Rather than talking about "taxing the wealthy"...

[kentuck]

Perhaps it would be more palatable to talk about "repealing Trump's trillion dollar tax cut" and George W Bush's tax cuts in the early 2000's?

It's all a matter of semantics but one seems much better than the other.

Some might call it "framing".

[manor321]

1. No. We can say tax the wealthy. It is 2019. Not 1992.

[Sherman A1]

2. It would be worthy of consideration

framing the argument is perhaps half the battle. That said, I don't know how it would play in corporate media as the deck is certainly stacked.

[Squinch]

3. OK, but call it the "tax break for billionaires."

[Control-Z]

4. Yeah. That's good!

"tax break for billionaires"

[lastlib]

16. or "corporate tax giveaway."

That frames the cuts as being a gift of OUR money to faceless, soulless corporations. Stressing the "raid on the Treasury by corporations" idea should make it a little bit easier for moderate/independent voters to digest as a benefit to the country as a whole, if not to themselves. Does this sound like a viable idea, DU?

[roamer65]

5. It's time to go back to the 1979 marginal rate of 70 pct.

Before Reagan fucked the tax system up.

[kentuck]

8. That's the second step...

One step at a time.

[Grasswire2]

14. yes! nt

[kentuck]

6. Bill Clinton had a balanced budget...

...with a surplus.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

7. Repeal and Replace the failed Trump Tax SCAM

Yes, the message needs to be framed, repeated and repeated.

No sense trying to explain the nuances of tax cuts v. tax breaks. Just keep asking people how much more money they didn't back this year.

Just keep repeating "REPEAL AND REPLACE." Thanks for your post.

[sarcasmo]

9. Taxing the wealthy is what we did and will do again. 70% under Ronnie Raygun and he dropped the

rate to 50 % and down again in 1986, 28%. We need the 70% tax rate back, ASAP.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

10. Sorta fits with what Ive been trying to say to my TP sibs - who only hear Rush L. telling them that

the Dems are proposing radical "socialism" when in reality it is just going back to progressive taxation levels of the50s/60s/70s. Too many people have forgotten history or never knew it to begin with.

[PeeJ52]

11. I agree... I'd rather show what can be done with "effective" tax rates.

People need to know it's not about getting anybody. It's about getting this country on solid footing so prosperity can be realized by more than a few people. The better the working class does, the better the executive class does.

[GaYellowDawg]

12. Call it wealth restoration.

Not wealth redistribution - that has already happened from middle class to rich - but wealth restoration to the middle class. Take back what they have sequestered away from us.

[kentuck]

13. Also, it is a way to save Social Security and Medicare.

The Republican plan is to make it unaffordable by running up trillions of dollars of debt.

[Grasswire2]

15. I like to put it like this: wealth hoarding is an addiction and requires an intervention: TAXATION

People understand the idea of an addiction requiring intervention.

When we help billionaires with their addiction, we do a great favor to society and the earth itself.

The relevant intervention is TAXATION.