Who are you supporting in the 2020 election (Democrats)

[Economy 53,053]

51 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Not really. If you look at the polling and how their support breaks down, they are actually appealing to different coalitions and groups even though they are both progressives. So they're not really splitting the vote at all. 

That being said, I support both of them but trust Bernie more since he's been saying and supporting the same things for 30 years so he has my vote 

I think @derpmonster has a point tho

 

Yes Warren and Bernie may attract different types and groups of progressives but they are still progressives

 

If u have one type of progressive gravitate towards one and another group gravitate towards another that's still a type of vote split

 

Because most likely if one dropped the race a very good portion of their supporters would gravitate towards the remaining major progressive because it would still be the closest to their ideals

 

If I was American, Bernie wouldn't get my vote from Warren because while I support Warren as my fav Candidate she's already pushing it for what I consider the perfect balance between left wealth redistribution policies with the free market. Bernie would definitely be too far left for me... But u don't think that's how most supporters would react

 

Certainly if Bernie dropped out Warren is the only one left with even remotely simmilar ideas so for sure she'd absorb most of Bernie's votes

[Bt1 5,213]

80% voted Bernie or Warren. Dont go after them, cause u will suffer on Ggd. I know it from personal experience. 

[Pop Music 20,540]

Warren 2020 

[Economy 53,053]

14 minutes ago, Florin said:

80% voted Bernie or Warren. Dont go after them, cause u will suffer on Ggd. I know it from personal experience. 

Same. 

 

And Warren is one of my fav candidates too but I just said a few things I disagree with them (especially Bernie) and apparently that makes me a conservative rantist now

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I think @derpmonster has a point tho

 

Yes Warren and Bernie may attract different types and groups of progressives but they are still progressives

 

If u have one type of progressive gravitate towards one and another group gravitate towards another that's still a type of vote split

 

Because most likely if one dropped the race a very good portion of their supporters would gravitate towards the remaining major progressive because it would still be the closest to their ideals

 

If I was American, Bernie wouldn't get my vote from Warren because while I support Warren as my fav Candidate she's already pushing it for what I consider the perfect balance between left wealth redistribution policies with the free market. Bernie would definitely be too far left for me... But u don't think that's how most supporters would react

 

Certainly if Bernie dropped out Warren is the only one left with even remotely simmilar ideas so for sure she'd absorb most of Bernie's votes

Oh, sure if one of them dropped out the other would likely get many of the other's votes for the  "progressive vote". And there is a degree of overlap in the demographic groups between them especially as it relates to those on the progressive end. 

But in looking at the demographic trends of those saying saying they support one or the other, Warren is getting mostly white, affluent, college graduates, whereas Bernie is getting more working-class people who may not have a college degree, and a group that is much more racially diverse than Warren's.

So in how that works out, they're not really taking votes away from the other considering they're different demographic groups voting for one or the other broadly speaking. This doesn't mean there isn't any overlap which leads to some people having to choose one or the other, but overall it's not really an issue. 

[Nemo 4,414]

I'm still kind of undecided between Sanders and Warren. It doesn't matter at this point, except that I haven't donated to anyone. Our primary isn't until the end of April... I'm kinda hoping one will drop out and endorse the other so I don't have to decide.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

Im not American so I can't literally actually support

 

But Warren has my favour. She's proposing enough bold change that in my opinion doesn't overdo something's like Bernie

 

I know y'all like Bernie and I respect your opinions but I think some things he proposes like an 8% wealth tax for example is just too high

Yeah so the reason that post about "don't get me wrong I support wealth redistribution" was sus to me is because you say that but then make points like this, even though we know that Warren's 2-3 even 6% wealth tax is actually low enough that for the plurality of multibillionaires, their wealth won't actually be shrinking based on how fast their current wealth is growing... It's like, a foot in the door in terms of significant wealth redistribution, where as 8% might be high enough to actually see the fortunes of these people shrink over time, which is kind of the point. 

And the reason I keep pushing you on this is because your position seems to imply that the potential consequences of things like an 8% wealth tax that will affect under 50 people... outweighs the need for things like free public college tuition, universal health care, paid parental leave, universal childcare, etc. Like, I have yet to see a reason that is more than just *what if it isnt as effective as they think* that also grapples with the reality that even if its less than expected, it is still all a hell of a lot better than the converse, which is nothing substantial at all.

To clarify, this is not "How dare you not worship the feet Bernie Sanders walks on", it is very simply "why don't you like ____ policy" - there are plenty of things about Bernie Sanders that I and most of his supporters dislike about him, or even his policies, but no one ever asks about it because they assume we are blind stans instead of informed viewers with our own opinions 

[Economy 53,053]

52 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Yeah so the reason that post about "don't get me wrong I support wealth redistribution" was sus to me is because you say that but then make points like this, even though we know that Warren's 2-3 even 6% wealth tax is actually low enough that for the plurality of multibillionaires, their wealth won't actually be shrinking based on how fast their current wealth is growing... It's like, a foot in the door in terms of significant wealth redistribution, where as 8% might be high enough to actually see the fortunes of these people shrink over time, which is kind of the point. 

And the reason I keep pushing you on this is because your position seems to imply that the potential consequences of things like an 8% wealth tax that will affect under 50 people... outweighs the need for things like free public college tuition, universal health care, paid parental leave, universal childcare, etc. Like, I have yet to see a reason that is more than just *what if it isnt as effective as they think* that also grapples with the reality that even if its less than expected, it is still all a hell of a lot better than the converse, which is nothing substantial at all.

To clarify, this is not "How dare you not worship the feet Bernie Sanders walks on", it is very simply "why don't you like ____ policy" - there are plenty of things about Bernie Sanders that I and most of his supporters dislike about him, or even his policies, but no one ever asks about it because they assume we are blind stans instead of informed viewers with our own opinions 

I'm not against any of those things. I but everytime I've given u a thrual explanation uve never replied to me so I don't even know if u read those responses

 

My problem is that I believe there's a limit to everything when its maximum benefit to negative ratio hits a peak and then going past that threshold has more negatives than most

 

An 8% wealth tax is high enough that it would probably make the stock market shrink... People wouldn't see their pension funds grow anymore for example...

 

Also I'm worried about the sustainability of it. Yes this would shrink the wealth of billionaires... But that would be a long term issue if you become accustomed to the income from the tax to pay for the services ur talking about in the first place.

 

Also sometimes frankly I don't think many people understand the difference between assets and actual wealth and money... These paper value assets can swing up and down like nothing. 

 

Assets can be worth several times the cash they generate. Many stocks are valued at 15X to 20X earnings. The amount of cash they are valued at does not actually exist

 

That means if there's $10 Trillion in billionaire market wealth, once they are forced to liquidate assets to get the cash to pay the tax, the assets will fall in value at a higher rate than the amount of cash taken... You cannot actually ever tax that $10 Trillion. It's an imaginary value and trade multiple. That much cash does not actually exist in these investments

 

So to summarize. My issue with an 8% wealth tax is that I think would shrink the taxable base too fast and the income stream would be completely unsustainable. Whatever u can pay for with that money in 10 years u wouldn't come even close

 

Warren's 3% is a rate that can still tax a lot of cash, slow investment into speculative investments and into real hard useful assets (like growing a company rather than just it's stock), but not deplete the wealth base at such an unsustainable level

 

I'm sorry I don't agree with the 8% rate and that it upsets u but I have my reasons for thinking going that far would do more harm than good

 

Just because it would impoverish billionaires faster it doesn't mean it would benefit everyone faster...

 

What I explained about the stock market trading multiples falling in value means that for every $1 the wealth tax collects it might shrink the wealth base let's say by $3 (that's me giving u an idea, I don't actually know what the real relationship would be). U are not redistrubing the wealth dollar for dollar at a $1 to $1 ratio which is why I think the long term revenue that can be gotten from this is over estimated

 

Warren's plans being more modest would allow the investments to recover as they are taxed and it would not have that base shrinking effect as much

 

Bernie's plan might receive more tax revenue than Warrens in the first few years but long term I doubt it would

 

U need to understand valuations and asset vs liquidity to understand what I'm trying to explain to u. If u don't there's not much I can do to explain my view. Good policies come with offsetting factors that partially detract their benefits on the net basis because almost everything has pros and cons. The further the policy goes the stronger those offsetting factors become until u reach a threshold where going beyond that point starts to have more of the negative offsets than the positives 

 

And I respect that u have an opinion. But I have my reasons for having mine! 

[Economy 53,053]

1 hour ago, Gagaloo92 said:

Oh, sure if one of them dropped out the other would likely get many of the other's votes for the  "progressive vote". And there is a degree of overlap in the demographic groups between them especially as it relates to those on the progressive end. 

But in looking at the demographic trends of those saying saying they support one or the other, Warren is getting mostly white, affluent, college graduates, whereas Bernie is getting more working-class people who may not have a college degree, and a group that is much more racially diverse than Warren's.

So in how that works out, they're not really taking votes away from the other considering they're different demographic groups voting for one or the other broadly speaking. This doesn't mean there isn't any overlap which leads to some people having to choose one or the other, but overall it's not really an issue. 

True. And I agree I don't think at this stage they are taking eachothers votes given they aren't popular with the same liberal groups

 

I just mean I think he had a point that if one dropped out a lot of the votes might go to the other especially if it was Bernie

 

Warren has liberals that are maybe a bit closer to centrists too (but still more Liberal than centrist) and if she dropped out some might go to Bernie and some might go to a more centrist candidate

 

I think if it was Bernie who dropped out tho then Warren would definitely get a big boost tho because if you want left wing policies (especially economics) Warren is literally the closest to Bernie. It might not be to the level that Bernie supporters want but it's still the closest

 

I think they both would gain votes if either jumped ship but I think Warren would gain more if Bernie dropped out than if Warren jumped

 

Again Warren I think has more Centre-Left supporters that could go either way (more centre or more left) but the left from Bernie probably would have to take Warren whose the closest thing 

 

I could be wrong. I admitedly am not an expert in polls and elections I focus more on markets and economics

 

That's just my personal impression of the situation tho

 

 

[DC 25,164]

18 hours ago, Ladey Gaygay said:

I cannot vote, however Bernie by 10k miles. Warren is ok, but we need complete reform, my parents are crushed in student debt and harped by greedy insurance companies, not only do they deserve better, but I do not want to end up by them. 

This is one of the few times I’ve actually agreed with you 

America(no) needs a refresh in almost everything 

P.S. I hope your parents do well! No one deserves that kind of fate... well maybe a few, or several 

[Arturo 40,746]

Kamala dropped so Bernie

[Bt1 5,213]

Is it me or Warren is taking a calculated step back? 

[Ladey Gaygay 9,321]

8 minutes ago, ProjectJoanne said:

This is one of the few times I’ve actually agreed with you 

America(no) needs a refresh in almost everything 

P.S. I hope your parents do well! No one deserves that kind of fate... well maybe a few, or several million 

[DC 25,164]

Just now, Ladey Gaygay said:

Like the writers of Bad Kids 

I said what I said 

Wait- Gaga helped write it too...

I didn’t say what I said 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm not against any of those things. I but everytime I've given u a thrual explanation uve never replied to me so I don't even know if u read those responses

My problem is that I believe there's a limit to everything when its maximum benefit to negative ratio hits a peak and then going past that threshold has more negatives than most

An 8% wealth tax is high enough that it would probably prevent any growth in the stock market... People wouldn't see their pension funds grow anymore for example...

Also I'm worried about the sustainability of it. Yes this would shrink the wealth of billionaires... But that would be a long term issue if you become accustomed to the income from the tax to pay for the services ur talking about in the first place.

Also sometimes frankly I don't think many people understand the difference between assets and actual wealth and money... These paper value assets can swing up and down like nothing. 

Assets can be worth several times the cash they generate. Many stocks are valued at 15X to 20X earnings. The amount of cash they are valued at does not actually exist

That means if there's $10 Trillion in billionaire market wealth, once they are forced to liquidate assets to get the cash to pay the tax, the assets will fall in value at a higher rate than the amount of cash taken... You cannot actually ever tax that $10 Trillion. It's an imaginary value and trade multiple. That much cash does not actually exist in these investments

So to summarize. My issue with an 8% wealth tax is that I think would shrink the taxable base too fast and the income stream would be completely unsustainable. Whatever u can pay for with that money in 10 years u wouldn't come even close

Warren's 3% is a rate that can still tax a lot of cash, slow investment into speculative investments and into real hard useful assets (like growing a company rather than just it's stock), but not deplete the wealth base at such an unsustainable level

I'm sorry I don't agree with the 8% rate and that it upsets u but I have my reasons for thinking going that far would do more harm than good

Just because it would impoverish billionaires faster it doesn't mean it would benefit everyone faster...

What I explained about the stock market trading multiples falling in value means that for every $1 the wealth tax collects it might shrink the wealth base let's say by $3. U are not redistrubing the wealth dollar for dollar at a $1 to $1 ratio which is why I think the long term revenue that can be gotten from this is over estimated

Warren's plans being more modest would allow the investments to recover as they are taxed and it would not have that base shrinking effect as much

Bernie's plan might receive more tax revenue than Warrens in the first few years but long term I doubt it would

U need to understand valuations and asset vs liquidity to understand what I'm trying to explain to u. If u don't there's not much I can do to explain my view 

And I respect that u have an opinion. But I have my reasons for having mine!

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?