Election 2020 Dem Donors say “if you choose Warren, we back Trump”.

D

Deleted member

Guest
Link to CNBC article

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party's nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.
Click to expand...

On one hand I detest these people more than the progressives; on the other, it’s quite clear the Democrat leftward tilt could completely destroy them.
 
It really isn't a surprise. Warren has had it out for the banks and wallstreet for decades, and her plans for them aren't just bad for them, they're just bad in general and would likely cause massive economic damage to everyone, not just the bankers and stock brokers.
 
S'task said:
It really isn't a surprise. Warren has had it out for the banks and wallstreet for decades, and her plans for them aren't just bad for them, they're just bad in general and would likely cause massive economic damage to everyone, not just the bankers and stock brokers.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Wall Street with their conduct has had something like this coming for them a long time. They can't expect to conduct shitty behaviour like they did a dozen years ago without a reckoning. If they don't fix their conduct, it'll one day invite someone like Warren to power who will take a sledgehammer at Wall Street. But the sociopaths in charge of said street are too busy squeezing every cent of profit, so they'll look like the Picachu meme when politicians take the sledgehammer at them.
 
Tyzuris Coronati said:
To be fair, Wall Street with their conduct has had something like this coming for them a long time. They can't expect to conduct shitty behaviour like they did a dozen years ago without a reckoning. If they don't fix their conduct, it'll one day invite someone like Warren to power who will take a sledgehammer at Wall Street. But the sociopaths in charge of said street are too busy squeezing every cent of profit, so they'll look like the Picachu meme when politicians take the sledgehammer at them.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not saying they don't have something coming, but Warren's ideas will do harm well beyond the Well Street set. Things like a 2% Wealth Tax, even if limited to some upper percent of the people is just insane and will cause damage to a lot more people than the bankers and wall street types, and would absolutely have negative effects on the middle class too. Does there need to be some sort of reform to the way things are handled? Probably. Are Warren's ideas ones that will work or get the results she claims to want? Absolutely not.
 
S'task said:
Things like a 2% Wealth Tax, even if limited to some upper percent of the people is just insane and will cause damage to a lot more people than the bankers and wall street types
Click to expand...
Actually, if it's limited to those with over a million in "wealth", it'll only be a serious problem for the Wall Street types. Because 20k in straight cash isn't that hard to have extra for the upper-middle-class who have a million in property, because such people generally have well over 100k income. It's a blow to disposable income, but it isn't a blow to holding onto wealth.

At 2% and needing over a million in valued owned property, only the "renteer" class of people who's income is based on making people pay them for shit they have nothing to do with building are getting fucked outright. Real estate moguls, stock holders, you get the idea. Pad it out more to the ten-million threshold, and it'll be genuinely certain that it's damaging to the upper class, but basically harmless to what middle class we have left.
 
Morphic Tide said:
Actually, if it's limited to those with over a million in "wealth", it'll only be a serious problem for the Wall Street types. Because 20k in straight cash isn't that hard to have extra for the upper-middle-class who have a million in property, because such people generally have well over 100k income. It's a blow to disposable income, but it isn't a blow to holding onto wealth.

At 2% and needing over a million in valued owned property, only the "renteer" class of people who's income is based on making people pay them for shit they have nothing to do with building are getting fucked outright. Real estate moguls, stock holders, you get the idea. Pad it out more to the ten-million threshold, and it'll be genuinely certain that it's damaging to the upper class, but basically harmless to what middle class we have left.
Click to expand...
Except you're leaving off an entire class of people in this analysis: small and medium business owners. The ones who actually make a huge amount of the jobs and represent the most real and local economic growth. A person who owns a decently successful restaurant likely has well over a million dollars in "wealth" (assets) to their name, but they're also probably only making a middle class living on said wealth and income, and thus likely CANNOT afford to pay $20k more in taxes per year.

This is doubly true if you happen to be a business owner in a high cost area, where a large amount of your wealth is tied up in real estate and thus is not liquid. I mean, consider this, a middle class home in the DC suburbs can easily go for $300 - $400k. Now assume they own a storefront in a decent location, which is another piece of property in the $300 - >$1 million range depending, but take say, this property in the DC suburb of Manassas which is for sale at $485,000. So for this we'll go with $400k and a house at $300k. That's $700k in "wealth" already, none of it liquid. This is not counting all the goods in the store they own, which are also considered assets and stop and think about just how much money in goods is on the typical convenience store shelves. Yes, the amount they spend on it is less than the amount they charge you for it, but even so, it's still likely hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in yet more... non-liquid assets, but things that still count as wealth. It would be ridiculously easy for a small business in the right location to qualify for this tax, yet the people be unable to pay simply due to real estate costs.

What does this then amount to? Those small businesses, the Mom and Pop shops and stores... they cannot afford to pay the taxes, all their "wealth" is tied up in the business and the money they live on is likely more akin to the standard middle class or, if they are very successful, upper middle class lifestyle of the region. The typically middle class family CANNOT absorb an additional $20k minimum in taxes, and thus they will be forced to close and sell off their business. You know who CAN afford to absorb those taxes? Big corporate chains.

Thus all a wealth tax REALLY does favor big corporations and grant them further power over small local businesses. Like most government market regulation tends to.
 
Morphic Tide said:
Actually, if it's limited to those with over a million in "wealth", it'll only be a serious problem for the Wall Street types. Because 20k in straight cash isn't that hard to have extra for the upper-middle-class who have a million in property, because such people generally have well over 100k income. It's a blow to disposable income, but it isn't a blow to holding onto wealth.

At 2% and needing over a million in valued owned property, only the "renteer" class of people who's income is based on making people pay them for shit they have nothing to do with building are getting fucked outright. Real estate moguls, stock holders, you get the idea. Pad it out more to the ten-million threshold, and it'll be genuinely certain that it's damaging to the upper class, but basically harmless to what middle class we have left.
Click to expand...
No, it would hit something like 40% of the taxpaying population in the US. Not to mention that a wealth tax is straight up theft.

Do you know what low income housing is in the DC suburbs, for example? Anything under $400,000. A million in assets is pretty much every single home owning professional in the US.

A wealth tax is how you get a revolution. At a minimum it is how you guarantee whomever voted for it lasts one election cycle; because anyone who runs on repealing it will guarantee themselves victory.
 
Honestly, I think laws or policies like these only even get passed or considered because the majority of people don’t know economics and finance or look much deeper than what school teaches

Also, sheer emotionalism and going on about “Fat Cats” and saying the ONLY ones being taxed are the extremely wealthy who spend a LOT on luxuries, not knowing they’re going to affect the guys who aren’t as wealthy as their assets and belongings first look to be
 
I don’t approve of wealth taxes, that is the kind of thing that ends up taking the family farm. Going after Wall Street in other ways though, I could support that. One way to help might be to reform the way capital gains are taxes so that we don’t have billionaires (who earned their money in questionable ways at that) taxed at a lower rate than middle class people.

That said, these left wing Wall Street people are the scum of the Earth. Them pulling back from Warren might actually raise my opinion of her, as much as I hate to say it.
 
Warren's wealth tax starts at 50 million dollars. Sanders starts at 32 million. No middle class people will be affected. If your small business "Mom and Pop shop" is worth 32 million dollars, it's not a small business, so this whining about small business owners is nonsense.

Edit: Found an estimate here that the percentage of Americans with a net worth of 50 million or more is about .07%
 
Last edited:
Greengrass said:
Warren's wealth tax starts at 50 million dollars. Sanders starts at 32 million. No middle class people will be affected. If your small business "Mom and Pop shop" is worth 32 million dollars, it's not a small business, so this whining about small business owners is nonsense.

Edit: Found an estimate here that the percentage of Americans with a net worth of 50 million or more is about .07%
Click to expand...
No tax ever remains limited to just the very wealthy. The income tax didn't, nor would this. This is especially true for two reasons, them first is that the tax as presented would not raise anywhere near enough money to warrant it. The second is EXACTLY BECAUSE of the destructive effect it could have on small and medium businesses. Big corps and the wealthy associated with them will quietly support expanding the tax to more and more people because it will effectively hinder upwards economic mobility and reduce the amount of competition the big corps have to deal with. The Big Corps do this kind of thing ALL THE time with government regulations and taxation.
 
S'task said:
Big corps and the wealthy associated with them will quietly support expanding the tax to more and more people because it will effectively hinder upwards economic mobility and reduce the amount of competition the big corps have to deal with. The Big Corps do this kind of thing ALL THE time with government regulations and taxation.
Click to expand...

Huh, Hollywood doesn't show that, if anything I think its depicted in an environment where businesses, especially bigger ones aren't taxed or regulated, they gain monopolies

Don't use much of using taxation and regulation to somehow strangle those they say they want to help in their cribs
 
CarlManvers2019 said:
Huh, Hollywood doesn't show that, if anything I think its depicted in an environment where businesses, especially bigger ones aren't taxed or regulated, they gain monopolies

Don't use much of using taxation and regulation to somehow strangle those they say they want to help in their cribs
Click to expand...
Don't believe Hollywood on anything, they know nothing beyond making things look good.
 
CarlManvers2019 said:
Huh, Hollywood doesn't show that, if anything I think its depicted in an environment where businesses, especially bigger ones aren't taxed or regulated, they gain monopolies

Don't use much of using taxation and regulation to somehow strangle those they say they want to help in their cribs
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you'd expect Hollywood to show that since... it's hardly monopolistic? There's still multiple movie studios directly competing with each other and while there's been a lot of consolidation recently, its not reach a point of monopoly yet. The only real monopoly in Hollywood are the various Unions and Guilds and they HAVE used regulations to ensure there's no competition, I mean, that's fundamentally what laws requiring people to join a union in order to work in a specific job are after all.

Areas this is much more obvious in is places like the banking sector. Look at the number of small and local banks before and after the various major government regulation schemes in the 90s and after the Great Recession. They've effectively disappeared while the Big Banks have carried merrily along. You'll also note that a lot of this Big Banks are doners to the people who (mostly Democrats) wrote those regulations. You also see this process happening in the Health Insurance Industry, smaller insurance companies have been getting choked out after the ACA while the big insurance corps have only gotten bigger. With less competition and less ability to shop around, people's private insurance thereby gets worse.
 
It should probably be noted that wealth taxes also have a tendency to get those people you're trying to tax to just leave the country. Much like the french found to their dismay when most of their intended tax base just left for Belgium.
It was the same story with the French wealth tax, which was imposed in 1982 and repealed in 2017. Over the years, a parade of French businesspeople and celebrities left the country to avoid the tax — many going to Belgium, which is also a high-tax country but has no wealth tax. The government estimated in 2017 that “some 10,000 people with 35 billion euros worth of assets left in the past 15 years” for tax reasons. French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the outflows were much larger.

As the wealthy moved abroad, the government lost revenues from a range of other taxes they would have paid. Pichet calculated that while the wealth tax raised about 3.5 billion euros a year, the government lost 7 billion euros a year from reductions in other taxes.https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-europe-axed-its-wealth-taxes
Click to expand...

There's quite a few articles about people leaving because of the french wealth and other taxes lying around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top