JUburton wrote:Makes sense in the Reagan era. That will resonate less and less with younger people who have never seen even a glimmer of hope to get to that point.

And mainstream Democrats' messaging on this has been horrible/nonexistent

I’ll give you a good wealth tax idea.

Every year you take the 10 wealthiest families in the country as determined by Forbes and you tax 99% of their wealth. Even a measly single billionaire would still be left with a million to scrape by on.

First, the average voter will not be afraid of the tax because they’ll know they’re never going to be THAT wealthy. Second, it will put a name to those taxed, whether it’s Bezos or Walton or Gates or Buffett, which will allow the average voter to build up a good case of righteous indignation over the wealth of those named.

Third, it will be wonderful to watch every year as billionaires beg to be left off the Forbes list as opposed to lobbying to be on it (I’m looking at you, Donnie). Maybe it can even be made into a reality TV event every year as the “winners” are chosen from a group of finalists. We can call it “Which Billionaire Wants to Be a Millionaire?” Watching their reactions as their names are called will be priceless. It will outperform any other reality or awards show.

And, lastly, we’ll be able to remind those plucky, (former) billionaire “winners” of their own advice that all they’ve got to do is work hard and pick themselves up by the bootstraps in order to remake their fortunes.

What Warren is trying to say is that while property taxes are regressive, her wealth tax would be progressive.

Regarding the wealth tax, it polls pretty well. Ideologically I don't like it, and the apparatus you would need to set up to come even close to getting compliance would have to be substantial and intrusive. I don't think it would generate anything close to what straight line projections would suggest.

Also there's a good chance it would be struck down as unconstitutional even if they did manage to get it passed.

jerseyhoya wrote:Regarding the wealth tax, it polls pretty well. Ideologically I don't like it, and the apparatus you would need to set up to come even close to getting compliance would have to be substantial and intrusive. I don't think it would generate anything close to what straight line projections would suggest.

Also there's a good chance it would be struck down as unconstitutional even if they did manage to get it passed.

Why would it be unconstitutional? The Constitution gives Congress broad taxing authority.

Rosenstein submits his resignation.

The Sarge wrote:Rosenstein submits his resignation.

Said he was there about the normal amount of time. Put that up to a mirror and it says, "I was kicked to the curb."

TenuredVulture wrote:Renters are taxed, and at least some places, landlords are permitted to increase rents without notice if there's a property tax increase.

I've never heard of this. Is it just that it is rolled into the rent? Is there somewhere that renters pay annual tax on their dwelling characteristics?

thephan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Renters are taxed, and at least some places, landlords are permitted to increase rents without notice if there's a property tax increase.

I've never heard of this. Is it just that it is rolled into the rent? Is there somewhere that renters pay annual tax on their dwelling characteristics?

Yes, it's just rolled into the rent. The landlord is presumably in business to make a profit, and cannot do so if costs exceed revenue. In NJ, the property tax rebate also goes to the renter, or at least it did when I was a renter there in the 90s. Alas, renters do not qualify for the property tax deduction on their federal income tax, so they do get kind of screwed.

https://mitcre.mit.edu/news/can-landlor ... es-tenants

thephan wrote:

The Sarge wrote:Rosenstein submits his resignation.

Said he was there about the normal amount of time. Put that up to a mirror and it says, "I was kicked to the curb."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna956571

He was always set to leave after the investigation, whether that was his choice or not who knows.

Pennsylvania bars prisoners from voting and also makes it that they 'count' for the rural areas where they are serving their sentence. it's a double-whammy for them and where they may actually live.

Apparently Jacob Wohl has been trying to drum up sexual assault allegations against Pete Buttigieg


https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right ... m?ref=wrap

The Sarge wrote:Apparently Jacob Wohl has been trying to drum up sexual assault allegations against Pete Buttigieg


https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right ... m?ref=wrap

He'll be in jail soon. Hope he holds another press conference for more self incrimination.

I love Elizabeth Warren but the wealth tax is the first idea of hers that I don’t really like. Not that rich people shouldn’t pay more taxes; they should. But as Werthless indicated, there are better ways.

Abrams not running for Senate.

Dems missing out on some top candidates in multiple races across the country with her out and the two or three that are running for president.

pacino wrote:Pennsylvania bars prisoners from voting and also makes it that they 'count' for the rural areas where they are serving their sentence. it's a double-whammy for them and where they may actually live.

So they count for populate altering representation for gerrymandering? Brilliant.

FWIW, there is a televised coup attempt in Venezuela at the moment.

the revolution WILL be televised

jerseyhoya wrote:Constitutional Concerns Are a Major Risk for a Federal Wealth Tax

Thanks for the read, it was interesting. I didn’t get the impression from it that it was destined to fail though. It would definitely be challenged in court, but I think the way it’s written will help drive whether it’s a successful challenge or not.