(11-01-2019, 04:02 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote:

(11-01-2019, 03:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: The financial transaction tax *might* get passed.
The others are so pie in the sky they are not worth discussing.
Elizabeth Warren may well be our next President.
But a federal wealth tax would require a constitutional amendment.  Ain't happening.

The only kind of pie this plan resembles is a cow pattie. There is nothing to look upto here. I agree nothing is happening, but the fact that a major party candidate even suggested it shows how far off the rocker some (being nice) Dems have gone. I agree that a small financial transaction tax is kind of reasonable and I would be willing to do it, but its not the major mover in this plan.

If you want everyone to have health care coverage you have to have everyone pay for it. Would I personally trade 5% tax for single payer? Probably not, unless it had a cap like SS, but I think that's a reasonable proposal for those currently outside of the medicaid range and many people would like it.

What Warren is proposing is an old fashioned communist style 're-appropriation' of wealth and is tantamount to theft. That doesn't ever work out well, and we have plenty of examples of places that have given it a try.

Yep.
If you look at the European countries that Bernie wants us to imitate, they have higher tax rates on the middle class and the poor than we do.  But they give the middle class and the poor more benefits, like subsidized healthcare and childcare.  That's a bigger role for government than I would like, but at least it works.

Anyhow, this is part of a pattern in this country.  The drawn out and closed primary elections divide us and encourage the candidates to promise unreasonable stuff.  2000 mile long walls.  Wealth taxes.  A ban on all Muslim immigration.  If you like your plan you can keep it.  All part of the same story.
If a candidate had to play to the middle from the beginning, we'd be less divided and we'd be discussing more reasonable proposals.

---