Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[GP270watch]

 (again assuming the billionaire made no additional money during that 200 years).

 Which is the dumbest assumption ever and a totally crooked and dishonest argument he keeps repeating over and over.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

I'm convinced that GeneralMacArthur is actually Jeff Bezos.

The fundamental issue with the very concerned billionaire defenders is that they don't actually know how much a billion dollars is. They can't conceptualize how much money that is because they're so detached from reality that they assume the gap between millionaire and billionaire is the same as the gap between millionaire and "healthily middle class". Which it is not. The former is FAR more exaggerated.

[Sestak]

Taxing billionaires is elitist guys.

[UncleSam]

The wealth tax won’t work because no one with capital will have any interest in bringing that money to America ever again. You can’t push tax revenue much beyond where it always is or else people start moving their money - the most revenue the government has ever been able to collect as a portion of GDP is not significantly higher than the average year to year, for this reason. Given there’s a limit on what the government can actually collect, we need to lay out spending proposals very plainly. This is how much money the government has, this is what we can spend it on.

[GeneralMacArthur]

People are in favor of, like, 40 or 45% taxes on billionaires.  They are NOT in favor of taking ALL of their money.

And yes, I'm aware that it's not literally ALL of it.  It's just almost all of it.  Ya got me.

very concerned billionaire defenders

I think the most irritating thing about the Warren campaign is how you guys constantly try to paint everyone who disagrees with you as being on the "other side."  Oh I don't think we should take $80 billion from Bill Gates?  I'm a "billionaire defender" and "literally Jeff Bezos."  Grow the f*** up.  This is why Warren isn't going to be able to grow her support enough to win -- she alienates people with this attitude that nobody could honestly disagree with her; we're all either lying, corrupt, or stupid sheeple.

The fundamental issue with the very concerned billionaire defenders is that they don't actually know how much a billion dollars is. They can't conceptualize how much money that is because they're so detached from reality that they assume the gap between millionaire and billionaire is the same as the gap between millionaire and "healthily middle class". Which it is not. The former is FAR more exaggerated.

This is pretty rich coming from the supporter of a candidate who magically switched the cost of M4A from $30 trillion to $20 trillion when she couldn't figure out how to raise $30 trillion.

[GP270watch]

People are in favor of, like, 40 or 45% taxes on billionaires.  They are NOT in favor of taking ALL of their money.

 Actually 45% of Republicans even favor Bernie's top marginal tax rate of 70% on income over $10 million.

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

[Forward]

Again, just because someone has a net worth of $150 billion doesn't mean they HAVE $150 billion. Most of that wealth is just on paper.

Only in AmeriKKKa is a single person "only" having $30 billion considered insane.

Clown World isn't just a meme, folks.  We are living in it.  Our corporate overlords have brainwashed us for forty years into thinking this is normal.

Norway, Iceland, and Sweden, places people like you want America to be like, all have significantly more billionaires per capita than the US. There is actually a strong correlation between # of billionaires per capita and high HDI/low poverty rates.

The total net worth of every billionaire in America is $2.9 trillion. If the government seized 100% of those assets and liquidated them somehow, it would fund the federal government for 8 months.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Again, just because someone has a net worth of $150 billion doesn't mean they HAVE $150 billion. Most of that wealth is just on paper.

What do you mean "just on paper"?  Of course they don't have a huge Scrooge McDuck vault filled with gold coins.  Most of their wealth is in stocks and other equities which are pretty liquid (i.e. they could easily be sold).

The total net worth of every billionaire in America is $2.9 trillion. If the government seized 100% of those assets and liquidated them somehow, it would fund the federal government for 8 months.

You're right that relative to the long-term budget of the US government, you can't raise significant money from billionaires alone.  That's why the wealth tax hits accumulations over $50 million, which is still extraordinary wealth and also includes a much larger number of individuals.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Norway, Iceland, and Sweden, places people like you want America to be like, all have significantly more billionaires per capita than the US. There is actually a strong correlation between # of billionaires per capita and high HDI/low poverty rates.

Also, Iceland has one billionaire worth just under $2 billion, so this is a pretty silly example.  Seven of the world's 10 richest people are American (excluding royalty).  If you are just thinking per capita, the countries with the greatest ratio of billionaires are Hong Kong and Singapore, and I can't imagine we want American government to model after them.

[Sorenroy]

I think that there is some merit to the argument that, at some level, a wealth tax becomes detrimental because it pushes people out of the country to places that don't have a wealth tax. I don't know what that level of tax is, but I get the argument behind it.

That is the only argument I understand. If I go down to my bank with my billion dollars I can put that into a share account with a return rate of 2.25% a year. Literally doing the bare minimum and just going to my bank and putting the money in an account puts me above the return rate of a 2% tax. While people do own some personal assets for their own use, those who own hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars have a substantial fortune that just sits there and accumulates wealth. And it's not in a bank account with a 2.25% interest rate, it's part of a closely managed fortune that returns multiples of that.

Also, what's with the argument that people will just hide the money somewhere? Even if some of the money is lost, any level of capture will end up having a positive effect. And that's assuming that there is no effort to protect against such offshoring, ect.

[Forward]

Norway, Iceland, and Sweden, places people like you want America to be like, all have significantly more billionaires per capita than the US. There is actually a strong correlation between # of billionaires per capita and high HDI/low poverty rates.

Also, Iceland has one billionaire worth just under $2 billion, so this is a pretty silly example.  Seven of the world's 10 richest people are American (excluding royalty).  If you are just thinking per capita, the countries with the greatest ratio of billionaires are Hong Kong and Singapore, and I can't imagine we want American government to model after them.

Sweden has 32 billionaires. Those billionaires also control a far greater share of Sweden’s total wealth than American billionaires do.

[YE]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

Because at the root of it, it's Warren saying "I'll decide how much money is enough money, and you'll be happy with it because I know what's best.  I'm gonna take the rest of your money and you won't miss it."

[GoTfan]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

Because at the root of it, it's Warren saying "I'll decide how much money is enough money, and you'll be happy with it because I know what's best.  I'm gonna take the rest of your money and you won't miss it."

I don't know why you're so offended at someone saying you're defending billionaires, because it's exactly what you're doing.

[YE]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

Because at the root of it, it's Warren saying "I'll decide how much money is enough money, and you'll be happy with it because I know what's best.  I'm gonna take the rest of your money and you won't miss it."

Isn't that root of all progressive taxation in general? That the government is taking X amount of money because it is deciding earning Y is enough? Your point is basically a libertarian argument that is often used to argue for a flat tax. I don't find the argument you are making to hold much validity in that grand scheme of things because at the end of the day, it's the job of the government to ensure a framework for a sustainable standard of living because the natural free market lazzaire fare state is not sufficient, and in order to achieve that, it costs money. And IMO there is no better way to raise money than by taxing rich people. We can disagree on how the tax code should be assembled to maximize this, but I don't really have much sympathy for people who would still be rich after a wealth tax when 30 million people don't have health insurance, half the country works paycheck to paycheck, student debt is at like $1.4 trillion, urban schools are underfunded, and decent paying jobs are being outsourced to other countries or automated.

I get what you're saying here but to summarize, we're stuck with two choices (and this argument is more broad than simply whether a 2% wealth tax gets implemented or not).
A. Let individuals keep their money.
B. Provide more of a social safety net.

I'm willing to sacrifice a few billions of dollars being collected from the rich over extended periods of time (wealth tax or not, though the wealth tax certainty accomplishes this) for the common good. The rich will still be relatively rich.   

[GeneralMacArthur]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

Because at the root of it, it's Warren saying "I'll decide how much money is enough money, and you'll be happy with it because I know what's best.  I'm gonna take the rest of your money and you won't miss it."

Isn't that root of all progressive taxation in general? That the government is taking X amount of money because it is deciding earning Y is enough? Your point is basically a libertarian argument that is often used to argue for a flat tax. I don't find the argument you are making to hold much validity in that grand scheme of things because at the end of the day, it's the job of the government to ensure a framework for a sustainable standard of living because the natural free market lazzaire fare state is not sufficient, and in order to achieve that, it costs money. And IMO there is no better way to raise money than by taxing rich people. We can disagree on how the tax code should be assembled to maximize this, but I don't really have much sympathy for people who would still be rich after a wealth tax when 30 million people don't have health insurance, half the country works paycheck to paycheck, student debt is at like $1.4 trillion, urban schools are underfunded, and decent paying jobs are being outsourced to other countries or automated.

I get what you're saying here but to summarize, we're stuck with two choices (and this argument is more broad than simply whether a 2% wealth tax gets implemented or not).
A. Let individuals keep their money.
B. Provide more of a social safety net.

I'm willing to sacrifice a few billions of dollars being collected from the rich over extended periods of time (wealth tax or not, though the wealth tax certainty accomplishes this) for the common good. The rich will still be relatively rich.  

No, progressive taxation is different.  The government isn't saying "$70,000 is enough for you, you don't need $100,000".  It's "we're taking 30% of what you make, go make as much as you like and keep the rest.  If you want $100,000, go earn $142,000."

Warren's wealth tax, as a recurring tax on a single fortune, is designed to eliminate wealth entirely.  So she's saying you can't have as much as you like, any wealth you have over her "all the wealth you could ever need" threshold is bad and she's going to eventually take it all.  It would be analogous to "you only need $70,000, so whether you make $100,000 or $150,000 or $500,000 I'm going to take all your money to make sure you only have $70,000.  And you have no right to complain because I know what's best for you and I say $70,000 is all you need."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

[Higgins]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

[izixs]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Hey now, Mr. Holman was pretty great, if a little obsessed with flash cards.

[Higgins]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Hey now, Mr. Holman was pretty great, if a little obsessed with flash cards.

Warren just does not have that IT factor that Obama, Clinton, Trump have. She would be great as a department head in someone else's cabinet. She might have been better in the 70s or even the early 90s, when policy wonks weren't boring in the eyes of the general public. No one in the mainstream wants that now. She's boring.

[Pericles]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Sad that people think like this. Logically I'd think you'd rather have a smart person, even if they're 'boring' than an idiot as your leader (and especially when it's Warren vs Trump).

[izixs]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Hey now, Mr. Holman was pretty great, if a little obsessed with flash cards.

Warren just does not have that IT factor that Obama, Clinton, Trump have. She would be great as a department head in someone else's cabinet. She might have been better in the 70s or even the early 90s, when policy wonks weren't boring in the eyes of the general public. No one in the mainstream wants that now. She's boring.

Uh, please don't put your post inside the quote of me so that it looks like I said it please.

[Higgins]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Sad that people think like this. Logically I'd think you'd rather have a smart person, even if they're 'boring' than an idiot as your leader (and especially when it's Warren vs Trump).

She’s friends with my enemies. Which makes her my enemy.

[Pericles]

Warren is ontop of the polls again. Warren seems youthful; whereas, Bernie and Biden seem old. Hope Warren wins, now.

Watching Trump beat her would be priceless. No one wants their boring 5th grade school teacher as President.

Sad that people think like this. Logically I'd think you'd rather have a smart person, even if they're 'boring' than an idiot as your leader (and especially when it's Warren vs Trump).

She’s friends with my enemies. Which makes her my enemy.

What are you talking about?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Warren's wealth tax, as a recurring tax on a single fortune, is designed to eliminate wealth entirely.

You don’t think having $1 billion constitutes “wealth”?  Even if the tax were 100% of all wealth over $1 billion, that would still leave billionaires with $1 billion.  Which to me sounds like a whole of wealth.  And thus it wouldn’t be eliminating wealth entirely.

  It would be analogous to "you only need $70,000, so whether you make $100,000 or $150,000 or $500,000 I'm going to take all your money to make sure you only have $70,000.  And you have no right to complain because I know what's best for you and I say $70,000 is all you need."

It’s not analogous to this because having $70,000 is not analogous to have $1 billion.