POLITICS 2020 Election

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by CardinalVol, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Should your mom be running for president?
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    If she did, you'd vote for her. But I wouldn't.
     
    Tenacious D, NorrisAlan and The Dooz like this.
  3. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    WaPo has made this a daily routine of late. Does she have an ax to grind with Amazon or vice versa?
     
  4. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    She is coming for amazon and the tech companies. she thinks they should pay taxes. that is now somehow controversial and marxist. or at least facebook says so.
     
  5. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Facebook does not like her now?
     
  6. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    None of big tech likes her or Sanders. Zuckerberg called her an existential threat to Facebook, and has had closed door meetings with Trump in the last couple of months seemingly about the election.
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    they would see all of big tech's influencing either removed or regulated.
     
  8. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    That actually scores her a point in my book. I thought her campaign was run by a connected tech guy.
     
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    i think it is, but the campaign positions are not what the tech companies want
     
  10. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    A low flat rate for everyone with no deductions would increase tax revenues while simplify the tax code.

    It will never happen though.
     
    warhammer likes this.
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    She got on Gates' bad side too, with the $100 billion tax thing. Gates' and Zuck talk.
     
  12. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    those that make profits do pay taxes. amazon didn't pay taxes because they lost money because they spend billions on infrastructure. do we not want amazon to spend billions on infrastructure now? the whole thing is just stupid.
     
  13. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    I thought she would tread lightly with those types but my hats off if she is mixing things up with them.
     
  14. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator


    The wealth tax is a really stupid and will be expensive to oversee with little benefits.

    Even most of the countries in Europe have dropped it because of that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  15. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    I don't think its a very good idea as well but I will give her credit for going after some giants early in her likely short lived political career.
     
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    In what way is it expensive to oversee? It's just a review of IRS filings, with a threshold.
     
  17. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    no. your irs filings don't list net worth. just income. you'd have to audit financial statements. also what about people with massive real estate holdings? who decides how much it's worth? how about business owners? it's a massive hassle.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Properties are appraised. By government. Already. So real estate is covered.

    But, I guess the sum of your filings isn't worth due to loss.

    On the flip side, though, it puts the burden of proof on the one being taxed, not the government.

    So the question remains, in what way is it expensive to oversee?
     
  19. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    property tax prices are not always fair market value prices. my tax basis is half the real market value.

    you don't think someone is going to go and have to make sure everyone is paying their fair share? who decides what something is worth? what purpose does this serve? do people really think we have a revenue problem rather than a spending one?
     
  20. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I bet it pays for itself if you start at the top and work down, vs the opposite which is the current IRS policy.
     

Share This Page