VakAttack

Who said this person needs it? Super wealthy people don't necessarily need any more money, but they still want it and so they go and get it.

Households worth over $100 million have no income.

How is trying to get taxation commensurate with their actual income punishment?

It's also not a liquid asset, as you yourself acknowledged, which makes it a strawman in this argument.

No. If they were paying the percentage of their income they should be under the tax code, I wouldn't care. They're using things like unrealized gains to hide their income.

It's a problem, to me, that the wealthiest (or one of the wealthiest) people in the world is paying a much lower percentage on their income than I do. That's just my opinion, you may not share it. I'm interested. I do think this is an issue, as I mentioned to Ionel above, but this is far outside my area of expertise as to how to attack it. So I appreciate the idea of what the policy is designed to attack, but I fully admit, I have no idea if it will actually be effective in doing so.

This is, of course, not something that has been shown at all. This appears to be tied to the fact that she didn't list working at McDonald's on her resume for a legal job, and is apparently the complaint of people who have never drafted a resume. Spoiler alert, I've never listed my time working at Winn Dixie, Burger King, Friendly's Ice Cream Shop, or Outback Steakhouse on a resume, either.

Just a continuance of his previously held belief. He's been pretty openly anti-Iowa for years.

Since you didn't quote me, I didn't know you had responded, and given some personal life stuff (birthday into a surgery for my wife), I haven't been checking the threads that diligently so I missed this. Actually, no, your claim is false. That's what started this whole thing. You said he would debate because he always does. I pointed out that he in fact did not do that at all during the GOP nomination process. Then you took the conversation other directions, rather than admitting you were wrong, and now you're trying to parse semantics on the exact phrasing of how he said things when it was pretty clear to most people given the multiple different, conflicting things he said that he had no interest in debating Kamala at the time, probably for the same reason he didn't debate during the nomination; he felt like he had it locked up given the polling at the time. However, I will concede that he never directly said "I will not debate Kamala." Regardless, this all started with a false statement you made, which you haven't admitted to, but is a verifiable fact. He would not "debate, no matter what". It's not "what he does". He does what he sees as politically necessary at any given time.

It's an attempt to go after a very real issue of how the uberwealthy avoid taxation. They allow an asset to grow in value but never sell, and instead take out loans against that value increase. It's a real problem, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this will be an effective attack on that. I don't think the "capital flight" argument is likely to be real, stuff like that is always said when some new tax is imposed but very rarely comes to fruition. I do agree with the first line of attack that there is a certain inertia to these things where it starts at $100 million and the slowly works it's way down, but that's a problem for future policy, not this policy, i.e. when someone tries to shift it downward, it should be attacked. Frankly, none of the arguments made here particularly move me, though I admit I'm not the world's smartest investor guy. A lot of your attacks on the idea seem to be about downstream "I think this could happen in response to this policy" not actual demonstrable direct effects from the policy itself. It's also undeniable that extremely wealthy people are abusing the system in the way that this tax is designed to attack. So how would you propose attacking this method of tax avoidance? Taxing the loans themselves as income?

The reason this is an issue is not the fact that he entered the cemetery.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that T. Boone was donating gobs of cash to the Okie State wrestling team. I was saying that wrestling doesn't have a donor on that level of wealth, anywhere. I know most of his money went to football.

A billionaire sports nut. I don't believe any of the donors in the wrestling world have THAT level of net worth with that level of sports fandom.

At some point, it will calm down, because none of the guys throwing money at the programs are THAT wealthy, I don't think. It's not like a T. Boone Pickens situation. These numbers being thrown around are great for the current athletes that happen to have been in college when this boom happened, but it will taper off.

Nothing on my laptop, but I have a pretty strong pop up blocker. EDIT: Like @BobDole's ghost, I'm an Android user, so I haven't notice an issue in my brief sojourns on here with my phone. I typically access from my computer.