E. Warren extreme wealth tax

[Duck_walk]

I am not a Warren voter but I do find one of her proposals interesting.

When it comes to policy and crunching numbers, she knows her stuff. Her proposal is to tax wealthy individuals 2% of their fortune that is greater than 50 million dollars. Those assets beyond a billion dollars would pay 3%.

So if you are worth up to 49.9 million you wont be effected at all. However this tax on extreme wealth would generate enough revenue to pay for her paid family leave program, another program I cant recall and still leave another trillion to pay down the deficit, build infrastructure or battle climate change.

Tax-the-rich policies are not a new phenomenon among political candidates. In fact, Trump himself floated a similar measure in 1999 as he explored a presidential bid as a prospective Reform Party nominee. Warren's proposal would only affect .1% of the population.

 

[DirtyDan17]

I am not a Warren voter but I do find one of her proposals interesting.

When it comes to policy and crunching numbers, she knows her stuff. Her proposal is to tax wealthy individuals 2% of their fortune that is greater than 50 million dollars. Those assets beyond a billion dollars would pay 3%.

So if you are worth up to 49.9 million you wont be effected at all. However this tax on extreme wealth would generate enough revenue to pay for her paid family leave program, another program I cant recall and still leave another trillion to pay down the deficit, build infrastructure or battle climate change.

Tax-the-rich policies are not a new phenomenon among political candidates. In fact, Trump himself floated a similar measure in 1999 as he explored a presidential bid as a prospective Reform Party nominee. Warren's proposal would only affect .1% of the population.

Extreme wealth that they worked for...penalize the successful because meth heads dont want to work...

 

[Duck_walk]

Extreme wealth that they worked for...penalize the successful because meth heads dont want to work...

Really? Is that what it is? Seriously.

We have an economic system and it is a system in which the extreme rich are benefiting to a level of absurdity. Do you think 2% is going to "punish" someone worth the 900 million dollars they inherited? Sam Walton worked his ass off, his heirs have reaped what he sewed while thousands of their underpaid workers are on medicaid. To say all of the billionaire Waltons "worked" for their fortune is quite comical.

I think Facebook guy and google guy can more than afford 2% and it wont act as a disincentive for anyone's American dream.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Really? Is that what it is? Seriously.

We have an economic system and it is a system in which the extreme rich are benefiting to a level of absurdity. Do you think 2% is going to "punish" someone worth the 900 million dollars they inherited? Sam Walton worked his ass off, his heirs have reaped what he sewed while thousands of their underpaid workers are on medicaid. To say all of the billionaire Waltons "worked" for their fortune is quite comical.

I think Facebook guy and google guy can more than afford 2% and it wont act as a disincentive for anyone's American dream.

If I've worked my entire life and build a massive amount of wealth, I've done that ENTIRELY for the security of MY family. Not so some social justice warrior can redistribute it to people who didnt have the drive, ingenuity, or desire that I had.

As a man, your entire job, your reason for being is ensuring the safety and security (financial and otherwise) of YOUR family. It's not my responsibility to pay for the guy down the street because he doesnt want to work or would rather spend his money on drugs and alcohol.

 

[Duck_walk]

If I've worked my entire life and build a massive amount of wealth, I've done that ENTIRELY for the security of MY family. Not so some social justice warrior can redistribute it to people who didnt have the drive, ingenuity, or desire that I had.

As a man, your entire job, your reason for being is ensuring the safety and security (financial and otherwise) of YOUR family. It's not my responsibility to pay for the guy down the street because he doesnt want to work or would rather spend his money on drugs and alcohol.

Jesus loves you. Some of those guys down the street are going to work on your car, bag your groceries, pave your roads and generally make your life better. Unless you are worth greater than 50 million your pretty much irrelevant to this tax. So your being more concerned with Bill Gates' welfare than your neighbor's is mind blowing. You will benefit from that guy down the street living a healthy, fruitful life. Bill will still be rich.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Jesus loves you. Some of those guys down the street are going to work on your car, bag your groceries, pave your roads and generally make your life better. Unless you are worth greater than 50 million your pretty much irrelevant to this tax. So your being more concerned with Bill Gates' welfare than your neighbor's is mind blowing. You will benefit from that guy down the street living a healthy, fruitful life. Bill will still be rich.

Yes and I will pay them for their labor. If they're struggling and I'm able and willing to help I will.

Bill Gates is already one of, if not the biggest philanthropers of this or any other generation and does a ton of good because he wants to.Why should the government get to decide how he spends his money? Especially considering theyll likely be much more wasteful with it than what he would be.

 

[liberator74]

Really? Is that what it is? Seriously.

We have an economic system and it is a system in which the extreme rich are benefiting to a level of absurdity. Do you think 2% is going to "punish" someone worth the 900 million dollars they inherited? Sam Walton worked his ass off, his heirs have reaped what he sewed while thousands of their underpaid workers are on medicaid. To say all of the billionaire Waltons "worked" for their fortune is quite comical.

I think Facebook guy and google guy can more than afford 2% and it wont act as a disincentive for anyone's American dream.

So you take 2% of a persons wealth a year. Which means they have to start selling assets to pay the tax. A person with a net worth of 1 billion dollars does not have 20 million dollars in cash setting in a checking account to pay the IRS. Cash is Trash

So you start sucking away 2% per year, what are you going to do in 50 years when all the rich people are tapped out to pay for your welfare state????

Socialism and Communism are a cancer with no cure

 

[Duck_walk]

So you take 2% of a persons wealth a year. Which means they have to start selling assets to pay the tax. A person with a net worth of 1 billion dollars does not have 20 million dollars in cash setting in a checking account to pay the IRS. Cash is Trash

So you start sucking away 2% per year, what are you going to do in 50 years when all the rich people are tapped out to pay for your welfare state????

Socialism and Communism are a cancer with no cure

You already pay a wealth tax bro. Poor people dont pay property tax, but homeowners do. Why havent you
protested? Anyone that wealthy will have investments that will return an average well beyond 2%. Somehow, they will survive.

 

[millerbleach]

So you take 2% of a persons wealth a year. Which means they have to start selling assets to pay the tax. A person with a net worth of 1 billion dollars does not have 20 million dollars in cash setting in a checking account to pay the IRS. Cash is Trash

So you start sucking away 2% per year, what are you going to do in 50 years when all the rich people are tapped out to pay for your welfare state????

Socialism and Communism are a cancer with no cure

All that plus, what was the first income tax???? It's a foot in the door. They won't stop till they get it all.

 

[Duck_walk]

 

[DirtyDan17]

View embedded media

I love all the inequality crap. Here's the deal, no one is equal. The only way in which we are all equal is that we're all born and we all die.

 

[73 winch]

I love all the inequality crap. Here's the deal, no one is equal. The only way in which we are all equal is that we're all born and we all die.

Come on DD, don't you feel like your entitled to some of the money Bezo makes? Get with the program, this is America, where if someone is smart, hard working and willing to take risk, they should share it with those that aren't.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Come on DD, don't you feel like your entitled to some of the money Bezo makes? Get with the program, this is America, where if someone is smart, hard working and willing to take risk, they should share it with those that aren't.

Lol no, I'm not ENTITLED to anything. I expect the federal government to protect the United States from invasion, but that's about it. Beyond that is essentially government overreach.

 

[73 winch]

Lol no, I'm not ENTITLED to anything. I expect the federal government to protect the United States from invasion, but that's about it. Beyond that is essentially government overreach.

Based on the invasion at the border, the democrats don't feel the same way.

 

[millerbleach]

Lol no, I'm not ENTITLED to anything. I expect the federal government to protect the United States from invasion, but that's about it. Beyond that is essentially government overreach.

Libs always talk about the wonderful FDA, EPA, Highway Dept, USDA, etc. but none of those are really needed. If someone is growing bad lettuce, they won't be in business long. If they can get FDA approval, they then are approved and trusted no matter the quality of the product. If I want a police presence,or fire dept. I can vote to fund one or move somewhere they have one. Government should be an option not a requirement.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Libs always talk about the wonderful FDA, EPA, Highway Dept, USDA, etc. but none of those are really needed. If someone is growing bad lettuce, they won't be in business long. If they can get FDA approval, they then are approved and trusted no matter the quality of the product. If I want a police presence,or fire dept. I can vote to fund one or move somewhere they have one. Government should be an option not a requirement.

I'm on board with the FDA and EPA, some oversight isnt necessarily a bad thing. Dont particularly want girardia or lead in the water and getting e-coli from bad lettuce is entirely preventable, so I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes for some oversight on food production.

What I'm definitely against is redundancy in government. Why pay for three programs if one will do?

Perfect world (in my opinion) states can choose what services to provide within a basic federal framework and people can make the decision on where to live. If you want universal healthcare and California offers it, go live there. If you want free college tuition and Maine offers it to residents, go live there.

 

[wccards21]

Libs always talk about the wonderful FDA, EPA, Highway Dept, USDA, etc. but none of those are really needed. If someone is growing bad lettuce, they won't be in business long. If they can get FDA approval, they then are approved and trusted no matter the quality of the product. If I want a police presence,or fire dept. I can vote to fund one or move somewhere they have one. Government should be an option not a requirement.

Let's get rid of the EPA

Then I can dump my phenol waste in Miller. Sounds perfect.

 

[millerbleach]

Let's get rid of the EPA

Then I can dump my phenol waste in Miller. Sounds perfect.

You can if Miller allows that, which they wouldn't.

I knew that post would bring you out of hiding.

 

[millerbleach]

I'm on board with the FDA and EPA, some oversight isnt necessarily a bad thing. Dont particularly want girardia or lead in the water and getting e-coli from bad lettuce is entirely preventable, so I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes for some oversight on food production.

What I'm definitely against is redundancy in government. Why pay for three programs if one will do?

Perfect world (in my opinion) states can choose what services to provide within a basic federal framework and people can make the decision on where to live. If you want universal healthcare and California offers it, go live there. If you want free college tuition and Maine offers it to residents, go live there.

I think each state or city would decide they want water treatment facilities but if Nixa decides not to, people can live there or not.
People sell lettuce at farmers markets all the time and i've never heard of a problem with it. I have heard of many cases of illness from FDA inspected lettuce.
There isn't any reason to outlaw whatever government people want but it shouldn't be required.

 

[liberator74]

Libs always talk about the wonderful FDA, EPA, Highway Dept, USDA, etc. but none of those are really needed. If someone is growing bad lettuce, they won't be in business long. If they can get FDA approval, they then are approved and trusted no matter the quality of the product. If I want a police presence,or fire dept. I can vote to fund one or move somewhere they have one. Government should be an option not a requirement.

Missouri has the DNR with the responsibility to protect the environment in our state. We are throwing money down a rat hole funding the EPA which tries to do the same thing on a nationwide level. It is a task best performed by the states

EPA, Education Dept, Energy Dept and all of their sister Depts need shut down

The Federal Govt has right at 2 million people on the payroll not counting military and post office, that’s just nuts

 

[DirtyDan17]

Missouri has the DNR with the responsibility to protect the environment in our state. We are throwing money down a rat hole funding the EPA which tries to do the same thing on a nationwide level. It is a task best performed by the states

EPA, Education Dept, Energy Dept and all of their sister Depts need shut down

The Federal Govt has right at 2 million people on the payroll not counting military and post office, that’s just nuts

While I can appreciate states taking care of their own environments, what good does it do if Missouri is working to keep its rivers clean if Iowa and Illinois are dumping chemicals into the Mississippi? That would wind up affecting our environment, which is the entire reason for federal oversight in the environment.

 

[liberator74]

While I can appreciate states taking care of their own environments, what good does it do if Missouri is working to keep its rivers clean if Iowa and Illinois are dumping chemicals into the Mississippi? That would wind up affecting our environment, which is the entire reason for federal oversight in the environment.

That’s when the state of Missouri sues Iowa and Illinois in Federal Court.

EPA used to claim jurisdiction over all navigable waters under federal law. Now if I build a pond on my own land that a ditch runs into, without approval by the Corps of Engineers I am in violation and can be fined millions of dollars.

There are right at three EPA employees for every county in the state of Missouri. I would think one hard working full time guy could get the job done if we need them at all

 

[DirtyDan17]

That’s when the state of Missouri sues Iowa and Illinois in Federal Court.

EPA used to claim jurisdiction over all navigable waters under federal law. Now if I build a pond on my own land that a ditch runs into, without approval by the Corps of Engineers I am in violation and can be fined millions of dollars.

There are right at three EPA employees for every county in the state of Missouri. I would think one hard working full time guy could get the job done if we need them at all

Yeah and at that point the damage is done. I'd much rather be proactive than reactive. Especially when it affects the water I drink and the air I breathe.

 

[TJ_DUB]

If I've worked my entire life and build a massive amount of wealth, I've done that ENTIRELY for the security of MY family. Not so some social justice warrior can redistribute it to people who didnt have the drive, ingenuity, or desire that I had.

As a man, your entire job, your reason for being is ensuring the safety and security (financial and otherwise) of YOUR family. It's not my responsibility to pay for the guy down the street because he doesnt want to work or would rather spend his money on drugs and alcohol.

How is improving infrastructure not a benefit for all?

 

[DirtyDan17]

How is improving infrastructure not a benefit for all?

I've never said it wouldn't be. Never even implied it. Quit trying to build straw men.

 

[TJ_DUB]

I've never said it wouldn't be. Never even implied it. Quit trying to build straw men.

Then you need to be more specific. Look at what you posted. Pretty vague.
Building straw men? WTH does that mean.

 

[SadButTrue]

Then you need to be more specific. Look at what you posted. Pretty vague.
Building straw men? WTH does that mean.

straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1. 1.
   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
   "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2. 2.
   a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
   "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy" Sounds like the guy in the White House.

 

[DirtyDan17]

straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1. 1.
   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
   "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2. 2.
   a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
   "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy" Sounds like the guy in the White House.

Omg you posted something relevant.

 

[TJ_DUB]

I've never said it wouldn't be. Never even implied it. Quit trying to build straw men.

Why the attack? I asked a simple question.

 

[DirtyDan17]

Why the attack? I asked a simple question.

It's not an attack. You were building strawmen in an attempt to misrepresent my argument. No point in proceeding unless we're discussing the subject at hand.

 

[TJ_DUB]

It's not an attack. You were building strawmen in an attempt to misrepresent my argument. No point in proceeding unless we're discussing the subject at hand.

By all means, duscuss. I thought that’s what I was doing, but instead got called a name. I’ll defer to you leading the discussion.

 

[DirtyDan17]

By all means, duscuss. I thought that’s what I was doing, but instead got called a name. I’ll defer to you leading the discussion.

What name were you called?

 

[TJ_DUB]

What name were you called?

You said I was building a straw man. My understanding is that I was trying to lie by putting words into your mouth/thumbs or fingers. My apologies, dear sir. Please lead our discussion.

 

[SadButTrue]

You said I was building a straw man. My understanding is that I was trying to lie by putting words into your mouth/thumbs or fingers. My apologies, dear sir. Please lead our discussion.

All bow to DiaperDan. The resident know-it-all.

 

[DirtyDan17]

All bow to DiaperDan. The resident know-it-all.

I dont know it all, but I do back up my assertions by citing credible sources.

But coming from Sadbuttrue our resident know-nothing, yeah it must seem like I know it all.

 

[DirtyDan17]

You said I was building a straw man. My understanding is that I was trying to lie by putting words into your mouth/thumbs or fingers. My apologies, dear sir. Please lead our discussion.

You weren't necessarily lying, you were trying to shift the topic of conversation to something more easy for you to "win" the conversation, based on something I've never said or asserted. I'm totally in favor of infrastructure spending, that doesnt mean we need to raise taxes on anyone, much less the rich. If anything we need to reduce and reallocate spending. Get rid of redundant government spending (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc could all be under one umbrella instead of separate agencies for example) and fix other wasteful federal spending.

But no, to go back to what was actually being talked about, we do NOT need to overtax the ultra-wealthy to pay for it.

 

[TJ_DUB]

I wasn’t trying to “win” anything. Asked a serious question and finally got a serious answer. Thank you, sir. Not all posters, questions/discussions on here are “got’cha” moments.