Elizabeth Warren 2020 Megathread v2 (pg 35 - Emily List support)

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her wealth tax is a campaign gimmick that nevertheless gives us a clear insight into her priorities and basic approach to tax policy. 

So, is she the diligent candidate with a credible plan for everything, or a couple of underwhelming Senate terms removed from being another Andrew Yang?

A candidate who bills herself as the most serious person in the race cannot get away with this.

No Democratic candidate's plans can be deemed "credible" in any literalist sense of the word.  Over the last three years, our judicial system has been made more reactionary and conservative than at any point since prior to the New Deal.  The Courts will find a way to strike down any big Democratic initiative.  But what Warren's plans show us is that she's serious and capable of aggressively pursuing taxation and redistribution through means beyond our current tax system.  Warren correctly identifies the problem as not a scarcity of resources but a hoarding of resources, and she also recognizes that merely tweaking the rates of our current system won't be enough to address the immorality and injustice we're faced with.  That's the importance of her wealth tax message, and it's a serious message.

[GP270watch]

 You will never overcome the judiciary being stacked and biased, or the Congress being bought and paid for, if you do not get the people to embrace what policies they want. The progressive reforms of the New Deal faced the same obstacles but where overcome by sheer populism, local organization and political activism, and coalition building. Warren being in the race is a boon to these ideas. That's why the Sanders vs. Warren debate is counterproductive. You can see the evidence in the way the establishment candidates are piling up and still declaring for the Democratic primary. They fear that the Democratic party will fully embrace the progressive vision.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

You will never overcome the judiciary being stacked and biased, or the Congress being bought and paid for, if you do not get the people to embrace what policies they want. The progressive reforms of the New Deal faced the same obstacles but where overcome by sheer populism, local organization and political activism, and coalition building. Warren being in the race is a boon to these ideas. That's why the Sanders vs. Warren debate is counterproductive. You can see the evidence in the way the establishment candidates are piling up and still declaring for the Democratic primary. They fear that the Democratic party will fully embrace the progressive vision.

 

Alternatively, you could add some Senators from the new states of Puerto Rico and DC, pack the Courts, and outlaw partisan gerrymandering (and it will probably have to be in that order).

Yes, I know populist pressure will be necessary for any of those steps to  be taken.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Her wealth tax is a campaign gimmick that nevertheless gives us a clear insight into her priorities and basic approach to tax policy.

So, is she the diligent candidate with a credible plan for everything, or a couple of underwhelming Senate terms removed from being another Andrew Yang?

A candidate who bills herself as the most serious person in the race cannot get away with this.

I mean, you can have a serious plan that nonetheless may not pass Constitutional muster. That's an indictment of the poor drafting of the Constitution, not Elizabeth Warren.

You can also have a "serious plan" that is literally impossible to pay for.  That's an indictment of poor rules of arithmetic, not Elizabeth Warren.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her wealth tax is a campaign gimmick that nevertheless gives us a clear insight into her priorities and basic approach to tax policy.

So, is she the diligent candidate with a credible plan for everything, or a couple of underwhelming Senate terms removed from being another Andrew Yang?

A candidate who bills herself as the most serious person in the race cannot get away with this.

I mean, you can have a serious plan that nonetheless may not pass Constitutional muster. That's an indictment of the poor drafting of the Constitution, not Elizabeth Warren.

You can also have a "serious plan" that is literally impossible to pay for.  That's an indictment of poor rules of arithmetic, not Elizabeth Warren.

This is dumb. The problem isn't a scarcity of resources--the problem is the wealthy taking and hoarding resources.

[RI]

Warren's flavor of the month time is over. I'm skeptical she can get it back, but it's possible.

[Cinemark]

Warren's flavor of the month time is over. I'm skeptical she can get it back, but it's possible.

I'd like to see what the inevitable CNN poll says, but it certainly looks like its Mayor Pete's turn to hold the anti-Biden baton.

That said, Warren is still polling as the favorite second choice candidate. If Pete falters without anyone else rising, I could see Warren recovering.

[henster]

Warren's refusal to attack anyone in the debate is going to end up killing her campaign. She has so far refused to really engage anyone else and remained positive while others pummel her with no rebuttal from her. Next debate she needs to go on the offensive hit Pete on his inexperience/police issues go after Biden over ties to Wall St & bankruptcy bill. Otherwise she will continue to slide.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Warren's refusal to attack anyone in the debate is going to end up killing her campaign. She has so far refused to really engage anyone else and remained positive while others pummel her with no rebuttal from her. Next debate she needs to go on the offensive hit Pete on his inexperience/police issues go after Biden over ties to Wall St & bankruptcy bill. Otherwise she will continue to slide.

That won't work. Democrat's have a positive opinion about all the major candidates, and to go hard at a candidate voters like would only backfire. She'd Castro-ate her campaign.

[GP270watch]

 Nobody has voted yet and I know a ton of people who are solid Warren and have been forever. Her campaign has been written off before and it was foolish then and foolish now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Nobody has voted yet and I know a ton of people who are solid Warren and have been forever. Her campaign has been written off before and it was foolish then and foolish now.

Very true. If I am learning anything about this primary, it's that those candidates who were well-established before running for President are the ones who have seen the most success.

That doesn't explain Buttigieg and the success he has seen though...

[GP270watch]

That doesn't explain Buttigieg and the success he has seen though...

 What real success has he had? He's the media darling and despite that nobody is talking about his policies, he hasn't won anything, and he has at no time been the sole front runner. It seems like hype until proven otherwise.

 He also polls the weakest against Trump compared to Biden, Sanders, Warren.
 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As I've said before, the main problem with Warren's tax "plan" is the sheer impracticality of it, without even getting to consideration of the potential economic effects.  As currently formulated, her "wealth tax" is an ad valorem property tax and there's lengthy precedent that such taxes are considered direct taxes under the Constitution and thus would require its collection be apportioned among the States, which which means that to be Constitutional, the tax rates would have to be higher for those living in poor States than those living in wealthy States.  Taxing unrealized capital gains is from an accounting standpoint, sheer idiocy, and all it does is rob the future of tax revenue to collect it now.  I haven't bothered to examine the economic results of her tax "plan" because it is so impractical that it ruins the assertion that she's a thoughtful wonk with practical plans for the problems we face.  There are other ways to sock the wealthy without running foul of these practical problems, such as reinvigorating the estate tax, raising income tax rates for the top brackets, excise taxes on luxury items such as private planes and yachts that are not assessed on an ad valorem basis, to name three.

I’m not sure what “lengthy precedent” you are talking about.  There’s basically one Supreme Court case from the late 19th century decided 5-4 that might suggest such as tax might be unconstitutional.  Beyond that, the Court has typically sided with upholding taxes that might or might not qualify as “direct taxes” (though all of this precedent is very old).  I think the consensus of the legal community is now that Pollock was wrongly decided anyway.  Any even if a conservative Supreme Court today were inclined to strike the tax down, this could of course be reversed by fairly modest court packing.

For those saying this won’t work in the US because it hasn’t worked in various European nations, remember that the US is much more effective at taxing American residents of foreign countries and ex-pats than most other nations.

[Shadows]

Pete has crossed 20% in NH in the Emerson Poll. He is polling above 15% in most polls of Iowa & NH.

Unless Warren manages to take some from Pete, it will be very hard for her. Sanders' supporters are around 65% committed while that support is around 30-35% for Warren leaving further room for her to bleed support & she is likely not getting any more Bernie supporters.

Warren has lost a lot of supporters to Pete & she needs to get them back ASAP if she wants to have a decent chance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unless Warren manages to take some from Warren, it will be very hard for her.

Warren is doing a very good job of running against Warren.

[Shadows]

Unless Warren manages to take some from Warren, it will be very hard for her.

Warren is doing a very good job of running against Warren.

Pete

[KaiserDave]

Warren has no inspired confidence as of late, still in full support though

[pepper11]

Peaked too early. She is toast. Thank goodness. Anyone but Liz.

[Eraserhead]

Warren's flavor of the month time is over. I'm skeptical she can get it back, but it's possible.

I'd like to see what the inevitable CNN poll says, but it certainly looks like its Mayor Pete's turn to hold the anti-Biden baton.

That said, Warren is still polling as the favorite second choice candidate. If Pete falters without anyone else rising, I could see Warren recovering.

There is this guy called Bernie Sanders. He is ahead of both of them in your latest CNN poll.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren has no foreign policy experience whatsoever.  Every Prez nominee has had some: Kerry, Obama, Hilary and Biden who killed Bin Laden and Biden blunts Bernie's and Bloomberg's Jewish roots. Biden is close to Israel

[Cinemark]

Warren's flavor of the month time is over. I'm skeptical she can get it back, but it's possible.

I'd like to see what the inevitable CNN poll says, but it certainly looks like its Mayor Pete's turn to hold the anti-Biden baton.

That said, Warren is still polling as the favorite second choice candidate. If Pete falters without anyone else rising, I could see Warren recovering.

There is this guy called Bernie Sanders. He is ahead of both of them in your latest CNN poll.

My latest CNN poll?

Regardless, Bernie has been polling in the same range since April. I'm not confident he can expand his base to surpass Biden. Just my 2 cents on why I dont think he's the main opposition to Biden.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren should not feel bad now, she is now companies with Harris as peaked and Biden is once again the favorite.

Bloomberg and Buttigieg are insurgent candidates

[Gustaf]

I mean a wealth tax isn't really a practical policy. Sweden abolished it for good reason.

I've heard pitch that it isn't practical for a variety of reasons that usually boil down to the ultra rich hiding assets. To that I say that sure, that is how it is now, but pushing for a policy like this necessitates the creation of systems that make that kind of shenanigan more difficult or even impossible. That whole mother of invention thing.

With the regards to the charge that it would be in effect a tax on future financial activity (which is sometimes taxable) is a little absurd but also irrelevant as to one of the primary side effects: a tax on what one has will encourage spending of that money now. This might come in the form of starting new businesses, putting that money in a separate entity which may or may not yield returns for the billionaire, and if it does, they might pump the money right back into it, encouraging fast growth of the new company, or start another one and another after. It might encourage that thing that many are super happy to talk about but never seem to wish to work on increasing, charitable donations. If its going to be taxed away, might as well put it in your absurd pet project to give everyone in Africa a medicinal yo-yo instead, right? And there's that whole maybe encouraging the ultra rich to be more okay with paying people on top of all this too. If they don't want their dollars going to fund schools, maybe they'll opt to have some of that money go to paying people who work for them better instead.

I don't think that side of the coin is talked about nearly enough honestly. That if structured well, increased taxes can actually be used to encourage financial activity because the rich really hate paying taxes.

I think people underestimate how hard the first part actually is. It also isn't just about hiding assets. A lot of assets are hard to value (as opposed to income which is much more concrete). You tend to need exceptions for some things and it's basically impossible to not create loopholes. Hence why in Sweden it was basically only old houseowners who were too poor to afford professional accountants who paid the wealth tax.

And yeah it will tend to incentivize weird placing of money but not necessarily in ways that are nice and productive. In Sweden, as I recall, it led to a lot of buying paintings.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Warren has no foreign policy experience whatsoever.  Every Prez nominee has had some: Kerry, Obama, Hilary and Biden who killed Bin Laden and Biden blunts Bernie's and Bloomberg's Jewish roots. Biden is close to Israel

Is this a joke?  She’s been in the Senate for 7 years and sits on the Armed Services committee.  She certainly has more foreign policy experience than Obama did (or any of the last four presidents).

[Progressive Pessimist]

That doesn't explain Buttigieg and the success he has seen though...

 What real success has he had? He's the media darling and despite that nobody is talking about his policies, he hasn't won anything, and he has at no time been the sole front runner. It seems like hype until proven otherwise.

 He also polls the weakest against Trump compared to Biden, Sanders, Warren.
 

True, but for the mayor of a medium sized city who was previously an obscure politician to be polling within the top four of a national primary against well-known figures like Biden, Sanders, and Warren should not be overlooked.