Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
There’s also the possibility that it’s a position designed to be compromised on. When the right of the party object to the wealth tax Warren can then ‘comprise” with the 70% top rate. It could be the old “I want all of the cake. Okay let’s compromise, I’ll have half the cake” ploy.
As for accusations of flip-flopping, I don’t think that people who back the tax understand it enough to see a move to the 70% top rate as a change.
Edited by Silasw on Apr 26th 2019 at 11:53:59 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI get the feeling it won't just be the Blue Dogs who will point out that trying to get the wealth tax past a Supreme Court like the one we've got now will be damn near impossible.
TBH, I'm not quite sure how I feel about the idea of Warren banking on the idea that voters are too stupid to notice the difference. She might not be wrong, but still.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 7:56:49 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedAnd yet, only a couple of articles have brought up problems with constitutionality, and you seem to be taking them at their word as infallible. Warren was a law professor, I really doubt that if there was a blatant problem, she and her team would have missed it.
Edited by wisewillow on Apr 26th 2019 at 4:57:55 AM
The point is, it could be feasibly challenged on those grounds. And while there's a way to argue that it's fine because it's not technically a direct tax or something, that might not be enough for the current Supreme Court.
![]()
I wouldn't be surprised if that was her plan or something. But that of course would require the Democratic Party taking the Senate too.
It just seems like there are too many potential obstacles in the way if this is indeed a serious tax plan.
And the fact that Warren herself doesn't seem to have addressed this means that a) she thinks she has a surefire strategy to deal with the issue, b) she's putting it off for later to focus on other priorities during her campaign, or c) it's as Silasw or Robrecht said and it's not really a serious tax proposal at all.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 8:02:05 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Yes, but at least with a 70% tax they wouldn't be able to claim she's not respecting the Constitution or something.
Here's the thing: I don't want the super-rich (or "ultra rich" I suppose) to be able to dodge taxes anymore. So I don't want the proposed tax plan to be something they could legitimately call out as something possibly illegal.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 8:04:26 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
If Warren becomes POTUS and has enough majorities in Congress, I wouldn't be surprised if she tried to repeal that clause which makes direct taxes nigh impossible.
That clause is something of a relic after all. One that's apparently rooted in slavery.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 8:07:10 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI for one have nothing against using the proverbial nasty club to beat the rich a bit or amending a constitution I don't give a damn about to enable the beating, I'm just extremely worried about the way lots of people are framing the whole tax-and-spend question. Not a fan of the idea that the amelioration of precarity and destitution should be linked to particular quantified contributions from the rich, voluntary or not, because that's a rather major constraint on any even moderately emancipatory politics that nobody is imposing on us but ourselves.
Class struggle is already difficult enough without artificially making capital flight or investment strikes more credible threats than they are currently.
I did not expect so much pushback in this thread against making the rich pay taxes.
I'm legit surprised that this is an argument that bloomed four pages while I was asleep.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Hey, I got nothing against making the rich pay taxes.
Quite the opposite.
I just want the tax plan to make rich people pay more taxes be one that doesn't, for one thing, have to go through a Supreme Court like the one we've got now. Or be a complete administrative quagmire.
You'll notice that I've been willing to accept the 70% tax.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 9:39:32 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedIncome taxes are fine and have plenty of Constitutional ground. This includes estate taxes, which are on income derived from death. Wealth taxes have not passed any historical or Constitutional tests and are much more likely to be successfully challenged. This is the key issue.
I am not against a wealth tax in principle, but I am far from certain that it would be successful without a Constitutional amendment. The paperwork burden doesn't concern me particularly: that's a solvable problem.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 26th 2019 at 9:47:35 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Would it be reasonable to expect Justice Clarence Thomas to retire during one of the next two presidential terms? That could be a solution to some of these problems. Assuming, of course, control is held over the senate and White House at the time of the hypothetical retirement.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Apr 26th 2019 at 9:45:35 AM
My musician pageThat's a lot of assumptions. Ginsburg is probably going to retire (or die) soonest of all the justices, but she wants to hold on until she can be assured of a fair nomination process to replace her, which cannot happen while Republicans have either the White House or the Senate.
I have no idea what Thomas is thinking, but if he were to retire, and wants a conservative replacement, he should do that before the next election.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Makes logical sense, unfortuneately. Still, seems the most likely way to get a liberal supreme court majority is for Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire in the next presidential term if democrats win it, either during the first two years if the senate can be flipped, or the second two years if it's at the midterm, and then Thomas seems to be the conservative justice most likely for a dem to be able to replace (due to both his age and length of term, though I am aware the correlation of those metrics are somewhat weak). And whenever that happens, democrats still need the white house and senate.
It's a lot to hope for, but without similar circumstances, the Supreme Court will cause all sorts of problems no matter what the next democratic president tries to implement.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Apr 26th 2019 at 10:04:29 AM
My musician page
I can only guess It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time. That seems to apply to a lot of decisions made by the founding fathers et al. Assuming good faith anyway.
Well, for one thing, they did not want justices influenced by the need to win reelection. Relieved of the pressure to remain in office, they can concentrate on making fair decisions rather than campaigning. That's the idea, anyway. I don't know the reasoning for the lack of term limits, but the Founders seemed to be generally of the opinion that the longer you remain in office, the better you are at it.
The problem with term limiting federal officials is that it applies whether they are good or bad. Sure, you can get rid of bad people that way, but you can also lose really good ones, and there's no guarantee that their replacements will be of similar quality. It's a solution that doesn't actually solve things.
Term limits can make a certain amount of sense if the idea is that the people should be given frequent opportunities to choose their leaders, but the idea behind the Supreme Court is exactly the opposite: the justices are supposed to be as far removed from the voting public as possible so they can stand above the fray and hand down impartial decisions.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 26th 2019 at 10:17:13 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It sure seems like there's no real solution other than the public voting for legislators who do their best to prevent bad-faith agents from having the position. Anything else would just leave the good ones more vulnerable to being unable to serve, either due to removal by other bad faith actors or just the rule theoretically designed to cap the damage a bad justice can do.
My musician pageThere are a lot of problems with judges being elected, and a lot of problems was just being appointed by Governor or president. The life term is supposed to make them immune to political pressure, but… That does not prevent problems. I have seen proposals for staggered terms of 20 years, so that each president would get to appoint one or two justices as they rotated slowly out.
There is a Constitutional solution for bad federal judges: impeachment. It's only been used a handful of times. Only one U.S. Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached (Samuel Chase)
, and he was acquitted at trial in the Senate. The impeachment was not for "high crimes and misdemeanors", but was a political ploy by Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Thomas Jefferson) to reduce the power of the Court.
Ultimately, there is no Constitutional solution for a combination of a bad President, a bad Congress, and a bad Supreme Court, other than waiting them out and hoping we do better next time.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 26th 2019 at 10:34:03 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So either this is just a thought experiment she hasn't bothered to clarify is a thought experiment, a cynical populist ploy that isn't meant to be serious anyway, or a severely ill-planned serious proposal to increase tax revenue in a way that is unprecedented in the USA and possibly illegal that the IRS is totally unprepared to handle.
With a name that seems more fitting for a tokusatsu series where CEO's transform into giants.
The fact that it's apparently polling well makes me wonder if Warren will actually try to make a serious go at it even if it was originally one of the first two.
Taxing the rich is extremely popular
And if she doesn't make a serious go at it, would that be interpreted by the people who approved of the idea as a flipflop or something?
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2019 at 7:49:20 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised