Democrat Nomination for President

[kers]

How then would you expect candidates to get their words out to the people without money?

For one you could give all parties the same advertising exposure, funded by the state (tax).

[Craig Lamson]

For one you could give all parties the same advertising exposure, funded by the state (tax).

We currently have that option.  Not many choose to use it. 

[JoeKitchen]

Man o man, it just keeps on getting worse. 

So I was just now working on pictures and listening to a podcast on last night election results.  Dems are just not enthused, especially about Bernie.  In 2016, Bernie got 60% of the vote in NH; last night he only got 30%.  On top of that, exit polling data is showing all of Bernie's support came from people who general don't vote in large numbers.  Then, the turn out was not even close to 2008 turn out and only just above 2016, with most of the additional turn out coming from older people who are not for Bernie. 

Mayor Pete had a good night ... until you look at exist polling.  Most of his support came from environmentalists and other like minded souls, which sounds good until you look at Gallop polling on the most important election topic and see green issues at the bottom of the list. 

Amy Klobuchar is the only one who consistently won in groups who, on a national level, vote in large numbers consistently, namely women, seniors, church goers, etc. 

Klobuchar seems to be the only hope, but Biden is still clogging up the lane and sucking oxygen away from the moderate field keeping her from really shining. 

[Rob C]

Well maybe I mis-read you, but you stated, "I would be inclined to set a flat, top limit of personal/family worth ..." 

When you write worth, do you mean total wealth, or amount earned through salary per year?  I define worth as the former, which if you set a limit on becomes a detriment to the economy.  Taxing only earnings, and not wealth, is not part of the Democrat platform right now, which I why I jumped right to wealth. 

Insofar as taxing the rich at higher and higher rates opens the door for more and more kickbacks.  You really think that making the tax system more complicated wont bring more cronyism and will make things fairer?  That's not how things work out.

The answer to your question is the first: total wealth that is not invested in some part of your own or other businesses. Earn whatever you can, but make sure you reinvest. As they say, money lying in the bank is a stinking fish. Having fifty million squids in you bank is stink quite enough, I'd have thought.

Again, you are writing in terms of taxing the rich more and more. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting they be forced to reinvest or, if they refuse, then tax the knickers off 'em. They obviously have no need for it and so yeah, spread it around to help other businesses get going.

It has been my belief that only being self-employed for at least a year will be enough to teach one that the world owes nobody a living. Knowing that, and understanding how too low a starting capital can hinder your growth (see Slobodan's point about Musk and my reply to that), it comes as no surprise that the looney left thinks that business owners have it easy: nobody does, and it's always a battle to stay put, never mind grow. That's one of the prime reasons for "encouraging" the über rich to keep their pennies working either in their own companies or in others. I don't think of bank accounts as being your money working. More, it pays bankers a pile and stays out of the hands of those wanting business loans but refused them for being too modest. Frankly, I think it is part and parcel of the death of the local shop: you don't want to do everything online - I would do nothing online if a real shop was still around. It's some of those amazing inventions and innovations of the globals that are actually killing us off as little people in business. Thinking of them as some kind of benefactor is back to turkeys and X'mas. It won't do simply to suggest that the small guy get smart; if he can keep himself and family living reasonably well, good enough. Not everyone is driven to obsessive lengths over something, or even has both the acumen and luck to make it thrive. But hey, one little family tending their little store is better, in my eyes, than one more blue-collar job hoping to outlast the march of the robots in the factory.

[Rob C]

For one you could give all parties the same advertising exposure, funded by the state (tax).

And it should be the only funding permitted. Buying votes happened over Brexit too; more was spent by some than permitted, but nothing effective was done about it that I can recall right now, so they got their way by breaking the law. And these the people who seek to rule us.

When spending is without limits, morality and right wither on the vine. And not just in elections. Britain is now going to go ahead and complete a rail connection (that has already gone way, way over the original budget - we are talking two hundred billion, are we not?) in an attempt to please those northern voters who voted Tory for once in their lives. That's not for the good of the country, that's to be seen to be doing something in return for the vote. Despite alternative demands to improve local infrastructure up there in the northern badlands, which would go nationally unseen, the grand gesture wins.

I heard that the French faced a similar political quandary regarding a fast connection between Paris and Lyon, the intent being to regenerate areas of France outwith the capital. I believe that rather than regenerate anything, it made Paris even more the focal point for jobs because folks could now get there!

[LesPalenik]

Very good interview/commentary on democratic nominees by Rick Newman. The title mentions Elizabeth Warren, but the discussion covers much more than just her.
Rick is really good.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-elizabeth-warren-is-cratering-180401277.html

[petermfiore]

Earn whatever you can, but make sure you reinvest. As they say, money lying in the bank is a stinking fish. Having fifty million squids in you bank is stink quite enough, I'd have thought.

However only the people with the stinking fish get to say when the stink is too much to bear...After all, it is their stinking fish.


Peter

[Alan Klein]

You would pay taxes on the hotel with income from room fees, and on the golf course with income from greens fees and cart rentals. You would pay taxes on the dairy farm with income from the sale of milk. They are an expense you budget for.
Like most people I pay annual property taxes to my local government without having to sell my house. I'm guessing you do too. Would you prefer to eliminate property taxes and replace them with income taxes?

What you're suggesting is using income to pay income taxes.  That's what we do now.  If the company makes more money, they pay more taxes.  If they have a bad year, they pay less.  To tie it to the value of the company will make it impossible to pay the taxes in a bad year and maybe bankrupt it. It will also create an unfair playing field among competitors since company expenses will be different to the different company in an industry because of different tax requirements based on the wealth of the company.  For both of the problems mentioned, and lots others, a tax on wealth is a terrible way of government funding.  That's why it isn't done.   Just raise rates on income if the government needs more money.

[Craig Lamson]

Bernies promises...

In Appreciation For Primary Win, Bernie Promises To Make New Hampshire The Site Of His Very First Re-Education Camp


https://babylonbee.com/news/in-appreciation-for-primary-win-bernie-promises-to-make-new-hampshire-the-site-of-his-very-first-re-education-camp

Yes, its Satire

[faberryman]

What you're suggesting is using income to pay income taxes.  That's what we do now.  If the company makes more money, they pay more taxes.  If they have a bad year, they pay less.  To tie it to the value of the company will make it impossible to pay the taxes in a bad year and maybe bankrupt it. It will also create an unfair playing field among competitors since company expenses will be different to the different company in an industry because of different tax requirements based on the wealth of the company.  For both of the problems mentioned, and lots others, a tax on wealth is a terrible way of government funding.  That's why it isn't done.   Just raise rates on income if the government needs more money.

It is done in virtually every taxing jurisdiction in the United States. The tax man doesn't ask me if I had a good year or a bad year when he comes to collect my property taxes.

[Alan Klein]

 

This is apart from any candidate- it has to do with the way the electionsystem is based at the moment in the US.
It means that without enough money you don't have a chance...
It also means that influence in the political system can be bought.

Should we stop unions from using their money to influence elections to pass favorable union legislation and help union workers?  Should we prevent environmental organizations like The Sierra Club spending their money to influence government to protect the environment with more regulations?   SHould we stop Muslim groups from using their money to hire lobbyists to stop regulation of Muslim immigration?  Just where would you stop people and organizations from using their money to influence government action,, rules and legislation?  Who's going to determine which groups have value and should be allowed to do these things?  You?

[James Clark]

Who's going to determine which groups have value and should be allowed to do these things?  You?

I'll do it!

[JoeKitchen]

It is done in virtually every taxing jurisdiction in the United States. The tax man doesn't ask me if I had a good year or a bad year when he comes to collect my property taxes.

Yes, but your property taxes are significantly less then what Bernie is suggesting on a tax assessment amount that is almost always far below fair market value. 

Not to mention, as the owner of Shell oil once said, people who know how much they are worth are usually not worth that much.  It is nearly impossible to determine the exact value of an extremely wealthy person and would create a situation rife for exploitation.  There would be even more absurdities from tax lawyers going then there would be now, exactly the kind of things the Bernie Bros are against. 

Seriously, take a minute and actually think about it.  A 6% tax on total wealth?  Even in a good year, average profits are just below 6% of just revenue, not overall wealth.  If we use the proposed way of the Dems to determine the value of a business (revenue times 3), that means in a good economic year, the average company would need to raise an amount over three times their profit just to cover the tax.  It would crash the economy. 

[Alan Klein]

It is done in virtually every taxing jurisdiction in the United States. The tax man doesn't ask me if I had a good year or a bad year when he comes to collect my property taxes.

First, you're not competing with other homeowners.  In business, tying taxes to wealth as I explained in the last post, is a terrible and unproductive way of doing it.  Just raise business income taxes if you have too. 

Regarding property taxes, companies pay those as well if they lease or own a store or factory or farm.  And they even affect people as well.  Where I live, there are many people who retired and moved here 15 years ago who can no longer afford the property taxes, they have gone up so much in that time.  They've had to sell and move to areas in other states where property taxes are lower.  So it does have an effect even personally.

But my main objection to is it that it's stealing.  You and others who have not earned the money want to take property that doesn;t belong to you and give it to people who haven't earned it.  That's not the purpose of government or taxes.  Taxes are collected to run the government, not to redistribute wealth.  That's what the Soviet Union did.  It's immoral and in the end didn't work and destroyed their country's freedoms and economic prosperity.  Frankly, it was plain dumb thing to do.  Why do you think we're smarter than the Russians and will do it better? 

[Alan Klein]

I'll do it!

Sure.   

[Rob C]

However only the people with the stinking fish get to say when the stink is too much to bear...After all, it is their stinking fish.


Peter

Yes, that's the status quo; it used to be the status quo in Britain, too, and the keepers of fish grew fat, dyspeptic and ever richer whilst the rest of humanity tugged its forelock and envied those on the next rung - maybe the footman or butler, or even the guy who drove the coach-and-four.

Today, though a lot better, some folks still grow fat but only because they don't have enough to pay for proper food and heating or clothes for their kids.

That's where my idea comes in and gives a progressive government the incentive to do something for the folks outwith that top percentile of fishkeepers. Let's face it - left to their own devices and the politicians they are always trying to get elected, their volume of fish would steadily increase until only global warming would put that fish back where it belongs. By themselves, they mostly wouldn't give you a sardine.

That said, some of them are different: they give enormous sums to charities and good works, tacitly accepting and understanding the reality and morality of too much being, well, too much for any one man or family. Let's "encourage" the recalcitrant rest to do the same by removing the alternative option!

;-)

[Alan Klein]

While giving their money to charity sounds wonderful and is good for the soul, it's not the best way to dispose of all that wealth.  Speaking of fish comes to mind the expression, give a man a fish and eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Wealthy people should use their wealth to start or invest in other businesses or expand existing ones.  That capital used for investments create more wealth and jobs that help more people than a one-time gift of charity.  The fact is there's really no way billionaires can spend all their money.  It has to be invested which helps the economy and other people.  Even if they take some of it out of the investments, they;re going to spend it.  That means jobs for pilots, car assembly workers, boat manufacturers, as well as contribution to government in the form of taxes.  In the end they can;t take it with them so they leave it like any corpse that gets reabsorbed into nature:- dust,  money and all. 

[petermfiore]

Yes, that's the status quo; it used to be the status quo in Britain, too, and the keepers of fish grew fat, dyspeptic and ever richer whilst the rest of humanity tugged its forelock and envied those on the next rung - maybe the footman or butler, or even the guy who drove the coach-and-four.

Today, though a lot better, some folks still grow fat but only because they don't have enough to pay for proper food and heating or clothes for their kids.

That's where my idea comes in and gives a progressive government the incentive to do something for the folks outwith that top percentile of fishkeepers. Let's face it - left to their own devices and the politicians they are always trying to get elected, their volume of fish would steadily increase until only global warming would put that fish back where it belongs. By themselves, they mostly wouldn't give you a sardine.

That said, some of them are different: they give enormous sums to charities and good works, tacitly accepting and understanding the reality and morality of too much being, well, too much for any one man or family. Let's "encourage" the recalcitrant rest to do the same by removing the alternative option!

;-)

I personally get all that. But it can not be mandated that all must divest. That too, is a wrong.  Charity is a gift to the giver as well. Not everyone gets to know that.

Peter

[Craig Lamson]

While giving their money to charity sounds wonderful and is good for the soul, it's not the best way to dispose of all that wealth.  Speaking of fish comes to mind the expression, give a man a fish and eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Wealthy people should use their wealth to start or invest in other businesses or expand existing ones.  That capital used for investments create more wealth and jobs that help more people than a one-time gift of charity.  The fact is there's really no way billionaires can spend all their money.  It has to be invested which helps the economy and other people.  Even if they take some of it out of the investments, they;re going to spend it.  That means jobs for pilots, car assembly workers, boat manufacturers, as well as contribution to government in the form of taxes.  In the end they can;t take it with them so they leave it like any corpse that gets reabsorbed into nature:- dust,  money and all.

I've no stats to back it up but my gut tells me most of the filthy rich don't leave the bulk of their fish in the cooler getting stinky.  I think they are using that fish to catch more fish.

I do some work for a guy who has lot of stinking fish.  I asked him once about why he continues to try and catch more fish.  Aside from wanting more fish to use as bait, he finds that counting the fish he has is how he keeps score of his fishing prowess.

He continues to catch a lot of fish. but he is really quite generous with the fish he catches.  He often holds fish frys for the people of his community.  I for one like it when I earn some of his fish.  I want him catch as many fish as he can...

[petermfiore]

I've no stats to back it up but my gut trells me most of the filthy rich dont leave the bulk of thier fish in hte cooler getting stinky.  I think they are using that fish to catch more fish.

I do some work for a guy who has lot of stinking fish.  I asked him once about why he continues to try and catch more fish.  Aside from wanting more fish to use as bait, he finds that counting the fish he has is how he keeps score of his fishing prowess.

He continues to catch a lot of fish. but he is really quite generous wiht the fish he catches.  He often hold fish frys for the people of his community.  I for one like it when I earn some of his fish.  I want him catch as many fish as he can...

Lots of people like fish. A lot! I do not begrudge anyone their choice of diet. Me, I prefer a more balanced fare.

Peter