• 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!

New Idea? Tax Income Based on Wealth

incomebywealth

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi everyone, I want to acknowledge that I'm new here. I joined because I can't seem to find any information or debate on this idea anywhere (I'd be very appreciative if you know otherwise) and I'm super curious about it. It seems to overcome some of the downsides of more emotionally-driven approaches yet still to preserve their well-meaning motivations:

The idea is to base the annual tax rate on wealth (or, to be more precise, wealth plus current income), but to tax only income. This approach seems to incorporate the yearning for fairness behind wealth taxes while avoiding their potentially damaging effects on the economy. The best way to explain its appeal is through a few considerations:

-Currently, if you have zero net worth but you have a sudden windfall thanks to a great idea and make $1 million in one year, you will currently suffer a similar tax rate as someone who has a net worth of $10 million and also makes $1 million in the same year. For the sake of example, let's say both end up with $650k after taxes. This situation seems to me utterly contradictory to the principle of social mobility that we hold dear. It basically means that the rich stay rich while the poor have to make a *massive* amount to enter a higher social class. However, if we tax income based on wealth, then the less wealthy earner can walk away with (say) $900k while the wealthier one ends up with (say) $550k. This outcome seems fair: the poorer person is now close to a millionaire, while the decamillionaire has around $10.5m instead of just $10 (minus annual expenses of course, but those will be low for someone who previously had a net worth of zero).

-The "rich" are no longer considered middle class or working class people with windfalls. That is, we make cultural inroads against the unfortunate current conflation between income and wealth by making their distinction explicit.

-A billionaire will end up with very high income tax, but their wealth will not be touched at all, so they stay wealthy and do not see wealth decline.

-We end up collecting more overall, which can benefit the middle and lower classes generally, but social mobility *increases* rather than decreases.

-Getting more rich is easier when your net worth is low but harder when it's high.

Has this idea been discussed anywhere? I'm interested in pros and cons, and why it is not more widespread.
 
Let's say that you're retired and your income consists of a small pension of $25k/yr and Social Security of $25k. You've got $50k income and will pay tax of roughly $2k. However, your mother passed away and you were left an interest in the family farm. There's no cash involved but you just inherited land worth $1M. Add that to your house which you saved up for and paid off and is now worth $400k because it's a whopping 1200 sqft but in Connecticut. Your property taxes are $6k/yr, medicare is $1700, your medicare supplemental is $250/mo and you like to do stuff like eat and drive your car which costs you another $600/mo. Then there's gas, water, trash, sewer, electric, cable TV, phone, internet etc. That runs you another $600/mo. How much more of that leftover $30k do you really need anyway? I mean, it's not like you'll have to ever replace a furnace or repair a roof. It's not like you deserve to have any leftover money for stuff like taking a vacation or buying presents for your grandkids. If the government takes 50% of your $50k you should be alright anyway because you're a millionaire!!!!
 
"Wealth tax" is a "property tax." A property tax would make it impossible for average people to save up to be secure in retirement.

The income tax was first sold promising it would ONLY be 1% and only against the top 1%. Of course, that all was a lie. A federal property tax would be the same. Every year, you would pay taxes on everything you own and your savings account. Thus, you are limited as to how much you can save for retirement, and then watch your retirement money be whittled away by personal property taxes (federal wealth tax).

Forget about any significant money staying in the USA, which already is a problem. 40 trillion dollars would leave the US.
 
The OP can search "wealth tax" in the search feature. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a "wealth tax." Within days, her campaign fund raising had crashed and so did she in the polls. Ordinary people don't really understand what a "wealth tax" really is. It would be opening the door to what it really is: a federal personal property tax. And like income taxes were started on only 1% for the rich, this quickly became money coming out of EVERYONE's paycheck. The same would happen with a federal property tax.

How much taxes would the OP be willing to pay every year on his vehicle, cell phone, computer, bicycle, stereo, video games - and everything else? With a federal personal property tax you have work just to keep what you already have.
 
Wealth taxes destroy wealth moreso than generate revenue.
 
The core doctrine of socialism is that NO ONE owns anything they have or even their own labor. Everyone is born in debt to the collective, which also then owns everything and everyone. A wealth tax, ie federal property tax, is consistent with this view. You own NOTHING. Rather, you rent everything you have annually from the federal government. Can't pay the rent on your car, computer, etc - then you lose it.
 
Let's say that you're retired and your income consists of a small pension of $25k/yr and Social Security of $25k. You've got $50k income and will pay tax of roughly $2k. However, your mother passed away and you were left an interest in the family farm. There's no cash involved but you just inherited land worth $1M. Add that to your house which you saved up for and paid off and is now worth $400k because it's a whopping 1200 sqft but in Connecticut. Your property taxes are $6k/yr, medicare is $1700, your medicare supplemental is $250/mo and you like to do stuff like eat and drive your car which costs you another $600/mo. Then there's gas, water, trash, sewer, electric, cable TV, phone, internet etc. That runs you another $600/mo. How much more of that leftover $30k do you really need anyway? I mean, it's not like you'll have to ever replace a furnace or repair a roof. It's not like you deserve to have any leftover money for stuff like taking a vacation or buying presents for your grandkids. If the government takes 50% of your $50k you should be alright anyway because you're a millionaire!!!!

Hi Lutherf, this example is not where the idea is aimed. The whole point of the idea is that we don't hit your income significantly unless you are already genuinely rich, which a "millionaire" with about $1m is not, because like you said $1m does not generate enough income to be well off. So someone with $1m only would have a low tax rate. But someone with $100m, who is generating e.g. $4m per year income from interest alone, indeed might be taxed heavily on income (yet still make millions each year anyway). Someone who only has $1m is someone who we want to help propel higher through social mobility by keeping their tax rates low.

I notice there is a political reaction to the original post that is obscuring its motivation. I'm not trying to make a liberal or conservative case on taxation. In fact, the point of this idea is to avoid unduly taxing people with high income. Rather, the point is, we all agree you have to be taxed based on something. And most people agree that directly taxing wealth is unwise. So I'm saying, what we tax is income (as usual) but based on wealth. Of course the graduation of the tax curve needs to be reasonable (as it does no matter what the tax is based on). What would be reasonable there will depend on your political leanings, but the idea of basing the income tax in part on wealth is not clearly aligned with one political side or another. It can greatly benefit high-income individuals, which does not seem to be a current liberal inclination, but it also takes wealth into account, which does not seem to be a current conservative inclination.
 
Wealth taxes destroy wealth moreso than generate revenue.

This is not a wealth tax; it is an income tax that takes wealth into account when income is taxed. Because it's unconventional, I suggest you re-read the post. It is definitively not a wealth tax. I see some knee-jerk reactions simply to the word "wealth" being in the same sentence as "tax," which is unfortunate because it's obscuring a genuine discussion of the idea. I personally agree that wealth tax is untenable and will not be good for revenue. That's one reason I think this new idea, which is still only an income tax, is intriguing.
 
This is not a wealth tax; it is an income tax that takes wealth into account when income is taxed. Because it's unconventional, I suggest you re-read the post. It is definitively not a wealth tax. I see some knee-jerk reactions simply to the word "wealth" being in the same sentence as "tax," which is unfortunate because it's obscuring a genuine discussion of the idea. I personally agree that wealth tax is untenable and will not be good for revenue. That's one reason I think this new idea, which is still only an income tax, is intriguing.

No it is still a wealth tax if I have to pay more tax than you because I inherited a farm and you inherited a tent. Plus the valuation of wealth is subjective. If I own a painting by the elephant at the zoo and that elephant dies this year, is my painting worth more, less or the same? The least complicated and most direct way of achieving what you want to achieve is to have a much more progressive capital gains tax or a ceiling on it where over a certain amount gets kicked over into regular income rates.
 
Hi everyone, I want to acknowledge that I'm new here. I joined because I can't seem to find any information or debate on this idea anywhere (I'd be very appreciative if you know otherwise) and I'm super curious about it. It seems to overcome some of the downsides of more emotionally-driven approaches yet still to preserve their well-meaning motivations:

The idea is to base the annual tax rate on wealth (or, to be more precise, wealth plus current income), but to tax only income. This approach seems to incorporate the yearning for fairness behind wealth taxes while avoiding their potentially damaging effects on the economy. The best way to explain its appeal is through a few considerations:

-Currently, if you have zero net worth but you have a sudden windfall thanks to a great idea and make $1 million in one year, you will currently suffer a similar tax rate as someone who has a net worth of $10 million and also makes $1 million in the same year. For the sake of example, let's say both end up with $650k after taxes. This situation seems to me utterly contradictory to the principle of social mobility that we hold dear. It basically means that the rich stay rich while the poor have to make a *massive* amount to enter a higher social class. However, if we tax income based on wealth, then the less wealthy earner can walk away with (say) $900k while the wealthier one ends up with (say) $550k. This outcome seems fair: the poorer person is now close to a millionaire, while the decamillionaire has around $10.5m instead of just $10 (minus annual expenses of course, but those will be low for someone who previously had a net worth of zero).

-The "rich" are no longer considered middle class or working class people with windfalls. That is, we make cultural inroads against the unfortunate current conflation between income and wealth by making their distinction explicit.

-A billionaire will end up with very high income tax, but their wealth will not be touched at all, so they stay wealthy and do not see wealth decline.

-We end up collecting more overall, which can benefit the middle and lower classes generally, but social mobility *increases* rather than decreases.

-Getting more rich is easier when your net worth is low but harder when it's high.

Has this idea been discussed anywhere? I'm interested in pros and cons, and why it is not more widespread.

That is a lot of complexity to simply deal with a one time (or ocassional) windfall to avoid having most of it taxed at the highest bracket rate. That used to be able to be handled by using income averaging, but that option went away for most (except farmers and fishermen?) in 1986.
 
Hi everyone, I want to acknowledge that I'm new here. I joined because I can't seem to find any information or debate on this idea anywhere (I'd be very appreciative if you know otherwise) and I'm super curious about it. It seems to overcome some of the downsides of more emotionally-driven approaches yet still to preserve their well-meaning motivations:

The idea is to base the annual tax rate on wealth (or, to be more precise, wealth plus current income), but to tax only income. This approach seems to incorporate the yearning for fairness behind wealth taxes while avoiding their potentially damaging effects on the economy. The best way to explain its appeal is through a few considerations:

-Currently, if you have zero net worth but you have a sudden windfall thanks to a great idea and make $1 million in one year, you will currently suffer a similar tax rate as someone who has a net worth of $10 million and also makes $1 million in the same year. For the sake of example, let's say both end up with $650k after taxes. This situation seems to me utterly contradictory to the principle of social mobility that we hold dear. It basically means that the rich stay rich while the poor have to make a *massive* amount to enter a higher social class. However, if we tax income based on wealth, then the less wealthy earner can walk away with (say) $900k while the wealthier one ends up with (say) $550k. This outcome seems fair: the poorer person is now close to a millionaire, while the decamillionaire has around $10.5m instead of just $10 (minus annual expenses of course, but those will be low for someone who previously had a net worth of zero).

-The "rich" are no longer considered middle class or working class people with windfalls. That is, we make cultural inroads against the unfortunate current conflation between income and wealth by making their distinction explicit.

-A billionaire will end up with very high income tax, but their wealth will not be touched at all, so they stay wealthy and do not see wealth decline.

-We end up collecting more overall, which can benefit the middle and lower classes generally, but social mobility *increases* rather than decreases.

-Getting more rich is easier when your net worth is low but harder when it's high.

Has this idea been discussed anywhere? I'm interested in pros and cons, and why it is not more widespread.
I wont get into the theoretical ideology here, but I will comment that it is impractical to tax income based upon accumulated wealth. Wealth is easy to hide and move around, and place in various legal entities. Consequently, a plan to tax base upon wealth would be a nightmare to police & enforce.
 
Hi Lutherf, this example is not where the idea is aimed. The whole point of the idea is that we don't hit your income significantly unless you are already genuinely rich, which a "millionaire" with about $1m is not, because like you said $1m does not generate enough income to be well off. So someone with $1m only would have a low tax rate. But someone with $100m, who is generating e.g. $4m per year income from interest alone, indeed might be taxed heavily on income (yet still make millions each year anyway). Someone who only has $1m is someone who we want to help propel higher through social mobility by keeping their tax rates low.

I notice there is a political reaction to the original post that is obscuring its motivation. I'm not trying to make a liberal or conservative case on taxation. In fact, the point of this idea is to avoid unduly taxing people with high income. Rather, the point is, we all agree you have to be taxed based on something. And most people agree that directly taxing wealth is unwise. So I'm saying, what we tax is income (as usual) but based on wealth. Of course the graduation of the tax curve needs to be reasonable (as it does no matter what the tax is based on). What would be reasonable there will depend on your political leanings, but the idea of basing the income tax in part on wealth is not clearly aligned with one political side or another. It can greatly benefit high-income individuals, which does not seem to be a current liberal inclination, but it also takes wealth into account, which does not seem to be a current conservative inclination.

So someone has to be generating income from their wealth before they're "wealthy"? If, for example, I own a Picasso worth $100M I'm not "wealthy" for purposes of taxation but if I own a building worth $100M that generates $100k in rent (I only had it available to rent for a month because I was renovating it) then I am "wealthy"?
 
i support taxing all income as income above a cap.
 
Hi Lutherf, this example is not where the idea is aimed. The whole point of the idea is that we don't hit your income significantly unless you are already genuinely rich, which a "millionaire" with about $1m is not, because like you said $1m does not generate enough income to be well off. So someone with $1m only would have a low tax rate. But someone with $100m, who is generating e.g. $4m per year income from interest alone, indeed might be taxed heavily on income (yet still make millions each year anyway). Someone who only has $1m is someone who we want to help propel higher through social mobility by keeping their tax rates low.

I notice there is a political reaction to the original post that is obscuring its motivation. I'm not trying to make a liberal or conservative case on taxation. In fact, the point of this idea is to avoid unduly taxing people with high income. Rather, the point is, we all agree you have to be taxed based on something. And most people agree that directly taxing wealth is unwise. So I'm saying, what we tax is income (as usual) but based on wealth. Of course the graduation of the tax curve needs to be reasonable (as it does no matter what the tax is based on). What would be reasonable there will depend on your political leanings, but the idea of basing the income tax in part on wealth is not clearly aligned with one political side or another. It can greatly benefit high-income individuals, which does not seem to be a current liberal inclination, but it also takes wealth into account, which does not seem to be a current conservative inclination.

You message is the lie told to create the federal income tax. It was assured this would ONLY be 1% and ONLY against the rich. But after passed, it immediately became 2%. Then 10%, all the way up to 90% in WW2, and the government taking money out of EVERYONE's paycheck to this day - no exception. Maybe, maybe, you'll get some back. Then the super rich wrote exemptions for themselves - so pay no income tax.

This is EXACTLY what would happen with a wealth/personal property tax. It would be sold as a tax ONLY against the rich - but would become a tax against everyone, with the rich having the political means to get themselves exempted - and that assumes they even keep their wealth in the USA.

You didn't answer the question. What percentage would you be willing to pay on all your personal property you have every year? 5%? 10% 30%?
 
The core doctrine of socialism is that NO ONE owns anything they have or even their own labor. Everyone is born in debt to the collective, which also then owns everything and everyone. A wealth tax, ie federal property tax, is consistent with this view. You own NOTHING. Rather, you rent everything you have annually from the federal government. Can't pay the rent on your car, computer, etc - then you lose it.

In other words, divine rule, the king owns all, us peasants have what we have at his pleasure.
 
Hi everyone, I want to acknowledge that I'm new here. I joined because I can't seem to find any information or debate on this idea anywhere (I'd be very appreciative if you know otherwise) and I'm super curious about it. It seems to overcome some of the downsides of more emotionally-driven approaches yet still to preserve their well-meaning motivations:

The idea is to base the annual tax rate on wealth (or, to be more precise, wealth plus current income), but to tax only income. This approach seems to incorporate the yearning for fairness behind wealth taxes while avoiding their potentially damaging effects on the economy. The best way to explain its appeal is through a few considerations:

-Currently, if you have zero net worth but you have a sudden windfall thanks to a great idea and make $1 million in one year, you will currently suffer a similar tax rate as someone who has a net worth of $10 million and also makes $1 million in the same year. For the sake of example, let's say both end up with $650k after taxes. This situation seems to me utterly contradictory to the principle of social mobility that we hold dear. It basically means that the rich stay rich while the poor have to make a *massive* amount to enter a higher social class. However, if we tax income based on wealth, then the less wealthy earner can walk away with (say) $900k while the wealthier one ends up with (say) $550k. This outcome seems fair: the poorer person is now close to a millionaire, while the decamillionaire has around $10.5m instead of just $10 (minus annual expenses of course, but those will be low for someone who previously had a net worth of zero).

-The "rich" are no longer considered middle class or working class people with windfalls. That is, we make cultural inroads against the unfortunate current conflation between income and wealth by making their distinction explicit.

-A billionaire will end up with very high income tax, but their wealth will not be touched at all, so they stay wealthy and do not see wealth decline.

-We end up collecting more overall, which can benefit the middle and lower classes generally, but social mobility *increases* rather than decreases.

-Getting more rich is easier when your net worth is low but harder when it's high.

Has this idea been discussed anywhere? I'm interested in pros and cons, and why it is not more widespread.

Why add another tax or make our existing taxes more complicated? Why not just raise income and capital gains taxes and remove loopholes? Or raise estate taxes to tax wealth?
 
When a board of retired members of Congress of both political parties was asked what to do about taxes - they all out of politics but knowing how the system works, they ALL agreed that solution is a flat tax - no deductions other than for yourself and children, plus phasing out mortgage interest deductions.

Why? Because most of the tax code exists specifically for exemptions to the truly wealthy. Basically, thru political contributions and influence, they write their own exemptions. NO tax plan will ever tax billionaires and mega billion dollar corporations as long as the tax code allows exemptions. It would be no different for a wealth/federal property tax. There would immediately be hundreds of exemptions and ways to shield wealth from tax liability.
 
Why add another tax or make our existing taxes more complicated? Why not just raise income and capital gains taxes and remove loopholes? Or raise estate taxes to tax wealth?

Taxes really are too complex. The best option really would be to eliminate all taxes and all forms of income. If we simply make all food, housing and medical care a human right to be provided by government then we wouldn't need to worry about any of this stuff. Doing things that way would have the added advantage of insuring that nobody took advantage of anyone else. The Soviets had a system that worked that way in a lot of respects and their people loved it!
 
Hi everyone, I want to acknowledge that I'm new here. I joined because I can't seem to find any information or debate on this idea anywhere (I'd be very appreciative if you know otherwise) and I'm super curious about it. It seems to overcome some of the downsides of more emotionally-driven approaches yet still to preserve their well-meaning motivations:

The idea is to base the annual tax rate on wealth (or, to be more precise, wealth plus current income), but to tax only income. This approach seems to incorporate the yearning for fairness behind wealth taxes while avoiding their potentially damaging effects on the economy. The best way to explain its appeal is through a few considerations:

-Currently, if you have zero net worth but you have a sudden windfall thanks to a great idea and make $1 million in one year, you will currently suffer a similar tax rate as someone who has a net worth of $10 million and also makes $1 million in the same year. For the sake of example, let's say both end up with $650k after taxes. This situation seems to me utterly contradictory to the principle of social mobility that we hold dear. It basically means that the rich stay rich while the poor have to make a *massive* amount to enter a higher social class. However, if we tax income based on wealth, then the less wealthy earner can walk away with (say) $900k while the wealthier one ends up with (say) $550k. This outcome seems fair: the poorer person is now close to a millionaire, while the decamillionaire has around $10.5m instead of just $10 (minus annual expenses of course, but those will be low for someone who previously had a net worth of zero).

-The "rich" are no longer considered middle class or working class people with windfalls. That is, we make cultural inroads against the unfortunate current conflation between income and wealth by making their distinction explicit.

-A billionaire will end up with very high income tax, but their wealth will not be touched at all, so they stay wealthy and do not see wealth decline.

-We end up collecting more overall, which can benefit the middle and lower classes generally, but social mobility *increases* rather than decreases.

-Getting more rich is easier when your net worth is low but harder when it's high.

Has this idea been discussed anywhere? I'm interested in pros and cons, and why it is not more widespread.

You should ask the French how well their wealth tax worked.
 
The OP can search "wealth tax" in the search feature. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a "wealth tax." Within days, her campaign fund raising had crashed and so did she in the polls. Ordinary people don't really understand what a "wealth tax" really is. It would be opening the door to what it really is: a federal personal property tax. And like income taxes were started on only 1% for the rich, this quickly became money coming out of EVERYONE's paycheck. The same would happen with a federal property tax.

How much taxes would the OP be willing to pay every year on his vehicle, cell phone, computer, bicycle, stereo, video games - and everything else? With a federal personal property tax you have work just to keep what you already have.

It's worse than a property tax that you pay in your town, which only a tax on your home and land. A wealth tax is much more comprehensive since it can essentially include virtually everything you own. It's virtually limitless. IRS guy/gal comes into your home and notices some fancy underwear, well your wealth tax is going up again.
 
i support taxing all income as income above a cap.

All of these threads completely miss the point.

We can argue all day long over how income should be taxed by bracket, or above a cap, or new progressive rates by bracket, or something along the lines of what the OP is trying to pimp. But until we deal with all the tax code gifts handed out as a means to reduce one's liability it is all a waste of time.

We have a massive tax code, just changing the basis here and there does very little when looking at tax rate vs. effective tax liability.
 
I'm not wealthy & not a big fan of some wealthy people - the arrogance that many of them harbor towards the less wealthy, irritates me, but I'm no worse off than they, they'll die and be nothing as will I ; )

But taxes based on wealth, really are nothing more than an envy tax. Which you might think I'd be in favor of given my low opinion of certain rich people ....

It's unnecessary & generally a bad idea I think. As has been pointed out already, there are many ways to hide money, rich people do it.

Wealthy people already pay the most in taxes as things are today anyways. By what justification will we tell them they have to pay even MORE ?

We have enough taxes and fees and taxes and fees... even for poor people, tax tax tax, there's a fee for that, there's a fee for this, you have to pay a fee to do that and you have to pay a fee to go there on & on and on.

Let's not give bureaucrats any more ideas about neat ways to separate us from our money.

No thanks.
 
I'm not wealthy & not a big fan of some wealthy people - the arrogance that many of them harbor towards the less wealthy, irritates me, but I'm no worse off than they, they'll die and be nothing as will I ; )

But taxes based on wealth, really are nothing more than an envy tax. Which you might think I'd be in favor of given my low opinion of certain rich people ....

It's unnecessary & generally a bad idea I think. As has been pointed out already, there are many ways to hide money, rich people do it.

Wealthy people already pay the most in taxes as things are today anyways. By what justification will we tell them they have to pay even MORE ?

We have enough taxes and fees and taxes and fees... even for poor people, tax tax tax, there's a fee for that, there's a fee for this, you have to pay a fee to do that and you have to pay a fee to go there on & on and on.

Let's not give bureaucrats any more ideas about neat ways to separate us from our money.

No thanks.

VERY WELL STATED! :applaud

When it comes to taxes, whenever they want you to support getting tax money from some other "them," you can be certain you are in some "them" category to, and it likely they'll get you into the "them" category you thought you weren't in.

This is how income tax started: promising only 1% and only against rich people. "Just 1%, ONLY the rich? Why would anyone oppose that?" And we know where lead - taxes coming out of every blue collar worker's pay check. MAYBE next year you'll get some of it back. 15 year old working 15 hours a dishwasher? Money out of his paycheck too. But they promised only 1% and only the rich.

That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren says about her wealth tax proposal - only 1% and only against millionaires. Just get that foot in the door.
 
VERY WELL STATED! :applaud

When it comes to taxes, whenever they want you to support getting tax money from some other "them," you can be certain you are in some "them" category to, and it likely they'll get you into the "them" category you thought you weren't in.

This is how income tax started: promising only 1% and only against rich people. "Just 1%, ONLY the rich? Why would anyone oppose that?" And we know where lead - taxes coming out of every blue collar worker's pay check. MAYBE next year you'll get some of it back. 15 year old working 15 hours a dishwasher? Money out of his paycheck too. But they promised only 1% and only the rich.

That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren says about her wealth tax proposal - only 1% and only against millionaires. Just get that foot in the door.

God help us if the people of America are dumb enough to elect someone like warren or sanders or, really any of the current D's
 
Back
Top Bottom