3% wealth tax on billionaires

[Geoist]

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..

Once again, you seem to just ignore my actual responses. I said they can go with the roll-up option to keep the house. How many times do I have to repeat myself with you?

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

It's fine with me if you abolish them too.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

I have lambasted FDR many times about that-but it is now unconstitutional while much of his other stuff remains

 

[Individual]

Maybe you should read my quote again and figure it out. In the crazy hypothetical of the ultra-wealthy (who are the dominant landholders) leaving the country and selling/giving up their properties what do you think that does to the cost of real estate? Think supply and demand.

Why do you assert they would sell their property and leave the country rather than raise the rent they charge to cover their costs?
And even if they did, who would be left to provide the revenue needed to run the governments?
They might not be able to take their land with them, but what about their businesses and the jobs they provide? They are easily relocated.

 

[Geoist]

Why do you assert they would sell their property and leave the country

The quote was in reference to another poster's comment.

And even if they did, who would be left to provide the revenue needed to run the governments?

Whoever buys/holds the land after they're gone, of course.

 

[Geoist]

I have lambasted FDR many times about that-but it is now unconstitutional while much of his other stuff remains

You do realize FDR was not the first to 'rape' the Constitution, right? For example, where did Jefferson have the authority to agree to the Louisiana Purchase?

 

[Individual]

The quote was in reference to another poster's comment.




Whoever buys/holds the land after they're gone, of course.

Implement a land value tax and watch all the millionaires and billionaires leave the country... and watch housing suddenly become affordable.

Your post, above, is what I'm questioning.

 

[Geoist]

Your post, above, is what I'm questioning.

I know. I do not assert they will leave the country, it was merely a tongue-in-cheek response to another post.

 

[Individual]

I know. I do not assert they will leave the country, it was merely a tongue-in-cheek response to another post.

My apologies, I thought you were being serious.

 

[jaeger19]

Once again, you seem to just ignore my actual responses. I said they can go with the roll-up option to keep the house. How many times do I have to repeat myself with you?

You don't. Your premise simply doesn't work. Have a nice evening

 

[reflechissez]

Actually no billionaires don't know what they are worth. Not in assets investments etc.
No they don't have people cataloging every house piece of jewelry ..piec of property ..collection etc.
They track instead..income.

I assume this is sarcasm.

 

[jaeger19]

This is so hilariously wrong.

Do tell.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

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?

If you had bothered to read the paper from the Heritage foundation you would have found the answer but to your question no, but there is a simple solution but if you read it all you can then dispute the premise.

 

[reflechissez]

Do tell.

I edited my post.

 

[screenwriter]

I never recruited anybody and I don't know anyone that did. Do you?

Big daddy Gov did your recruiting for you. When SS was implemented there were roughly 350 paying in for every one drawing out. That number is hovering at 3 paying in for every 1 drawing out. That's pre 2020 numbers. And it isn't like there is money in the coffers doing nothing but compounding interest.

 

[Individual]

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

I'd prefer repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, making State governments responsible for collecting the revenue to fund the Federal government.

 

[highroller]

Big daddy Gov did your recruiting for you. When SS was implemented there were roughly 350 paying in for every one drawing out. That number is hovering at 3 paying in for every 1 drawing out. That's pre 2020 numbers. And it isn't like there is money in the coffers doing nothing but compounding interest.

One day we’ll have to raise taxes to pay for the SS recipients.

 

[NatMorton]

The reason this happened is because of rising income inequality. The rich have more money, and therefore pay more of the taxes.

So what's your plan, compel everyone to have the same income?

 

[cpwill]

Are you saying our government's policies should be shaped based on the desires of the billionaire class?

It sure as hell shouldn't be based on vicious abuse of them for the sake of abuse or destruction for the sake of destruction. Whenever a majority targets a minority, that minority's organization and self-awareness as an independent class with it's own independent interests is assured.

 

[Peter]

So what's your plan, compel everyone to have the same income?

You do realise it's possible to have much-reduced income inequality without going to such ridiculous measures?
Holland for example has much less of a gap between the top and bottom of the income scale and managers and company owners aren't throwing themselves off bridges at the horror of not being able to earn 500 times the average income.

 

[code1211]

I think taxing the wealthy is counterintuitive. It seems like a good way to reduce the disparity but only causes the rich to use loopholes, overseas accounts and dummy shell companies to hide more of their income and assets.

Rather than have the gov attempt to collect and distribute the money (wasteful), it needs to be spread around before corporations earn it in the way of higher income for employees. Healthcare, childcare, housing, utilities, food costs, etc are all too high. The retired elderly, disabled, and less fortunate need to be raised above the poverty line. This would be far more beneficial than letting the investor class continue to absorb and create wealth out of nothing.

---
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats on Monday proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion.
The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would aim to close the U.S. wealth gap, which has grown wider during the Covid pandemic.

“The ultra-rich and powerful have rigged the rules in their favor so much that the top 0.1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began,” Warren said Monday in a statement.

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders propose 3% wealth tax on billionaires

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and a slew of other Democrats proposed a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion.

www.cnbc.com

Taxing wealth seems to be a penalty on success.

Taxing income, taxing spending and taxing residence is already being done which are all in their own way taxing wealth.

The government will steal and waste more than they get. Why give them more?

 

[Peter]

It sure as hell shouldn't be based on vicious abuse of them for the sake of abuse or destruction for the sake of destruction. Whenever a majority targets a minority, that minority's organization and self-awareness as an independent class with it's own independent interests is assured.

So to make sure a handful of people have more money than they can possibly spend in 10 lifetimes we need to have less money for the government to spend on things everyone uses like infrastructure?
Fantastic.

 

[NatMorton]

You do realise it's possible to have much-reduced income inequality without going to such ridiculous measures?
Holland for example has much less of a gap between the top and bottom of the income scale and managers and company owners aren't throwing themselves off bridges at the horror of not being able to earn 500 times the average income.

Lowering everyone’s income in order to reduce an income gap is not worth doing, and that’s exactly what confiscatory taxation policies will achieve.

 

[NatMorton]

So to make sure a handful of people have more money than they can possibly spend in 10 lifetimes we need to have less money for the government to spend on things everyone uses like infrastructure?
Fantastic.

You have it backwards. As a consequence of restraining government some will become very rich.

 

[Peter]

Lowering everyone’s income in order to reduce an income gap is not worth doing, and that’s exactly what confiscatory taxation policies will achieve.

Having a lower gap seems to work for Holland.
It's a nice country that I've briefly visited on a work trip.