Lining up in the cold rain to hear one of our better known Massachusetts presidential candidates

in bread and soup lines if Warren is president. Let's set some terms. I don't know what "wampum" is, as I use US dollars, but I will assume it is a buzzword that gets big points on sites like Breitbart and WND.

Block feature, Adam

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:34am

how much wampum

I will pay for a feature to block racist dogwhistlers like this one, if you will not ban them. I bet many others will as well.

Here's a client-side blocker

By erik g
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:28am

that I wrote a few years ago when they turned up the wattage on the frayed power cord feeding FISH's frontal lobe in the cryochamber deep beneath the Rand Institute.

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/19385-universal-...

It's pretty low-fi, but if you install TamperMonkey and load this, it makes the comments section here at least tolerable.

That said: Adam, I'm having some trouble figuring out your rationale for letting the trolls have the run of the place. A lot of us have stopped commenting or reading, because the brazen misogyny and racism in the comments makes the whole site feel hostile.

not too mention us "un-verifieds"

By Old Groucho
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:52am

who's comments never even end up appearing and when they do they're lost in a sea of rampant hostile ravings of ignorance and senility.

It's ruining this site, Adam.

Agreed

By CraigInDaVille
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:50pm

As one who used to comment somewhat regularly, I now just completely skip most comments sections because of the old boomer trolls.

Please Don’t

By hundel
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 4:04pm

I have neither patience nor sympathy for those you would likely block when they are at their worst. But this “block them” thing is embarrassing. If someone made threatening statements or created a genuinely hostile environment then I have no doubt Adam would act appropriately. Sealing yourself off in a JavaScript echo-chamber strikes me as a huge and disappointing error in judgment. It’s the last thing we can afford to do if we want to get anything meaningful done. These are challenging times and we’re going to need to get thick skin and plug our nose at times to get through them to a better place. But we will. Now how to stop people from posting about things they know absolutely nothing about is another story. That I can get on board with.

It's not your choice

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:35pm

If people choose not to wallow in toxic filth, that's their choice, not yours. What is your objection to giving them the tools to do so?

Oh, and the "these are challenging times" callout is a load of nonsense. Some of us have been the targets of this toxicity our entire lives. Don't talk to me about a "thick skin" or "plugging our nose at times". You make your choices, allow others to do the same.

Thanks

By Belmont
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 6:35pm

I had used your "killfile" successfully in the past but at some point it must have became incompatible with something or other I was using and stopped working. I will it try out again.

I know when the Disqus commenting software package people finally added a "block" option
it made reading various blogs/websites a much better experience. I had hoped Adam would
add this option on by now but maybe the software package he uses doesn't offer this possibility.

So much complaint energy

By Parkwayne
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:31pm

Maybe you should refocus that on making your own life better?

"Complaint energy"

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:27pm

The pot calls the kettle black?

It's a joke

By Parkwayne
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:35pm

You're the one with the no complaining policy, no?

Um

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:35pm

You're the one with the no complaining policy, no?

What are you talking about?

racist? no.

By Refugee
Sun, 01/05/2020 - 6:21pm

Making native-american jokes about Warren isn't so different from making orange jokes about Trump. Each is a slight about the authenticity of their respective candidates.

The same comment applied to Sharice Davids would be entirely different, but applied to Warren, in the context of wagering money, it's fair game, and not a bad joke.

completely different

By cinnamngrl
Tue, 01/07/2020 - 1:14pm

Trump chooses to be orange. It is funny because despite getting plenty of feedback on what his self tanner looks like, he continues to use it.

Warren is accused of cultural appropriation. She has responded and apologized. It is no excuse for perpetuating negative jokes about native people.

Why do these verified accounts

By Old Groucho
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:59am

continue to get away with posting thinly veiled racist, misogynistic, and just downright pathetically dumb comments time and time again and nothing is ever done about it?

It's just so tiresome, adam.

oh

By berkleealum
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:26am

give it a fuckin rest for christ sake

Maybe not far off

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:39am

Warren's plans would certainly be bad for the stock market. While you may say - HA - then the rich who own most of the stocks will lose money, you would be forgetting the second and third level effects:

a) the wealth effect of a rising stock market is real and powerful - a substantial drop in the market would have a significant effect on the real economy

b) the most responsible of us have retirement accounts that are heavily reliant on stock performance, and not just the rich. You probably need to make at least 5-6% on your investments to make them last through a 30 year retirement with cost of living increases. Drop the market by 15%, with compounding, and you probably cut at least half a decade off of most people's savings.

c) the biggest impact will be on pensions. I'm personally of the opinion that the next long term downturn in the market will be a reckoning for all kinds of pensions. If you saw what happened in Rhode Island where people got about 60 cents on the dollar, count on that happening to state and municipal employees all around the country.

That's the reality of her "plans" - and that's even before we get into the direct impacts of her overambitious taxing and spending plans.

Food lines - maybe not. But it won't be happy times - for rich and poor alike - especially when the rich run out of money to fund all this stuff (great piece in the WSJ a couple weeks ago about the knock-on effects of her wealth tax).

Getting rid of pensions is a corporate scam

By cinnamngrl
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:34am

Municipalities won't be able to use it. Municipal workers pay into their pension. And that pension goes right back into the economy.

When corporations cut pensions, the taxpayer has to take up the slack.

Publicly traded companies should have a higher minimum wage, 85% healthcare and pension vesting in 10 years or less. Companies sell stock to raise capital. A company that doesn't provide enough pay to keep employees the off foodstamps, section 8, ACA and social security then they should not be allowed sell stock. Companies in the stock market are supposed to have real value created by success.

And look at Uber and Lyft. Their offerings were basically pump and dump scemes that are falling apart. They artificially inflated the pay for drivers to agrressively acquire markets to the point of undercutting public transportation prices. Both empires are built on legions of non employees that will go bankrupt paying for leases and car loans they can't afford when the bottom drops out. And then who pays? the taxpayer.

Reality

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:12pm

1) Municipalities invest heavily in the stock market. If there's a crash, it will have a tremendous effect on their ability to pay pensions. Rhode Island made a deal - something like we can give you 100% for another 5-10 years and then zero. Or we can pay you 60 cents on the dollar under the otherwise same terms. well managed places like NY and Mass may be fine. Most other states will be a disaster.

2) Not true - if you save 10% of your gross income, plus social security, a middle income worker should be able to replace 100% of their income in retirement. For higher earners more reliant on savings than Social Security, you probably need to save 15%. Again, implement a wealth tax, crash the market on a long term basis - bump that 10% to 15% and the 15% to over 20%.

3) again, what fantasy land do you live in where these numbers for publicly traded companies work? If you made those rules, most of these companies wouldn't remain public . They'd take themselves private or move overseas to a more friendly environmen and the rest of us would have almost nowhere to invest. (that's a bit of a problem even now - but entirely different discussion)

4) the market is already sorting out Uber and Lyft. They will not only survive, but thrive. Eventually. they are not standing still. They are evolving with the market and legal environment. At least one of them will be fine if not both.

Drinking the corporate koolaid

By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:38am

As long as you stay on the merry go round of circular reasoning, Crony Capitalism will keep pretending they can't afford to pay workers fairly.

Elizabeth Warren is straight forward and predictable. The stock market won't crash. Corporations aren't going anywhere because the rest of the world is even more socialist. The economy will chug along because poor and middle class people spend money instead of hiding it overseas.

How about number 5, where you explain why it is a good idea for the taxpayers to subsidize housing, food, pensions and healthcare for the employees Target, Walmart and other profitable businesses.

The stock market won't crash.

By Refugee
Sun, 01/05/2020 - 6:28pm

The stock market won't crash.

"We've broken the economic cycle!" Famous last words.

The stock market won't crash

By cinnamngrl
Tue, 01/07/2020 - 1:03pm

The stock market won't crash because of a leader as predictable as Warren.

I missed one little part the

By Rob
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 12:59pm

I missed one little part the first time around -
.
"...well managed places like NY..."
.
umm... New York? Well-managed? public pensions??!!!!
.
Did somebody tag NYC or Albany with a Bizarro ray while I wasn't looking?

NY and NYC have plenty of problems

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 2:02pm

But their pensions are well funded and well managed. Kinda comes with the Wall Street territory - a lot of talent that gets fed up with working for the private sector ends up in Albany.

Same goes for Mass and the Financial District.

Well, that is a surprise.

By Rob
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:37pm

Well, that is a surprise.
.
Considering labor contracts like NY has with MTA, where they're at more risk than other states to get gouged because very-generous overtime pay is factored into pension (not just base pay) - I had my doubts.

Heh...

By Old Groucho
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:41am

"the most responsible of us have retirement accounts that are heavily reliant on stock performance"

Outside of Trump U. alums and Larry Kudlow, using heavy stock reliance as a basis for retirement would never be considered being responsible with one's savings.

But you do you, Stevey.

Come on really

By Bobp
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:43am

The stock market is not the economy.
and yes i have a 40k and IRA.
If you are so worried about paying for her plans then i assume the exploding deficit worries you as well . Since that will eventually cripple the economy and stock market.
Worrying about the stock market and the effects of the wealth tax is a scare tactic. BTW it would take an awful long time for the rich to run out of money to pay the extra taxes. Generations in reality.

Actually no

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:39pm

the exploding deficit doesn't worry me, it PETRIFIES me. This can't end well. I never supported Trump's tax cuts without accompanying budget cuts.

this is not a scare tactic. It's math (again - the WSJ article is an excellent piece about the compounding effect of the wealth tax and why every country that has tried it has canned it). the biggest problem (on top of the fact that it may not be constitutional) is the cash flow. Most of these "billionaires" own very illiquid assets. The compounding effect of generating cash to pay for these taxes is enormous and wipes out huge amounts of wealth (an example I use - where does Bob Kraft come up with $50 million a year to pay for the value of the Pats? And since that significantly reduces the value of the asset - how is all that factored into Warren's calculations). This is a disaster in the making.

Not generations - years. Here's the article if you can get past the paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-pay-the-wealth-tax-sell-everything-1...

More nonsense

By Parkwayne
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:21pm

During the Eisenhower era, a period of unprecedented prosperity for blue and white collar workers, taxes were miles above where they are now. I'm sure you'd claim those rates would be unacceptably high.

As for Bobby Rub'n'Tug, the Patriots make an estimated $170M per year in profits so that's where he 'comes up with' $50m.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxborough/new-eng...

Part of the problem with your arguments is that you never seem to bring up that companies like Fedex have gone from paying hundred of millions in taxes to zero but instead focus on how we can't afford stuff. No duh! That's why we need to reform and increase taxation.

so, they should be taxed 100%?

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:51pm

I assumed the pats would be valued at $1 billion and generate about $50 million in taxes. A company making $170 million a year in today's market would be worth 20 times that - or $3.4 billion. A 6% tax on that wipes out the profit - meaning the actual value is zero (even a billionaire's ego wouldn't pay much for a franchise that loses money every year after taxes).

Now let's assume more normal times of a 15x multiple - that values the Pats at $2.5 billion (and here's your first problem with a wealth tax - what multiple do you use on this?). But even there, after taxes the Pats now net only about $50 million. Now the value of that company goes from $2.5 billion to less than $1 billion. So now the tax on that asset is say $25 million or so and the government collects a fraction of what they thought they'd get.

And then what happens if the Pats start sucking and make half as much. Does Kraft get a refund?

Lots of ways to slice and dice this, but the solution is the same - it's a massively stupid idea.

your argument

By berkleealum
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 8:00pm

assumes that the only motivating factor in business is the unfettered accumulation of money and by extension that millionaires and billionaires are inevitable.

in other words: you aren’t debunking arguments for higher taxation, you’re just saying that economic inequality is fine. which, cool that’s your opinion, but i’d argue that a close study of the effects of inequality over the last 40-50 years in the US wouldn’t support your claim.

supply side economics has never worked; this is something republicans in politics understand - hence why they don’t complain about the growing deficit or the increasing government intervention in markets (tariffs, farms, etc.), as long as massive tax cuts continue to siphon money upwards at a historic rate.

What in God's name...

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 8:28pm

...does that have to do with anything that I posted?

You are like Trump. Out of any logical argument you start spouting all kinds of stuff to distract from the point that a wealth tax is a moronic idea espoused by an even more moronic (or genius) politician trying to buy your vote by telling you she'll get you all kinds of free stuff (knowing full well this is an idiotic concept, but it will get her press and votes from people uneducated enough to understand the consequences of a policy like this).

too many big words?

By berkleealum
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 6:20am

now you’re talking about the wealth tax? i was responding to your comments about billionaires who would be dissuaded from participating in the market if faced with higher corporate tax rates.

100% is not "higher" taxes

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 10:39am

It's theft. And just one reason this policy might not even be constitutional.

I can guarantee you that if you buy businesses that pay 100% tax, you will never become a millionaire or a billionaire.

Assuming you are actually a Berklee Alum - you do realize that without rich people we don't have Jordan Hall, Symphony Hall or Berklee in anything resembling its present form. Many of the great masterpieces we enjoy in classical music wouldn't exist either - Mozart would have been too busy harvesting the wheat to write music if rich people weren't paying his salary.

In fact, you might want to google "giving pledge" to see just how much some rich people are willing to give back. Or will you find fault in even that?

You don't help poor people by making rich people poor.

And who said that?

By perruptor
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:12am

Who's talking about 100% taxes? Nobody but Stevil. It popped up in his fantasy about what the awful progressives are saying, so he thinks he can pretend it's something they really are saying. In fact, Warren proposed a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to a stratospheric 3% on wealth over $1 billion. Again, only Stevil is talking about a 100% tax.

In fact, Trump himself floated a similar measure in 1999 as he explored a presidential bid as a prospective Reform Party nominee.

Finance 101

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:54am

If you have an asset (say a business) worth $1 billion and it generates a profit of $60 million and you tax that asset at 6%, that's 100% tax. Her tax is up to 6% now for assets over $1 billion - so assuming you made $1 billion and this is your second billion. This is another problem with this - others have noted that the income tax started out only on the ultra rich. Now it applies to everyone to at least file.

Now to you, that billion dollar asset is worthless as your return is zero. It's worse if you own say a $1 billion in treasury bonds yielding 2% (good luck with that) - now your return is -4% and that's BEFORE you also pay the income tax owed on that (although maybe there is a provision in there somewhere for an offset - that's accounting, not finance)

(Trump is also a moron - just a different kind and you'll note I repeatedly say I will have nothing to do with him, so not sure why you quote a 20 year old proposal from him)

reading comprension 101

By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 7:10pm

You mixed up her wealth tax plan her with corporate tax plan

How the Real Corporate Profits Tax Works

This new tax only applies to companies that report more than $100 million in profits — about the 1200 most profitable firms in the country last year.That first $100 million is left alone, but for every dollar of profit above $100 million, the corporation will pay a 7% tax. Any company profitable enough to hit the Real Corporate Profits Tax will pay that tax in addition to whatever its liability might be under our current corporate tax rules.

That means Amazon would pay $698 million in taxes instead of paying zero. And Occidental Petroleum would pay $280 million in taxes instead of paying zero.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/real-corporate-p...

And now we know the problem

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 7:15pm

you can't google and you can't read:

"That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 6% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion."

From https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

Only an idiot devoid of economic, financial and accounting skills would support something this crazy. And only someone completely lacking in critical thinking skills would be dumb enough not to see through the blatant populism.

You are doubling down on your

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 11:03am

You are doubling down on your mistake.

The wealth tax applies to households. You don't know much about business if you think that business valued at one billion would be privately held as a sole proprietorship. Even under the current system it would be stupid to do that.

I am sure even if you understood the plan, you would disagree, but your 100% tax example shows that you don't understand it.

Do you know anything about how the world works

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 7:47pm

Most rich people are rich because they own businesses and their ownership stake in the business is part of their household net worth. It doesn't have to be a "sole proprietorship". It can be all kinds of different ownership structures. Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg aren't rich because they have lots of "household wealth". Their wealth is their ownership of a piece of Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook. Trump (and many others) are rich because they own companies that own lots of real estate. And so on.

I understand the plan perfectly. It's moronic (and will never happen because only Warren and maybe Sanders are stupid enough to support it).

Do you want to dig any more holes for yourself? You're already way in over your head and I don't care how tall you are.

a little threatened?

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 11:02am

I guess you agree that your 100% tax example doesn't apply since you seem to have forgotten it. Calling the plan moronic doesn't demonstrate an understanding of how a wealth tax works. Did you forget how google works too?

You are Barney Frank's dining room table

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 8:23pm

How do you not get that if you own and investment that make 6% off of an investment's value and you tax it at 6% of that value there is zero left?

do you believe that your

By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 9:49pm

do you believe that your earnings increase your net value, dollar for dollar?

What are you talking about?

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 10:17pm

???

ok then

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 8:40am

your imaginary victim has 1,060,000,000. According to her plan the first 50 million is not subject to wealth tax. the next nine hundred and fifty million is taxed at 2% which= 19 million. the remaining 60 million is taxed at 6% = 3,600,000. So the that wealth tax bill is 22,600,000.

As I said before reading comprehension 101.

No kidding?

By Stevil
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 9:24am

Yes I get that - I'm looking at the impact on investments over $1 billion to keep things simpler.

Granted - that's only a few hundred people - but they do have a phenomenal amount of wealth and such a tax would dramatically change the investment landscape.

And that's before we get into the issue of constitutionality and the literal armies of IRS agents and accountants you'll need to straighten this stuff all out.

You want to fix this - use the estate tax system, not some cockamamie unmanageable wealth tax.

What happened to the 100% tax?

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 9:37am

Unlike you, Warren didn't pull her numbers out of the air. Do you understand math? Is there a scenario where 100% of earnings would be taxed? How would you know, since you can just change the subject and move the line. As usual your comments are unrelated to facts and designed to deceive and inflame.

I told you

By Stevil
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 9:53am

If you are already a billionaire, basically any additional assets you accumulate are worthless or virtually worthless because the tax eats up 100% of any anticipated earnings generated. Why would anyone own an asset that generates a net zero return?

Again Math.

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 10:12am

You really don't know what magical set of circumstances would create a 100% tax on earnings, do you?

Are you that dense

By Stevil
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 10:42am

It's been explained to you five times already.

The progressive mantra:

Give away money, or steal from the rich...because
When shown that doesn't make sense, obfuscate the issue
When shown that they are obfuscating, call the other person a racist
When shown the other person isn't a racist, call them a Nazi

Declare victory while being devoured in the jaws of defeat

You haven't explained anything

By cinnamngrl
Thu, 01/02/2020 - 11:00am

You have lied and cut pasted paragraphs that you obviously did not (or could not) read. To be clear I am not trying to convince you to agree with her plan, I am just pointing out that your comments are meant be dishonest or you don't understand her plan.

Duplicate post

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 7:16pm

Sorry Adam - hasn't happened in a while, seems to be picking up my left click on the save button twice.

duplicate post

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 10:40am

N/T

Aren't they all?

By perruptor
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:09am

I am so very glad

By perruptor
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:27pm

So glad that Elizabeth Warren has an expert's knowledge of the economy and how it works, which is in sharp contrast to your misinformed maunderings.

Elizabeth Warren is a lawyer

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:41pm

And does not understand the first thing about economics, investing and taxes. I read and watch people every day that do understand these things and they laugh at her naive assumptions.

Suuuure you do

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:27pm

If there was any truth to this, you'd have cites.

google is your friend

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:31pm

N/T

Another ridiculous lie

By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:37pm

I read and watch people every day that do understand these things and they laugh at her naive assumptions.

And you think that Google is going to tell me about the "people" that you claim to "read and watch every day" who "do understand these things", laughing at Elizabeth Warren.

Are you sure you've used these computer things before?

Remedial google for you

By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:49pm

Try WSJ Warren Wealth Tax

Or CNBC Warren Wealth Tax

There's a wealth of info out there and there is no tax.

Happy New Year. see you in 2020.

Is there a reason why you

By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:41am

Is there a reason why you never link?

Here

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 11:56am

www.google.com

If he linked

By anon
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 1:38pm

We might also find all the OTHER economists - like most of them - who say the WSJ is a bunch of whining garbage.

(sips from Billionaire Tears mug)

Then try some other sources

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 6:15pm

NPR, NY Times, WaPo - any decent analysis comes back with the same thing.

There's a reason everyone that has tried it has dropped it.

Here's the Schoolhouse Rock Version for You

By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 9:19pm

And Robert Reich absolutely knows what he is talking about.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZVleu_L1E[/youtube]

That's lovely

By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 10:29pm

Very little to do with what Warren is proposing and nothing to analyze the ramifications.

Literally every article I've read on this (and that's a lot of articles) says that when the rubber meets the road, a wealth tax is a disaster - and indeed fails pretty much everywhere they try it.

And for the record, I'm a big fan of a much stricter estate tax (doing this once, after someone is dead is a very different animal).That's a "wealth tax" that can work (and recover some of what the government is due after Trumpy irresponsibly slashed taxes).

Warren's proposal is simply another of her attempts to buy the election without taking donations from rich people. Sounds a lot better to the masses when you say you are going to confiscate their assets instead of accept their contributions. And hey - October is a lovely time for a socialist uprising - right before the elections and all!

Lining up in the cold rain to hear one of our better known Massachusetts presidential candidates

Comments

Pages

Support Universal Hub