• 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!

Trump proposes Massive One-time Tax on the Rich (2000 election)

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
RINO alert!
And unlike his current Budget Buster, the Math was sound.
And btw, it would STILL work.

Trump proposes Massive One-time Tax on the Rich
Phil Hirschkorn/CNN - Nov 1999
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999

Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "Net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and Wipe out the Debt in One full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the Cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning..."​
 
From the year 2000? Is this the 'Old News' Section?
 
From the year 2000? Is this the 'Old News' Section?
As I said, it's a RINO Alert, which NECESSARILY includes evidence/history of Non-GOP policies. An there are Many more: pretty much across the board.

Not to mention, the Math in that plan actually WORKED, and again, still would.
Thus 'Govt spending and Debt.'
 
Last edited:
RINO alert!
And unlike his current Budget Buster, the Math was sound.
And btw, it would STILL work.

Trump proposes Massive One-time Tax on the Rich
Phil Hirschkorn/CNN - Nov 1999
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999

Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "Net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and Wipe out the Debt in One full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the Cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning..."​
Since we are harkening back so far, how about we go less far back and tell us what Hillary and Barry Hussein's views were on same sex marriage, what, just what five years ago?
 
Since we are harkening back so far, how about we go less far back and tell us what Hillary and Barry Hussein's views were on same sex marriage, what, just what five years ago?

But wait wait... I have to intercede here. You know full well that Democrats are allowed to "evolve" on issues and Republicans are not. :shrug:
 
Since we are harkening back so far, how about we go less far back and tell us what Hillary and Barry Hussein's views were on same sex marriage, what, just what five years ago?
You are welcome to start a string to do so.
But they are gone, or just about gone, and ergo NOT as Relevant.

And you forgot 'Monika' and 'whitewater', Hyper-Partisan guy.
 
Im about as conservative as they come and am very strong Libertarian with regard to personal rights and freedoms, and I've been suggesting this for decades. It really isnt a question of whether or not it is the 'fair' thing to do or a 'desirable' thing...but a neccessary thing. Of course...I would caveat this.

This would be imposed as stage 4.
Stage 1 one be to mandate finite spending cuts and a balanced budget.
Stage 2 would require a complete audit of US Government business practices. Defense spending procedures would be revised. Social services would be revised. Redundant federal systems would be eliminated where state assets where already in place. Federal control of state land would with few exceptions be terminated.
Stage 3 would turn most if not all social services back to the states. State taxes would necessarily go up but there would be better opportunity for citizen input and local control. If people only knew the amount of waste that occurs in government...
Stage 4 would be a significant tax (not a one time tax) on the top 10% that would be written with a sundown clause that would terminate the tax increases in 5 years or the moment the federal government violated stage 1.
 
But wait wait... I have to intercede here. You know full well that Democrats are allowed to "evolve" on issues and Republicans are not. :shrug:
Damn, my bad... early onset Alzheimer's is the excuse I will use for always forgetting that unchanging postulate to the general rule.

Sorry. I will try to remember in the future. Speaking of which, what were we talking about again? Wink wink, nudge nudge.
 
You are welcome to start a string to do so.
But they are gone, or just about gone, and ergo NOT as Relevant.

And you forgot 'Monika' and 'whitewater', Hyper-Partisan guy.
Just commenting on the sliding scale, depending on R v D behind the name, relevance of this to the ummmm, obviously not so partisan guy, you.

Bwahhhahahahahahahah :lamo Sorry, keeping a straight face is just too difficult in these circumstances.
 
But wait wait... I have to intercede here. You know full well that Democrats are allowed to "evolve" on issues and Republicans are not. :shrug:

When Republicans do it, it's called a flip-flop. When Democrats do it, it's called pragmatic. LOL
 
You are welcome to start a string to do so.
But they are gone, or just about gone, and ergo NOT as Relevant.

And you forgot 'Monika' and 'whitewater', Hyper-Partisan guy.

Just commenting on the sliding scale, depending on R v D behind the name, relevance of this to the ummmm, obviously not so partisan guy, you.

Bwahhhahahahahahahah :lamo Sorry, keeping a straight face is just too difficult in these circumstances.

I'd have to agree.
 
When Republicans do it, it's called a flip-flop. When Democrats do it, it's called pragmatic. LOL

That's really going to put some in a bind, seeing as Trump is pragmatic as he has started to prove himself to be.
 
When Republicans do it, it's called a flip-flop. When Democrats do it, it's called pragmatic. LOL

There's an old saying that's very similar:

"On your face, it's a pimple. On MY face, it's a beauty mark."
 
But wait wait... I have to intercede here. You know full well that Democrats are allowed to "evolve" on issues and Republicans are not. :shrug:

Republicans choose not to evolve.
 
Im about as conservative as they come and am very strong Libertarian with regard to personal rights and freedoms, and I've been suggesting this for decades. It really isnt a question of whether or not it is the 'fair' thing to do or a 'desirable' thing...but a neccessary thing. Of course...I would caveat this.

This would be imposed as stage 4.
Stage 1 one be to mandate finite spending cuts and a balanced budget.
Stage 2 would require a complete audit of US Government business practices. Defense spending procedures would be revised. Social services would be revised. Redundant federal systems would be eliminated where state assets where already in place. Federal control of state land would with few exceptions be terminated.
Stage 3 would turn most if not all social services back to the states. State taxes would necessarily go up but there would be better opportunity for citizen input and local control. If people only knew the amount of waste that occurs in government...
Stage 4 would be a significant tax (not a one time tax) on the top 10% that would be written with a sundown clause that would terminate the tax increases in 5 years or the moment the federal government violated stage 1.
As a centrist politically, and former Budget Hawk/Concorde Coalition supporter, I could live with your plan. Tho while the Baby Boom 'Pig' works its way thru the 'Python', I'm giving a little latitude.

Thanks for your coherent and good faith reply.
The rest of the replies here are one-line Partisan Hack Garbage, like 90% of the posts on this board. We really should have a second board for those posting more than 12 'up-yours' words, or high-fiving same.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be opposed to the idea. The deficit/debt hawks shouldn't be either. The national debt is never going to be dealt with by spending cuts.
 
As a centrist politically, and former Budget Hawk/Concorde Coalition supporter, I could live with your plan. Tho while the Baby Boom 'Pig' works its way thru the 'Python', I'm giving a little latitude.

Thanks for your coherent and good faith reply.
The rest of the replies here are one-line Partisan Hack Garbage, like 90% of the posts on this board. We really should have a second board for those posting more than 12 'up-yours' words, or high-fiving same.
Meh...I tend to give as good as I get. Food for thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom