Reframing wealth: I don't know WHY Democrats don't say this

[GaYellowDawg]

Republican term: "Class warfare"

Democratic response: It's been going on for almost 40 years: the rich warring on the middle class and poor. It is time someone fought back for the middle class and the poor!

Republican term: "Wealth redistribution"

Democratic response: It's been going on for almost 40 years, from the middle class to the rich. We are not for wealth redistribution. We are for wealth restoration, from the rich back to the middle class.

Republican term: "Death tax"

Democratic response: That's ridiculous. No one gets taxed for dying. Heirs get taxed for unearned income. If lottery winners have to pay high taxes, why shouldn't people who inherit millions?

And I don't know who said this - I think maybe Molly Ivins - but someone said something to the effect of "Trickle down economics has been going on for 40 years and I haven't even gotten damp."

[Baltimike]

1. You don't hear it because the liberal media has really been the conservative press all along. nt

[watoos]

11. Bazinga

[former9thward]

2. You are wrong on the estate tax.

Yes, if your estate is large enough, you are taxed when you die. The federal government does NOT have an inheritance tax. There are 6 states who tax inheritances.

[DFW]

4. I have mixed feelings on that

We lost my parents' house because when the last of the two passed (now about 20 years ago), none of the three of us could arrange to move to live in it, though we wanted to keep it. But the estate tax we would have owed was more than any of us could afford, not even starting to think of what it would have cost to fix it up and rent it out.

Not owning a business or a farm, I don't know, but would nevertheless hope that some provisions are in the estate tax that protect or exempt ownership of a farm or an established business that employs a certain number of people. I thought of that because here in Germany, I know a guy who passed on a successful business with about 30 employees to his son. German law says that if an inherited business is kept running for five years and enough of the employees are kept, then no taxes will be owed. The business, of course, as well as all of the employees, will pay way more in corporate and personal income taxes over five years than the government would ever collect if the business is liquidated, so this seems like a well thought-out policy.

[SWBTATTReg]

21. Sounds smart (the German tax plan)...sounds like they avoid the hype around elections and ...

just do tax planning smart and to the point, not geared towards one's donors.

[DFW]

22. Just zapping everything without considering consequences is what we usually see.

The German exemption, contingent on the five years continued employment and tax base is pound wise and emotional-voter foolish. Some people think taxing anything in sight is always the right thing to do, no matter what the consequences. The Germans have publicly financed elections, and the parties are not subject to modifying tax codes purely to satisfy the whims of some group of donors. A calculator does not react to feel-good "get 'em!" political whims, and untold thousands of Germans who kept their jobs because of it are no doubt relieved that that is the case. Their tax collectors are happy, too, because they take in more money that way. Germany is currently running a surplus, by the way.

[meow2u3]

10. A better term for the estate tax is the "brat tax"

When someone who dies has a large enough estate, the person who dies isn't taxed, but the heirs. It's a transfer or bequest tax on the "brats" of the decedent.

[shanny]

26. great idea

they framed it as a death tax; we need to turn that around

and lookie here: the brats front and center are the poster children for the problem

[LanternWaste]

29. The Paris Hilton (estate) tax applies to only over 5.5 million.

[MichMan]

3. The revenue tax act of 1913 which was allowed by the 16th amendment...

… was originally authorized to be a 1% tax on the first $20K of income ( $500,000 in 2018 dollars) with the first $3000 ( $76K in 2018 dollars) exempt from taxation. It was sold at the time that only a very small % of the population would ever have to ever pay anything, so there wasn't any pushback as nobody thought it would ever apply to them.

[Hoyt]

5. My biggest issue with focusing on wealth distribution is if we took all the wealth from the upper

1% -- and assuming that paper wealth didn't evaporate when confiscated -- it wouldn't make much difference in the world.

Sure, each person in the world would get roughly $21,000 -- again, assuming that paper wealth didn't evaporate, which it likely would. Don't believe that would change things for most of us appreciably once all the crud hits the fan. That also assumes all economies don't crash and inflation become uncontrollable.

I'm fine with some wealth tax, significant increases on income taxes on higher incomes, etc. It's not going to impact me. In fact, I think it is imperative. But anything else doesn't really make us better.




I'm using 7.5 Billion as world population and figures in this article for wealth amounts: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.html

[SWBTATTReg]

23. I think it's the inequality of taxing income versus unearned income, as well as estates. ...

Let's say you own $1 Billion dollars of Walmart stock. Or it's in a trust fund. You never sell it. To live, you borrow against the stock etc., but never sell it. You might have a tiny amount of dividends (Walmart doesn't pay much in dividends). Like Warren Buffet said, his secretary pays more in taxes percentage wise than he does.

Thus, you never have any short and/or long term appreciation. Thus, no taxes due. You never pay tax on anything other than those on your cars and personal property (if in your name, if not, then zip). And I'm sure I'm touching only the tip of the iceberg in avoiding taxes. Multiply this by 10s and 100s and we all see that a significant portion of the wealth and income in this country is probably untaxed (I don't remember what criteria
that the alternate minimum tax uses anymore in kicking in, been a while since it applied to me).

[Hoyt]

27. Understand. That's why I think some tax should apply. My point is that a wealth tax is not

going to solve all our issues.

For example, and I'm going from memory here, Sanders issued some wealth tax plan a month or so ago. It supposedly would raise $315 Billion over 10 years, so let's say $35 Billion a year. It helps, but our annual Deficit right now is $985 Billion. That $35 B doesn't even make a dent in the annual Deficit, much less the Debt.

If we are going to prove a national finances, and hopefully free up some room for expanding spending on healthcare, education, Social Security, etc., we are going to have to levy additional taxes on everyone but the poorest. I don't hear anyone with the guts to say that. Obama made a modest attempt at discussing the situation, and was blasted by everyone including Democrats.

Our problems are much deeper than wealthy people, although taxing them more will help. For sure, they need to be taxes more, a lot more. But that is not enough.

Appreciate your sensible reply.

[LakeSuperiorView]

28. No solution has to solve ALL issues...

Solving some issues is enough...

[Hoyt]

30. True. But I think it's time for a master plan, rather than a piecemeal approach that

leaves too many unknowns.

[LakeSuperiorView]

31. OK, but that is usually a conservative tactic to prevent anything from happening.

It's part of their trend to have a binary mindset. All or nothing - no middle ground. Black/white - no shades of gray. No partial solutions are worth pursuing, have to have a complete, total solution or it's total shit.

Not saying that's what you are thinking, but from what I have seen, total solutions usually don't exist.

[Hoyt]

32. Piecemealing it is is "total chit" too, if you want to straighten things out and get to doing

something about the things we need to do to improve lives in this country.

So we'll be sitting here 20 years from now with nothing done.

[LakeSuperiorView]

33. If we wait for a total solution, we'll be sitting here forever with nothing done.

Fine to try working on one, but ignoring battles we can win in favor of a total solution is not sane.

[barbtries]

6. may I gank this

to share on fb?

well said

[GaYellowDawg]

12. Absolutely.

Share away.

[kennetha]

7. Democrats don't say this

Because it is stupid losing argument.

Democrats can’t afford to simply be antiwealth, anti entrepreneurship, antisuccess, as if all wealth beyond a certain amount is illegitimately gained and must be seized and returned to its rightful owners. Democrats need to be focused on fairness, evening out the playing field and all that but to attack all wealth per se as ill gained is flat out stupid. Thank god the party is not that dumb.

[GaYellowDawg]

14. Really?

It beats the hell out of your incoherent reply. But I'll address it so that you know what a stupid, losing argument you've actually posed.

Returning wealth to the middle class is not anti-wealth. It creates a strong middle class, which generates a lot more wealth in this country than a weak middle class. That's pro-wealth.

Returning wealth to the middle class is not anti-entrepreneurship. It gives more people more opportunities to start more small businesses. That's pro-entrepreneurship.

Returning wealth to the middle class is not anti-success. It puts more money in the pockets of more people. That evens out the playing field and offers them a greater chance of success.

In 1979, the top 1% owned 33% of all the income from wealth in the United States. As of 2010, that figure was 54%. Focusing on fairness means shifting that back. Evening out the playing field has to involve shifting that back. To defend the current status quo is what is "flat out stupid." Thank god not everyone in the party is as stupid as your post. Perhaps you should think a little before you "arrack" something as "stupid losing argument." It's like Trump criticizing Virginia Democrats as racist.

[kennetha]

17. Now your are desperately back-filling

As anybody who tried your "messaging" would have to do. You start out saying,

"It's been going on for almost 40 years, from the middle class to the rich. We are not for wealth redistribution. We are for wealth restoration, from the rich back to the middle class."

as if you are returning the ill gotten wealth to its "rightful" owners.

And then when it is pointed out how stupid this sounds ... since it makes all wealth sound like it is stolen ... and ignores the role of entrepreneurship and risk taking in generating wealth, you are thrown back onto desperately explaining how you are not "anti-success" how you want to put money in the hands of more people.

That's where you should start. Your initial framing is completely bonkers and a complete loser, about the only way the Republicans can hope to be re-elected.

[GaYellowDawg]

18. Here's your problem.

I’m not “back-filling” at all, nor is there any desperation whatsoever.

Bonkers? Not so much. Wealth has been redistributed upwards. You’d have to be a stone-brain moron of a Fox News viewer to not realize that. And using the government to accomplish that redistribution over the past 40 years absolutely makes it ill-gotten, and warrants reversing it in kind.

No one is claiming that it makes “all wealth sound like it is stolen” except for you. That is quite possibly one of the dumbest straw men I’ve ever seen. I can’t decide whether you’re trolling or whether you’ve got the approximate IQ of a plastic water bottle. It should be painfully obvious to anyone with more than a couple of neurons to rub together that placing higher taxes on exorbitant salaries and on wealth will enable middle class tax cuts and more social programs. History demonstrates that. You also completely ignore the fact that most entrepreneurs are middle class - precisely the people that wealth restoration would benefit.

Framing that as wealth restoration directly counters charges of wealth restoration. It’s not bonkers at all. Sorry, Ayn, it makes sense, even if you’re not quite bright enough to get it.

[mcar]

8. Elizabeth Warren said much of that yesterday

[Blue_true]

9. Two things republicans are good at.

Voter suppression and sticking to one catch phrase (all of them repeat it like parrots, over and over, usually with glazed over eyes).

[bdamomma]

24. Stealing

from the non existent Middle Class. They don't pay their fair share of taxes, and some don't even pay taxes.

A tax on the rich I vote Yes.

[YOHABLO]

13. It's far greater than 'wealth restoration', it's about being controlled by corporate power.

We're being gouged on the price of everything. And we're allowing them to get away with it. The U.S. middle class needs to wake up, and get moving. This is not America. This is Oligarchical Tyranny. The government is not the enemy. The government is the tool by which we make civil change. This is why Republicans hate the law, and they hate Democracy.

[GaYellowDawg]

15. You're right.

But a good catchphrase like "wealth restoration" could help.

[jalan48]

16. This is Bernie's message and it resonates with millions of Americans. It's the corporate media that

tries to convince us that talking about wealth redistribution/class warfare is bad.

[Locrian]

19. Don't even fall into the frame of coming up with a response....

Don't even fall into the frame of coming up with a response.

The rich have created a de facto monarchy.

* Complete with the lack of moral and ethical concern for the general population.
* Hoarding of tons of wealth out of society: the equivalent of a dragon sleeping on a mountain of gold and jewels - for no purpose except to have them.
* With all the pomp, grandiose and self important believe that they are the "best" of society.
* That have zero concept of actually what it takes to earn an honest living.
* With a police force and laws to keep them and their $$ safe.
* Not to mention the establishment of the idiot offspring of old with the completely "un earned" wealth.
* And the fawning supporters that want to be just like them (and who are laughed at by the rich etc).

THAT is the frame. Not "class warfare" or "wealth distribution" or "death tax" - but the fact that we have created a society that is corrupt - morally and ethically - at the point in time (with climate issues, unrest, etc) that we all need to find common ground.


(and please note I'm not talking about the corner business owner. I'm talking the people who think they run (and do) the world)

[sigpooie]

20. Money is food to most of us.

Think of money as food. The kings are hoarding our food, and feeding us less each year. They keep enough of us happy enough to protect them and say fuck the rest. It's time to spread the food out.

[bdamomma]

25. Welcome to DU

I think it is way past the time to spread the food out. It is not the Southern Border immigrants who abide by the law, it's that top 1% who are pillaging and stealing from us and don't follow the laws.

Look at the top tier they are stealing from us.