This is why I have a modicum of respect for Bush Sr. He promised no more taxes on the campaign trail and then when he was in office he realized that in order to balance the budget taxes needed raised. He did this knowing he wouldn't win a second term.
Look into his life before running for President; you'll lose the respect right quick. Also his father financed the literal Nazis (though in his defense pretty much every American with money was supporting the Nazi party pre-1940).
I mean it's a pretty simple logic. The economy is strong but people don't feel like it's strong because it's only strong for those of the top. It's that way because we spent the last 40 years cutting taxes for the rich, destroying regulations and economic safeguards, getting rid of safety nets, and allowing for the wealthiest to abuse the system. Why wouldn't saying we want to fix that problem be the right course? Uprooting ancien regimes is the one thing liberals and leftists tradionally agree on.
They don’t want to do that though because it personally benefits them.
They also don’t really care about winning this election, just ensuring to deliver on Biden’s big donor promise: nothing will fundamentally change. Dumbasses that they are, the Dems are once again severely underestimating Trump and his capacity to win, and capacity for mayhem. They probably think the “worst” he’ll do with another term is more tax cuts which benefit them.
I see a lot of ‘tax the rich’ pushes, but I’m curious on how. It’s not like billionaires get a normal salary, so I wonder what it actually is - is it taxing assets over a certain value or something?
I worked for a family office in Switzerland and the “salary” from the company to our owner was an entry level salary for compliance/presence purposes. He couldn’t care less about that being taxed.
Yes, a wealth tax over a billion dollars is a proposal now. Biden's not doing it though, but 1% to 2% could raise a lot of money. Although it would require legitimate property valuations. That's hard if people just lie about their real estate like Trump was convicted of.
Also taxing capital gains over a certain amount at higher rates would help billionaires have a fair tax burden. It makes no sense to tax you a greater percentage than the owner you worked for. Above a million in capital gains should be taxed as income.
No I'm not afraid of money leaving the country. If they want to leave the most productive and profitable country on earth, that's more money for us.
The Swiss actually has wealth tax, depending on canton. I believe though a lot of it is negotiable- if you’re super wealthy, I think you can agree a fixed amount per year with your canton (state).
In my canton you’re exempt from it if you have less than $250-300k in assets or something like this. And it ranges from something like 0.20-1% I believe.
Stop coddling these faceless mega corporations. Since they are SO efficient, they wont need any breaks from the government. Invest in the people, not a 1%ers off shore bank account
Foreign policy is always really low on the list of voter priorities. Also, "Nazis blush"? Come on. That's fucking ridiculous.
It's comparable to Nazis in that both are genocide, but the comparison begins and ends with, "and the Nazis were way fucking worse." Which is fine. It doesn't have to be a competition for it to be a bad situation that you want to do something about.
I mean it's also comparable to the Nazis in that the ideologies are almost exactly the same (the whole the Chosen People TM must remove the subhumans for Lebensraum rhetoric specifically is so close it's not even funny) even if the scales are different because Israel needs to do the absolute bare minimum to save face on the international stage.
I don't like the comparison to the Holocaust for the same reasons you said, but comparing Israel to Nazis has a lot of merit.
Edit: Also foreign policy tends to be low on voters' priority list, except when genocide or other large-scale crimes against humanity are involved. It's easy to forget this because Israel has controlled public perception of the conflict for a long time, but Americans have a decently long history of being very much not okay with genocide (when they're not the ones committing it). You'll see this today in progressives dropping Biden over Gaza; normally it'd be more than just progressives, but Israel has controlled public opinion for so long (and so successfully tied their existence to US Christian death cults' eschatology) that it's still only a limited segment of the total population.
listen to yourself man. but but nazis did the same, but way more!
its preposterous this even has to be a reasonable comparison.
the fact its foreign policy is the problem, i get it. it may be why all these voters are EAGER to vote for far-left joe biden. as long as he pinky promises to tax the rich, for realsies this time.
you get he could stop this trolley at any time, right?
It’s bad, but “making nazis blush”? Let’s not blow things out of proportion by downplaying the holocaust. This doesn’t touch the Third Reich, Armenia, Cambodia, Mao, or Stalin. On one hand, genocide is genocide, but the scales are way different.
this is the response you bothered to type out here? not even the usual "he is the lesser evil!!" or something
sure stalin killed trillions somehow so we have some room to kill a few palestinians here and a couple more mexicans there and still look good for this years election cycle
It is of a lower scale than the Holocaust, because Israel is being held back by the international community. Most places in Gaza are either already in famine or will be soon at this rate. If Israel has its way the scale will match these genocides (as a proportion of the population of course). I do agree that comparisons to the Holocaust are exaggerations and therefore unproductive, but let's not forget that the real genocide is just starting.
Such staggering accumulations of wealth are made possible in large part by the fact that America’s federal tax burden is so comparatively light.
Now President Biden, behind in many polls and with an economy that is objectively strong but politically unpopular, is hoping to boost his re-election bid with a policy idea that would once have been almost unthinkable: For this portion of the population, at least, he is vowing — almost gleefully — to raise taxes.
For a Democrat with low job approval ratings and precarious poll numbers on his handling of the economy, it’s a shocking rebuke to conventional wisdom — and practically an invitation to critics to call him a tax-and-spend liberal.
Howard Jarvis and his followers, mostly older white property owners, pushed for the ballot initiative known as Proposition 13 because they were, in their words, mad as hell that their rising taxes would help educate immigrant families.
In the 1960s, George Romney, Mitt’s father, regularly turned down his bonuses from his auto executive job, perhaps in part because his marginal tax rate would have been about 90 percent.
“You could be talking about the Mets versus the Dodgers,” the former U.S. Representative Steve Israel of New York recalled, “and good Republican operatives would be able to weave in tax-and-spend.”
The original article contains 1,229 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
In the 1960s, George Romney, Mitt’s father, regularly turned down his bonuses from his auto executive job, perhaps in part because his marginal tax rate would have been about 90 percent
If this is true he's a fucking idiot. 10% of $x is better than $0. More likely the reason was that the bonuses pushed him over some threshold so he lost some other benefit, making it a net loss, or he negotiated some alternative compensation mechanism that had reduced or deferrable tax liability.