The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Novalee]

i hope the powers that be can get this sorted for the up coming election
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/pol...0190905-55ziwh2iqzdntejefvuava3bhe-story.html


Adding to the mystery, Murphy told Hayes that a recent U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report suggested that as many as four Florida counties could have been hacked. But she added that she wasn’t sure just how many counties were involved.

 

[Keef]

Warren is struggling massively with Black and younger voters which will hurt her massively in the South.

Bernie did an interview with Killer Mike recently that was totally reasonable. Bernie is a reasonable, wise dude when he's not forced to yell socialist talking points within 10 seconds in a "debate" format. He actually understands what 60%+ of America is dealing with - rich get richer and go unpunished while the majority of America, from the middle class to the bottom, bears the brunt of everything else. It's bullcrap.

 

[mustafur]

Bernie did an interview with Killer Mike recently that was totally reasonable. Bernie is a reasonable, wise dude when he's not forced to yell socialist talking points within 10 seconds in a "debate" format. He actually understands what 60%+ of America is dealing with - rich get richer and go unpunished while the majority of America, from the middle class to the bottom, bears the brunt of everything else. It's bullcrap.

I would advise watching the Joe Rogan podcast as well.

The way that Debates are done in America is crazy, it basically allows the MSM to control the narrative.

 

[Biggles]

Bernie did an interview with Killer Mike recently that was totally reasonable. Bernie is a reasonable, wise dude when he's not forced to yell socialist talking points within 10 seconds in a "debate" format. He actually understands what 60%+ of America is dealing with - rich get richer and go unpunished while the majority of America, from the middle class to the bottom, bears the brunt of everything else. It's bullcrap.

The debate format with 20 + candidates desperate for attention is pretty much guaranteed to be crazy. But in all honesty, almost anyone sounds "reasonable & wise" compared to Trump. I watched Biden on the Colbert show a couple of nights ago. Not "senile" at all - very coherent & measured. Whether you think he's the right person for the job ... that's a different matter. Trump is the absolute worst person for the job. This ought to be clear to everyone by now. The fact that Republicans have chosen to circle the wagons around Trump ... I think this is going to have long term consequences for the credibility of the GOP.

 

[Danoff]

He actually understands what 60%+ of America is dealing with - rich get richer and go unpunished while the majority of America, from the middle class to the bottom, bears the brunt of everything else.

What the actual...

Why are we punishing rich people? How do the middle class "to the bottom" bear the brunt of "everything else"? And what is "everything else" exactly? You're just spouting straight up class-warfare, us vs. them, demonize the minority, socialist... well... Bernie.


Edit:

If rich people are the top 40% of the country, even if it's a smaller number than that, you're talking about me. So why do I deserve to be punished? And what do I owe my neighbors?

 

[mustafur]

What the actual...

Why are we punishing rich people? How do the middle class "to the bottom" bear the brunt of "everything else"? And what is "everything else" exactly? You're just spouting straight up class-warfare, us vs. them, demonize the minority, socialist... well... Bernie.


Edit:

If rich people are the top 40% of the country, even if it's a smaller number than that, you're talking about me. So why do I deserve to be punished? And what do I owe my neighbors?

Don't think Bernie was referring to a Middle Class family, his idea of rich are Massive Corporations who use influence to avoid paying any Taxes in exchange for having their company in said region.

Like this list:

Corporate Wealthfare.

 

[Danoff]

Don't think Bernie was referring to a Middle Class family, his idea of rich are Massive Corporations who use influence to avoid paying any Taxes in exchange for having their company in said region.

Like this list: View attachment 849655Corporate Wealthfare.

That's not corporate welfare (or wealthfare). That's (potentially) regions catering to what they see as being beneficial to their population. You're claiming they're wrong I guess. I suppose some of them might be corrupt politicians who were bought off... but I seriously doubt that... GE... is bribing politicians under the table. Xcel Energy is a government mandated monopoly. I see a lot of other Energy companies on there too... I'm guessing that at least some of Wisconsin Energy, Atmos Energy, American Electric Power, Duke Energy, NexEra Energy, CMS Energy, Sempra Energy, and Eversource Energy are also government mandated monopolies. I haven't looked any of them up, I have no idea. Just a guess.

So first of all, you haven't established that the list includes corporations with posted profits. If they operated at a net loss, or at zero profit, for the year... what tax would you have them pay? Secondly, I know this is a wild one, I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% (for strict definitions of companies). It all gets paid out in salary (income tax) or reinvestment (sales tax) or dividends (income tax) anyway. So why do we also tax companies when they want to hold cash? Cash is good for companies, helps them stay afloat during recessions.


Edit:

Also, I'm pretty sure Bernie throws me in with "rich". So it's really not fair to say that he was just talking about companies.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not voting for the Libertarian party or any third-party at the national level anymore.

It's become clear that one party in particular has spent decades rigging the system in its favor and I believe it's heading down a dangerous road quicker than anybody is going to catch it.

I have no idea who the Democratic candidate will be and I don't really give a crap as long as Trump doesn't win.

His candidacy was a joke but his actual presidency is beyond belief. I will vote for literally anybody who isn't in the Republican party at this point.

It must be very tough to go from exclusively voting for a candidate or candidates whom you actually feel compelled to support, to the tactical "Anyone but..." voting that is so epidemic in the United States' two-party cartel.

And I'm not trying to take the mick, I mean it with all sincerity. It's a sad state of affairs that that is what it has come to for people.

 

[Keef]

If rich people are the top 40% of the country, even if it's a smaller number than that, you're talking about me. So why do I deserve to be punished? And what do I owe my neighbors?

Also, I'm pretty sure Bernie throws me in with "rich". So it's really not fair to say that he was just talking about companies.

I don't recall what his division percentages are. I just threw a number out there. You might be at the 60th percentile - my career will put me in the same place - but I doubt you are, say, a majority investor in a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Those are the types of people who the law does not apply to. There are people in the country - lots of people - where a single speeding ticket will force them to decide what bills they can and can't pay that month. If they get too many they lose their license, and suddenly they can't go to work, and now they've likely begun a never-ending spiral into poverty. That's all it would take for a large portion of Americans. Where is the punishment for corporations and their leadership when laws are broken? A fine that amounts to minutes, at worst hours, of revenue?

If a speeding ticket only cost me a couple minutes of income it wouldn't be that big a deal. I would probably brush it off and continue doing as I was, simply absorbing ticket after ticket. That's precisely what ultra-wealthy people and corporations do. There is no risk to breaking the law, because they already know they'll only be fined a miniscule amount and the actual law won't be enforced because the government isn't willing to risk pissing off their corporate shills.

Thus, the growing resentment between classes. Poorer people are convinced that rich people don't have to abide by the same rules, and the risk they bear by breaking rules is orders of magnitude higher. Cheating the system might cost a poor person their home while it only costs a CEO a few points on the NASDAQ.

 

[Danoff]

I don't recall what his division percentages are. I just threw a number out there. You might be at the 60th percentile - my career will put me in the same place - but I doubt you are, say, a majority investor in a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Those are the types of people who the law does not apply to.

First... yes it does. Second... and they're automatically criminals? Needing to be punished?

There are people in the country - lots of people - where a single speeding ticket will force them to decide what bills they can and can't pay that month. If they get too many they lose their license, and suddenly they can't go to work, and now they've likely begun a never-ending spiral into poverty. That's all it would take for a large portion of Americans. Where is the punishment for corporations and their leadership when laws are broken? A fine that amounts to minutes, at worst hours, of revenue?

There is, of course, jail, and other lost freedoms.

If a speeding ticket only cost me a couple minutes of income it wouldn't be that big a deal. I would probably brush it off and continue doing as I was, simply absorbing ticket after ticket. That's precisely what ultra-wealthy people and corporations do. There is no risk to breaking the law, because they already know they'll only be fined a miniscule amount and the actual law won't be enforced because the government isn't willing to risk pissing off their corporate shills.

There are other reasons not to speed (including legal penalties) besides fines. This is what you mean by "unpunished"? That some (not all) rich people can afford to pay fines for their bad behavior?

 

[Keef]

First... yes it does. Second... and they're automatically criminals? Needing to be punished?

We don't know if they're criminals because they're never prosecuted or even charged. There has always been a of lot damning commentary, however, and in many cases actual evidence which is never acted upon.

There is, of course, jail, and other lost freedoms.

That would require charges and prosecution.

There are other reasons not to speed (including legal penalties) besides fines. This is what you mean by "unpunished"? That some (not all) rich people can afford to pay fines for their bad behavior?

We probably agree that penalties exist to enforce justice and maintain order, usually as a deterrent. The idea is that there is a risk to breaking rules, and where our good conscious isn't enough to keep us from doing dumb things, the penalty risk factor then comes into play. For people like me in my current situation, the risk factor is high enough that I've calmed most of my behavior, even the things I don't see as harmful. But for some people, the penalty poses little to no risk. Whether or not these people are usually good like most of us are, when they are considering making a poor choice the risk of penalty isn't a factor at all.

Perhaps the risk factor should be equalized based on a person's means. That way, the risk factor of speeding is just as high for someone who makes $200 a week (me as a college student) as for someone who makes $2,000 a week (me as a future airline pilot). There are folks out there who make $20,000 a week. $200,000 a week. If me getting a $100 speeding ticket only means I have to wait til next week to get new Piloti loafers, imagine what it means to those people.

 

[Danoff]

We don't know if they're criminals because they're never prosecuted or even charged. There has always been a of lot damning commentary, however, and in many cases actual evidence which is never acted upon.

You mean like Epstein?

Yes I agree that having money makes it easier to break the law and get away with it. But that doesn't make people completely above the law.

We probably agree that penalties exist to enforce justice and maintain order, usually as a deterrent. The idea is that there is a risk to breaking rules, and where our good conscious isn't enough to keep us from doing dumb things, the penalty risk factor then comes into play. For people like me in my current situation, the risk factor is high enough that I've calmed most of my behavior, even the things I don't see as harmful. But for some people, the penalty poses little to no risk. Whether or not these people are usually good like most of us are, when they are considering making a poor choice the risk of penalty isn't a factor at all.

Perhaps the risk factor should be equalized based on a person's means. That way, the risk factor of speeding is just as high for someone who makes $200 a week (me as a college student) as for someone who makes $2,000 a week (me as a future airline pilot). There are folks out there who make $20,000 a week. $200,000 a week. If me getting a $100 speeding ticket only means I have to wait til next week to get new Piloti loafers, imagine what it means to those people.

You'd put a massive target on the back of every high-end car and well-known wealthy person. Cops could soak a single person one time and fund their entire division for a year. You'd have to floor it too, or people with nothing would be untouchable in terms of fines.

Traffic fines are not necessarily a deterrent, or for the purpose of encouraging people to not break the rules. They're really to make guilty people pay disproportionately for the criminal justice system. Fines and bail money are ways to offset tax dollars by offloading the cost onto people that the voting populous feels no sympathy for. You would further offload that onto a group that society doubly hates (rich people who are criminals). Doubling down is not the answer.

Traffic fines are problematic for enforcement. They're probably more trouble than they're worth.

 

[mustafur]

If your going to increase Speeding fines by income you need to diversify where the money goes or there will be issues, Civil forfeiture is already a Problem in alot of states, you would probably want a set amount fixed for the Police and the rest going elsewhere so there is no initiative to target rich people and keep order with the law.

I do agree with the idea if it can be implemented properly.

 

[Danoff]

If your going to increase Speeding fines by income you need to diversify where the money goes or there will be issues, Civil forfeiture is already a Problem in alot of states, you would probably want a set amount fixed for the Police and the rest going elsewhere so there is no initiative to target rich people and keep order with the law.

I do agree with the idea if it can be implemented properly.

Better to just not give cops and departments incentives to hand out tickets at all. Doing their jobs should be sufficient incentive.

 

[Keef]

But that doesn't make people above the law.

You'd put a massive target on the back of every high-end car and well-known wealthy person...people with nothing would be untouchable in terms of fines.

But that would be targeted enforcement which is incompatible with the law treating everyone equally.

So we're at an impasse, because in our current system poor people are easy targets who can't afford to fight back. But in my system, poor people aren't worth the effort because a single rich person funds the police easier.

So how do we ensure that law not just theoretically applies to everyone, but is actually enforced equally upon everyone?

What if we reverse the system completely - what if instead of punishing people for breaking the law, we praise people for following the law? If instead of charging $100 for speeding, we gift $100 for not speeding? At the end of every tax year, every citizen gets a flat-amount stipend based on their legal track record for that year. If I was a good boy, I get $1000, and if you were a good boy you get $1000. That's a big deal to poor people - a huge incentive to follow the rules. But it doesn't mean squat to rich people giving them less of an incentive to follow rules because the benefit isn't high enough. It would certainly have the effect of the majority of the population trying hard to be good and get the money.

 

[mustafur]

Better to just not give cops and departments incentives to hand out tickets at all. Doing their jobs should be sufficient incentive.

I never actually understood why they have incentives to hand out tickets, it sounds like it's designed to be abused.

 

[Danoff]

But that would be targeted enforcement which is incompatible with the law treating everyone equally.

So we're at an impasse, because in our current system poor people are easy targets who can't afford to fight back. But in my system, poor people aren't worth the effort because a single rich person funds the police easier.

So how do we ensure that law not just theoretically applies to everyone, but is actually enforced equally upon everyone?

What if we reverse the system completely - what if instead of punishing people for breaking the law, we praise people for following the law? If instead of charging $100 for speeding, we gift $100 for not speeding? At the end of every tax year, every citizen gets a flat-amount stipend based on their legal track record for that year. If I was a good boy, I get $1000, and if you were a good boy you get $1000. That's a big deal to poor people - a huge incentive to follow the rules. But it doesn't mean squat to rich people giving them less of an incentive to follow rules because the benefit isn't high enough. It would certainly have the effect of the majority of the population trying hard to be good and get the money.

Just ditch the fine.

 

[Liquid]

As far as I know in Finland speeding tickets for offences 13mph (21kph) greater than the speed limit are rated at a percentage of your annual income; everyone pays different amounts but feel it in their pocket to the same degree. Rich people pay numerically more but proportionally the same, poor people pay numerically less but proportionally the same.

 

[Rallywagon]

If your going to increase Speeding fines by income you need to diversify where the money goes or there will be issues, Civil forfeiture is already a Problem in alot of states, you would probably want a set amount fixed for the Police and the rest going elsewhere so there is no initiative to target rich people and keep order with the law.

I do agree with the idea if it can be implemented properly.

I think most places (Michigan for sure) pay their police forces budgets from appropriations, that is to say the normal tax and millage pools. Ticket fines general go to local, county and/or state judicial system, libraries and government general funds.
I agree with a system like Finland or Germany has. I also think driving is treated like to much of an entitlement in the US and we should have stricter licensing requirements to drive on public roads.

 

[Danoff]

Warren's tax the rich plan with a 2 and 3% wealth tax is roughly insanity. Apparently if it had been in place since the late 90s it would have cut the fortunes of this big billionaires (like Bezos) in half. It's no big deal, just 2%!!!! Half your net worth.

Also, does anyone really think that these guys are going to stay in America if there is a 2 or 3% tax on them? They'll just find someplace else to live, and it won't change their lives at all. It just drives their expenses and property out of this country.

It's also a huge extra filling. Now in addition to filing all of those forms for income tax, we must also file a crap ton of forms for wealth tax. And let's get going on the exemptions, etc. You might think to yourself "only the richest people will have to file", not so fast buddy.

$50M isn't as much as you think. $50M today is the equivalent of what $6M was in the 60s. So we have another alternative minimum tax situation. And we already know the government is going to inflate its way out of its current debt crisis, so you'd better believe that $50M is going to be an attainable sum for a lot more than the country's 0.01%. And obviously if you get anywhere near that number, you're going to be filing. In fact, we're getting down to numbers where a ton of people will be forced to hand over wealth information to the government just to prove that they don't have to file.

And this proposed solution is to do what exactly? Balance the budget? Pay for handouts? We already have a massive budget. How about we cut some crap? I know, Trump was supposed to do that. Trump is trump. He changed his tune on spending shortly after taking office. He's not so big on cutting the budget anymore.

Edit:

Also, it'd be time to incorporate and hold that money in a company.

 

[Dotini]

Trump Unchained!! - the Mad Genius Spider at the Center of the Web

So this is how its going to be?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/trump-presidency-aides-white-house-1502041

 

[PocketZeven]

Warren's tax the rich plan with a 2 and 3% wealth tax is roughly insanity. Apparently if it had been in place since the late 90s it would have cut the fortunes of this big billionaires (like Bezos) in half. It's no big deal, just 2%!!!! Half your net worth.

Also, does anyone really think that these guys are going to stay in America if there is a 2 or 3% tax on them? They'll just find someplace else to live, and it won't change their lives at all. It just drives their expenses and property out of this country.

It's also a huge extra filling. Now in addition to filing all of those forms for income tax, we must also file a crap ton of forms for wealth tax. And let's get going on the exemptions, etc. You might think to yourself "only the richest people will have to file", not so fast buddy.

$50M isn't as much as you think. $50M today is the equivalent of what $6M was in the 60s. So we have another alternative minimum tax situation. And we already know the government is going to inflate its way out of its current debt crisis, so you'd better believe that $50M is going to be an attainable sum for a lot more than the country's 0.01%. And obviously if you get anywhere near that number, you're going to be filing. In fact, we're getting down to numbers where a ton of people will be forced to hand over wealth information to the government just to prove that they don't have to file.

And this proposed solution is to do what exactly? Balance the budget? Pay for handouts? We already have a massive budget. How about we cut some crap? I know, Trump was supposed to do that. Trump is trump. He changed his tune on spending shortly after taking office. He's not so big on cutting the budget anymore.

Edit:

Also, it'd be time to incorporate and hold that money in a company.

Are you serious? We have a wealth Tax (on assets, property, stock) of 1,2% in my countrysince 2001. You forget to calculate that from the late 90's their wealth growth greatly surpassed the accumilative wealth tax.

edit:
trump and the leftist socialist democrats actually have more in common then I ever thought:
https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html

edit 2:
Also I don't understand the notion it is "punishing the rich". The rich can only become rich, because of the people, government and opportunities the country granted them. I don't think it is strange to give back more and all the while keep the majority of the built wealth.

 

[McLaren]

So Sanders is proposing a wealth tax as well now that's supposed to be bigger than Warren's.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax.html

The problem I'm wondering with this is what good does the tax do if the billionaires up and leave? They're billionaires, they can likely shut down whatever they're doing in the US, and retire in their multiple homes somewhere else. At that point, they likely couldn't care less.

Also I don't understand the notion it is "punishing the rich". The rich can only become rich, because of the people, government and opportunities the country granted them. I don't think it is strange to give back more and all the while keep the majority of the built wealth.

They're not giving, they're being forced. I believe that's the issue Danoff has; it's technically their money & Warren/Sanders believes that money (which may have been taxed as income) then goes right back to the government.

Sanders remains a funny case brought up in another thread. He wants millionaires to give back, but he won't willingly abide by his own plan as a millionaire himself, only if he can make it a law to have others do so with him.

 

[mustafur]

Sanders remains a funny case brought up in another thread. He wants millionaires to give back, but he won't willingly abide by his own plan as a millionaire himself, only if he can make it a law to have others do so with him.

It's a poor argument because what really matters to his agenda is what happens with that money, if the money is just going to go to a military budget and fix nothing why would that logic still apply?

 

[McLaren]

It's a poor argument because what really matters to his agenda is what happens with that money, if the money is just going to go to a military budget and fix nothing why would that logic still apply?

Except you're not told where every cent of your taxes go.

If that's his argument, it's just as poor.

Edit* According to this chart and other sources, only around 18-25% goes into military.

 

[mustafur]

Except you're not told where every cent of your taxes go. For all he knows, his money would be divided up into anything but military.

If that's his argument, it's just as poor.

Because he doesn't know where every cent of his tax goes it's a poor argument?

You really going to have that as a point, what about the things it doesn't go towards like Universal health care and student loan debt things he has proposed.

The argument is flawed and it also is insignificant as a singular identity when nothing will get paid for if your depending one single person.

Sounds like something from Fox news.

 

[McLaren]

Because he doesn't know where every cent of his tax goes it's a poor argument?

If Bernie's against voluntarily giving his own money based on his own proposal because he thinks it's just going to go into military, yes, it is. He doesn't know it's all going into military, and based on different sources of where our taxed money goes, it seems like only 25% at most of it will do so.

You really going to have that as a point, what about the things it doesn't go towards like Universal health care and student loan debt things he has proposed.

Potentially 75% of his income going to anything non-military isn't enough to voluntarily follow his proposal?

The argument is flawed and it also is insignificant as a singular identity when nothing will get paid for if your depending one single person.

Sounds like something from Fox news.

It's out of the old man's mouth. When he proposed it, they asked him why doesn't he do it now. His immediate answer was to ask why someone else doesn't do it & then ask why isn't Trump releasing his, ignoring that it's his proposal, no one else's.

Mr. Sanders occasionally sparred with Mr. Baier and his co-host, Martha MacCallum, and at points was noticeably defensive, pushing back on questions. For instance, while he reiterated that wealthy people and corporations should pay more in taxes, “whether it’s me or you or anybody else,” he did not directly answer when asked whether he would personally be willing to pay a top marginal tax rate of 52 percent, as he proposed for high-income Americans during his 2016 campaign.

Instead, in a tone of frustration if not outright agitation, he tried to turn the question on the moderators, saying Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum surely made more than he did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fox-town-hall.html

But pressed by anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum as to why he was holding onto his wealth rather than refusing deductions or writing a check to the Treasury Department, Sanders began laughing dismissively and, in an apparent non sequitur, asked why MacCallum didn't donate her salary. (“I didn’t suggest a wealth tax," MacCallum responded.)

"Pfft, come on. I paid the taxes that I owe," Sanders shot back. "And by the way, why don't you get Donald Trump up here and ask him how much he pays in taxes? President Trump watches your network a little bit, right? Hey President Trump, my wife and I just released 10 years. Please do the same."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/be...ll-after-emerging-as-apparent-dem-frontrunner
"I paid the taxes I owe". Every tax payer can use that now.

 

[mustafur]

If Bernie's against voluntarily giving his own money based on his own proposal because he thinks it's just going to go into military, yes, it is. He doesn't know it's all going into military, and based on different sources of where our taxed money goes, it seems like only 25% at most of it will do so.

Potentially 75% of his income going to anything non-military isn't enough to voluntarily follow his proposal?

It's out of the old man's mouth. When he proposed it, they asked him why doesn't he do it now. His immediate answer was to ask why someone else doesn't do it & then ask why isn't Trump releasing his, ignoring that it's his proposal, no one else's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fox-town-hall.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/be...ll-after-emerging-as-apparent-dem-frontrunner
"I paid the taxes I owe". Every tax payer can use that now.

Well if you didn't pay the taxes you owe then the IRS would have a word with you.

I'm fairly certain the idea is he is against how the tax system is setup and is looking for it to change, for him to actually pay the way he thinks it should be setup does nothing.

The Military thing was just me highlighting one thing he wasn't happy about(the overinflated Military budget But apart from the Hawks in Washington who really is?), going more into detail over this is a pointless exersize because it misses the point, he wants to change the tax system and bringing up how he should voluntarily pay more when it doesn't fix any issue whatsoever that he is proposing is not only an invalid argument it doesn't do anything.

 

[McLaren]

I'm fairly certain the idea is he is against how the tax system is setup and is looking for it to change, for him to actually pay the way he thinks it should be setup does nothing.

The Military thing was just me highlighting one thing he wasn't happy about(the overinflated Military budget But apart from the Hawks in Washington who really is?), going more into detail over this is a pointless exersize because it misses the point, he wants to change the tax system and bringing up how he should voluntarily pay more when it doesn't fix any issue whatsoever that he is proposing is not only an invalid argument it doesn't do anything.

His tax issue is there's too many rich people not contributing enough to society through their wallet; billionaires shouldn't exist. That's been a repeated point for him on Twitter. His entire tax plan is to make them contribute more to society. But now as one of those people, he's decided he doesn't have to lead by example of his proposal, because he's already "paid what he owed". He doesn't seem to get that all these wealthy people he thinks aren't paying their fair share, can say the same thing. "How come Jeff Bezos doesn't pay his fair share to society!" Because Jeff Bezos probably thinks, "I paid what I owed. Why would I give more if he won't?"

Arguing that he won't voluntarily contribute more because he thinks the tax system is broken remains an easy excuse. His extra money will still, in some percentage, go towards one of those items that benefits the majority of society, again, the very thing he wants the wealthy to do more of. Instead, he just asked others why they don't when questioned & brought up Trump's tax returns off key.

 

[mustafur]

His tax issue is there's too many rich people not contributing enough to society through their wallet; billionaires shouldn't exist. That's been a repeated point for him on Twitter. His entire tax plan is to make them contribute more to society. But now as one of those people, he's decided he doesn't have to lead by example of his proposal, because he's already "paid what he owed". He doesn't seem to get that all these wealthy people he thinks aren't paying their fair share, can say the same thing. "How come Jeff Bezos doesn't pay his fair share to society!" Because Jeff Bezos probably thinks, "I paid what I owed. Why would I give more if he won't?"

Arguing that he won't voluntarily contribute more because he thinks the tax system is broken remains an easy excuse. His extra money will still, in some percentage, go towards one of those items that benefits the majority of society, again, the very thing he wants the wealthy to do more of. Instead, he just asked others why they don't when questioned & brought up Trump's tax returns off key.

That's because you see the Tax issue not the policy issue.

I'll make it simple:

Bernie wants to raise Taxes on X so it can pay for Y.

Why is it pointless and invalid argument to say: "Well why doesn't he pay that rate he says because he is also an X."

Answer = because him doing that doesn't and will never pay for Y unless he gets his policy through.

It's surely not hard to understand.