3 ms·

The other thing about rayiner's post is that the language he uses is quite informative of his political views. Notice how he uses the phrase "confiscate wealth"

The other thing about rayiner's post is that the language he uses is quite informative of his political views. Notice how he uses the phrase "confiscate wealth" to describe taxation, as opposed to, say, "paying their fair share".

rayiner 7y ago
My political views are pro-taxation and pro-public services. (Except we should have the Swedes or Singaporeans come over to run our public services.) Which is why I think waging a class war against billionaires for a piddling $275 billion in additional revenue, while not increasing taxes on people making up to $250,000, is pure insanity. European countries have figured out how to pay for public services with middle class taxes. We should follow their lead instead of dreaming about wealth taxes. Also, I used “confiscate” in the context of literally taking all of billionaires’ money.
- manthedudeguy 7y ago
  Why not both?
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  Warren's tax plan starts at the $50 million threshold. Not sure why you are counting only billionaires, or only the top 400. Her math adds up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/05/warrens-plan-pay-medicare-for-all-does-it-add-up/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/05/warrens-p... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-the-medicare-test-i-think-so.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-t...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Warren’s wealth tax doubles to 6% at the billionaire level. (France’s and Sweden's highest wealth tax was 1.5% until they got rid of it.) Warren’s calculations just prove why the whole fixation on billionaires and income inequality is a distraction. You're talking about a wealth tax that is unconstitutional, at levels that are completely unprecedented. You're talking about risking capital flight, and setting political capital on fire, to move the United States far to the left of Europe. (What a great campaign ad for Donald Trump! Warren is proposing to do something that even France realized was a bad idea.) And for what? Is it going to pay for M4A? Or balance the budget? No. Not even theoretically. I say this all as someone who wants universal healthcare to be implemented (even though I'm pessimistic about it saving any money). I think Warren's proposal with respect to employer-side payments is actually pretty clever. But the wealth tax is a huge political liability, and it could take M4A with it. And when that happens, it won't be the fault of billionaires (the wealth tax wasn't going to raise the necessary revenue anyway). It'll be the fault of people making $200,000 who think they are "middle class" and shouldn't have to pay the same level of taxes their counterparts in Europe pay.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Why is the Warren head tax (the "employer-side payments", which will be taken out of the hides of employees the same way health insurance costs already are) "clever"? Aren't head taxes generally problematic?
      - rayiner 7y ago
        I like the idea of keeping things similar to what people are already paying as a starting point. Although I hadn’t realized that it would end up being a head tax rather than a payroll tax.
tptacek 7y ago
This comment doesn't say anything; it's simply innuendo.

rayiner 7y ago

My political views are pro-taxation and pro-public services. (Except we should have the Swedes or Singaporeans come over to run our public services.) Which is why I think waging a class war against billionaires for a piddling $275 billion in additional revenue, while not increasing taxes on people making up to $250,000, is pure insanity. European countries have figured out how to pay for public services with middle class taxes. We should follow their lead instead of dreaming about wealth taxes. Also, I used “confiscate” in the context of literally taking all of billionaires’ money.

manthedudeguy 7y ago
Why not both?
enraged_camel 7y ago
Warren's tax plan starts at the $50 million threshold. Not sure why you are counting only billionaires, or only the top 400. Her math adds up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/05/warrens-plan-pay-medicare-for-all-does-it-add-up/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/05/warrens-p... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-the-medicare-test-i-think-so.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-t...
- rayiner 7y ago
  Warren’s wealth tax doubles to 6% at the billionaire level. (France’s and Sweden's highest wealth tax was 1.5% until they got rid of it.) Warren’s calculations just prove why the whole fixation on billionaires and income inequality is a distraction. You're talking about a wealth tax that is unconstitutional, at levels that are completely unprecedented. You're talking about risking capital flight, and setting political capital on fire, to move the United States far to the left of Europe. (What a great campaign ad for Donald Trump! Warren is proposing to do something that even France realized was a bad idea.) And for what? Is it going to pay for M4A? Or balance the budget? No. Not even theoretically. I say this all as someone who wants universal healthcare to be implemented (even though I'm pessimistic about it saving any money). I think Warren's proposal with respect to employer-side payments is actually pretty clever. But the wealth tax is a huge political liability, and it could take M4A with it. And when that happens, it won't be the fault of billionaires (the wealth tax wasn't going to raise the necessary revenue anyway). It'll be the fault of people making $200,000 who think they are "middle class" and shouldn't have to pay the same level of taxes their counterparts in Europe pay.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Why is the Warren head tax (the "employer-side payments", which will be taken out of the hides of employees the same way health insurance costs already are) "clever"? Aren't head taxes generally problematic?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      I like the idea of keeping things similar to what people are already paying as a starting point. Although I hadn’t realized that it would end up being a head tax rather than a payroll tax.

tptacek 7y ago

This comment doesn't say anything; it's simply innuendo.