3% wealth tax on billionaires

[TurtleDude]

So you think 20% tax is an equal burden on someone making 20K a year as it is on someone making 2 million a year?

Is paying for a cheeseburger or a pair of jeans and equal burden on a guy like me vs someone paying minimum wage? Let me clue you in-I don't have any use for the "from each according to their ability " nonsense.

 

[Geoist]

military spending is rather large.

And first thing that needs to be cut.

 

[aociswundumho]

What about for poor people?

Good point.

For income a rate of 1% for the first $40,000 and then a progressive scale to whatever income you like up to a max rate of 10%.

The capital gains rate would be equal to the rate the taxpayer pays for income.

Problem solved.

 

[TurtleDude]

And first thing that needs to be cut.

I can find all sorts of constitutional support for military spending. Almost nothing for welfare. But I agree with you, we are spending far too much money overseas

 

[Geoist]

Is paying for a cheeseburger or a pair of jeans and equal burden on a guy like me vs someone paying minimum wage?

Obviously not, which is even more reason why the tax burden on the working class should be lower than it is on the upper class.

Let me clue you in-I don't have any use for the "from each according to their ability " nonsense.

So I assume you don't have much use for the widow's mite parable from the Bible? Not assuming your faith, but I do find it ironic how many so-called Christians support the flat tax.

 

[jaeger19]

I swear to god, do you guys even read posts? Do you know what revenue neutral means? Did you not read where I said most homeowners would benefit from the transition???




Your 'argument' is completely incoherent. What person does not account for taxes when determining where they want to live and/or retire?

Yes..I understand what you mean. As revenue neutral
Do do do means it would effect poor and middle class more.
Most people do not account for taxes when the retire.
They retire in the house they bought or parents bought decades ago.
They did not estimate taxes then.
My mother in law bought her house in 1960.
She retired in 2009. Since then there was a housing boom that doubled the value of her house since that time.
How was she to plan for this in 1960?

 

[distraff]

Good point.

For income a rate of 1% for the first $40,000 and then a progressive scale to whatever income you like up to a max rate of 10%.

The capital gains rate would be equal to the rate the taxpayer pays for income.

Problem solved.

So the average income is like $60,000. So depending on how to make that progressive scale, that will probably be an effective rate near 1% for most people. The government will have a 2 trillion dollar deficit in the near future, and the income tax has a 2 trillion dollar revenue, that you want to dramatically reduce. Care to tell me how we are going to cut about say 3.5 trillion dollars a year of spending?

 

[TurtleDude]

Obviously not, which is even more reason why the tax burden on the working class should be lower than it is on the upper class.




So I assume you don't have much use for the widow's mite parable from the Bible? Not assuming your faith, but I do find it ironic how many so-called Christians support the flat tax.

why? at a flat rate a guy making three million a year pays 10X more than a guy making 300K or 100X what a guy making 30K a year makes. I am not a Christian, I immediately reject any attempt to justify parasitic behavior based on the bible,

 

[jaeger19]

I can find all sorts of constitutional support for military spending. Almost nothing for welfare. But I agree with you, we are spending far too much money overseas

Really? Please show me in the constitution where it provides for a standing army...

 

[Geoist]

I can find all sorts of constitutional support for military spending.

I doubt the Founding Fathers wanted our nation to spend more on the military than the next ten countries combined. Hell, Jefferson cut the Navy down to small gunboats.

 

[aociswundumho]

So the average income is like $60,000. So depending on how to make that progressive scale, that will probably be an effective rate near 1% for most people. The government will have a 2 trillion dollar deficit in the near future, and the income tax has a 2 trillion dollar revenue, that you want to dramatically reduce. Care to tell me how we are going to cut about say 3.5 trillion dollars a year of spending?

Easy, abolish the federal government.

 

[distraff]

Easy, abolish the federal government.

But then that will just shift the entire tax burden to state governments, and we will be having the exact same debate about state income taxes.

 

[TurtleDude]

I doubt the Founding Fathers wanted our nation to spend more on the military than the next ten countries combined. Hell, Jefferson cut the Navy down to small gunboats.

I doubted the founders would have supported FDR's complete rejection of the tenth amendment, the second amendment, or the use of the commerce clause to justify all sorts of bullshit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Really? Please show me in the constitution where it provides for a standing army...

LOL, do you think that is less constitutional than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal gun control. etc?

 

[Geoist]

Yes..I understand what you mean. As revenue neutral
Do do do means it would effect poor and middle class more.
Most people do not account for taxes when the retire.
They retire in the house they bought or parents bought decades ago.
They did not estimate taxes then.
My mother in law bought her house in 1960.
She retired in 2009. Since then there was a housing boom that doubled the value of her house since that time.
How was she to plan for this in 1960?

If your mom truly cannot pay the tax then she can sell the house for a sweet profit or, if she insists on living out her days in the house then that can be resolved with a roll-up/defer option.

 

[Geoist]

why? at a flat rate a guy making three million a year pays 10X more than a guy making 300K or 100X what a guy making 30K a year makes.

A guy making 30K a year can barely get by with housing, food, and utilities. So yes, the burden is far greater on them than the same tax rate on a millionaire.

 

[jaeger19]

military spending is rather large. Red states tend to have a bit more of that IIRC

Um you mean like California Virginia Washington
Maryland conneticut..Pennsylvania?
They are in the top 10. Hawaii just outside that.
Barking up the wrong tree.
California is number one and despite that sends more to the federal government than it gets back.

 

[Geoist]

I doubted the founders would have supported FDR's complete rejection of the tenth amendment, the second amendment, or the use of the commerce clause to justify all sorts of bullshit.

It seems we put these Founders on a pedestal too often. And I won't even go the slave route, but you do know John Adams completely rejected the 1st Amendment with the Alien and Sedition Act, right?

 

[jaeger19]

If your mom truly cannot pay the tax then she can sell the house for a sweet profit or, if she insists on living out her days in the house then that can be resolved with a roll-up/defer option.

Right so she has to sell the house...and then go live in a rental so she has to pay increasing rent every year...
Dude..it just doesn't work. It's why they constantly have to do radical adjustments to property taxes because the elderly get squeezed out of their houses do to increasing land values..

 

[TurtleDude]

It seems we put these Founders on a pedestal too often. And I won't even go the slave route, but you do know John Adams completely rejected the 1st Amendment with the Alien and Sedition Act, right?

I am merely stating an obvious fact, what FDR did was the single biggest rape of the bill of rights in US History

 

[Geoist]

Right so she has to sell the house...and then go live in a rental so she has to pay increasing rent every year...

I get the feeling you read about half of my sentences and then stop.

I presented two options if she cannot pay the tax: sell the house OR go with the roll-up/defer option.

 

[jaeger19]

LOL, do you think that is less constitutional than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal gun control. etc?

Actual according to the founders..yes.
The founders had social programs for widows and orphans..for old folks
What they specifically limited in the constitution was a standing army and military spending

 

[Geoist]

I am merely stating an obvious fact, what FDR did was the single biggest rape of the bill of rights in US History

For the 10th Amendment stuff? I find it interesting you bring up THAT as a metaphorical 'rape' of the Bill of Rights, but not the internment of Japanese Americans.

 

[jaeger19]

I get the feeling you read about half of my sentences and then stop.

I presented two options if she cannot pay the tax: sell the house OR go with the roll-up/defer option.

No..I just understand that your plan doesn't work..which is why when confronted with an issue..its but but.. we could.
Dude your premise starts with people buying a house in 1960 being able to plan for their house value in 2020..

 

[Kushinator]

I'd like a flat rate -on all income and everyone pays the same rate. Destroys congressional power

They can still borrow.