HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Democratic Primaries (Forum) » Besides thinking Medicare...
Undecided 38%
Elizabeth Warren22%
Joe Biden14%
Bernie Sanders8%
Kamala Harris8%

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 12:04 AM

 

Besides thinking Medicare for All can't be enacted. Hillary Clinton is opposed to a wealth tax

I've already posted another thread about what she said on MFA

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287337993

since I'd seen the Axios article first, while scanning Twitter.

Then I found out, via a Fox News article and a tweet from a journalist, that HRC also made it clear at the same conference that she doesn't like the idea of a wealth tax.

That tweet




.@HillaryClinton on a wealth tax: “I just can’t understand how that could work... we used to have a wealth tax, it was called the estate tax, & I would be all in favor of reinstating that...” Says billionaires would have to sell assets to pay it, which would be too disruptive.




And from that Fox News article:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-2020-dems-medicare-for-all-wealth-tax-disruptive


Clinton later was asked about the wealth tax that Warren has promoted. After admitting she didn't "know much" about the proposal, Clinton suggested it wasn't practical.

"I just don't understand how that could work, and I don't see other examples anywhere else in the world where it has actually worked over a long period of time," Clinton elaborated. "I would be all in favor of reinstating the estate tax because that is much more measurable. It is not as disruptive."

She went on, "If you were going to do a wealth tax and it was on assets... how you would value it is, I think, complicated to start with. But, assuming you can get some system of evaluation, people would literally have to sell assets to pay the tax on the assets that they owned before the wealth tax was levied. That would be incredibly disruptive, so I think there are other ways to raise the revenues."




Both Axios and the Fox News article have video of the full interview, over 40 minutes, but so far I haven't found any articles with short video clips of just what HRC said on MFA and the wealth tax.

Maybe Mediaite will have something like that later.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

41 replies, 1180 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Besides thinking Medicare for All can't be enacted. Hillary Clinton is opposed to a wealth tax (Original post)
highplainsdem Nov 7 OP
Thekaspervote Nov 7 #1
Cha Nov 7 #2
thesquanderer Nov 7 #15
RockRaven Nov 7 #3
Cha Nov 7 #5
thesquanderer Nov 7 #16
Cha Nov 7 #26
BannonsLiver Nov 7 #18
thesquanderer Nov 7 #19
Cha Nov 7 #27
Demsrule86 Nov 7 #14
thesquanderer Nov 7 #17
Hoyt Nov 7 #29
The Mouth Nov 7 #20
emmaverybo Nov 7 #4
trueblue2007 Nov 7 #6
Cha Nov 7 #7
trueblue2007 Nov 7 #22
Cha Nov 7 #23
trueblue2007 Nov 7 #32
Cha Nov 7 #33
highplainsdem Nov 7 #34
Cha Nov 7 #35
trueblue2007 Nov 7 #36
Cha Nov 7 #37
highplainsdem Nov 7 #12
Cha Nov 7 #24
TreasonousBastard Nov 7 #8
BlueMTexpat Nov 7 #11
BlueMTexpat Nov 7 #9
pinkstarburst Nov 7 #21
Cha Nov 7 #25
Hoyt Nov 7 #30
Hoyt Nov 7 #31
Blue_true Nov 7 #39
BlueMTexpat Friday #40
Hortensis Nov 7 #10
TidalWave46 Nov 7 #13
NYMinute Nov 7 #28
Blue_true Nov 7 #38
Gothmog Friday #41

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 12:11 AM

1. Hillary knows and I'm happy she has chimed in

 

Great to have big ideas, but EW has to know this won’t work. Not only would the senate not pass it the house wouldn’t go for it either.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 12:28 AM

2. Thank you for this, hpd!

 

I don't like the name "Wealth tax".. It sounds like punishment.

This is interesting.. doesn't sound like she's "Undecided".

Now @HillaryClinton says she’ll support whichever candidate gets the Dem nomination in 2020, “because I know who they’re likely to be.” Who, @andrewrsorkin asks? “I’m not going to go there.”
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:07 AM

15. I don't like the "because"... she should support the Dem no matter WHO it is!

 

But maybe the quote out of context is misleading. I'd like to have seen the video.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 12:56 AM

3. Her assessment of the pitfalls of a wealth tax are shallow and eye-roll worthy.

 

Her arguments appear to be pre-textual, a sad grasping at whatever justifies not rocking the boat.

It is a problem to assign a value to assets for the purposes of taxation? Really? What is she smoking? Virtually ALL assets have values attached to them already by "official" publicly-available market data when it comes to stocks/bonds/currencies, or government entities (one obvious exception would be real property in states without property taxes, and another would be privately owned companies -- but neither of these would be unsolvable questions when the whole premise is that a piece of legislation needs to be written to enact this by specifically delineating how to do the action in question).

But wait! She thinks it is totes-OK to tax this stuff when an estate is in play... just not annually. Wait! WTF??? If value assessment is an issue, it is an issue at the time of death every bit as much as it is annually. This betrays the disingenuous, mealy-mouthed defense of the status quo (in wealth tax terms) she is forwarding.

Yes there will be arguments about which metric is the correct one to use for setting the tax owed (the value at a given date vs the average value over a certain time period, etc. and of course the wealthy will try to game *that* system too -- JUST LIKE THEY DO EVERY SYSTEM ALREADY). But this is a pretty defeatist and facile argument, IMO.

As for the idea that in order to pay this tax people will have to sell the very thing they own which is being taxed... well, let's step back and look at the big picture for a minute. The idea behind the wealth tax is that obscenely wealthy people should be taxed on wealth which is so massive that the tax would not materially affect their life -- but would generate massive societal benefit (health care, education, public infrastructure, etc). So who cares if they have to sell a portion of that-which-has-no-material-impact-on-their-life?

People *that* wealthy are only cash-poor by choice. They are only cash-poor because their investment wealth grows much faster than any bank interest rate which would rationally justify keeping their massive wealth in cash. They would only have to sell assets to pay the tax because they -- by choice -- own a disproportionate share of the proceeds of the productivity of American workers because of the rigged, entrenched system which American corporatism has become.

Clinton's dismissal of the idea of a wealth tax is an advocation of the corporatist boot on the neck of the American worker which has seen ALL of American worker productivity gains since Carter be siphoned off to the corporate executive and management classes leaving those much-more-productive workers with nothing to show for their efforts. American workers are in a Red Queen scene and Clinton is saying we should all throw up our hands and say "well, it is a pickle..." No thanks.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 01:04 AM

5. Please don't put words in Hillary's mouth.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:24 AM

16. Where was that putting words in Hillary's mouth?

 

HRC literally said

"how you would value it is, I think, complicated to start with"

and

"people would literally have to sell assets to pay the tax on the assets that they owned before the wealth tax was levied. That would be incredibly disruptive"

and the post provided counterpoints to those words. I thought there were some good points there.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:51 PM

26. Read the post again.. all the way to the bottom.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #5)


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:07 AM

19. We were arguing the pros and cons of a wealth tax in 2016? (n/t)

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:57 PM

27. I'm sure it does.. I just caught the last

 

sentence where he tells us what "Hillary is saying..".

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 09:46 AM

14. This tax is likely unconstitutional...and will never happen.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 10:25 AM

17. I agree, valuing does not have to be very complicated.

 

The value of cash and stocks are instantly known. The value of real estate can be easily approximated by looking at what someone paid, and the percentage average increase of local real estate values between purchase date and current date which is generally well documented (and if someone feels that that formula overvaluates their property, they can have it appraised). Yes, some other things are difficult to appraise, like investments in privately held businesses. One possible easy solution? Don't tax them. If a "wealth tax" were only a tax on cash, securities, and real estate, that alone would be a good revenue source. We don't have to tax every last possible source of wealth in order for it to be worthwhile to tax SOME of them.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:23 PM

29. Not when someone is about to dump $5 Billion to pay a tax bill.

 

Actually, Clinton is right that it would be disruptive.

There are other ways to tax wealthy, including increasing capital gains tax.

Warren just needs to stop contortions to avoid having to say she’s going to have to increase income taxes to fulfill her populist promises.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:17 AM

20. "Obscenely Wealthy"

 

The Income tax also started out as a tax on only the 'obscenely wealthy".

It is no problem to imagine this thing going from taxing peoples wealth in the tens of millions to the tens of thousands.

Just like the AMT; what sounds oh so righteous now will screw the middle class eventually. There are people who would regard anyone who has, say, $500K of assets as 'obscenely wealthy', after all most Americans have very little actual net worth.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Andrew Yang

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 12:58 AM

4. Hillary, Pelosi, Obama giving some worthwhile political insights. Hm. Maybe Dems should

 

listen up.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 01:16 AM

7. Calm down, please..

 

These OPs are politically newsworthy for the Democratic Primaries.

I care what Hillary has to say about proposals.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 01:52 PM

22. do NOT tell me to CALM DOWN. you stop yapping and i'll be calmer. deal ??

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:12 PM

23. Wow.. you are so rude..

 

We won't stop discussing what we want on a political board because you tell us to.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #23)


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:54 PM

33. lol

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 04:08 PM

34. Oh, good grief. There were only 3 threads about HRC on the first page of this board (80 or so OPs)

 

when you weighed in SHOUTING last night.

One OP was wondering who HRC might endorse. Two, the ones I posted, were her opinions on major policies being debated in the primary race, opinions she'd given only hours earlier, so they were news.

All three were perfectly relevant.

And this was your wild response here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287338032#post6

my gosh, why is everyone yapping about Hillary on this board??? SHE IS NOT EVEN RUNNING


YOU AND I ARE SUPPORTING VP BIDEN. WHY DON'T YOU SPEND YOUR TIME DISCUSSING HIM AND GET OFF HILLARY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I believe describing that as rude is more than polite.

But if you don't believe me, try going into any other forum, online or off, and start SCREAMING AT THEM for discussing perfectly appropriate topics, and see how they take it.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 04:19 PM

35. ...

 

Thank you,
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 05:03 PM

36. just gonna ignore both of you. I don't appreciate getting ganged up on by you

 

and we all support Biden !!!!!!!!! Just leave me alone.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 07:45 PM

37. omg.. you replied to both us.. of course we're

 

going to respond.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 08:43 AM

12. Having supported and voted for HRC in the past, I see no reason to stop listening to her now when

 

she says something relevant to the current primary race.

Why are you being so rude about this?
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:15 PM

24. Thanks, hpd.. yes.. why is the poster being so "rude"?

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:00 AM

8. Europe had quite a bit of experience with wealth taxation...

 

and a number of countries have given up on it.

There have been several major problems.The first is philosophical-- where are the limits of the right of the state to grab personal assets. That has no real answer and is up for debate. And debated it will be. Forever.

Practically, figuring out just what is "wealth" and how to value it has proved daunting. Germany, for one, found that with all the expenses and lawsuits it just wasn't worth it.

Capital flight is a huge side effect-- it has been suggested that Spain's banking collapse was largely due to cash sent abroad to avoid taxation.

A common argument brought up is what to do with a family farm or business. A farm with land valued at "highest and best use" an inventory of equipment and whatever else could conceivably be taxed at more than the farm could pay out of revenues.

My personal starting point would be to eliminate the estate tax and tax the heirs as ordinary income. Redoing capital gains taxation, eliminating depreciation on appreciating assets are all fun things to do.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Amy Klobuchar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 07:03 AM

11. Part of that failure was in the

 

implementation. Switzerland, for one, still has a wealth tax and each canton has its own computer app for calculating tax value. The tax applies to all who have real estate, stock and bond portfolios, bank accounts and other types of assets of value, e.g., classic vehicles, yachts, jewelry, art, various types of collections, etc. It's been working just fine for years. Those with the least income may only have their homes, which are exempt up to a certain for "impoverished earners," and retirement accounts, which are exempt from value and only counted as taxable income when funds are withdrawn, much like our IRAs, pre-tax savings accounts, etc.

I own real estate here. Not only do I pay property tax, but I also pay a value tax AND an inferred rental income based on that value. The inferred rental income is offset by my household expenses.

Another thing that the Swiss do is to offset tax liability with debt owed, which we do not do in the US. So it actually can make sense NOT to pay off a mortgage because the taxable value is offset not only by debt service, but by the debt itself.

***********
Elizabeth's wealth tax is somewhat different than those that were not carefully thought out in Europe before they were applied and her advisors have seen to that. For one thing, hers only applies to those in the VERY upper financial echelons.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 06:45 AM

9. I LOVE Hillary!

 

BUT she does NOT have Elizabeth Warren's command of the intricacies of finance. Nowhere near.

So I take what she says here with a grain of salt. I admit that she knows a lot about health care reform, but she doesn't know too much about how to finance it.

When Hillary was tasked with putting together a health care plan in the 90s, she would have done better to follow her own instincts. Instead, she was hampered by many limitations, including financing.

Here is an excellent, if long, article about why her own Health Care Reform failed in the 1990s. The Rise and Resounding Demise of the Clinton Plan https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.14.1.66

One small excerpt:

...
Think of the contrast between Social Security and President Clinton's Health Security proposal. Clinton's plan was formulated during the post-Reagan political and governmental era, when taxes are electorally anathema and public budgeting is extraordinarily tight. Thus, the proposed Health Security legislation was deliberately designed to offer little new federal revenue to most people or groups. What is more, it was put forward in the midst of a U.S. health care system already crowded with many institutional stakeholders and in which most middle-class workers already had health insurance coverage of some sort. Although the Clinton plan offered new coverage to millions of uninsured persons and promised new levels of security to the already insured, it also entailed a lot of new regulations that would affect insurance companies, health care providers, employers, and states. These new regulations were designed intricately and fairly tightly to ensure that rising private and public health care costs would come down—the rationale for including both insurance premium caps and mandatory regional purchasing alliances.

Historically, Americans have been perfectly happy to benefit from federal government spending, and even to pay taxes to finance spending that is generous and benefits privileged groups and citizens, not just the poor. Such benefits are especially appealing if they flow in administratively streamlined ways. But Americans dislike federal government regulations not accompanied by generous monetary payoffs. Ironically, precisely because Bill Clinton, the New Democrat, was working so hard to save money, he inadvertently ended up designing a health care reform plan that appeared to promise lots of new regulations without widespread payoffs. Established participants in the current health care system became increasingly worried that the Clinton plan might squeeze or reorganize the way in which they were accustomed to delivering, financing, and/or receiving health care. The right-wing critique of meddlesome governmental bureaucracy resonated so widely because it focused such worries. ...


***********
The US population also did not have nearly the chasm between rich and poor in the 1990s as it has today. It had begun, but thereafter became incremental. The 1994 elections and the rise of Newt Gingrich and the radical right in Congress exacerbated it and Dems have been playing catch-up ever since, for the most part. The ACA remedied some problems, but too many others still remain and will remain, so long as institutional stakeholders, such as private insurance companies, play a primordial role.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 11:18 AM

21. +1

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 02:37 PM

25. I love Hillary, too.. and will take her wise councel

 

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

over Warren's.. who said she was supporting BS' mfa in the debate.

Elizabeth Warren Locks Herself Into Bernie’s Medicare for All: ‘That’s My Plan’

https://www.mediaite.com/news/elizabeth-warren-locks-herself-into-bernies-medicare-for-all-thats-my-plan/

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:27 PM

30. Warren has a "Command of intricacies of finance?" Now that's an interesting claim.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:28 PM

31. Duplicate post. Sorry.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 09:07 PM

39. Hillary made an excellent point on whether we can even get a sound estimate of

 

a wealthy person's wealth.

The assumption that many are making is that billionaires and multi-billionaires are sitting on mountains of cash because of their estimated wealth. In fact, people could have most of their wealth tied up in stocks, or even less liquid plant, equipment, inventory, supplies, business survival funds.

The best course, as Hillary pointed out is to tax income and eliminate tax loopholes that don't lead to more production and more high paying jobs. In the case of multinational corporations, we should tax only the money that is net after they pay foreign taxes, that would encourage a lot of them to keep production here.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 8, 2019, 03:44 AM

40. It is possible.

 

The country where I reside has it pretty well down pat ... and has had it for years.

Please do not dismiss the idea out of hand.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 06:49 AM

10. No, Hillary is NOT opposed to using taxation to correct

 

toxic income inequality. She supports that method combined with various others, such as substantial wage increases. All liberal Democrats do, and we are the vast majority of the Democratic Party; the differences are in the details, how much, when, who, etc.

Btw, everyone remember that Obama, terribly crippled with a malignant Republican congress, managed to raise taxation on personal income of the wealthy to PRE-Reagan/New Deal era levels?

Of course he had to use executive privilege to do it, and Trump cancelled that, but Hillary and a Democratically controlled congress were going to cement those and other gains in as just a beginning to build on.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 09:29 AM

13. While the "Wealth Tax" Warren is putting forward is a bit foolish and will never happen....

 

All arguments against it take more than a short sentence to sell. I'm am perfectly find with Warren promoting it on the idea alone. The short sales item for me is the name alone. "Wealth Tax." Doesn't matter that I know enough to understand it is shit and will never happen. It is building momentum for high income earners to be taxed at a higher rate. People see "Wealth Tax" and simply think the goal it to tax the wealthy at a higher rate. The majority don't see it any other way. They aren't reading about what the real "Wealth Tax" is. They just hear "hey, Warren wants more from the rich."

As I stated, I think the "Wealth Tax is foolish and I know it will never happen. But there is the "Wealth Tax" and then there is the reality which is generating an image. The "Wealth Tax" will never happen. The reality that is creating and image among most Americans is that Warren wants more from the wealthy.

It's a win. It builds on what is necessary. The image and understanding that we need to generate more revenues and that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 03:10 PM

28. Hillary is correct as usual.

 

The wealth tax is poison in GE.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Nov 7, 2019, 08:55 PM

38. She makes a lot of excellent points.

 

A lot of the super rich have their assets tied up in things that have to be sold to raise cash. An industrialist who is a multi-billionaire has most of his or her wealth tied up in plant and equipment, inventory (supplies and finished product), money that is needed to keep the business running (in the form of CDs, shortterm bonds). If people are forced to sell to meet a wealth tax, things become chaotic. Hillary also made a sound point about how do we even determine a person's wealth to begin with.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Fri Nov 8, 2019, 03:38 PM

41. Hillary Clinton: Warren's 'Medicare for All' plan would never get enacted

 




Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she does not think Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) "Medicare for All" plan could ever get enacted and that she backs a public option instead.

“You just don't think that that plan would ever get enacted?” interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Clinton at The New York Times DealBook Conference.

“No, I don't. I don't, but the goal is the right goal,” the former secretary of State responded.

“I believe the smarter approach is to build on what we have. A public option is something I've been in favor of for a very long time,” Clinton said. “I don't believe we should be in the midst of a big disruption while we are trying to get to 100 percent coverage and deal with costs.”

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread