116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

[5mn_Major]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

You must really not understand how Minneapolis works. Especially her district.

Oh I know well as I've been here for decades. Ultra extreme policies can't pass and just lose votes for other democrats moderate districts. Its the same reason why Bernies policies would make him unelectable.

In the end, its also stupid policy...because avoids the real criminal activity by people that already have millions, use an obscenely low long term capital tax rate and just sit on their ***** making the real money while adding zero value to society. Anyone who works hard deserves to make money. Those that do nothing and use their money to make money with almost no tax is where the real tax policy improvements should be made.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I want to ****ing punch those people right in the face.


Also, isn’t next door that app where all the racists get to both about that black guy in their neighborhood?

I use it for crime alerts, lost pets, and selling items, but yes, a lot of cringeworthy stuff is posted.
My Edina hood is currently arguing about legalizing pot- lots of pearl clutches here apparently who think it would demonize their kids

[5mn_Major]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

So there seems to be lots of support for a 90% tax rate.

Imagine there's business leadership that creates enough business value to create many jobs (probably your job). That doesn't get created without that leadership. So that person continues to get compensated well to continue generating that value - say $400k a year. A 90% tax rate puts them at $40k and probably looking at financial assistance. 50% tax on the affluent is good. 90% is just terrible policy.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

So there seems to be lots of support for a 90% tax rate.

Imagine there's business leadership that creates enough business value to create many jobs (probably your job). There's a lot of value created. So that person continues to get compensated well to continue generating that value - say $400k a year. A 90% tax rate puts them at $40k and probably looking at financial assistance. 50% tax on the affluent is good. 90% is just terrible policy.

Yep.I was right. You don't understand progressive taxation. Who the hell is taxing the entire 400K at 90%. No one. In fact my 90% wouldn't kick in until your first 25 million is made. So, you don't get it. Clearly.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

So there seems to be lots of support for a 90% tax rate.

Imagine there's business leadership that creates enough business value to create many jobs (probably your job). That doesn't get created without that leadership. So that person continues to get compensated well to continue generating that value - say $400k a year. A 90% tax rate puts them at $40k and probably looking at financial assistance. 50% tax on the affluent is good. 90% is just terrible policy.

What are you talking about? 40k what? And 400k isn’t the affluence anyone is talking about.
Christ I paid 40k in federal taxes this year

[5mn_Major]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Yep.I was right. You don't understand progressive taxation. Who the hell is taxing the entire 400K at 90%. No one. In fact my 90% wouldn't kick in until your first 25 million is made. So, you don't get it. Clearly.

That's true. Was in a hurry and missed that.

But the general point holds. Its terrible PR and political poison unless you want Donald Trump part 2. And bad policy because the long term capital tax rates are the real problem.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

That's true. Was in a hurry and missed that.

But the general point holds. Its terrible PR and political poison unless you want Donald Trump part 2. And bad policy because the long term capital tax rates are the real problem.

Well, I've been saying for years that capital tax breaks are bs because then labor gets ****ed up the ***. But no one in Washington is listening.

[unofan]

So there seems to be lots of support for a 90% tax rate.

Imagine there's business leadership that creates enough business value to create many jobs (probably your job). That doesn't get created without that leadership. So that person continues to get compensated well to continue generating that value - say $400k a year. A 90% tax rate puts them at $40k and probably looking at financial assistance. 50% tax on the affluent is good. 90% is just terrible policy.

You don't understand marginal tax rates. Shocking.

[unofan]

That's true. Was in a hurry and missed that.

But the general point holds. Its terrible PR and political poison unless you want Donald Trump part 2. And bad policy because the long term capital tax rates are the real problem.

You don't think that people advocating for 90% marginal tax brackets are also in favor of treating all income the same?

[Kepler]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

But the general point holds.

No. It doesn't.

[5mn_Major]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

You don't think that people advocating for 90% marginal tax brackets are also in favor of treating all income the same?

No. It doesn't.

No idea. Doesn't matter. I don't care what you guys say..but you better not get Donald Trump elected again.

[jerphisch]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

No idea. Doesn't matter. I don't care what you guys say..but you better not get Donald Trump elected again.

lol yeah it would be terrible for you to actually understand an issue before spouting off about it

[5mn_Major]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

lol yeah it would be terrible for you to actually understand an issue before spouting off about it

If you want, you can explain the full economic implications behind a 90% tax in 2019 (the pros and cons of both the short and long term).

Beyond that, you can't implement it. So, its only impacts are a PR campaign that damages democrat control of congress.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

No idea. Doesn't matter. I don't care what you guys say..but you better not get Donald Trump elected again.

Well let's see. In 2016 in the States Hillary needed to win the margin was smaller than the amount of votes cast for Jill Stein.
In 2000 the margin in Florida was way way way smaller than the amount cast for Ralph Nader.

Maybe this time they should NOT pick the centrist and go with the progressive and those votes would stay home. It's worth a try. Everything else has failed.

[mookie1995]

That's true. Was in a hurry and missed that.

But the general point holds. Its terrible PR and political poison unless you want Donald Trump part 2. And bad policy because the long term capital tax rates are the real problem.

Just type “I was wrong” and move on.