The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by calculoso

While I don't agree with a $1B cap, the part that you're missing is that the extra money would go to the Government in way of taxes (or whatever mechanism is chosen). Today it doesn't.

You'll have to explain to me how that would generate extra money for the government.

Your comment about the rich losing money and it having no impact on "us" is completely irrelevant.

I don't see how. People here have repeatedly made the claim that the growing wealth gap is a legitimate problem. Today, that gap is shrinking, yet it does not correlate to improved quality of life for everyone else.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by stone hands

imagine actually making the argument that billionaires dont need to be taxed more because they lost a lot of money when the markets took a hit during a historic virus outbreak and we didnt see any tangible benefit to the common man

Not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse like this...

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Ark2

You'll have to explain to me how that would generate extra money for the government.



I don't see how. People here have repeatedly made the claim that the growing wealth gap is a legitimate problem. Today, that gap is shrinking, yet it does not correlate to improved quality of life for everyone else.

i am not trolling:

are you being obtuse on purpose or is this a serious question

this is not a "reverse-fygm-eat-the-rich for the sake of sticking it to those bastards"

your post is either so woefully uninformed that you really need to take a deep introspection on your belief system or you need to stop being disingenuous

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by stone hands

i am not trolling:

are you being obtuse on purpose or is this a serious question

this is not a "reverse-fygm-eat-the-rich for the sake of sticking it to those bastards"

your post is either so woefully uninformed that you really need to take a deep introspection on your belief system or you need to stop being disingenuous

This is probably a waste of time since you don't seem to have much interest in actually addressing what I am saying, but I will give it a shot.

What part of my quoted post are you addressing? The first part is a legitimate question regarding how a $1 billion cap would generate additional government revenue.

The second part of my quote pertains to the wealth gap. I am arguing that regardless of whether it increases or decreases, its effect on your life remains relatively the same. If you would like to discuss either of those points, I am happy to do so.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The second part of my quote pertains to the wealth gap. I am arguing that regardless of whether it increases or decreases, its effect on your life remains relatively the same. If you would like to discuss either of those points, I am happy to do so.

nobody is advocating the money that billionares have be returned to the aether to make peoples lives better, thats just insanity, you're burning down a strawman

your point would have some semblance of validity if all those billions that were lost in the last 2 weeks went to social services, but as it stands its just some rich people worship drivel that doesnt apply to the situation at hand and is just laughable

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by stone hands

nobody is advocating the money that billionares have be returned to the aether to make peoples lives better, thats just insanity, you're burning down a strawman

your point would have some semblance of validity if all those billions that were lost in the last 2 weeks went to social services, but as it stands its just some rich people worship drivel that doesnt apply to the situation at hand and is just laughable

Okay, you are just interested in strawmen then. I am sure you will get the 1-2 thanks that you crave for that comment. Enjoy.

[stone hands]

do u know what a strawman is(again, serious question)?

im literally just responding to your post where you asked if anyones life is better now that the super rich lost a lot of money as if it was an example of correcting the wage gap in some way

this is either a gross misrepresentation of the wealth gap issue by plain ignorance of the situation or by being disingenuous, theres no middle ground. you either have no idea what the argument is or you're not acting in good faith

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by stone hands

do u know what a strawman is(again, serious question)?

im literally just responding to your post where you asked if anyones life is better now that the super rich lost a lot of money as if it was an example of correcting the wage gap in some way

this is either a gross misrepresentation of the wealth gap issue by plain ignorance of the situation or by being disingenuous, theres no middle ground. you either have no idea what the argument is or you're not acting in good faith

It's this one.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by stone hands

do u know what a strawman is(again, serious question)?

Yes, I do. You have used them repeatedly.

im literally just responding to your post where you asked if anyones life is better now that the super rich lost a lot of money as if it was an example of correcting the wage gap in some way

this is either a gross misrepresentation of the wealth gap issue by plain ignorance of the situation or by being disingenuous, theres no middle ground. you either have no idea what the argument is or you're not acting in good faith

The gap between the level of wealth between the average American and the top .1% is growing. There are people that advocate (and you appear to be one of them) that that growing gap is the reason that the average American is struggling. The wealth owned by the top .1% is largely in the form of share ownership of companies that have multi-billion dollar values. I argue that the two are not connected. Your life is not better when those shares lose value, your life is not worse when those shares appreciate in value. The wealth gap is a non-issue from the perspective of the average American, or at least it should be.

Now, let's address your first strawman:

imagine actually making the argument that billionaires dont need to be taxed more because they lost a lot of money when the markets took a hit during a historic virus outbreak and we didnt see any tangible benefit to the common man

Note that I did not say anywhere that on the grounds of the stock market tanking, taxes should not be increased on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, no where have I stated that taxes should not be increased on the wealthiest Americans. I simply began this conversation by stating that I am against a wealth tax on the grounds that it is ineffective, unconstitutional, and immoral.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Last week, the top 5 richest men in the world lost a combined $24 billion. Did your quality of life improve as a result? Are you feeling any freer today than you were a month ago? I suspect not. The wealth gap is a political slight of hand. Chances are that Jeff Bezos' net worth has no direct impact on your ability to earn a decent living.

this is the post i was making fun of because it is so out of touch as to be unbelievable as a genuine argument

are you, or are you not saying that the wealth gap is not an issue, and a reason to support this point of view is because the top 5 richest people in the world lost a lot of money and my life was not personally enriched by this action

its painfully obvious you dont even have a surface level understanding of the issue if this was made in good faith

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by stone hands

this is the post i was making fun of because it is so out of touch as to be unbelievable as a genuine argument

Do you not see how your first post was being disingenuous?

are you, or are you not saying that the wealth gap is not an issue

I am.

and a reason to support this point of view is because the top 5 richest people in the world lost a lot of money and my life was not personally enriched by this action

That is an example of why the wealth gap is meaningless, yes.

its painfully obvious you dont even have a surface level understanding of the issue if this was made in good faith

I doubt that is the case but please educate me if you feel I am ill-informed. To be honest, I think you wadded into this conversation, mostly unaware of the context, just so you could make a smarmy one-liner. Personally, I don't think you have any real interest in discussing this topic. Perhaps I am wrong though. If so, how do you propose to reduce the wealth of the to .1% and improve the lives of everyone else. I am not really interested in fairy tail answers though, so if your solution is unconstitutional, impossible to administer, and has a proven track record of failure everywhere that it has been tried, don't bother.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Do you not see how your first post was being disingenuous?

no, because the argument in question is ridiculous and laughable

That is an example of why the wealth gap is meaningless, yes.

the entire crux of the wealth gap is that a company(every single company) only makes a set number of dollars, the percentage of this set number of dollars that is allocated to a class of people(executives) who already have more capital available to them than their workforce could even fathom is growing steadily and is unjust

the issue is the distribution of these funds and the method that they get paid out - executives often get compensation which falls outside of normal taxation, which further exacerbates the problem as their true income is in the millions of dollars per year which dont get captured properly in taxes. its a feedback loop that just gets worse as time goes along(as we have seen in executive pay structuring over the last 30 years)

this is why i made that post in regards to your poorly thought out argument:

some rich people lost a lot of money, and i'm not doing any better, so its not a big deal

this is a strawman.

nobody wants to withdraw jeff bezo's fortune from a bank machine and burn it on a lawn to make everyone more equal. this is essentially what you said in regards to the wealth gap not being an issue, which means you dont fully understand the argument

If so, how do you propose to reduce the wealth of the to .1% and improve the lives of everyone else. I am not really interested in fairy tail answers though, so if your solution is unconstitutional, impossible to administer, and has a proven track record of failure everywhere that it has been tried, don't bother.

i dont know, im just a guy on a hockey message board who saw an incredibly awful argument and made a snarky response to it

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ark2

You'll have to explain to me how that would generate extra money for the government.



I don't see how. People here have repeatedly made the claim that the growing wealth gap is a legitimate problem. Today, that gap is shrinking, yet it does not correlate to improved quality of life for everyone else.

Wealth gap is shrinking? Ha! Maybe over the past week, but that hardly makes the point you think it does.

The context above was that over a certain amount, the tax rate would be 95%, effectively making it hard/impossible to have more. This Tax would go to government coffers for spending.

If there is a government imposed cap of $1B, where do you think the extra money would go? Into thin air?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Ark2

how do you propose to reduce the wealth of the to .1% and improve the lives of everyone else.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

I am not really interested in fairy tail answers though, so if your solution is unconstitutional, impossible to administer, and has a proven track record of failure everywhere that it has been tried, don't bother.

I'm wondering if you're using the "fairy tail answer" line to snarkily disregard any solution that you personally have negative feelings toward...

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Biden wins Florida and Illinois. How much longer does Bernie stay in it? Does he drop out tonight?

[BigNumbers]

God I hope this means the end of Bernie. His naive, idealistic campaign was getting out of hand. Hopefully Biden can muster enough cholinesterase inhibitor and memantine to beat Trump.

[Senator Clay Davis]

At least in 2016 Hillary wasn't very liked and Bernie was staying close in races. This time he'd be staying in to take a bunch of 20-30% losses which from an image standpoint will reflect quite poorly on his movement. Logic says he should bail, but we'll see.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Bernie should bow out and use the virus pandemic as cover for doing so, saying that he doesn’t want to put the voters in danger. Might help get him some goodwill that he could use in the Senate later.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Bernie should bow out and use the virus pandemic as cover for doing so, saying that he doesn’t want to put the voters in danger. Might help get him some goodwill that he could use in the Senate later.

He's getting to the point where it doesn't make sense to carry on in normal circumstances. I don't get it. He needs to put an end to this for so many reasons.

[dino7c]

If Bernie actually cares about the country and not just himself he will bow out gracefully and give is support to Biden