• 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

I liked Warren a lot and she continues to grow on me. She’s a quality candidate overall. That she irritates voters like Brad is just an additional perk.
 
Hope the DNC is watching the NBA Draft Lottery. They definitely should schedule a prime time event to select who participated in which debate. It should not be top 10 and next 10 in the polls. Or some configuration to get specific matchups.
 
PhDeac said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because it’s unethical to tax someone’s net worth? There is no precedent for it, and it is highly unconstitutional. The government doesn’t have the right to seize your property just for having wealth. That is a dangerous policy.

I do respect her for not embracing the socialism label, and speaking in support of private narkets though.
 
Why is it unethical?1

I think there are better ways to fund our country than taxing something as hard to calculate as wealth but it’s not “unethical.”
 
Also seems pretty unethical to run on a platform of tax cuts and reducing the deficit, and then wildly expanding the deficit once you win. Republicans have no ground to stand on when it comes to ethical governance.
 
Legally it's not a tax on the wealth but an excise tax on the transfer of the property
 
ChrisL68 said:
Not according to the constitution.
Click to expand...

Stop acting like it's an easy case. It's not. Actual legal scholars disagree. It's also a great fucking idea. Hearing people on the right talk about the Uber wealthy pay more in taxes being unethical is laughable.

Problem is we now have a stacked right wing court that will shoot down anything that arguably hurts the super wealthy, constitutional or not.
 
Shouldn’t an excise tax be applied equally to all transfers ?
 
Shooshmoo said:
Stop acting like it's an easy case. It's not. Actual legal scholars disagree. It's also a great fucking idea. Hearing people on the right talk about the Uber wealthy pay more in taxes being unethical is laughable.

Problem is we now have a stacked right wing court that will shoot down anything that arguably hurts the super wealthy, constitutional or not.
Click to expand...

I think the history of case law is on the unconstitutional side.

And aside from that, it's a terrible idea. Other countries have tried it. It has proven to be a costly and inefficient way to raise taxes. It was be great for the cottage professional appraisal industry. The IRS will have to hire a bunch of experts to fight the multitude of highly judgmental cases that will surely go to litigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top