Warren's World

From the Economist: Warensworld


The above political cartoon is more funny than it is correct. Nobody will be tripping Hi-Finance in the US any time soon. Far too much vested interest involved.

Still, this article about what she proposes to do is both positive and critical - which is (sort of) The Economists "calling-card". Let's not forget that Elizabeth made her fortune all by herself. And now she is proposing punishing-taxation rates on the super-rich like her. (Which - to my mind - is just a very strong remembrance she has for "The poverty from where I came".)

Excerpt:

The sort of win she needs, unfortunately, might not happen. The American people that voted for a Far Right predominance, which in turn destroyed the objective balance of the Supreme Court, and placed an obstructive majority in the Senate might today still not allow anything of substantial consequence to be changed. That is, where it is most needed.

The Damage Has Been Done - now we must learn to live with it. But first, let's correct the hideous wrong of the Electoral College's unfair Winner-Takes-All-Rule that has historically permitted 5-losers of the national popular-vote to enter the Oval Office!

The EC is a relic that has poisoned our"democracy" since 1812 when passed as the 12th Amendment. Getting any change to it through today's Replicant-majority Senate however might well prove to be Mission Impossible. The Replicants know very well how money-buys-power in US politics and there is no reason whatsoever for them to see that operative rule change. Gerrymandering that has produced state restructuring of voting-districts to give the Replicant-Party majorities (both state and nationally) is old-hat.

MY POINT?

The first step in the right-direction would mean a Dem majority in the Senate along with a Dem PotUS to sign the change in the Constitution. Can that happen? Some seem to think so - see here from CNN: Democrats now have a real chance at winning the Senate in 2020

Nonetheless, I have my doubts ...

NB: Further reading: NYT - Republican Gerrymander Whiz Had Wider Influence Than Was Known - excerpt:

 

Nothing about the fake indian is positive.

 

I don't think her wealth tax would affect her. I don't follow her campaign that closely but i think she wants to start it at 100 mill, she and her husband is no way close to that.

I find a wealth tax cumbersome to enforce, but a 3% tax on that magnitude of wealth on average in my mind is not a horrible thing. Even my S&P 500 fund grows 5% every year
If they took 1/2 My "wealth" would still grow 2.5% every year.

So instead of Gates investments making him 6% a year they will only make him 3% a year.

 

The money was already taxed once as income. Now she wants to tax it again. After he dies, they will tax it again.

 

Well taxes are running people out of NY and it will run people out of the country. I hear Australia is a beautiful country.

 

So.. essentially you and Bill Gates funds would be losing money as a result of inflation?

 

Why is the solution always extracting more money out of the private sector? The private sector is the only sector that actually generates wealth. Government spending funded fully by the private sector economic engine is always a net loss.

 

Well, anyway, a Death Tax of close to 90% would force the parents to transfer more to their "favorite inheritors" long before they died. (But a tax-law specifying gifts to next-of-kin to a "reasonable" amount might help manage that fairly as well.)

My point is still the same. There is no good-reason whatsoever not to put a cap on Total Wealth - which is a benefit to only those who inherit it. Wealth has only two consequences. (1) It make rich people richer numerically, or (2) It goes to their siblings and makes their lives even richer - but not much else.

I just don't see the good-sense of either. If taxed, the funds could be used to help those presently in poverty - which sparks far too much of our present criminality. So, the money just might reduce crimes - and if not help pay the resulting costs of criminality.

Not permitting the wealthy to accumulate excessive riches in the first place answers the question of "Who should get it, then?" Yes, family children and other good-causes. But, all of it? No, that doesn't work either.

We have far, far better uses elsewhere. And such is painfully obvious for the 14% of our fellow Americans currently eking a living below the Poverty Threshold. Btw, that's around 40 million of your fellow citizens.

My concern is that the Poverty Threshold ($25K yearly income) is a flash-point for a Watts-2 - but next time not just restrained to Los Angeles. Next time it could go much wider. Much much wider.

And I am also sure that should the tax-funds be employed to permit our needy-young to obtain a post-secondary education free, gratis and for nothing, that achievement would better all of us in return ...

 

Bollocks! You're saying effectively that she is THAT STOOPID and does not therefore deserve to become PotUS.

Proof of what you say, please. Explain what you mean by your one-liner character-assassination.

Either that or just go away - your greed is showing ...

PS: Moreover, anything we spend out of our income also exacts a sales tax!. That too is double-taxation and so what?

 

There is nothing further to prove. Income is already taxed. She wants to tax wealth on money which has already been taxed as income. And then when Gates and his wife die, it will taxed again as an inheritance tax. Taxing three times on the same income is wrong.

 

The democrats love to penalize achievers because it keeps them in power by votes from envious people and poor people.

 

if those type taxes ever come to fruition, the wealthy would start up 'foundations' exempt from the taxes... making things worse than they are now... short-sided dems never think things through because they just don't give a damn...

 

If you think inflation is at 3% yeah. And Unlike bill Gates, I have an investment strategy based on a 67YO man who is retired. My allocation is based more on security of principal than maximum return. And my 401K of 300,000 would not be taxed so I don't get your point of even a 3% inflation wiping negating what growth my account has

 

WANNABE BILLIONAIRES

And what's wrong with taxing Wealth? That has accumulated because Income Taxation has been dropped so precipitously now for over 30 years.

See here the history of marginal Income Taxation:


Or perhaps you think it is still far too high?

This acceleration in Wealth all began to happen with Reckless Ronnie when he convinced Congress to lower upper-income tax-rates during his tenure of office. And that was a Gross Error that has led ipso-facto to the incredibly large amount of Wealth that has been obtained by people who really do not need the money. History of Marginal Tax Rates:


This above is a demonstration of our historical evolution to patently UNFAIR upper-income taxation in America. We have regressed since 1936 when the marginal tax-rate was in the mid sixty-percent range that went as high as 92% in the 1950, and then came crashing down to the thirty-percent range in the 1990s.

For what reason? To make a bunch of Wannabe Billionaires. And yet, we have NO National Healthcare and No free-Tuition for Post-secondary schooling.

Pathetic! Truly pathetic ... and all for what? See following post.

 

For this!

 

Yeah, I never got the elimination of all death taxes. Now I would put a very high limit before taxes. A man that built a 10mill dollar company that "only" makes him say 500,000 a year, can not afford to take on 2.5mil of debt on a 10mill valuation. The company would just close. Now leaving the 5mill Jackson Pollock to your kid, is something else. The company should pass tax free, the rest of the estate should be fair game.

 

It has already been taxed.

 

Achievers, me arse! (Always the same pathetic excuse!)

The rich and super-rich took advantage of indescribably very-low Income Tax rates (passed in the 1980s during Reckless Ronnie's administration), reinvested the money, turned the crank and earned even more Wealth.

That's all that happened. They achieved initially, yes, by means of some very intelligent investments and or innovations; but what made them Truly Rich was that they just took advantage of incredibly low upper-income taxation.

And people like you think they are Star Winners in a Game of "Who's A Billionaire?" - as if it was obtained by either intelligence or hard work. The first bit was indeed some good-luck and hard-work, but all the rest was a manipulation of lowered tax-rates and reinvestment in financial instruments.

So, in the spotlite, they are supposedly "heroes" and the rest of dumb-suckers?

It's time we fixed America's Main Socio-political Problem. Far too much money at the top, which manipulates voters at the bottom by means of quirky TV-commercials promoting their candidates.

It's time Uncle Sam took a long hard look at what has been happening at either end of the same spectrum. We have created both a super-rich class of maybe a few thousand people and a forsaken underclass of almost 20 million living below the Poverty-Threshold*.

What an accomplishment ... !

*Which is a family of four with an annual income of $25K per year.

 

Might as well just dump your dollars in a savings account. No risk, and no growth.

The point of investing money is ROI because you risked those dollars. Without that, what's the point of investment?

 

You know what's missing from that graph?

Revenue.

 

If we take all the money from billionaires it will not change your life one bit.

 

BLOATED DOD BUDGET

How's that?

The tax-revenue would be augmented IF Upper-income Taxation were put back to where it belonged before JFK started the great-reduction that Reckless Ronnie continued to today's level. And no Replicant Administration dares to touch. (See here, the rates from 1941 to 1961 were around 90%!)

We-the-sheeple then might have the budget-money for a decent National Healthcare System and sending our youth through Post-secondary Education.

Of course, a suitable reduction of the Bloated DoD Budget* would have to be done as well. THAT'S what bothers a lot of Defense Industries paying their tribute annually to the Replicant Party!

Which means what? It means that a bloated DoD Budget (consuming 55% of the total Discretionary Budget) is the biggest reason Americans must die younger because they do not have a National Healthcare Budget to assure their good-health**.

Tell me how I am wrong in that statement ... !

*See here!
**Why was Europe not plagued by the deaths resulting from pill-popping illicit drugs and prescription opioids. Because they were banned by a National Healthcare Service!

 

Not enough! Dammit, look at the history of Upper-income Taxation in the US here!

Once upon a time the tax-rate was up beyond 90% and then JFK (to please his father*) started the reduction in rates that Reckless Ronnie simply continued.

And if we have a bloated Discretionary Budget, it is because of the DoD! See here!

All I am saying is that DOD-money could be better spent educating our children rather than sending them off to foreign-wars!

*Who - it is reported - arranged a huge amount of money from a Chicago gangster to finance his son's election. Maybe that is just conjecture - but, anyway, see the 1997 press-article here.

 

Warren’s biggest obstacle in 2020 is her gender though I do expect woman to make advances in other lower races.

The angry and unlikeable trope should be in full force by early next year and private equity, hedge funds, banks, and the upper donor class will empty their vaults in opposition to her campaign.

She’s definitely swimming up stream but we need to retool and I had no expectation that would be easy.

I’ve been a campaign donor and volunteer since her announcement.

 

No doubt, it would be an up-hill battle for any woman. But, lest we forget, the "woman" actually won the popular-vote election last time around.

Then had it stolen from her by the Electoral College ...

PS: I don't think there is any great distinction between what Warren is proposing and what Clinton offered - just nuanced differences. Then again, it is still "early days" in the election. If Hillary is not saying that much presently, is it out of deference to Elizabeth? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is just keeping her cards close to herself.
PPS: It's male-pride that motivates many a man to seek high-office. Women are not really like that. Methinks.