• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

tiltdeac said:
This line of argument usually goes something like:

Liberal: We are trying to emulate Scandinavian countries, they are obviously doing fine.

Conservative: Those are capitalist economies, idiot!

Liberal: Right, but they provide a much greater social benefits, like health care, child allowances, paid leave, etc. Let's do that.

Conservative: But that's socialism!
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's not only conservatives who can't agree on what "socialism" and "democratic socialism" mean. I think it's unfortunate that liberals are trying to own the word "socialism" rather than more accurately describing what they're proposing. I guess it's largely a consequence of being accused of "socialism" for so long by conservatives.
 
And conversely, I have really appreciated it when some of the democratic candidates have defended capitalism (well regulated) as the best means for achieving greater shared prosperity. Making "capitalism" into a negative word would be very unfortunate.
 
I thought the left disliked Assange. I'm certainly no fan.
 
Elizabeth Warren's proposal to tax companies 7% on their book income is just a terrible idea. There are Myriad of timing issues and other theoretical book accounting pronouncements where book income doesn't even come close to matching the economic reality of the transaction.

A simple example. Company buys a capital asset for 10 million dollars. 5 years ago they decided it was impaired and took a book loss on it for 7.5 million writing down the book value to 2.5 million. It's tax basis is still 10 million dollars because they paid 10 million dollars for it. This year they decided to sell that asset for $5 million. For tax purposes they would take a 5 million dollar loss although that lost would be limited by Capital loss limitations to any capital income that they generate. For book purposes they would recognize a two and a half million dollar gain. On a transaction that they lost $5 million.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Elizabeth Warren's proposal to tax companies 7% on their book income is just a terrible idea. There are Myriad of timing issues and other theoretical book accounting pronouncements where book income doesn't even come close to matching the economic reality of the transaction.

A simple example. Company buys a capital asset for 10 million dollars. 5 years ago they decided it was impaired and took a book loss on it for 7.5 million writing down the book value to 2.5 million. It's tax basis is still 10 million dollars because they paid 10 million dollars for it. This year they decided to sell that asset for $5 million. For tax purposes they would take a 5 million dollar loss although that lost would be limited by Capital loss limitations to any capital income that they generate. For book purposes they would recognize a two and a half million dollar gain. On a transaction that they lost $5 million.
Click to expand...

Can’t imagine why she’s want to use a simpler number
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Can’t imagine why she’s want to use a simpler number
Click to expand...

LOL. Has nothing to do with that. The Book income number would provide more tax revenue. The tax number is the simpler number.

Would you like to pay tax on a transaction if you sold stock at a loss?
 
Last edited:
 
avalon said:
Click to expand...

This could mean that Democratic voters hate so many of the other candidates that they're donating early so they won't be faced with the possibility of having to vote for someone else against Trump.
 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top