Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Elizabeth Warren Pres. Candidacy.....

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

I would support that if schtootzes like her and sanders would not exclude the filthy rich Hollywood celeb 1%ers who are among the filthiest rich people in our country.

no, the people they would tax are in nyc and such a foolish move would damage our country's economic stability and send the U.S. economy into a tailspin that would impact most ordinary working class americans...

and when she and sanders have fleeced our country's economic movers and shakers and upended the lives of millions of working class americans, what do they do then...

issue a heartfelt apology saying they believed their hearts were in the right place?

:angry:

beautiful...

they win a cookie.

 

My goodness.  Keep on drinking that GOP Kool Aid.  The working class in America will never get off its knees.

Sanders is trying to do what every other country in the world already does and you say that the wealthiest country in the world cannot afford to even try to emulate that.

Boy rich billionaires really love you.  :lol:  If they love the 50's so much why don't they return to those tax days when the rich paid taxes at the level Sanders and Warren are proposing.  This is not some plan from communist China you know.  But why waste my breath.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sanders and Pocahontas are socialists and all socialists around the world have ever done is spend other people's money and then run out of it.

there are filthy rich schtootzes on the left like the Koch brothers who would be no more willing to separate themselves from their wealth then those who fund the GOP.

you think Disney would do that?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't particularly care for either of them as candidates and disagree with them on quite a lot of things but what they want in this case would be good for the working class families. Working families deserve livable wages and to not be ripped off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and my point is that the greedsters on the left would never let these two take anything out of their honeypots and anyone who thinks leftist wealthers would...

"hasn't the sense that god gave geese!"-Richard Harris, mutiny on the bounty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greed is greed on both the right and the left.

Disney is a bunch of rich leftists, anyone thing they're gonna invite poverty to help poor rural americans (whom they detest)

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Gee I wonder how little Canada manages to do it.

That said I believe that when Warren says she has a plan for that it means that she has details if anyone cares to look at them.

Not sure Canada spends nearly as much as US, even on "social" programs.   It is not just what her plans are, but how WE pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Not sure Canada spends nearly as much as US, even on "social" programs.   It is not just what her plans are, but how WE pay for them.

Who is "WE"?  She has details and those details may benefit you without cost.

I doan buy nipkow's let's not offend Massa Billionaire cause we may not get any gruel tonight argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Who is "WE"?  She has details and those details may benefit you without cost.

I doan buy nipkow's let's not offend Massa Billionaire cause we may not get any gruel tonight argument.

"WE" is the taxpayers and citizens of the US.  All I have seen is taxing the super rich.  No problem, but first it will never get passed and second, it will not provide much toward what she is promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with a return to taxes as in the 1950's?  Three families in America have as much combined wealth as 50% of ALL Americans.  Think about that.  It is gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of young people out there who are never going to have company pensions and are staring at a big fat set of zeros down the pike who want to change the system.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

There are a lot of young people out there who are never going to have company pensions and are staring at a big fat set of zeros down the pike who want to change the system.   

As Cid has stated you know little about the U.S. economic system.    The vast majority of workers are never going to have a company pension and it has been this way for decades.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

As Cid has stated you know little about the U.S. economic system.    The vast majority of workers are never going to have a company pension and it has been this way for decades.

 

 

Just as it is in Canada.  

I'm not talking about America as it is BTW.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

What's wrong with a return to taxes as in the 1950's?  Three families in America have as much combined wealth as 50% of ALL Americans.  Think about that.  It is gross.

Not sure about tax rates in the 1950's or that there was any significant difference between there being filthy rich people and poorer people compared to now.  There have always been super-rich families, but it was not as well publicized to the general public.

I have no objection to raising taxes and coming up with new tax rates.  But the problem with Warren's plan is there is NO way her tax plan will work.

Remember, those three families legally acquired their wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCid said:

Not sure about tax rates in the 1950's or that there was any significant difference between there being filthy rich people and poorer people compared to now.  There have always been super-rich families, but it was not as well publicized to the general public.

I have no objection to raising taxes and coming up with new tax rates.  But the problem with Warren's plan is there is NO way her tax plan will work.

Remember, those three families legally acquired their wealth.

And one of those families just got a quarter of a billion dollar tax break in year one from Donald J. Trump.  While their workers are struggling to make ends meet and are $400 away from financial disaster.

People like Warren because she does have details.  And they have referred to tax rates of the 1950's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The feudal system was perfectly legal for a long while too.  Things have progressed just a little since then.  Today we see things going backward and the poor getting poorer and the rich getting super rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

There are a lot of young people out there who are never going to have company pensions and are staring at a big fat set of zeros down the pike who want to change the system.   

Company pensions have not been as wide-spread as many people believe.  That is why Social Security, SSI and other programs were created.  Many people chose instant high income vs. lower income and security of a pension.

As for the zeros, it is up to people to invest and plan for their futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

People like Warren because she does have details.  And they have referred to tax rates of the 1950's.

Where?  Tax rates are immaterial when you consider all the ways to avoid paying taxes.  Has always been thus in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Where?  Tax rates are immaterial when you consider all the ways to avoid paying taxes.  Has always been thus in the US.

Well, I'm trying to say that there a lot of people who are not happy with the system.  Maybe you yourself are.  That's good and I am happy for you.  I'm doing very well myself but I can see big problems with the way things are going and the way they are stacked against people without wealth.

This unhappiness gave rise to Donald Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Well, I'm trying to say that there a lot of people who are not happy with the system.  Maybe you yourself are.  That's good and I am happy for you.  I'm doing very well myself but I can see big problems with the way things are going and the way they are stacked against people without wealth.

This unhappiness gave rise to Donald Trump.

Who said I was happy with the system?  I have said I think the tax system needs to be changed.  But my point is that Warren's "plan" is not fiscally viable and won't be enacted anyway.

Life has always been "stacked against people without wealth."

"This unhappiness gave rise to Donald Trump."  Not sure what you mean by this.  The people that would be helped by Warren's "plans" either didn't vote for Trump or didn't vote at all.  There were a lot of other reasons why people voted for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the income/wealth disparity, this goes back to the beginnings of the Industrial Age in America.  Individuals and then families began amassing phenomenal amounts of wealth.  It just was not as well publicized as now.  The tax system has alternated between soaking the rich and rewarding the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with adding two addition tiers to the tax rate while lowering the one for those in the 100K - 300K range.  

E.g.  100K to 300K the rate is 25%,  for 300K to 5 million,  it is 35% and for over 5 million,  it is 70%.

Initially any additional funds should be used to pay down the debt which the GOP and Trump admin has increased at a rate that can't be sustained due to that misguided (at best), tax cut.

Of course the above is just another 'plan' that will never be implemented unless Dems go nuclear or get to 60. 

   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm fine with adding two addition tiers to the tax rate while lowering the one for those in the 100K - 300K range.  

E.g.  100K to 300K the rate is 25%,  for 300K to 5 million,  it is 35% and for over 5 million,  it is 70%.

Initially any additional funds should be used to pay down the debt which the GOP and Trump admin has increased at a rate that can't be sustained due to that misguided (at best), tax cut.

Of course the above is just another 'plan' that will never be implemented unless Dems go nuclear or get to 60. 

   

Sounds like a start.  But the Dems are highly unlikely to do anything to reduce the national debt or the deficit based on the programs they are advocating now.

Major problem with the tax system is not the brackets/tiers, but all the exemptions, exclusions, deductions, ad infinitum.  Not that I support the flat tax system because it would actually require rates of 30% and upwards - on everybody.

Tax rate in the 1950's (Eisenhower) were topped out at 91%, BUT the marginal tax rate for that group was actually 42% per one source.  Current max tax rate is 37% for those with income over $300-500,000 roughly.

The bottom line for Warren's Wealth and Other Taxes is that they WON'T work.  At least not nearly enough to fund what she and the other Dems. want to fund.  On the other hand it would lead to more millionaires and billionaires created from the tax advisor, tax attorney, hedge fund manager, financial institutions, etc. class.  They will be devising ways for the rich to hide or exclude more income.

Incidentally, the countries that have tried a wealth tax are abandoning it or revising it greatly due to its not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Dan PfeifferVerified account @danpfeiffer 21h21 hours ago

 
 

.@ewarren swearing off fundraisers was a risky campaign gambit,

but if she is elected President with that strategy, she will fundamentally change the relationship between moneyed interests and politicians forever.

:)

Not really.  There are 435(?) House members and 100 Senate members who actually write the laws and regulations. If she is nominated, will the DNC swear off the moneyed interests?  Not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...