• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why We Need a Wealth Tax

The Electoral College is purely a state-affair.

It resides within the state and merely reports the results of the state's presidential vote every four years.

So, a federal vote for national-office was screwed-up by state-officials.

Yes ... because they could! That is what happens in a winner-take-all local/state rule of the Electoral College. The state-vote of loser-candidates for the presidency is NOT COUNTED nationally - they are effectively negated and thrown away!

Ever take a course in Civics in high-school ... ?

This is what is written in the constitution: "2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

How is it possible that any state could "screw up"? The constitution says that each state may appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.
 
I thought the reason we had a state was that it protected the property of the citizen.


So, you are implying that inclusive of the state's responsibility is to protect citizens from taxes?

That makes no sense.

Many states tax, and none of them deny the fed from imposing taxes nor is that a state's responsibility.
 
Sen. Warren has the right policy proposal

Republicans today are against a wealth tax which is another reason to vote for a Democrat in 20/20



I've been for this idea long before Senator Warren even brought it to the national attention. It's the only way to thwart the Dynasty-ism that is growing


No one is stopping you from donating 100% of your wealth to the government. If you want to rob people just be man enough to commit to the task rather than *****footing about and legislating robbery..
 
So, you are implying that inclusive of the state's responsibility is to protect citizens from taxes?

That makes no sense.

Many states tax, and none of them deny the fed from imposing taxes nor is that a state's responsibility.

Nope. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the purpose of government is to protect the property of the citizen.
 
Because other people have stuff and we want it. So we're going to use the government to take it from them and give it to us.


I get it, you don't like taxation. No one does, but it's necessary so that a government can exist.

If you don't like government, I suggest you find a nation that does not have one, and move there.
 
I get it, you don't like taxation. No one does, but it's necessary so that a government can exist.

If you don't like government, I suggest you find a nation that does not have one, and move there.

I don't oppose taxes. I opposed the government taking one person's property and giving it to another. The whole point of government is to protect our property, not to take it and give it to someone else.
 
Whoa. I was with you on the disastrous change of course Reagan put the nation on toward plutocracy, but JFK's lowering of the top tax rates, you're wrong about.

It had nothing to do with his conservative father. JFK simply had excellent economic advisers, led by the excellent Paul Samuelson who later won the Nobel Prize, who correctly advised JFK that the modest reduction in rates would benefit the economy.

That roughly 90% to 70% reduction in the top rate actually fit the Republican rhetoric about tax cuts 'stimulating the economy', and did not bring plutocracy to the country. It was a good policy. Republicans' error is in thinking that continuing the cuts always continues to have the same benefits. It doesn't, any more than taking larger doses of medicine provides more of the same benefits.

Democrats, including progressives, today can support JFK's tax cuts - and a return to the roughly 70% top rate he proposed for a better economy that reduces inequality. Just as Republicans have shown taxes can be too low, they can also be too high - that just hasn't been relevant since JFK.

Bollocks on the Left. (Just as bad a bollocks on the Right.) And excellent economic-advisors "me arse".

You've got it quite wrong, because it was the first set of tax-reductions originated by JFK (but signed by LBJ) that "started historically the decent in upper-income taxation". (You did not look at the chart did you?)

Which Reagan resumed when he entered office about twenty years later. And which is the principal reason why our Income Disparity is the worst of any developed country on earth ... !
 
The system of electing the president is prescribed in the constitution. It's part of the federal government.

The Electoral College was devised by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution signed in 1812! All amendments to the constitution must be passed by all the states. At the time of 1812 there were 18 states in the US!

It's time we had another look at the situation because a lot has happened since then. Five times has the popular-vote been manipulated such that the loser became PotUS!

The latest being Donald Dork presently ...
 
No one is stopping you from donating 100% of your wealth to the government. If you want to rob people just be man enough to commit to the task rather than *****footing about and legislating robbery..

Bollocks again! Is there no end to the BS that can be posted here?

The manipulation of the Electoral-College vote and Gerrymandering of votes at the state level are intolerable in any Real Democracy. Period!
 
The Electoral College was devised by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution signed in 1812! All amendments to the constitution must be passed by all the states. At the time of 1812 there were 18 states in the US!

It's time we had another look at the situation because a lot has happened since then. Five times has the popular-vote been manipulated such that the loser became PotUS!

The latest being Donald Dork presently ...

So you're proposing an amendment to modify the way the president is chosen by the states?
 
So you're proposing an amendment to modify the way the president is chosen by the states?

No I am simply calling for an amendment to the amendment. That is, that the Electoral College simply report the popular-vote to Congress.

There is NOT REASON WHATSOEVER that the popular-vote winner should assume ALL THE VOTES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE when they did actually win them!
 
No I am simply calling for an amendment to the amendment. That is, that the Electoral College simply report the popular-vote to Congress.

There is NOT REASON WHATSOEVER that the popular-vote winner should assume ALL THE VOTES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE when they did actually win them!

Do you think that 38 of the states will ratify this amendment you propose?
 
So you're proposing an amendment to modify the way the president is chosen by the states?

No, I am not proposing any Amendment. I am proposing that the 12th Amendment be changed to show that only the popular-vote by state be reported to Congress.

That is, without the manipulation of the vote of each state's EC by the presently allowing ALL THE VOTES TO THE WINNER. The number of a state's EC-votes is determined by its population-size.

So why should the state EC not report to Congress the EC-votes in the exact same proportion of the state's popular-vote!

That is not a fair democracy!
 
No, I am not proposing any Amendment. I am proposing that the 12th Amendment be changed to show that only the popular-vote by state be reported to Congress.
So you're proposing changing the constitution? But not proposing an amendment? How else would the constitution be changed other than by an amendment?
That is, without the manipulation of the vote each state's College by the presently allowing ALL THE EC VOTES TO THE WINNER. The number of a state's EC-votes is determined by its population-size.

So why should the state EC not report to Congress the EC-votes in the exact same proportion of the state's popular-vote!

That is not a fair democracy!
States appoint electors in any way they want. That's what the constitution says.
 
So why should the state EC not report to Congress the EC-votes in the exact same proportion of the state's popular-vote!

That is not a fair democracy!
Have you read any history? The system of choosing the president was worked out as a compromise between the more and less populous states. Without such a provision in the treaty, there would be no union, because the less populous states never would have ratified.
 
The system of electing the president is prescribed in the constitution. It's part of the federal government.

Not when the voting is wrong, unfair and therefore un-democratic ...
 
Not when the voting is wrong, unfair and therefore un-democratic ...

So the system of electing the president is not prescribed in the constitution...?
 
Have you read any history? The system of choosing the president was worked out as a compromise between the more and less populous states. Without such a provision in the treaty, there would be no union, because the less populous states never would have ratified.

And have you taken a course in basic mathematics?

You seem to be harping about something that happened more than two hundred years ago and mistakenly became enshrined in the Constitution as an amendment - so it can't be wrong. Why can't it be wrong?

When it warps the popular vote and even NEGATES VOTES by means of the winner-take-all rule of the Electoral College!

When any election system negates* popular-votes, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

*Definition of negate:
make ineffective; nullify.

synonyms: invalidate, nullify, render null and void, render invalid, make ineffective, neutralize, cancel (out)
 
And have you taken a course in basic mathematics?

You seem to be harping about something that happened more than two hundred years and became enshrined in the Constitution in an amendment - so it can't be wrong. Why can't it be wrong?

When it warps the popular vote and even NEGATES VOTES by means of the winner-take-all rule of the Electoral College!

When any election system negates* popular-votes, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

*Definition of negate:

So which 38 states do you think will ratify the amendment you're suggesting?
 
So which 38 states do you think will ratify the amendment you're suggesting?

You tell me!

You're the one who thinks he lives in the most fair democracy on earth because it was created more than two centuries ago and therefore cannot be wrong, wrong, wrong ... !
 
No one is stopping you from donating 100% of your wealth to the government. If you want to rob people just be man enough to commit to the task rather than *****footing about and legislating robbery..

How I deal with taxes is anecdotal, and inadequate to use insofar as creating public policy taxation proposals.

Your comment is basically a rant, and, as such, an incompetent rebuttal.
 
Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained

Excerpt (but really worth the read entirely):
Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald Trump in last month’s presidential election. But due to the magic of the Electoral College, Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States.

Yes, the November 8 “presidential election” was in actuality the venerable ritual in which the residents of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few other states got the privilege of choosing the president of the United States of America.

Or, to be more precise, it was the venerable ritual in which all the states chose their representatives in the Electoral College. It’s those people who are going to technically pick the president this Monday.

It’s a patchwork Frankenstein’s monster of a system, which in the best of times merely ensures millions of Americans’ votes are irrelevant to the outcome because they don’t live in competitive states, and in the worst of times could be vulnerable to a major crisis.

Amazingly enough, though, nothing in the Constitution gives American voters the right to choose their president. That power is reserved for those 538 actual people who will meet in their respective states this Monday — the electors. It's up to the states to decide how to appoint them.

Despite the oddness and unfairness of this system, its defenders argue that it ordinarily “works” just fine. States award electors based on the outcome of the popular vote in the state. Those electors almost always end up voting the way they’re expected to. And the winner of the national popular vote is usually also the winner in the Electoral College.

But “usually” will be cold comfort to Democrats, who have now won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College in two of the past five elections.

Read on - it's well worth it. Especially with a dork in the White House who is maneuvering to make sure that the Supremes are solidly Rightist for the next 10/15 years ...
 
Nope. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the purpose of government is to protect the property of the citizen.


Then how does that rebut the premise of the OP?
 
I don't oppose taxes. I opposed the government taking one person's property and giving it to another. The whole point of government is to protect our property, not to take it and give it to someone else.


You are incorrect. All taxation is inherently wealth redistribution, either you are for it or against it, there is no middle ground.

If you are for it, and you just stated you are, then the debate is on degree, not principle.
 
Back
Top Bottom