sugar_in_your_tea comments on In the end, The Hill lied and Harris was right.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

An unrealized gains tax would never make it out of committee, much less actually passing either house of Congress. She took absolutely zero risk w/ that one because everyone knows it's not feasible.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If we vote for the Tax The Rich candidates then the Rich will get taxed.

Instead the anti-tax rich candidate won.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

When has that ever actually happened? Like anything else, there will be exceptions upon exceptions because the rich have the money and influence to successfully lobby Congress.

And the rich already pay the most in taxes, and the richest get loopholes:

The top 1% of earners pay 45.8% of income taxes.

If you think the top 1% are going to pay even more in taxes without a massive concession, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Harris couldn't pass that even if she actually, truly cared, and I fervently believe she's just pandering to the left for votes. I don't think she actually believes in most of the policies that made headlines, I think she just wanted to be Biden 2.0. She said as much in interviews, and it's why she lost: she couldn't convince her base that she's actually different.

If you wanted actual, meaningful change from the left, Bernie Sanders was your best bet. I don't even think he was that good of a candidate, but he actually seemed to believe in what he promised.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The tax laws that the GOP wrote in 2016/2017 expire this session and now they're back in power to write the new ones.

Republicans have been the party cutting taxes for 50 years.

In 2023 they proposed tax raises across the board in order to have a chance of passing the senate with their 50 seat majority (with caucus) against the 49 Republicans, while they simultaneously expanded benefits like medicaid expansion so as to redistribute wealth to those who need it to survive.

GOP is the enemy. Remove the GOP, first and foremost.

EDIT: And also the Democrats removed money from politics from 2003 to 2010 until Conservative SCOTUS nominations struck it down with the "Citizens United Decision", which every democrat has campaigned against since.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

GOP is the enemy

No, the enemy is the two-party system. The GOP is merely a symptom of that larger problem. The GOP proposing terrible bills doesn't imply that Dem bills are "good," they're both generally quite terrible since most representatives don't really need to worry about their seat since their district is likely uncontested, so they're more beholden to special interests than their constituents.

Fix the electoral system and maybe I'll entertain a discussion about the GOP being "evil."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You think taxing the rich is bad?!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm saying:

we already tax the rich much more than everyone else
the rich have more influence than lay people in Congress
Harris seemed to be grasping at straws to find things to say to build hype (also tried "price gouging")

In short, I don't believe her, especially when she said she wouldn't have changed anything about Biden's term. She's very much a "business as usual" candidate, and people wanted change.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

The Tax Brackets max out at 37% for people who make 731,201 as married filing jointly. That's not the highest in the world, and the effective corporate tax rates are about 20% to 25%.

If you want the rich to not be able to buy campaigns, the Democrats literally solved that problem from 2003 to 2010 until Conservative SCOTUS picks struck down the law with the Citizens United decision.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

That’s not the highest in the world

I never claimed it was, I merely claimed that it's substantially higher than the average person pays, which is <10% (after standard deduction and whatnot). The rich pay something like 30% after handling tax brackets and whatnot, so >3x more as a percentage of income.

If you try to increase that substantially, they'll push hard to stop it in Congress. Do you really want to spend what little political capital you have trying to eek out a bit more from them? Or would you rather spend that on something else?

Citizens United

PACs were absolutely a thing before the Citizens United case, Citizens United just made them more powerful. So even if the decision weren't made, there would still be special interests.

I disagree with the Citizens United decision, but I really don't think it's relevant here. Even if corporations were completely banned from making contributions, they'd still have a ton of power. It turns out politicians generally want to please people who can bring jobs to their area, have a captive audience (shareholders and employees), and bring in tax revenue.

Harris claimed to want to tax unrealized gains, which currently isn't legal and would be a huge uphill battle to get passed. If she was truly passionate about it, she'd have an actionable plan, but instead, she just seems to say it to get people to listen. The idea has no path to passing and she knows it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent