Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
more vlyons Jan 2019 #1
MORE. n/t Brainstormy Jan 2019 #2
Her Wealth Tax swings me over. safeinOhio Jan 2019 #3
More...If it makes her less electable then we are well and truly fucked anyway BeyondGeography Jan 2019 #4
It all depends on how it is packaged and sold. nycbos Jan 2019 #5
I always thought we should ask for safeinOhio Jan 2019 #11
And, she can't back down from it Cosmocat Jan 2019 #18
As long as she can defend it in clear and unequivocal terms, I say more... doompatrol39 Jan 2019 #6
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than poorest half of US exboyfil Jan 2019 #14
Wealthy right wing billionaires will try to destroy her over it DBoon Jan 2019 #7
More, for me... Wounded Bear Jan 2019 #8
Who would it apply to ? rickford66 Jan 2019 #9
Really good question about the practicality exboyfil Jan 2019 #13
It only applies to households with a net worth above $50 million and the tax is on Autumn Jan 2019 #15
Read this article. It addresses many of these questions. rgbecker Jan 2019 #16
it won't apply to anyone, because it's unconstitutional. unblock Jan 2019 #19
Where was it ruled unconstitutional? kcr Jan 2019 #24
not sure it's ever been tried, so i don't know if there's any precedent. unblock Jan 2019 #32
I wonder if Elizabeth Warren knows any Constitutional scholars she could consult. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2019 #35
i'm sure she could think of one or two unblock Jan 2019 #37
How does Article one figure in here? Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2019 #38
my understanding is that generally federal taxes have to be per capita unblock Jan 2019 #39
Didn't they just change tax exemptions and rates without a constitutional amendment? Autumn Jan 2019 #29
the *income* tax is constitutional, thanks to the 16th amendment. unblock Jan 2019 #31
Your contention is refuted PDittie Jan 2019 #42
it's not "refuted". unblock Jan 2019 #44
Well, absent the PDittie Jan 2019 #45
wow, that was a pointlessly obnoxious post. unblock Jan 2019 #56
I think it is an idea that should have been discussed exboyfil Jan 2019 #10
More. I was kind of indifferent to her before but I think it's a great idea. Luciferous Jan 2019 #12
More. I think people have wanted this for a long time but too many dems SweetieD Jan 2019 #17
Also, even as a negotiation tactic....more of this please..... doompatrol39 Jan 2019 #20
Most of you are too focused on what YOU like! How are the folks that elected Trump likely to vote? Towlie Jan 2019 #21
So we should test market our ideas with the very rich first? BeyondGeography Jan 2019 #22
Neither. Policies don't really sway voters (nt) Recursion Jan 2019 #23
Sadly this is true. EllieBC Jan 2019 #28
I think it helps her. The gullible public is finally moving on from the "Job Creators" fantasy jalan48 Jan 2019 #25
More! lark Jan 2019 #26
It all depends on how the message is crafted. EllieBC Jan 2019 #27
It's already crafted. Her bullet points are like "think what we could do with that money." Towlie Jan 2019 #40
IIRC, her proposal wouldn't kick in until $50 million. Bleacher Creature Jan 2019 #30
Her electability will not rest on only one thing. PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2019 #33
Frame how the proceeds will be used Bayard Jan 2019 #34
I would say more peggysue2 Jan 2019 #36
I doubt it will make much of a difference DFW Jan 2019 #41
More, imho DeminPennswoods Jan 2019 #43
More. If explained right and she is a former teacher karynnj Jan 2019 #46
more Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2019 #47
I think it really depends on how she presents her ideas Crunchy Frog Jan 2019 #48
Depends on how she frames it. LiberalFighter Jan 2019 #49
99% of voters are not in the wealthiest 1%. lagomorph777 Jan 2019 #50
More. Much more. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Eliot Rosewater Jan 2019 #52
If the wealthiest want to acquire most of the wealth, then they should democratisphere Jan 2019 #53
More. shanny Jan 2019 #54
No impact oberliner Jan 2019 #55
More, I full support it and I think that current structural issues (aka Trump needing to be removed) Celerity Jan 2019 #57
more questionseverything Jan 2019 #58
She is doing it wrong. She should sell it as deficit reduction to save Social Security & Medicare KWR65 Jan 2019 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does Elizabeth Warren's "...»Reply #12