>

I'm warming up to Biden, and I'm glad that he's president!
I'm slowly becoming less anti-Trump and more pro-Biden
President Joe Biden will call for quadrupling the levy on corporate stock buybacks and renew his calls for a minimum tax on billionaires during his State of the Union address Tuesday. 
“This minimum tax would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters,” the White House said in a preview Monday of the economic aspects of Biden’s speech. >

Hmm, I was about to say there's no way this passes, but I imagine a billionaire tax could pass through reconciliation right?
Though I would bet on conservative Democrats like Manchin killing it.
Edit:  I should note it'd also need to pass the Republican controlled house.  So I'm back to the first thing. This isn't gonna pass even if they try to put it to a vote.  If it gets out of the Senate, it's dying in the house.  I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. >

The VP only votes if there is a tie after all Senators have voted. Manchin and Sinema voting no would result in a 49-51 tally. >

There's also the non-trivial consideration that it would still need to pass the house, which just isn't going to happen.  I could maybe stretch my imagination to conclude that every Democrat would vote for it, (which is far from certain), but I would then also have to imagine a handful of Republicans in the house voting against their party. >

Yeah, and it's why Biden is calling for it now. Silent on the subject when he had control of both chambers. >

The problem with our government is that it's easy to place the blame on a party that has control of all branches of government--until you peel it back, and realize that in actuality, they don't have enough of a majority to even really be able to do anything meaningful because just enough people sitting in those chambers are willing to vote against crucial and necessary initiatives.
To break the deadlock a party needs to have absolute control over every level of government.
The way our government is set up, and with the 24/7 war of information being conducted, we will never see unanimous control. The only thing we can hope for is that there's enough people sitting in those chambers that can prevent widely-spanning and destructive legislation from being passed. >

Control of the supreme court is important, and Dems take full responsibility for punting that for a whole generation. It's very easy to say "well, this is impossible nowwwwww" on every topic while ignoring the lack of discussion on the topic when it was possible. I am not supporting anything Republican, I'm just stating that the Dems love to talk about issues they "can't" fix, and they just need "more Dems," and they could... and yet they don't really have much of a track record even when they have those "more Dems" and there is always an excuse as to why something couldn't happen. 
Both parties work for corporations. Dems are better when it comes to social issues; that is undeniable. But, if you look at covid policy as an example, Biden and Trump were pretty much in line so far as policy even though their tone and communication differed greatly when it came to the subject. Example being Biden standing behind the shortened quarantine time that by the CDC's admission returned 33% of people to work while still contagious, all during the worst covid wave we had ever seen. Now, Biden was much better in talking about masking and vaccination, etc. but policy-wise, they were both very pro business in a way that harmed the average working American. 
I'm not stating that both sides are the same on everything just that they align often when it comes to corporate interests, and there will likely always be just enough "rogue" senators to block legislation that reduces corporate profits. If you look at moments where corporations need things (ie the bailouts for the airlines), you'll see how quickly laws can get passed. >

Do you know how many days out of the last 30 years Democrats have had control of the Presidency , the house and a filibuster proof Senate? >

and when they had that, they totally passed all the things they say they want to, right? 
ooohhhh... wait... they had "one bad democrat"™ who wouldn't go along with it so they couldn't... whoops. a story as old as time.
do you know what the supreme court would look like today if the dem justices retired when Obama could have replaced them? do you know how long the current supreme court makeup is going to last? do you realize that was a generational setback that was due almost entirely to Dem hubris? >


and when they had that, they totally passed all the things they say they want to, right?

They passed the ACA in the few short weeks they had filibuster-proof control. It's not perfect, but it was a big deal. >

Stock buy-backs were illegal up until Reagan (1982) as they were seen to be market manipulation, which they are. >

It isn’t any more manipulating than issuing new shares. Give the people a stake in such a company and see how angry they get when they realize what a new share issuance means.   
A business should be able to buy its shares back and retire them, the fact it wasn’t legal before 1982 was the mistake.  
However, I’m all for there being some kind of special tax levied on stock buybacks such as 10%. >


10%

Companies are spending 70 billion dollars on buybacks while buddying up to Congress to make sure their workers can't strike for sick days. Fuck 10%. Make it goddamn 100%. Make it 200. If they wanna buy their stocks back, they need to pay out the nose for it, and then every other orifice too. >

How about we just have federally guaranteed sick days instead of outlawing any way to counteract share dilution? >

Before buybacks were legalized, companies put profits into dividends which incentivized shareholders to hold stock. Buybacks incentivize short term profits. Buybacks also mask the fact that companies use the stocks they buy back as compensation to upper management. They don’t necessarily retire the stock. They artificially inflate the stock price and then funnel a chunk of that value into upper management. The employees don’t see any of it. (Sure, argue they see it in their 401k which is a retirement investment with major strings attached, not an investment that can be used as compensation today.) Finally, it’s a way to funnel wealth to the already-wealthy in a way that avoid income taxes. Those are the problems with buybacks - it’s another way to funnel company profit into the hands of the wealthy AND in such a way as to avoid income taxes. >

There’s nothing artificial about what it is doing to the stock price.  
Without buybacks, the market is purely dilutive in perpetuity.  
Also it isn’t avoiding taxes because the shareholder doesn’t benefit from holding more of the company until they sell the stock, the value of which is proportionally higher to how much the buyback was. >

Unless the holder keeps it in a taxable account and dies with it. Then the basis is stepped up for the beneficiary who can sell it at an extremely minimal gain and in some cases a loss. Sure there’s estate tax, but I’m sure these assholes have ways to circumvent that while still enjoying the step up >

So eliminate the step up provision………………………………………………… >

Could work. I fear it’d mess with more regular folks than rich but maybe not. I suppose if they made a certain limit after which it doesn’t apply that could work >

Rich people should not have to pay taxes! They should not have to pay anything. In fact we should all just stand in line to give them blowjobs all day. I love rich people and fuck the poor! >

Fuck the poor! >

You found our propaganda piece I see. >

A sacred film to be sure. This scene just speaks to my capitalist heart. >

Yes. Cash runs through my veins. >

And do you also piss pennies or dimes or quarters? o.0 >

That's nice but there's zero chance the GOP majority House goes for it, or enough GOP Senators to pass the filibuster. >

There is no chance this will happen. Ever. Period. >

Good intentions. It's a shame that Republicans in Congress will cockblock it. >

That's why he waited until now to do it.