Author Topic: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?  (Read 4644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #60 on: August 27, 2019, 11:43:15 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21160
  • Tommy Points: 9133
So far it has had minimal impact as he is a lesser player.

Quote
Walsh and Sanford are just opportunists who will use this to earn a buck. Walsh is probably more racist than Trump, and Sanford might be in the same realm as Trump in terms of sleaze.

Yep, they have zero chance, the same is true of Kasich, who build up a nice rainy day fund in Ohio by doing nothing to the roads and passing the buck.

You know we’re in agreement right?  I suspect we all know that no one (including Kasich or Romney) is likely to best Trump for the nomination.  It’s possible that a coalition forms of independents and Never-Trump republicans to beat him, but that is an extremely unlikely scenario.  What I believe is possible though is that Trump can be damaged by a strong opponent.  Actually, I think a guy like Ben Sasse could do a great job.  Sasse is very bright, informed, and articulate and could make Trump look foolish.

I am not enamored of any of the top 3 Dems.  Of course I’ll vote for any of them over Trump. I’m really hoping for a surprise surge from Bullock (zero % chance...).   That said, Elizabeth Warren is by far running the best campaign IMO.  She is too liberal to not bring serious backlash and disapproval causing the hold your nose and vote for Trump people to turn out.   But her steadiness of message and her relentless work have impressed me.  She’s far far down on my list though.
I have always found it interesting that people find far left politicians unelectable but far right politicians as acceptable. If Warren gets the nod as the candidate, there will actually be people in the middle that prefer a racist, xenophobe, mysogynist, narcissist, compulsive liar, autocrat Trump with a possible slipping mental accuity over a genuinely intelligent, good person that happens to have very liberal leanings. I just do not get that.
Me either.  I asked why people were so against Warren in a separate thread and never did get a satisfactory explanation.

she's smart and has ideas to move the country forward.  her track record fighting the financial institutions that have lived off screwing over the little guy should be enough by itself to gain her traction with most people.  The Consumer Protection Bureau exists thanks to her efforts. 

of course, if Moscow Mitch is still running the Senate after the 2020 elections, I doubt much of her agenda, if any, would get passed by the Senate.  Certainly none of the items scaring those proclaiming Trump is a better option.  even if the Dems take the Senate, I think what Dems focus on accomplishing is getting basic Dem agenda items passed before moving on to more extreme items on the platform.

I haven't see that thread but would LOVE to see the replies. This is where the Right has a lock step strategy in branding and it starts with the bully - Trump. He labels and it sticks. Anyone OTHER than Joe Biden is a seen as a Socialist even if they aren't. Its a strategy that works and it is repeated ad naseaum in Right wing circles.

Its almost like its 2016 again where you will have Trump vs possibly Warren and the arguments will be - her heritage, her possibly being a socialist, and outward features vs. a known liar and a possible felon once out of jail - amongst other more despicable traits. I don't understand it either.

to Slam: can you post a link to the Warren thread?

I'll see if I can dig it up.  it should be in the current events folder but it's been awhile since it's been updated

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2019, 06:16:03 AM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
Quote
I asked why people were so against Warren in a separate thread and never did get a satisfactory explanation.

I do not like Warren because she lied to get ahead in college and deprived someone truly worthy of that scholarship.   She continued to play this up for her advantage.    Of the following won't be satisfactory to you because you already have formed opinions and will dismiss the below because it is outside the bubble of comfort.

I do not think she will be a good commander in chief because we have not had a tough progressive since Teddy Roosevelt.  Pres. Obama did get Bin Laden but also let Isis grow and created an environs in Africa and Libya where Isis will rise again.   I also wonder how all these socialist policies will play out here because in a lot of places in the world they are failing.  All these plans are great but unless they win both houses they are going nowhere.
She is certainly smart but I don't see her as tough.   I think Pres. Trump is a dicey Commander in Chief and I think Warren and Bernie elements of the democratic party would be just as dicey in the opposite direction.   Experience also used to important for the presidency, people seem to forget most of her experience is taking on companies and isn't she only a first time senator?

Is it just me or do these female candidates sound shrill, when on the debate stage?   I hate that tone.  I have had female bosses that were great leaders but they did not have this tone.

Quote
I have always found it interesting that people find far left politicians unelectable but far right politicians as acceptable

I am sure that we have different views of the far right and far left as I am from the Midwest.   Kasich and even Pres. Trump are not truly far right.  Republicans are not very conservative right now.  I don't see conservatism as a bad thing either.   But many of us don't have a party to represent us these days.   The far left and far right is nauseating to me.

Quote
If Warren gets the nod as the candidate, there will actually be people in the middle that prefer a racist, xenophobe, mysogynist, narcissist, compulsive liar, autocrat Trump with a possible slipping mental accuity over a genuinely intelligent, good person that happens to have very liberal leanings. I just do not get that.

Warren is a liar as well on the heritage, so I don't get your support for her.  To me this does not make her a good person and trustworthy as she lied to get ahead and she has the acumen to know exactly to know what she was doing.   Is she as bad as Pres. Trump, nope, but she is not the angel you paint her to be.

I would vote for a third party if she and president Trump were the options.   I realize Pres. Trump and I do not share your existential angst that he is in office.    I trust our system to work and it has so far, to shelter us from extremes.   I know many do not like him because he lies and that is bad.   However, all politicians are liars as I have illustrated in Warren's case.   

Also, a lot of these Dems place race politics and have policies which have not worked well to advance people.  They talk a good game but what are the results?   Nothing.   I don't care for that as well and find that just as bad as someone who won't condemn racists because they have worked hard to institutionalize poverty and foster dependency.   All these nice things like Student Loan Forgiveness, free this or that is nothing more than a bribe to get your vote.    Pres. Trump is indefensible, I won't even try but I can hopefully poke some holes in your bubble so you realize that most all politicians are dirty and both political parties care more about themselves than America.

I am an independent and have voted democrat many times.   But this modern democratic party is not my cup of tea.   Less about the middle class, and more about making people dependent on government and the dole.  Of course, I imagine many people like that idea because people are lazy more often than not.  They also seem more concerned with non citizens than us already here.   Free health care for folks when the people here do not have already have it.

But to make this clear the only people that care about Scaramucci are liberals because they hope this will damage Pres. Trump.  He is not going to sway many on the right because he is a joke and truth be told should never have been in the Oval Office in any capacity.   The real stuff people ought to be talking about right now is McCabe and Comey who have been exposed this week.   But the news cycle did not cover it because it does not fit the narrative or their agenda and undermines the Steele dossier which they embraced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-inspector-general-provides-report-to-congress-on-andrew-mccabe/2018/04/13/ce367c4c-3f36-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 06:45:27 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #62 on: August 28, 2019, 10:37:01 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21160
  • Tommy Points: 9133
Quote
I asked why people were so against Warren in a separate thread and never did get a satisfactory explanation.

I do not like Warren because she lied to get ahead in college and deprived someone truly worthy of that scholarship.   She continued to play this up for her advantage.    Of the following won't be satisfactory to you because you already have formed opinions and will dismiss the below because it is outside the bubble of comfort.

I do not think she will be a good commander in chief because we have not had a tough progressive since Teddy Roosevelt.  Pres. Obama did get Bin Laden but also let Isis grow and created an environs in Africa and Libya where Isis will rise again.   I also wonder how all these socialist policies will play out here because in a lot of places in the world they are failing.  All these plans are great but unless they win both houses they are going nowhere.
She is certainly smart but I don't see her as tough.   I think Pres. Trump is a dicey Commander in Chief and I think Warren and Bernie elements of the democratic party would be just as dicey in the opposite direction.   Experience also used to important for the presidency, people seem to forget most of her experience is taking on companies and isn't she only a first time senator?

Is it just me or do these female candidates sound shrill, when on the debate stage?   I hate that tone.  I have had female bosses that were great leaders but they did not have this tone.

Quote
I have always found it interesting that people find far left politicians unelectable but far right politicians as acceptable

I am sure that we have different views of the far right and far left as I am from the Midwest.   Kasich and even Pres. Trump are not truly far right.  Republicans are not very conservative right now.  I don't see conservatism as a bad thing either.   But many of us don't have a party to represent us these days.   The far left and far right is nauseating to me.

Quote
If Warren gets the nod as the candidate, there will actually be people in the middle that prefer a racist, xenophobe, mysogynist, narcissist, compulsive liar, autocrat Trump with a possible slipping mental accuity over a genuinely intelligent, good person that happens to have very liberal leanings. I just do not get that.

Warren is a liar as well on the heritage, so I don't get your support for her.  To me this does not make her a good person and trustworthy as she lied to get ahead and she has the acumen to know exactly to know what she was doing.   Is she as bad as Pres. Trump, nope, but she is not the angel you paint her to be.

I would vote for a third party if she and president Trump were the options.   I realize Pres. Trump and I do not share your existential angst that he is in office.    I trust our system to work and it has so far, to shelter us from extremes.   I know many do not like him because he lies and that is bad.   However, all politicians are liars as I have illustrated in Warren's case.   

Also, a lot of these Dems place race politics and have policies which have not worked well to advance people.  They talk a good game but what are the results?   Nothing.   I don't care for that as well and find that just as bad as someone who won't condemn racists because they have worked hard to institutionalize poverty and foster dependency.   All these nice things like Student Loan Forgiveness, free this or that is nothing more than a bribe to get your vote.    Pres. Trump is indefensible, I won't even try but I can hopefully poke some holes in your bubble so you realize that most all politicians are dirty and both political parties care more about themselves than America.

I am an independent and have voted democrat many times.   But this modern democratic party is not my cup of tea.   Less about the middle class, and more about making people dependent on government and the dole.  Of course, I imagine many people like that idea because people are lazy more often than not.  They also seem more concerned with non citizens than us already here.   Free health care for folks when the people here do not have already have it.

But to make this clear the only people that care about Scaramucci are liberals because they hope this will damage Pres. Trump.  He is not going to sway many on the right because he is a joke and truth be told should never have been in the Oval Office in any capacity.   The real stuff people ought to be talking about right now is McCabe and Comey who have been exposed this week.   But the news cycle did not cover it because it does not fit the narrative or their agenda and undermines the Steele dossier which they embraced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-inspector-general-provides-report-to-congress-on-andrew-mccabe/2018/04/13/ce367c4c-3f36-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
so.... bottom line, you just don't like her because:
- she wasn't truthful about her heritage to get an advantage in college
- you perceive her as 'shrill'
- you don't see her as experienced enough
- you dislike her stance on policies including lumping her in with the most extreme positions in the Dem party.

my take on that:
- what she did to get ahead was wrong.  I'm 1/8th Native American and can trace back to a great grandparent who was full-blooded Native American and I've never considered myself someone who should be checking off that box on questionnaires.  In comparison to Trump, she's nowhere near as egregious as he is in terms of lies and dishonesty.  It's his whole business model.  No one sees politicians as saints but her track record fighting for 'the little guy' is pretty solid in Congress.  Trump's record of screwing the little guy is pretty well documented in his business dealings. 
- Shrill?  I don't even know where to go with that since you pretty much labelled all female politicians as shrill.  it's not based on anything but your personal opinion since it has nothing to do with her qualifications. 
- Experience.  Fair enough point on this.  She's in her second term by the way.  More experience than Obama and much more than Trump had when elected.  if you've got issues with a POTUS candidate not having enough experience for the job, Trump's got to be your worst option with no govt experience at all and his incompetence in understanding the law and navigating the govt process.   I would agree with you in that I prefer a candidate who's been involved in govt at least as a governor or in congress for a few terms (a couple of full terms as Senator or 4-6 as a Representative) with some lower level govt experience.  I've always considered H.W. to be the best qualified person to have served as POTUS since I've been old enough to have a basic understanding of what was going on around me in the country.  Obama's inexperience showed in foreign affairs but Trump's been far worse IMO.  I can't see any candidate (Dem or Rep -- including Pence) who wouldn't be better than Trump in this arena. 
- Policies - yeah, I'm not on board with the extremes being proposed by Dems in terms of free college or college debt forgiveness nor free healthcare/social benefits for illegal immigrants.  Healthcare for all should be what this country should be moving towards and it will get there.  May not be Medicare for all but relying on employer-based payment of coverage isn't getting it done.  Not a fan of making people buy private insurance but it's what Dems could get through Congress at the time.  Need to get everyone covered in some manner and the Rep party has offered nothing as even a counter-proposal.

if it came down to Warren vs Trump, I don't see how Trump can be a reasonable option given his track record in office.  he's got to go.  It's not a Dem vs Rep thing -- it's a Trump thing. 

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #63 on: August 28, 2019, 05:45:37 PM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.

The liberal press has discarded Tulsi Gabbard  whom I liked a lot in the first debate and most polls stated she won   They want Warren and the seeding of the first debate of Warren with the lesser polling folks to set her up was a try to set her up to win as I see it.   Gabbard won that debate, so that ought to worry you some.   Warren did well in the second debate and seems to have taken over the Bernie element of the party and college educated folks like her with all her solutions and plans.   But like I said those plans go nowhere unless the Dems take both houses which is possible but will they have the courage to enact them, I doubt it.   They had both houses in Pres. Obama tenure as president at one point and lacked the moral courage to make big changes just as the GOP did early in Pres. Trump when they could have enacted big time change.

This ought to tell people of both sides of the aisle that folks are more interested in the Status Quo than real political change and both parties play us.   I don't expect much change even if she wins,  because our problems are systematic and Congress People are more worried about staying in Congress than fixing things.

I will support Warren if she is elected but I still do not know if I could vote for her at present but my mind can change with a good speech or some evidence of leadership she has not explained thus far.   I always try to give the president the benefits of the doubt and respect of the office.  This NOT MY PRESIDENT CRAP is for the birds, whomever wins the  election is my president at least for a while....

I think if Pres. Trump thinks he will lose, he will drop out and it will be Pence.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 07:08:26 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #64 on: August 29, 2019, 11:28:49 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4063
  • Tommy Points: 689
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #65 on: August 29, 2019, 11:32:35 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25287
  • Tommy Points: 1163
  • What a Pub Should Be
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

I don't necessarily find it to be a bad idea.  Do they have any projection of how much additional tax revenue it would bring in?


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #66 on: August 29, 2019, 12:03:13 PM »

Offline BringToughnessBack

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4515
  • Tommy Points: 516
Well, if it appears that Warren will win, I wonder how many of the ultra rich will leave the country prior to the election? She wants to put a 40% exit tax on the ultra wealthy as well if they want to leave to avoid paying her tax. This sounds a bit unconstitutional in my opinion. You are going to threaten someone who wants to leave the country to live elsewhere with a 40% flat tax on their wealth that was earned prior to her new ultra rich tax law? Wow...I am not one of the ultra rich but this does not sit well with me on many levels. 40% seems a bit extreme for someone who chooses not to be a citizen any longer.

Some details I dug about this tax beyond the exit penalty.

University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

She wants a huge chunk of this tax to wipe out student debt for 95% of all students and give universal child care for all. 100 Billion to combat opioid crisis( I like that as more needs to be done to fight this epidemic),Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges, “Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a few others things.

I was trying to find what she wanted to do with taxes for the non ultra rich? Does anyone have information on that?

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #67 on: August 29, 2019, 12:28:26 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Well, if it appears that Warren will win, I wonder how many of the ultra rich will leave the country prior to the election? She wants to put a 40% exit tax on the ultra wealthy as well if they want to leave to avoid paying her tax. This sounds a bit unconstitutional in my opinion. You are going to threaten someone who wants to leave the country to live elsewhere with a 40% flat tax on their wealth that was earned prior to her new ultra rich tax law? Wow...I am not one of the ultra rich but this does not sit well with me on many levels. 40% seems a bit extreme for someone who chooses not to be a citizen any longer.

Some details I dug about this tax beyond the exit penalty.

University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

She wants a huge chunk of this tax to wipe out student debt for 95% of all students and give universal child care for all. 100 Billion to combat opioid crisis( I like that as more needs to be done to fight this epidemic),Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges, “Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a few others things.

I was trying to find what she wanted to do with taxes for the non ultra rich? Does anyone have information on that?
Come on...Pelosi would never put up a bill with that type of punitive tax. Warren as President would be tempered in her very liberal ways by a much more centrist Pelosi who would need to approve of that agenda for it to even make the House floor for a vote.

Just because a presidential candidate promises things and has agendas doesn't mean Congress will push it through. Even Trump when he had both Houses couldn't get Wall funding through. He had to declare a national emergency and do a massive run around Congress to try to get it done. Obama with both houses barely got a watered down version of Obamacare through.

Just because Warren was President doesn't mean the much more centrist major majority of Democrats in Congress will vote her very left agenda through. She would need to be more pragmatic to get stuff through.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #68 on: August 29, 2019, 12:34:25 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4063
  • Tommy Points: 689
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

I don't necessarily find it to be a bad idea.  Do they have any projection of how much additional tax revenue it would bring in?

In principle, it is a very valid idea.   The vast majority of middle-income Americans already pay a signficant wealth tax because most have a significant percentage of their wealth tied up in their home -- and thus pay somewhere between 3-8% property tax on it.   For the uber wealthy, the majority of their wealth is held in shares, commodities and financial instruments, which are not subject to a 'property' tax.

So it is a reasonable, progressive concept.   

The optimistic estimate -- by Cal Berkley economists Zucman and Saez -- is that this tax would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

My suspicion is that that is probably optimistic.  Some more pessimistic economists, including former Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers (Harvard) point out that this tax would likely be subject to similar avoidance gaming that is used by the wealthy to get around existing estate taxes and estimates that the tax would raise closer to about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Obviously, small tweaks in the numbers (the tax rates and thresholds) as well as in how well supported the IRS is empowered for oversight and enforcement can result in huge swings in the end numbers.

As it is right now, the IRS has been systematically gutted of much of it's ability to enforce existing tax law by this administration.   
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2019, 02:50:33 PM »

Offline bellerephon

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 561
  • Tommy Points: 42
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

I don't necessarily find it to be a bad idea.  Do they have any projection of how much additional tax revenue it would bring in?

In principle, it is a very valid idea.   The vast majority of middle-income Americans already pay a signficant wealth tax because most have a significant percentage of their wealth tied up in their home -- and thus pay somewhere between 3-8% property tax on it.   For the uber wealthy, the majority of their wealth is held in shares, commodities and financial instruments, which are not subject to a 'property' tax.

So it is a reasonable, progressive concept.   

The optimistic estimate -- by Cal Berkley economists Zucman and Saez -- is that this tax would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

My suspicion is that that is probably optimistic.  Some more pessimistic economists, including former Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers (Harvard) point out that this tax would likely be subject to similar avoidance gaming that is used by the wealthy to get around existing estate taxes and estimates that the tax would raise closer to about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Obviously, small tweaks in the numbers (the tax rates and thresholds) as well as in how well supported the IRS is empowered for oversight and enforcement can result in huge swings in the end numbers.

As it is right now, the IRS has been systematically gutted of much of it's ability to enforce existing tax law by this administration.
There is another significant factor to consider. It will certainly be argued that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment was needed to authorize the federal income tax as the supreme court ruled an earlier federal income tax was unconstitutional.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #70 on: August 29, 2019, 03:08:50 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4562
  • Tommy Points: 382
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

The problem with this is how do you determine someone's wealth.  There will be a cottage industry for hiding wealth in trust funds and whatever.  It will be impossible to nail down someone's full accurate wealth.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #71 on: August 29, 2019, 04:02:28 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25287
  • Tommy Points: 1163
  • What a Pub Should Be
She is smart and she has plans but how will she pay for them.


Her intention is to implement a "wealth tax".  This would impose a 2% tax on all net worth assets above $50 Million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

The problem with this is how do you determine someone's wealth.  There will be a cottage industry for hiding wealth in trust funds and whatever.  It will be impossible to nail down someone's full accurate wealth.

It would definitely be headed to a constitutional fight.  I can actually see both sides of the argument too.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #72 on: August 29, 2019, 05:23:10 PM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
I am aware of the wealth tax but they will have to win both houses and then have the moral courage to pass a tax on themselves which makes it unlikely. 

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #73 on: August 29, 2019, 06:43:35 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4063
  • Tommy Points: 689
Well, if it appears that Warren will win, I wonder how many of the ultra rich will leave the country prior to the election? She wants to put a 40% exit tax on the ultra wealthy as well if they want to leave to avoid paying her tax. This sounds a bit unconstitutional in my opinion. You are going to threaten someone who wants to leave the country to live elsewhere with a 40% flat tax on their wealth that was earned prior to her new ultra rich tax law? Wow...I am not one of the ultra rich but this does not sit well with me on many levels. 40% seems a bit extreme for someone who chooses not to be a citizen any longer.


The gov already has the power to apply tariffs and restrictions on the movement of wealth across the border and the ability to regulate all manner of transactions that cross state borders (which by definition includes the international border).  While U.S. citizens currently are allowed to move $$ casually across borders via bank-to-bank transactions without much care by the U.S. government that's not necessarily a given.  That's not at all the case for most other nations.  Many apply exchange controls and fees for money that moves across borders.  I expect that the Fed reserves similar powers.

Whether it is a good idea or ever would pass the Senate is very much debatable (I'm dubious it would), but I don't think it would really fail a constitutionality test.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Scaramucci Breaks from Trump: First Domino?
« Reply #74 on: August 29, 2019, 06:54:41 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Well, if it appears that Warren will win, I wonder how many of the ultra rich will leave the country prior to the election? She wants to put a 40% exit tax on the ultra wealthy as well if they want to leave to avoid paying her tax. This sounds a bit unconstitutional in my opinion. You are going to threaten someone who wants to leave the country to live elsewhere with a 40% flat tax on their wealth that was earned prior to her new ultra rich tax law? Wow...I am not one of the ultra rich but this does not sit well with me on many levels. 40% seems a bit extreme for someone who chooses not to be a citizen any longer.


The gov already has the power to apply tariffs and restrictions on the movement of wealth across the border and the ability to regulate all manner of transactions that cross state borders (which by definition includes the international border).  While U.S. citizens currently are allowed to move $$ casually across borders via bank-to-bank transactions without much care by the U.S. government that's not necessarily a given.  That's not at all the case for most other nations.  Many apply exchange controls and fees for money that moves across borders.  I expect that the Fed reserves similar powers.

Whether it is a good idea or ever would pass the Senate is very much debatable (I'm dubious it would), but I don't think it would really fail a constitutionality test.

There’s a Constitutionally-protected right to travel, both within and outside of the US. There are limits on this, but I doubt this tax would pass muster.

Quote
he right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required