Who are you supporting in the 2020 election (Democrats)

[Phoenix Rises 954]

Biden, he knos Washington and has best forign experience. Bernie is good but his bills Would never pass and We'd need both house and senate. Be real. Ve dont Want to lose medicaid,medicare etc cause of pipe dreams. Biden or Bernie imo

[Economy 53,056]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This is the age of the internet, I understand most of what you are saying and am easily able to do research on things I do not know   and I know what assets and liquidity are - we've literally talked about it in relation to this exact issue before. You said you were worried that at that tax rate, some individuals (among the 40 affected...) would have to create liquid wealth in order to pay the tax. I said yes, they will, so what. It is not to my knowledge actually impossible to do, even if it might be inconvenient and require a reshuffling of money and priorities, and the economists who have worked on these plans have taken this into account re: Europe's failings with a progressive wealth taxes in the past. If it were juts flat out undoable, I honestly can't believe people with their doctorates and entire lives spent writing about Economic theory have just all conveniently overlooked it   Like, these policies and plans dont come out thin air, there are very talented and accomplished people, much more than myself, that have worked on them for years... but even if you are right, you are not addressing my  point. I can play economics with you, we can argue over what is better or best, what plans might not be as fruitful as they expect, and hell, I can even link you research and studies to suggest what you have claimed are not so if you want when it comes to what is sustainable or not, but my point is not an economic position, it is a rhetorical one:

Why are these potential bad outcomes more important than the good outcomes, considering that the alternatives either don't fix the problem, or only touch the surface in the case of Warren. If you do not think they would work at all, I would concede, but just might not work as much as we want them to... has hardly ever been a good enough reason to suggest not doing something when the alternative is absolutely life ruining for millions of people. This is the position I do not understand, not that you think some things would have adverse effects, or would be less successful than proposed, but why that matters in the long run. Presumably, you haven't advocated for a doomsday end of our economy as we know it from an 8% wealth tax on 40 people, am I correct?

 

I think doomsday would definitely be a reach. I don't think it would would be catastrophic to that extent no. But things don't have to be that black and white. I can believe something isn't a great idea without necessarily thinking it would be catastrophic. Things don't have to be either great or terrible. I think it would just be kind of bad

 

But my issue is not just "it won't work as well as intended to". I'm literally concerned it will do harm on a net basis

 

But even if that's not the case.... If I think Warren's plan will have a greater net positive than Bernie's (even if his still has a net positive impact) what is wrong with me preferring her rate???  You seem to genuinely be triggered by this for some reason

 

I think Warren's rate will get revenue with few downsides... I think Bernie's rate will get more revenue (at least initially) but with a lot more downsides that come with it. So in my opinion overall I just think Bernie's rate is less beneficial overall. I don't know why it's so infuriating for u that I genuinely think that

 

And sure u can link me studies. But There's studies u can find to prove any point. Studies contradict other studies all the time. If I looked for them I can probably find research somewhere that shows the exact of whatever u show me. This is true for everything, space, food and health impacts of whatever etc... There's literally opinions from experts that are all over the place. So to me that doesn't prove anything necessarily.

 

But I will look at them tho if ud like. I'm always up for seeing new opinions and data, it makes debates more rich and beneficial. Im not stubborn u know I will not shrug off another view point without looking at why that view point is taken to heart. It obviously has it reasons and it would be beneficial if everyone was open minded like that

 

That's why I gave u that long ass summary on the effects of Ontario's big minimum wage hike. It wasn't a rant, I was genuinly trying to break down the details as much as possible to make it easier to reason to make u understand my point about offsetting factos 

 

 

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

Bernie leading in this GGD poll! We love to see it 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

7 hours ago, PoshLife said:

You're factually wrong. An "asset" is simply something of value to someone. Perhaps you've gotten confused between an asset and an operative. Clinton NEVER said Gabbard was working with Russia; she just said the Congresswoman had value to the Russians. And the fact that Russian propagandists have been boosting her campaign would seem to support that.

She's practically polling at 0% and they're boosting her campaign! Yea right!

How is she a valuable asset to the Russians? Value to the Russians how?

In 2004, she became the first state legislator to voluntarily step down from public office for a tour of duty in a war zone. Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guardin a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.

She was Major in the US army and you people claim her to be a russian asset without any evidence, just because Hillary Clinton said so. That's despicable.

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Bernie. 

 

Im glad to see Bernie winning. The last time this was conducted Bernie was in 2nd or 3rd place. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

10 hours ago, Economy said:

I think doomsday would definitely be a reach. I don't think it would would be catastrophic to that extent no

But my issue is not just "it won't work as well as intended to". I'm literally concerned it will do harm on a net basis

But even if that's not the case.... If I think Warren's plan will have a greater net basis what is wrong with me preferring her rate??? 

I think Warren's rate will get revenue with few downsides... I think Bernie's rate will get more revenue (at least initially) but with a lot more downsides that come with it. So in my opinion overall I just think Bernie's rate is less beneficial overall. I don't know why it's so infuriating for u that I genuinely think that

And sure u can link me studies. But There's studies u can find to prove any point. Studies contradict other studies all the time. If I looked for them I can probably find research somewhere that shows the exact of whatever u show me. This is true for everything, space, food and health impacts of whatever etc... There's literally opinions from experts that are all over the place. So to me that doesn't prove anything necessarily.

But I will look at them tho if ud like. I'm always up for seeing new opinions and data.

This is not personally infuriating to me at all, and there is nothing wrong with preferring Warren's rate, but to me it is rather perplexing because I don't see the 2% difference between their proposed wealth taxes (Warren's caps at 6%, Bernie's at 8%, his starts at a lower income threshold though, 32mil vs 50) as being the difference between a net-gain and a net-loss for our economy. I also genuinely am of the belief that somebad things happening financially, economically, etc. are somewhat acceptable losses for these goals. For example, in a study that was now debunked, some Economists claimed that Warren's Wealth Tax + M4A implementation would cause the GDP 's increasing rate to lower from 1.5% annually to 1.4 or 1.3%. To me that's totally fine, but to many on the right thats the end of America as a superpower as we know it  We are at a place historically in America (and the world tbh, don't get me started on the concept of global wealth taxes  ) where "radical" action is required to address increasingly polarized situations that only continue to get worse and worse. If this results in some massive shifting of economic and value based priorities that puts us in flux for some time, I say so be it. 

Unless there is a good chance that these rates would absolutely undermine the goals of the wealth tax, I have trouble seeing only potential and theoretical downsides as being disqualifying and I think you'd have to make a pretty strong numerical argument to suggest that insufficient funding would qualify as a "failure" unless it's so massive that its literally just unable to pay for things like Medicare For All at all from the get go... A partial victory is to me a victory to an extent. And as I've told you before, you do realize that there are a multitude of financing options that are meant to be employed in conjunction with one another for different parts of Bernie And Warren's plans right? It's not simply a wealth tax to end all forms of taxation, its a concerted, multi-frontal battle plan with many contingencies that do take note of the potential that tax evasion is harder to root out than suspected, that there will be significant resistance in Congress and outside of Congress, that businesses may threaten to leave, etc. but it is all with the ultimate goal of an increased welfare state and early stages of significant wealth redistribution at heart. (Bernie's plan for example, would cut the wealth of the ultra wealthy significantly to around half over 15 years. To me, this is an overly ambitious goal, but still one worth fighting for imo. Maybe it'll be like around 20%  Still better than a constantly widening wealth and income gap.
~~~~~~~

About *studies* thats why I generally don't engage in discussions from this perspective and prefer to rely on rhetoric, values, etc and only correct on cold hard numbers or blatant mistruths where possible. Not because I can't speak the language at all, but because its not always productive. I am an academic person at heart and have been for many years.  I read and am subscribed to academic publishers, I have a few references, etc. I'm also very internet savvy and have decent history in debate if I were to really get into axioms, tautologies, etc etc. but thats boring.

But, I've already been through the phase of my life in my teenage social activism years where I genuinely believed that just linking people to facts, studies, figures, etc. should be enough to convince people of things. I further believed that people who accepted fact were good-faith actors and those who declined them if they challenge preexisting narratives and shatter worldviews and assumptions were bad-faith actors. It is not so black and white though I've learned.

Academia is not a realm of pure objectivity, as you say - expert opinions exist all over the place for any position, and they are still opinions; however, it doesn't mean that all studies are created equal, and that all biases are equally bad or disqualifying. Academia is also a field that cares about analyzing and being forthright with bias, conflicts of interest, etc. and also being self-critical about the potential applications of your work/research, and on those grounds, It is more than fair to weigh some studies more heavily than others, as long as you have consistent criteria in how you evaluate them. For example, I don't take the economic studies of hired goons of the Heritage Foundation as seriously as I would the independent and publicly funded reporting of an Economics Professor at some prestigious University with no affiliates other than themselves + their University  That being said, I'll bite:

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/progressive-wealth-taxation/

^There's just one I read a few weeks ago (you do have to download it but its not big just a pdf) The authors of it also wrote a book about the same overall concept in more broad terms in regards to philosophy and squaring it away with some key tenants of how economics works under Capitalism, but this is more of an analysis of the errors of previous attempts of Progressive Taxation and how we could/should do things differently in order to actually successfully implement them in the United States as compared to Europe. 

[Grim 2,266]

I'm not from US and haven't really been into politics lately but I saw Marianne Williamson's interview a while ago and I gotta say she seems cool

[Economy 53,056]

4 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This is not personally infuriating to me at all, and there is nothing wrong with preferring Warren's rate, but to me it is rather perplexing because I don't see the 2% difference between their proposed wealth taxes (Warren's caps at 6%, Bernie's at 8%, his starts at a lower income threshold though, 32mil vs 50) as being the difference between a net-gain and a net-loss for our economy. I also genuinely am of the belief that somebad things happening financially, economically, etc. are somewhat acceptable losses for these goals. For example, in a study that was now debunked, some Economists claimed that Warren's Wealth Tax + M4A implementation would cause the GDP 's increasing rate to lower from 1.5% annually to 1.4 or 1.3%. To me that's totally fine, but to many on the right thats the end of America as a superpower as we know it  We are at a place historically in America (and the world tbh, don't get me started on the concept of global wealth taxes  ) where "radical" action is required to address increasingly polarized situations that only continue to get worse and worse. If this results in some massive shifting of economic and value based priorities that puts us in flux for some time, I say so be it. 

Unless there is a good chance that these rates would absolutely undermine the goals of the wealth tax, I have trouble seeing only potential and theoretical downsides as being disqualifying and I think you'd have to make a pretty strong numerical argument to suggest that insufficient funding would qualify as a "failure" unless it's so massive that its literally just unable to pay for things like Medicare For All at all from the get go... A partial victory is to me a victory to an extent. And as I've told you before, you do realize that there are a multitude of financing options that are meant to be employed in conjunction with one another for different parts of Bernie And Warren's plans right? It's not simply a wealth tax to end all forms of taxation, its a concerted, multi-frontal battle plan with many contingencies that do take note of the potential that tax evasion is harder to root out than suspected, that there will be significant resistance in Congress and outside of Congress, that businesses may threaten to leave, etc. but it is all with the ultimate goal of an increased welfare state and early stages of significant wealth redistribution at heart. (Bernie's plan for example, would cut the wealth of the ultra wealthy significantly to around half over 15 years. To me, this is an overly ambitious goal, but still one worth fighting for imo. Maybe it'll be like around 20%  Still better than a constantly widening wealth and income gap.
~~~~~~~

About *studies* thats why I generally don't engage in discussions from this perspective and prefer to rely on rhetoric, values, etc and only correct on cold hard numbers or blatant mistruths where possible. Not because I can't speak the language at all, but because its not always productive. I am an academic person at heart and have been for many years.  I read and am subscribed to academic publishers, I have a few references, etc. I'm also very internet savvy and have decent history in debate if I were to really get into axioms, tautologies, etc etc. but thats boring.

But, I've already been through the phase of my life in my teenage social activism years where I genuinely believed that just linking people to facts, studies, figures, etc. should be enough to convince people of things. I further believed that people who accepted fact were good-faith actors and those who declined them if they challenge preexisting narratives and shatter worldviews and assumptions were bad-faith actors. It is not so black and white though I've learned.

Academia is not a realm of pure objectivity, as you say - expert opinions exist all over the place for any position, and they are still opinions; however, it doesn't mean that all studies are created equal, and that all biases are equally bad or disqualifying. Academia is also a field that cares about analyzing and being forthright with bias, conflicts of interest, etc. and also being self-critical about the potential applications of your work/research, and on those grounds, It is more than fair to weigh some studies more heavily than others, as long as you have consistent criteria in how you evaluate them. For example, I don't take the economic studies of hired goons of the Heritage Foundation as seriously as I would the independent and publicly funded reporting of an Economics Professor at some prestigious University with no affiliates other than themselves + their University  That being said, I'll bite:

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/progressive-wealth-taxation/

^There's just one I read a few weeks ago (you do have to download it but its not big just a pdf) The authors of it also wrote a book about the same overall concept in more broad terms in regards to philosophy and squaring it away with some key tenants of how economics works under Capitalism, but this is more of an analysis of the errors of previous attempts of Progressive Taxation and how we could/should do things differently in order to actually successfully implement them in the United States as compared to Europe. 

That's one thing I'm a little worried about. Since it is intended to cut the wealth of the top so much, the revenue would keep falling over time as the wealth base drops. Does Bernie have a plan to make the things he wants to fund sustainable over time? Maybe I missed something but I don't remember reading anything about how he plans to replace the reduced income from the wealth tax over time

 

One reason I prefer her rate is because even her new rate I think is a tad bit high ever since she doubled it so in my view if she's already pushing it I certainly don't support Bernie's rate. But a critical difference none of the less is that at least in my view I think her plan is more sustainable. It's more like constantly taking something from a pot that keeps refilling and never ends... Bernie's goes past the average long term increase in asset wealth (inflation adjusted) and would shrink the tops wealth base (in fact he admits that's his goal) making it more like taking from a pot until it gradually depleats... It just seems like it can pay for more stuff in the short term but leave us more short handed than Warrens plan in 10 or 20 years cuz we are taxing that accumulated wealth faster and spending it faster than it can replenish

 

He wants use that accumulated wealth at the top fine... But once it's gone, u can't fund things at the same rate anymore and he's going to have to rely more heavily on the middle class to fill the gap the rich no longer can pay for if the services he pays with the wealth tax now are to continue

 

And the population is ageing too so medical costs will keep skyrocketing as well pension costs. A single payer system would be cheaper and offset some of this rise but regardless the Government still has to pay for it so the middle class would probably have to pitch in some of the costs if revenue from the wealthy gradually falls

 

As for what u said about facts and studies should be enough to convince people of things... I still think it's more complicated than that because there's also stats you can find and facts that can always be found to counter an argument as well. There isn't ONLY evidence to support one political side historically.

 

For example I could point to how every single wealth tax attempted in Europe has been a failure to its plans and that's a fact I can use just as well. Then you can counter that argument only with theoretical ideas about how implementing it differently could make it work in America (which I agree with btw but I'm trying to make a point about arbitrary arguments). So facts, arguments and historical data can be used both ways.

 

As for your study. There's nothing about it that seems bad or biased or that the people that did it aren't educated but there's no much detail to how it was done or what data was collected either to reach that conclusion so I can't say I agree or disagree with their findings

 

I also want to point out one other thing about taxes and left wing politics that I think is STRONGLY worth considering...

 

More taxes on businesses and people and spending by government means less investment being done by private sector and more investment being done by Government. Essentially the Government becomes a larger share of the economy and decides how to spend a greater share of the nation's wealth

 

So to a very large extent whether left wing politics work or not I think also depends on how well and efficiently the Government uses the funds to invest for the future, increase productivity etc... Because if a Government isn't competent, I think the higher taxes and spending only do harm. You end up reducing the private sector growth and get little benefit in return for it

 

Also this is going off topic a bit from the wealth tax but another thing I prefer Warren over Bernie is the Corporate tax plan which encourage more competitiveness for smaller Corporations vs large ones and increase overall revenue without overly holding back growth... Bernie's Corporate plan would raise taxes quite significantly in Corporations and for reasons I mentioned before, I think that's a terrible way to go after wealth inequality