Wealth TAX??? Is this even America anymore?
Quote: SteverinosTop marginal tax rate in the 50's was 91%, back when America was great. Lots of people got rich during the 50s. No cries of socialism. The irony is lost on #MAGA supporters.
It's far past time to redistribute.
LMAO most republicans do not understand mariginal tax rates.
The GOP has their entire working class base convinced that the scary socialists are trying to steal 70% of the $40k they earn each year.
https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1081579535114608640
She never advocated for taxing 70% of your income Steve. Tell the damn truth. Or admit your incompetence.
https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/1081692282477256707
It's hard to believe even Grover Norquist doesn't understand them, right? So if we knows he knows, what's the only other possibility?
Quote: SteverinosThey either don't understand marginal tax rates or they are intentionally being dishonest about them. There is no middle ground.
https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1081579535114608640
She never advocated for taxing 70% of your income Steve. Tell the damn truth. Or admit your incompetence.
https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/1081692282477256707
It's hard to believe even Grover Norquist doesn't understand them, right? So if we knows he knows, what's the only other possibility?
Fact is you (general) would be taxed at a rate of 70% on something. It’s obviously not 70% of your paycheck. And we all damn well know this isn’t the Democrats end game. It’s just the start.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Quote: Dalex64The proposal is to tax at 70% taxable income in excess of 10 million dollars.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Emphasis mine.
Does it matter? No. Wrong is wrong.
Quote: RSQuote: Dalex64The proposal is to tax at 70% taxable income in excess of 10 million dollars.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Emphasis mine.
Does it matter? No. Wrong is wrong.
What's so wrong about a progressive tax system? Would you rather just have a national sales tax and totally screw over the lower and middle class instead? Trump and other multimillionaires would probably have an orgasm over it.
You are fighting the last war. Global sovereign debt is too high to ever expect it will be paid back. We are living at the frothy end of the world’s biggest ponzi scheme. Future generations will be paying our debts for their entire lifespans or those debts will be defaulted on.Quote: tringlomaneQuote: RSQuote: Dalex64The proposal is to tax at 70% taxable income in excess of 10 million dollars.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Emphasis mine.
Does it matter? No. Wrong is wrong.
What's so wrong about a progressive tax system? Would you rather just have a national sales tax and totally screw over the lower and middle class instead? Trump and other multimillionaires would probably have an orgasm over it.
As the best orator in US history said: The war is inevitable.
Quote: RSQuote: Dalex64The proposal is to tax at 70% taxable income in excess of 10 million dollars.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Emphasis mine.
Does it matter? No. Wrong is wrong.
The bold bit, about how many it affects, was aimed more to your statement "Fact is you (general) would be taxed at a rate of 70% on something."
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that, but if only a fraction of 1% is affected, then you (general) would not be taxed at a rate of 70% on anything.
So...you start with $50 million in wealth and get $2.5 trillion on money that either already had taxes paid on it or was tax free for some reason. That doesn't raise enough money to fund the taxpayer-funded programs that you want, so where do you go from there? Money that has already been subjected to taxes, or were accumulated (legally) tax free, should not be subjected to additional taxes. When they get those having a million in wealth, how will you feel? Many of us get there over our lifetime...
Quote: Dalex64They were talking about percentages of income taxes in the past several posts, that is what I was responding to, not the wealth tax of the OP.
I have edited my post and removed the quote of your post, since it was about a different part of the subject of taxes.
Warren's wealth tax is a much lower percentage with a much higher threshold of wealth, but collected annually.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/bernie-sanders-proposes-big-estate-tax-hike-including-77percent-rate-for-billionaires.html
Sanders' proposed estate tax rates are:
$3.5 million to $10 million: 45 percent tax
$10 million to $50 million: 50 percent tax
$50 million to $1 billion: 55 percent tax
more than $1 billion: 77 percent tax
I'm not a fan of a wealth tax or an estate tax. And those numbers - that's a heck of a chunk!
Quote: Dalex64Quote: RSQuote: Dalex64The proposal is to tax at 70% taxable income in excess of 10 million dollars.
From what I could tell, in 2014, the top 1% earned more than 456,000 dollars in adjusted GROSS income (which is greater than their taxable earnings)
What percentage of Americans earn more than 10 million in taxable earnings?
Emphasis mine.
Does it matter? No. Wrong is wrong.
The bold bit, about how many it affects, was aimed more to your statement "Fact is you (general) would be taxed at a rate of 70% on something."
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that, but if only a fraction of 1% is affected, then you (general) would not be taxed at a rate of 70% on anything.
I was talking about the people in that tax bracket, or at least that’s what I intended to write.
Once the tax tables have been fixed, the need for a wealth tax will decrease.
Quote: Tanko
Add that to her new wealth bill, Ocasio-Cortez’ proposal for 70% top tax rate, Bernies Medicare for All, and Kamala’s ‘debt-free’ college, and the Party that oversaw seven of the eight past recessions, and eleven of the past thirteen bear markets is about to do it again.
I just checked my last tax statement. I happily paid my 0.318% wealth tax in Switzerland over the last few years. So to those that fear that a wealth tax, universal healthcare and free colleges would lead to a crumbling society: pay a visit to Switzerland, aka the richest country on the planet (no, Luxemburg doesn't count, and yes, per capita is the only metric that matters).
So I kinda get - from the American perspecitve - why a wealth tax would be a hard sell to some. The estate tax however - this not not money "deservedly earned through hard work". This is somebody elses (one's parents) hard work. Conservatives are all about "I built that" right? So you shouldn't become rich by inheritance. Everybody should do their own hard work. And even with 100% estate tax, it would still be very easy for rich people to give their children a head start in life. They'd still live in easy mode, even if they had to work with their own two hands a little.
Quote: RogerKintYeah get it together, Venezuela. It works when white ppl do it!
Even sarcastic racism kinda rubs me the wrong way, so let's just say whatever the color of your skin may be, don't put an idiot bus driver in charge. (Nothing against hard working bus drivers either, but statistics show they rarely win any Nobel prizes.)
So, assuming you had a national sales tax with that provision, what else do you need? Do we still need all the tax loopholes?
Swiss population 8.2 Million Largest City Zurich 1.2 Million
Black population 0.6%
And civil rights ?
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/blacks-feel-rejected-by-the-swiss/1017892
Hardly a blue print for USA
Quote: jackmagic777Think the new referendum will end Swiss-EU migration ?
Swiss population 8.2 Million Largest City Zurich 1.2 Million
Black population 0.6%
And civil rights ?
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/blacks-feel-rejected-by-the-swiss/1017892
Hardly a blue print for USA
It is not my opinion that Switzerland is a perfect country. And racism is definitely an issue.
But if the notion is that a wealth tax will somehow lead to a depression - no it will not.
In fact, it stimulates growth since it puts money back into circulation (e.g. by the government buying much needed infrastructure) that would otherwise just be a number in a bank account or investment portfolio.
Quote: RSFact is you (general) would be taxed at a rate of 70% on something.
okay, I'll take the bait
give me just one example of what you fear you will be taxed at a rate of 70% on
this post from RS is 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 bogus BS typical of the fearmongering from the right
I guess you just post your nonsense hoping nobody will actually read it and challenge you
because you know if they do your post is toast
Quote: lilredroosterokay, I'll take the bait
give me just one example of what you fear you will be taxed at a rate of 70% on
this post from RS is 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 bogus BS typical of the fearmongering from the right
I guess you just post your nonsense hoping nobody will actually read it and challenge you
because you know if they do your post is toast
Income above $10M, whether it’s someone else’s or mine. Much wow, I got very toasted. Lulz
Quote: RSIncome above $10M, whether it’s someone else’s or mine.
doesn't fly dude because that's not what you said or meant
you said this:
Quote: RSFact is 𝐲𝐨𝐮 (𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥) would be taxed at a rate of 70% on something.
you were obviously referring to average people, not people with income above $𝟏𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧
your dog won't hunt
I have always thought a national sales tax would be a sensible* way to replace the Fed Income Tax. I think it wouldn't be to difficult to determine a value for purchasing a year's worth of necessities. Then, like you say, rx, you could rebate the taxes on that amount for each person. And people would be happy that they still get the rebate checks that some depend on*** with today's tax system.Quote: rxwineSomeone suggested a sales tax being harder on the low-middle and low income people, but I suppose you could offset it the way we offset already. Low income get some of that returned at the end of the year.
So, assuming you had a national sales tax with that provision, what else do you need? Do we still need all the tax loopholes?
Although, I think we'd start see a lot of untaxed trade and barter corp up to avoid the sales tax. Also, I could see where people would buy less since everything costs more. But, maybe not, since they will have more disposable income.
Quote: lilredroosterdoesn't fly dude because that's not what you said or meant
you said this:
you were obviously referring to average people, not people with income above $𝟏𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧
your dog won't hunt
If you are interested, you can read my other posts in this thread. Hopefully it’ll clear up some confusion.
Quote: CanyoneroI just checked my last tax statement. I happily paid my 0.318% wealth tax in Switzerland over the last few years. So to those that fear that a wealth tax, universal healthcare and free colleges would lead to a crumbling society: pay a visit to Switzerland, aka the richest country on the planet (no, Luxemburg doesn't count, and yes, per capita is the only metric that matters).
So I kinda get - from the American perspecitve - why a wealth tax would be a hard sell to some. The estate tax however - this not not money "deservedly earned through hard work". This is somebody elses (one's parents) hard work. Conservatives are all about "I built that" right? So you shouldn't become rich by inheritance. Everybody should do their own hard work. And even with 100% estate tax, it would still be very easy for rich people to give their children a head start in life. They'd still live in easy mode, even if they had to work with their own two hands a little.
Talk about apples and oranges. A land locked little country of 8 million, who profited in WW2 selling weapons to Allies and Axis, a totally non-diverse population. main industry is tourism and banking.
Oh, by the way Federal Taxes on $500,00 income in Switzerland 40K-45K. Property races 0.3-0.5%. I can see Switzerland supporting 70% tax rate in USA. More Swiss accounts for US citizens hiding money from IRS
What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.
Quote: TigerWuI think jumping straight to 70% is too big a pill to swallow for most people, even if the people complaining about it will never have to deal with it, and the people who DO have to deal with it can easily afford it.
What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.
This is probably the best idea I've seen in this thread so far.
Quote: TigerWuI think jumping straight to 70% is too big a pill to swallow for most people, even if the people complaining about it will never have to deal with it, and the people who DO have to deal with it can easily afford it.
What's the top rate now, like 39%? There should be 5% increases scaling up with salary. Don't just jump straight to 70% from 39%.
The same rate was cut from 70% to 28% from 1982-1988. 6 years.
The experiment is over. Trickle-down is a failure. The time for bold moves and big ideas is now.
Quote: SteverinosThe same rate was cut from 70% to 28% from 1982-1988. 6 years.
The experiment is over. Trickle-down is a failure. The time for bold moves and big ideas is now.
well, not the best comparison.
the top rate in 1981 was 70% on incomes above about 272,000, or about 544,000 in "2013 dollars"
in 1982 that dropped to 50% on incomes above about 100,000, mostly by eliminating the higher brackets and slightly raising the tax on 100k from 43% to 50%
the new tax they are talking about is on incomes over 1,000,000, not 544,000, so people earning between those numbers won't see a reversion to 1981 tax levels.
https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
I agree trickle-down is a failure.
Quote: lilredroosterdoesn't fly dude because that's not what you said or meant
you said this:
you were obviously referring to average people, not people with income above $𝟏𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧
your dog won't hunt
I find it typical for conservatives to care about other people as much as themselves. Libs trying to shake everyone down under the guise of some sort of warped idea of fairness, not so much.
Quote: MaxPenI find it typical for conservatives to care about other people as much as themselves. Libs trying to shake everyone down under the guise of some sort of warped idea of fairness, not so much.
I find it typical for both conservatives and liberals to care about other people as much as themselves. They just have different ways of going about it. Divisiveness and generalizations (such as you are displaying here) doesn't help anyone.
Quote: TomGquick search shows that there are 540 billionaires in the US. Let them all vote on whether or not there should be a wealth tax for anyone with that much money. Make it one vote for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Who could ever be against that?
Lets MAGA by returning to the days of the rollicking 1950s. Economy was great, government was builing roads, highways and infrastructure, all with a 90% top tax rate and not a single billionaire.
Quote: TomGquick search shows that there are 540 billionaires in the US. Let them all vote on whether or not there should be a wealth tax for anyone with that much money. Make it one vote for every $1,000,000,000 earned. Who could ever be against that?
How about for president in 2020, every citizen 18 or older gets to vote.
Whoever gets the most votes, is president.
Who could ever be against that?
Quote: FinsRuleHow about for president in 2020, every citizen 18 or older gets to vote.
Whoever gets the most votes, is president.
Who could ever be against that?
The Founding Fathers, among many others.
Quote: billryanThe Founding Fathers, among many others.
We shouldn't care what the Founding Fathers would think about how the country is run 250 years into their future.
Imagine if we tried to criticize people 250 years from NOW about how they ran things, without knowing anything about their contemporary society, culture, politics, etc.
Quote: FinsRuleHow about for president in 2020, every citizen 18 or older gets to vote.
Whoever gets the most votes, is president.
Who could ever be against that?
2 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
Quote: RS2 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
Ok, so billionaires voting on a wealth tax doesn’t make sense then. Got it.
Hold the equities in some kind of fund or escrow and sell it off piecemeal over the years?
You couldn't just make, say, Jeff Bezos sell $50 billion in Amazon stock for cold hard cash and just hand it over.
Quote: TigerWuIf the majority of assets of most billionaires is held in equities, how do you collect that in tax form
If a non-billionaire owes money in taxes, but doesn’t have the cash to pay, how is it collected?
Quote: TomGIf a non-billionaire owes money in taxes, but doesn’t have the cash to pay, how is it collected?
Monthly payment plan?
Quote: FinsRuleOk, so billionaires voting on a wealth tax doesn’t make sense then. Got it.
Saying 60% or whatever figure they spouting nowadays of people support some new wealth or income tax is the exact same thing. Except a billionaire’s money is HIS money, not anyone else’s. People are generally going to vote for whatever is in their best interest or what they perceive to be in their best interest. It’s easier to convince 51% of people to support a system where they don’t have to work as hard and they get stuff for free or cheap, than to convince 51% of people to work hard so they too can be successful and provide for themselves.
Capital flows to where it’s treated best. It’s much easier for a rich person to move around the world than somone of humble means. Rich people won’t stand for this, if things get bad enough they will just pack up and invest elsewhere.
Oh what you say??? Just introduce capital flow restrictions that will keep them a prisoner & investing in the US.
If and when that comes, it will be the saddest day of all. America, land of the free can’t even move capital around the world anymore. Be careful someday Ms. Warren might use that border wall to make sure rich people stay in America.
Quote: TigerWuIf the majority of assets of most billionaires is held in equities, how do you collect that in tax form?
Hold the equities in some kind of fund or escrow and sell it off piecemeal over the years?
You couldn't just make, say, Jeff Bezos sell $50 billion in Amazon stock for cold hard cash and just hand it over.
Sure you could. And he would owe capital gains tax on that sale too.
Assuming the wealth tax passed constitutional muster, of course.
