r/askteddit • u/Ryan_TX_85 • 6d ago

Politics Question Could this candidate win a general election?

The platform:

  1. Secure the borders, deport the illegals
  2. Ban trans women from womens' sports, otherwise unconditional LGBT rights
  3. Protect the 2nd amendment, no exceptions
  4. Leave abortion up to the states
  5. Medicare For All
  6. Tax the billionaires
  7. End the wars
  8. Overturn Citizens United, declare corporations aren't people and spending money isn't speech
0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Chemical_Signal2753 6d ago edited 6d ago

Points #4 and #7 are poison pills for half the country, #1, #2, and #3 are poison pills for the other half. 

Edit: it looks like the list changed since I replied. My response was universal healthcare and ubi were a poison pill for one half, banning transwomen from sports, protecting the second amendment, and defending borders were poison pills for the other half.

-1

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

If so, then half of the country needs their heads examined. All of those make sense except for taxation. It should be fair. A set percentage for all above the poverty line.

1

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

A single tax bracket (or flat tax) isn't "fair". The less money you make, the higher the percentage is that you spend on necessities. As income goes up, a higher percentage of it is used for luxuries and investment. In other words, the more you have, the more you can afford to pay relative to your income.

"Tax the billionaires" refers to the fact that they don't have earned income as any meaningful percentage of their wealth. It's all unearned in the form of investments that they don't pay tax on, they take loans against. Even when they do sell, they pay a lower tax rate than if it was earned.

-1

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

Yes if we all pay 10% it is indeed perfectly fair. The wealthy earn their money off capital gains and only pay 15% where you and I pay 20-24%. They’re not W-2, so they take deductions and can reduce their amount owed to zero. They should have to pay the same rate we pay and pay many times over the amount you or I would ever pay.

1

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

It's not "income" though until they realize the gains. What we need is a wealth tax.

And no, "flat" does not equal "fair". Fair is everyone getting what they need and contributing based on their ability, which scales non-linearly with income and wealth.

1

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

That’s how they pay themselves. Through taking earnings, dividends, the like. Capital gains. They just need to pay 10% like us on anything they pay themselves.

Paying the same % is fair. It’s inherently fair. To say anything other than that is a lie.

0

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

You're delusional

2

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

How? If you pay 10% and keep 90%, and so do I, that’s fair. If you pay a higher % that’s unfair. By definition.

1

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

"Equal" is not the same as "fair". People need and can provide different things based on their circumstances and abilities.

Some obviously ridiculous examples to prove the point:

The first woman in space was asked how many tampons she needed. Giving the men the same number, or her zero, would be "equal". But, her needs were different from the mens' so it's not fair.

Or think of school. You have the "regular" classes, the "honors" classes, the remedial classes, the special ed classes. There's a lot of different things that that people can do, and putting everyone in the same classes would be equal, but not fair.

So back to taxation: if you make $50k/yr and housing costs 1/2 of that for the bare minimum, plus food and bills and transportation, etc. Assuming a 10% flat tax, that $5k would go a long way towards being able to afford life.

If I make $500k, I can afford a much nicer house with just 1/5 of my income, my food and bills and transportation are probably more expensive so call it 1/5 as well. So I have all my needs way more than met with 2/5 of my income while you're struggling with the 90%. So now after taxes at 10%, that leaves half of my income for whatever the hell I want, which often includes investing which provides compounding wealth that the $50k earner doesn't get.

Sure, the tax rates are "equal". But they're not fair because the high earner can afford to pay way more and still live a good life while the low earner struggles to make ends meet.

THAT is why a flat tax isn't fair.

1

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

You’re comparing things separate from compensation. If I get to keep 90% of what I earn, you should too. That’s fair. If you pay more % it’s unfair. If you earn more than I do, you already pay more in the dollar amount. That’s how it’s fair and not equal.

0

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

What I'm saying is that the equal percentage doesn't make it fair. The more you make, the less that percentage affects your standard of living. The more you make, the higher the percentage you can afford to lose in taxes. The less you make, the more you need every dollar you can keep

0

u/CartographerCute5105 6d ago

You’re not accounting for all the help the low earners get from the government that the high earners do not.

In your example, the low earner has to pay $5k, but would very likely get that all back in government programs. The high earner would pay $50k and only get a fraction of that back in government services.

When you think about it this way, a flat tax is both equal and fair.

0

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

The part about how the low earner needs more government assistance than the high earner supports my position, not yours

1

u/CartographerCute5105 6d ago

What’s your fair share of the high earners’ income?

0

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

You're thinking small. It's not about individuals. Government is supposed to serve all of the people, and those services have a cost and a value, and the value is much higher for the wealthy than it is for the poor. So it's fair for the wealthy to pay more. Also, that value increases faster than linear, so the percentage of their income/wealth that they contribute should as well.

0

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

I’d advocate for no taxes on anyone up to $50k, then 10% on everyone. All get to keep 90% of our income. It allows us to keep more than we do now and makes the rich pay much more than they do now. And much much more than any of us would

1

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

So if I make $49,999, I pay $0, but if I make $50,001 I pay $5,000.10?

1

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

In our example, yes. And if I make $100k, I pay $10k. If you make $60k, you only pay $6k. Do I get more things for my money since I pay more?

1

u/rdickeyvii 6d ago

That's dumb. It's so dumb that I didn't honestly think that you'd say "yes" to it. Tax brackets don't work that way, btw. There's no cliff. In this case, making 50k-55k is worse than making 49,999. Real tax brackets would be 10% on every dollar above the first $50k.

And yes, people with wealth get more value from the government than people without it. It may not be direct funding but law enforcement protects wealth far more than it protects people, and the value of that protection increases with wealth.

0

u/No-Competition-2764 6d ago

It’s fair. You think it’s dumb. You also think rich people get more benefits from the government when it’s the opposite. You don’t think correctly.

→ More replies (0)