's have this discussion. But I understand.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mb45j8/progressive-activists-to-democratic-leaders-talk-about-race-or-step-aside

Netroot Nation will sometimes shut down a candidate because their opponent is black. That's not very progressive.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

I could see the lunatics of the modern Democratic party trying this stunt. I do agree on a beefier estate tax, though.

[Sestak]

Bronz stop

[SNJ1985]

Have to laugh at everyone laughing this off. There are people who support reparations. A lot. I think it's not far-fetched at all that Democrats will ultimately support special reparations taxes on white people.

It's very common for the left to start out denying that they would ever support something and calling the suggestion absurd, only to slowly but surely move towards it as the years go by. It's part of their subversive nature and we've seen this play out multiple times.

[Santander]

Have to laugh at everyone laughing this off. There are people who support reparations. A lot. I think it's not far-fetched at all that Democrats will ultimately support special reparations taxes on white people.

It's very common for the left to start out denying that they would ever support something and calling the suggestion absurd, only to slowly but surely move towards it as the years go by. It's part of their subversive nature and we've seen this play out multiple times.

That's not a leftist thing, that's a politician thing.

[SNJ1985]

Have to laugh at everyone laughing this off. There are people who support reparations. A lot. I think it's not far-fetched at all that Democrats will ultimately support special reparations taxes on white people.

It's very common for the left to start out denying that they would ever support something and calling the suggestion absurd, only to slowly but surely move towards it as the years go by. It's part of their subversive nature and we've seen this play out multiple times.

That's not a leftist thing, that's a politician thing.

The left has been extremely effective at it with regards to changing the culture, though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once again, how would the Democrats get passed something that:

1-would guarantee a Republican landslide and
2-would have zero chance of surviving in court?

Do you seriously believe dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators would be willing to seal their defeats by voting for this?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Once again, how would the Democrats get passed something that:

1-would guarantee a Republican landslide and
2-would have zero chance of surviving in court?

Do you seriously believe dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators would be willing to seal their defeats by voting for this?

Did anyone ask these same questions about the CRA’s?

[SNJ1985]

Once again, how would the Democrats get passed something that:

1-would guarantee a Republican landslide and
2-would have zero chance of surviving in court?

Do you seriously believe dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators would be willing to seal their defeats by voting for this?

The key word in the thread title is ''future''.

The left understands that politics is downstream from culture. They obviously wouldn't pass a policy like this right now. What they are doing instead is, through their control of most of academia and the media, planting these ideas in the minds of young people and creating the conditions that will eventually lead to them being mainstream and something that could become the basis for policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once again, how would the Democrats get passed something that:

1-would guarantee a Republican landslide and
2-would have zero chance of surviving in court?

Do you seriously believe dozens of Democratic Congressmen and Senators would be willing to seal their defeats by voting for this?

Did anyone ask these same questions about the CRA’s?

Most Southern Democrats didn't vote for that.

Also doesn't relate to the second point. An all Democratic-appointed Supreme Court would still strike this down 9-0.

[Beet]

I mean, the argument would pretty much be something like this:

1. Blacks face systemic racism, as can be proven by their high incarceration rates, and so do Latinos and American Indians.

2. To rectify this systemic racism, we must impose a tax.

3. It's constitutional because it still applies equal protection: Everyone who faces systemic racism doesn't have to pay the tax, and everyone who doesn't does.

The notion that it would guarantee a Republican landslide is not quite right. Black turnout would skyrocket, and many whites would support this plan as well. Don't underestimate the number of "woke" white allies out there. Shaun King, Post Malone, AntiFa, and so on. Asian feminists like Sarah Jeong would also support this plan after interrogating their own anti-Blackness. No, this wouldn't be a big enough coalition today, but social justice is always trying to grow its converts. Support for gay marriage was tiny not too long ago, too.