Looking at income disparity/inequality...

You're opening the door for Trump > Obama arguments, followed by "Yes Trump is a terrible person but our economy is too important to trust to somebody else." You want that?

Besides, to a first approximation of the truth, you are not correct. I will grant you the second derivative, though.

 

Your argument is that government policy has no effect on GDP. That’s bullshit on stilts.

 

As I wrote, second derivative. 2.2 percent vs 1.9 percent. That sort of thing.

 

Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under my #TwoCentWealthTax. Don’t worry, we've got a calculator for that, too.

The bottom line: If you made it big, you should chip in to make sure everyone else also has a chance to succeed: https://t.co/6UMSAf90NT

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 7, 2019

 

Wait, did she just come up with a medicare for all plan that raises the wealth tax to 6%.

Shouldn't the hashtag change to #sixcentswelathtax

 

Not sure how you are getting that-- it seems to be 2c out of every 100.00.

 

This article is pretty balanced on role of presidents and the Fed regarding the economy

During normal times when mild fluctuations ripple around the economy, the task of keeping things on a stable growth path depends mainly on the actions of the Federal Reserve. The chair of the Fed, who’s chosen by the president, has a large impact on how monetary policy is conducted. In addition, members of the board of governors (which includes the chair), who are also appointed by the president, have a majority of the 12 votes on the monetary policy committee. So if they’re unified, they can set the policy agenda.

The system was set up so that no president can appoint more than the chair plus two members of the seven-member board during an eight-year term, but that requires board members to serve their full 14-year appointments. In recent years, board members have resigned far before the end of their terms, and both President Barack Obama and George W. Bush have been able to appoint all of the board members.

However, during Obama’s tenure, Congress refused to hold hearings on his appointees, or voted against them, leaving the board short-handed, but it still has a large enough block of votes to shape policy.

When the economy is experiencing normal, mild fluctuations, the Fed’s policy actions probably wouldn’t vary much across Republican- and Democrat-appointed Fed chairs and board members, though it could still matter at the margin.

But during abnormal times -- large economic downturns like in 2007 when the Great Recession hit -- the Fed’s composition could make a large difference.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-impact-can-a-president-have-on-the-economy/

 

From Reason magazine, which finds Warren really doesn’t have a plan.

 

And he just coincidentally posted his number after the calculator because someone else suggested hers was disingenuous? I'm getting terribly confused...

I mean, she's not my top choice, but I haven't seen any indication she's particularly untruthful. I'm just a little concerned about her age, both in terms of health and in terms of fair's fair, it is time for one of the people who will have to suffer more of any consequences...

 

Her original plan was 2% on wealth over 50 million and 3% on wealth over a billion.

Now she wants an additional 3% to pay for Medicare for all over a billion.

So you pay the 6 cents per dollar only if your wealth is over a billion.

 

You sure you've got the decimals in the right place? Because that doesn't seem to be where they are on that calculator. If I enter my own wealth into it seems to charge me about 90.00. 6% would be something around 270.00.

I would cheerfully pay that annually anyway, to put everybody on Medicare like mine-- because it would surely control the inflation of costs I still pay substantially...

And were I a billionaire it would make no real difference to me at all-- any sane person would already be at the "How much is enough" point.

It is a fix for a part of the economy that simply isn't working, and as such it is a legitimate place for the government to exercise its taxing powers for the common good. It is disingenuous and foolish to frame it as a giveaway.

If the economy fails for lack of fixin' it won't make a lick of sense to complain that your money is being redistributed to "takers" One billion dollars worth of 1000 dollar bills isn't as much good to you if each is actually only worth 1/10 of a cent as 999 million worth if each is still full strength...

 

ok, I see, no the 6 cents are only on your income above 1 billion.

So unless you have wealth over 50 million, the calculator should say zero tax for you, or zero cents.

Oprah for example is supposed to have wealth of 3 billion.

So her first 50 million she pays 0.00 wealth tax.

Then in her next 950 million she pays 2% or 19 million dollars.

Then on her last 2 billion she pays 120 million.

So if her wealth stays the same, she would pay 139 million dollars every year.

I guess that that comes out to about 4 to 5 cents on the dollar.

 

A Reason not to read Reason:

The best way to understand @ewarren's popularity is the NEED for a wholesale transformation of American life. https://t.co/4TeByIWXEP

— Paul Rosenberg (@PaulHRosenberg) November 10, 2019

Also, poor billionaires, separated from their money:

OK, lemme get this straight. If @ewarren's wealth tax had been in place from 1982, Bezos would still have $49B, Gates $14B, Bloomberg $12B

And we'd ALL have child care & health care. Student debt relief. 4X more Fed $ for public schools

Can we vote now?https://t.co/6aULKZXBqZ

— Brad Lander (@bradlander) November 10, 2019

 

Nevermind that it would unconstitutional, but perhaps someone would care to explain why most European countries that tried to implement a wealth tax have since eliminated it?

 

Nothing but:
It not a trick question people.

 

because the wealth taxes in Europe were too high, much like the taxes in the US are too low. Multiple studies show the optimal tax rates at the highest brackets to be between 65% and 85%. Anything above that and people hide money and move away. Below that then we have the problems that are exacerbated in the US when republican policies are enacted: debt, rise in the number of uninsured, inequality, pollution, etc

 

Lol. The free marrket resolves all that, don't it?

 

Then the gender disparity goes on. Even with the billionaires.

Apple Card suffers another blow after claims of 'sexist algorithm' that have sparked a probe - as co-founder Steve Wozniak says the 'same thing happened' him when he was offered a credit limit 10 times higher than his wife

Steve Wozniak joined in the online debate accusing the algorithm behind the iPhone maker's credit card of discriminating by gender, deepening the scrutiny surrounding the new Apple Card.

Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anys-new-credit-card-gave-10x-limit-wife.html

 

Forcing Oprah to fine dine at the soup line. It must suck to be rich.

 

@Endless Skies a wealth tax is on wealth, not income.

I would say that fish has a good point about tax avoidance but he got a red card so it doesn’t matter.

 

The French economist that is behind this was on a podcast the other day.

His points,

We are America we can use our banking rules to force other countries to cooperate.

We have exit taxes so we can get people that do leave.


I can not remember his other talking points.

 

I have to say that it's hilarious that one billionaire was literally crying about Elizabeth Warren.

Also, don't know if anyone was paying attention to the Seattle City Council elections but Amazon backed a candidate over Kshama Sawant. Who is a socialist and has been at odds with big business. Amazon poured some heavy money and still lost.

EDIT: It also needs to be said that Jeff Bezos called Michael Bloomberg and talked about a Presidential run.

 

Vfish asked about the countries that have imposed a wealth tax and then asked why they were revoked. They were revoked Only in nations where taxes and wealth were inextricably linked. Spain still has a wealth tax for that very reason.

 

If this is correct, people that reside in Madrid do not pay it, that seems odd.

https://balcellsgroup.com/wealth-tax-in-spain/

It also looks to be "temporary" in a sense that suspended in 2008, but then reinstated for 2 years in 2011, but keeps getting extended every few years.

https://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/tax-and-pensions/spanish-wealth-tax-patrimonio/

 

Poor Rich people needs subsidies for their super yachts:

A Trump Tax Break To Help The Poor Went To a Rich GOP Donor’s Superyacht Marina - ProPublica https://t.co/gVzzDnpbea

— Michael F Ozaki MD (@brontyman) November 14, 2019