[rsj_hn]

Just 13 states is enough to block it, with a population of 16 million, or less than 5% of the US population can block an amendment.

For the income tax, there was broad based support for a Federal income tax from both left and right, liberal and conservative, business and labor, rural and urban. Without an income tax, the government was still dependent on taxing alcohol, so the temperance movement backed it, as did those wanting a strong military, and business who didn't want excise taxes to pay for all spending backed it. Small states backed it. Big states backed it. Rural states backed it. The current system of trying to fund the entire government on sin and commerce taxes was hated by everyone.

Moreover at the time, the pro-income tax crowd could promise that only the top 1% would pay any income taxes, and so get the overwhelming support needed for a constitutional amendment.

Although Warren is trying to play the same game here, people are not gonna be fooled again by the "only billionaires will be taxed" line.

At least, as long as 5% are not fooled, it wont pass.

[specialist]

You're saying that reverting the 2017 federal tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefitted rich people, valued at some trillion dollars, financed by borrowing (vs offset with spending cuts), is a bad idea because non-rich people will have to pay a few bucks more?

[rsj_hn]

So you're saying that you have difficulty converting letters to words in your mind and so will just invent a comment and then proceed to come up with your own take about it?

Is this is a good use of your time?

In that case, Why did you say that dogs should be forced to eat cats? I think that's a terrible take, and pretty irresponsible for you to advocate for it.

[specialist]

I'll agree that I'm not smart enough to divine your meaning. Apologies.

Although Warren is trying to play the same game here, people are not gonna be fooled again by the "only billionaires will be taxed" line.

I'll only add that I remain baffled when people support tax cuts for other people.

A preferential tax cut for me is a tax increase for you.

[rsj_hn]

Wow, there is a lot to unpack there.

Your assumption that opposing the introduction of a new type of tax is equivalent to advocating for a tax cut is false.

You assumption that the total tax base is constant over time and thus advocating a tax cut for you is equivalent to a tax increase for me is false. Easily dispelled by looking at historical data, which shows tax share of GDP is not constant.

Your assumption that the economy consists only of two people, you and the billionaire, so that a tax cut for one is a tax increase for you specifically is false.

Your assumption that it makes no matter whether something happens at the state or federal level is false.

Your belief that it doesn't matter whether a politician misrepresents a policy ('only Billionaires will get taxed to pay for my healthcare plan') as long as you agree with the policy is reprehensible. Truth is important in and of itself.

I could go on, but you are living in a completely different reality from me.

[specialist]

Still no answer about 2017 tax cuts.

Your "rebuttal" ignores debt over that time span.

You also add a lot of assumptions about assumptions. In the interests of discourse, we'll give you partial credit for participation.