After decades, there's finally some little tax increase for billionaires paying 8%. Meet Manchin.

[ttwtt78640]

Agreed.

If I had it my way we'd have a flat tax.

Having a federal income tax with single (flat) rate could work, but only coupled with a very generous standard deduction. Such a (two number) income tax system would still be effectively progressive - much more so at lower income levels.

We should remove all of the nonsense which alters the amount of taxable income based on how and upon who that income was later spent.

 

[The AntiDonald]

This idea of considering unrealized capital gains as income ignores common sense.

The large equity in my home. It means nothing until I sell it. But the tax man is there every 6 months with their hand out.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The large equity in my home. It means nothing until I sell it. But the tax man is there every 6 months with their hand out.

That is a property tax, not an income (or federal) tax. BTW, the property tax is not based on your “equity”, its based on the property’s assessed value.

 

[Craig234]

Seems to me we already pay a tax on those sorts of assets. My home is worth $650,000.00 and I pay taxes on that unrealized income every year. I don't have to sell it to be taxed on it. I really don't see the difference.

Because there isn't one except that you don't get the special treatment the very wealthy do.

 

[Craig234]

If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would have to cozy up to liberal Republicans like Susan Collins and such.

Collins is very concerned - and a LRINO. Liberal Republican In Name Only.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because there isn't one except that you don't get the special treatment the very wealthy do.

This (proposed) new ‘wealth’ tax is designed to treat the very wealthy specially, yet you seem to like that idea. Your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[Atreus21]

Having a federal income tax with single (flat) rate could work, but only coupled with a very generous standard deduction. Such a (two number) income tax system would still be effectively progressive - much more so at lower income levels.

We should remove all of the nonsense which alters the amount of taxable income based on how and upon who that income was later spent.

It seems to me that most debates about taxes focus more on what is just and fair over efficacy.

If that's to be the focus, then a flat tax seems the fairest. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of all income, regardless of how it's acquired.

Yes, lower income earners would pay more than they do now, but I say that's only fair.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It seems to me that most debates about taxes focus more on what is just and fair over efficacy.

If that's to be the focus, then a flat tax seems the fairest. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of all income, regardless of how it's acquired.

Yes, lower income earners would pay more than they do now, but I say that's only fair.

I disagree with the idea of taxing income at a single rate without a generous standard deduction. That was the reason for including a “prebate” in the Fair Tax tax proposal. Reducing the (net) income of those at or near the poverty level makes no sense, since that would simply increase their ’need’ for “safety net” assistance.

There would be less complexity by taxing income from all sources equally, but not more fairness. For example, taxing Social Security retirement or disability benefits would simply amount to reducing them. Taxing long term capital gains at the same rate would amount to taxing inflation, but that could be handled by indexing (adjusting?) the taxable amount of a long term capital gain based on CP inflation.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I think it does. In this environment you're at the mercy of such people. If you had just one more Democrat seat you could almost ignore Manchin or other conservative democrats.

If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would have to cozy up to liberal Republicans like Susan Collins and such.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Joe Manchin is hardly a Democrat.

 

[Atreus21]

I disagree with the idea of taxing income at a single rate without a generous standard deduction. That was the reason for including a “prebate” in the Fair Tax tax proposal. Reducing the (net) income of those at or near the poverty level makes no sense, since that would simply increase their ’need’ for “safety net” assistance.

There would be less complexity by taxing income from all sources equally, but not more fairness. For example, taxing Social Security retirement or disability benefits would simply amount to reducing them. Taxing long term capital gains at the same rate would amount to taxing inflation, but that could be handled by indexing (adjusting?) the taxable amount of a long term capital gain based on CP inflation.

I think I'm out of my depth, heh. This is lazy of me but to me it's about the principle.

I dislike the notion of taxing the rich at a higher percentage for no other reason than they're rich and can stand it. The government ought not distinguish between people on that basis, as if to say, "We dislike you and think being rich is morally suspect, so we're going to take it from you." I think rather the approach should be: You're an American, and as an American you have X responsibility in terms of taxes. That X should be held constant for all citizens. It's the price of being a citizen that encumbers each of us equally.

 

[Atreus21]

That has nothing to do with the fact that Joe Manchin is hardly a Democrat.

Well, he's a democrat elected by the reddest state in the nation. Whatever his partisan affiliation, he's certainly representing the people who elected him.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think I'm out of my depth, heh. This is lazy of me but to me it's about the principle.

I dislike the notion of taxing the rich at a higher percentage for no other reason than they're rich and can stand it. The government ought not distinguish between people on that basis, as if to say, "We dislike you and think being rich is morally suspect, so we're going to take it from you." I think rather the approach should be: You're an American, and as an American you have X responsibility in terms of taxes. That X should be held constant for all citizens. It's the price of being a citizen that encumbers each of us equally.

That was the original intent (expressed by the constitution), but the 16A changed that by allowing direct (federal) taxation of income. The initial federal income tax (FIT) code did tax all of everyone’s income, but used progressive rates between 1% and 7%. Of course, the FIT code is now a complicated mess (about 80K pages of law) with numerous deductions, credits, exclusions and special accounting methods.

The Social Security portion of the FICA ‘payroll’ tax does almost the opposite - it taxes all wages at a flat rate up to an income cap.

I would prefer a two number FIT system: a truly standard, yet generous, deduction (of say $30K - which is adjusted annually for CPI inflation) and a flat tax rate (of say 20%) applied any and all income above that amount. That would get rid of the ‘social engineering’ nonsense of ”adjusting” one’s taxable income based on how or upon who that income was later spent.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

That has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Manchin being a Democrat in name only.

And there is no reason why poor republican voters who like to blame all problems on democrats, should be against taxing billionaires. And whining how it is not fair. How stupid can you be?

all problems in this country are thanks to the greedy scumbag billionaires and millionaires. They take all the wealth, they rob the treasury blind, they own the politicians to allow them even more wealth that they couldn't even possible spend in several generations without making a single dime more, they push for wars so they can benefit financially from that, they keep people in perpetuate debt. They pay shit wages, they own the entire supply chain and jack up prices and gouge people, millions are in poverty or rigth on the cusp while they take all the wealth.

Other than being complete brainwashed idiots so easily duped by propaganda, everybody in this country should be united in taxing billionaires who have robbed the treasury blind. Where do you think all that war money, tax breaks, bailouts, and many other taxpayer money goes to? It goes to the wealthy

 

[Mithrae]

I think I'm out of my depth, heh. This is lazy of me but to me it's about the principle.

I dislike the notion of taxing the rich at a higher percentage for no other reason than they're rich and can stand it. The government ought not distinguish between people on that basis, as if to say, "We dislike you and think being rich is morally suspect, so we're going to take it from you." I think rather the approach should be: You're an American, and as an American you have X responsibility in terms of taxes. That X should be held constant for all citizens. It's the price of being a citizen that encumbers each of us equally.

Taxing the rich at higher rates is not "for no other reason than they're rich." There are numerous sound reasons for a progressive taxation system, of which @ttwtt78640's comments on a tax-free threshold touch on only the first.

Social coercion vs. state of nature: If we had access to an alternative, a hypothetical state of nature free of other humans' coercion, no-one would consent to participation in society and obedience to its laws if that made their lives worse off. Therefore all societies have a fundamental moral obligation to provide a decent minimum standard of living (eg. welfare, tax-free thresholds) ensuring even their worst-off members are better off within society than they would be without, because otherwise it's a society of coercion and repression rather than freedom and opportunity.

Necessary vs. disposable incomes: Expanding beyond the above, after budgeting for civilized necessities like food, housing, clothes, children, transport, education, healthcare, basic recreation and eventual retirement, the percentage of disposable income paid by the very rich is actually far smaller than for most folk. Arguably most folk don't really have much if any truly disposable income at all - they're being taxed on income necessary for a modest civilized lifestyle - effectively meaning that even if top marginal rates on multi-million dollar incomes were set to ninety percent, the rich would still be paying a lower rate, still keeping ten percent of disposable incomes compared to the zero which most people have.

Earned vs. unearned wealth: It may be necessary, but it's understandable for folk to feel a bit peeved over governments taking a cut from what they feel they've earned by the sweat of their brow. However claiming ownership over some land and charging people money to use it is not earning income by the sweat of your brow; having some spare millions lying around to invest in shares is not earning income; gaining a multi-million dollar executive pay package based on the size of the company you're managing is (mostly) not earning income, moreso leveraging influence over the efforts of the company's employees and consumers. It makes total sense that unearned income can be fairly taxed at a higher rate than earned income, and however it is acquired, most of the wealth of the ultra-rich necessarily must be unearned; Bill Gates might be two or three times smarter and harder working than most other folk, but not millions of times moreso!

Continued below...

 

[Mithrae]

...continued from above:

That X should be held constant for all citizens. It's the price of being a citizen that encumbers each of us equally.

Taxation as 'redistribution' vs. distribution of wealth: It's a fundamental error in perception to think that taxation is taking stuff that naturally or rightfully 'belongs' to someone. With some possible caveats in terms of the above 'state of nature' and 'sweat of your brow' concepts, distribution of income and wealth is broadly determined by governments and societies to begin with; through the choice of economic system upheld in the laws, through historic open discrimination and ongoing discrimination of opportunity, through infrastructure, planning, contracting, policing and regulation. There is no natural distribution of wealth since none of this would exist at all without our agreements as societies (albeit historically often under duress if not open tyranny) to respect certain property 'rights' and interact with each other in certain ways. Taxation is just one of the later, fine-tuning stages of that overall process of societies' determination of who should have what. As such, the question "How much should the rich be taxed?" is essentially equivalent to, no less valid and certainly no more valid than the question "How much should the rich be allowed to keep?" What does that imply, if we're basing our ideas on fairness and treating everyone equally?

Productive vs. destructive wealth: This is probably the most important but least acknowledged issue, the fact that extreme concentration of wealth is fundamentally destructive: It's destructive to democratic society, through the disproportionate influence on politicians directly and public opinion indirectly. It's destructive to the environment and the earth- and eco-systems on which human civilization depends for its continuation, through disproportionate consumption of rare resources and polluting tendencies such as private planes and yachts. It's even destructive to the wealthy person's own psychological wellbeing, undermining their basic human empathy and sense of perspective by disconnecting and creating the illusion of elevation above the trials which most others go through. While the preceding points all make a sound philosophical cases for progressive taxation, this last point highlights the need for far, far more progressive taxation if not a hard cap on total wealth based on intensely practical concerns - ultimately, potentially, the very survival of human civilization itself.

Embarrassment of Riches

For the sake of life on Earth, we should set an upper limit on the money any person can amass. By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 19th September 2019 It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists, for example, can become extremely...

www.monbiot.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

...continued from above:



Taxation as 'redistribution' vs. distribution of wealth: It's a fundamental error in perception to think that taxation is taking stuff that naturally or rightfully 'belongs' to someone. With some possible caveats in terms of the above 'state of nature' and 'sweat of your brow' concepts, distribution of income and wealth is broadly determined by governments and societies to begin with; through the choice of economic system upheld in the laws, through historic open discrimination and ongoing discrimination of opportunity, through infrastructure, planning, contracting, policing and regulation. There is no natural distribution of wealth since none of this would exist at all without our agreements as societies (albeit historically often under duress if not open tyranny) to respect certain property 'rights' and interact with each other in certain ways. Taxation is just one of the later, fine-tuning stages of that overall process of societies' determination of who should have what. As such, the question "How much should the rich be taxed?" is essentially equivalent to, no less valid and certainly no more valid than the question "How much should the rich be allowed to keep?" What does that imply, if we're basing our ideas on fairness and treating everyone equally?

Productive vs. destructive wealth: This is probably the most important but least acknowledged issue, the fact that extreme concentration of wealth is fundamentally destructive: It's destructive to democratic society, through the disproportionate influence on politicians directly and public opinion indirectly. It's destructive to the environment and the earth- and eco-systems on which human civilization depends for its continuation, through disproportionate consumption of rare resources and polluting tendencies such as private planes and yachts. It's even destructive to the wealthy person's own psychological wellbeing, undermining their basic human empathy and sense of perspective by disconnecting and creating the illusion of elevation above the trials which most others go through. While the preceding points all make a sound philosophical case for progressive taxation, this last point highlights the need for far, far more progressive taxation if not a hard cap on total wealth based on intensely practical concerns - ultimately, potentially, the very survival of human civilization itself.

Embarrassment of Riches

For the sake of life on Earth, we should set an upper limit on the money any person can amass. By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 19th September 2019 It is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Musicians and novelists, for example, can become extremely...

www.monbiot.com

I gave your (very lengthy and detailed post) a “like”, but you have wandered pretty far from the topic.

My fundamental objections to the proposed ”billionaires” tax are:

1) Annual unrealized capital gains on liquid assets are not income. That means the 16A does not apply.

2) Even if unrealized capital gains were to be (erroneously) considered to be income then they should be taxed (as such) regardless of some (newly created?) guesstimate of a household’s ‘wealth”.

3) Billionaires are not defined as having a household ‘wealth’ of over $100M. One does not become a billionaire, by increasing their household’s ‘wealth’ from $100,000,000 to $100,000,001. Creating that kind of an income ‘cliff’ in the tax code is moronic - it means going from owing no special tax penalty (being not guilty?) to owing a potentially substantial special tax penalty (being found guilty?) for having dared to add $1 of excess ‘wealth’. (Which is partly addressed in point 2 above and further in point 4 below).

4) The idea of having a special tax (penalty?) levied upon only on a tiny and well defined (0.01%?) subset of the population seems to fit the definition of creating a bill of attainder statute.

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

Definition: Bill of Attainder.

 

[Mithrae]

I gave your (very lengthy and detailed post) a “like”, but you have wandered pretty far from the topic.

My fundamental objections to the proposed ”billionaires” tax are:

Those don't seem to be fundamental objections at all; your first three points are very much fine-details (income 'cliff' vs. more gradual phase-in, though I agree the latter would make sense) or even essentially semantic objections ('income' vs. increase in wealth, 'billionaires' vs. hundred-millionaires), while your fourth seems to be a non-starter given the long history of 'sin taxes' (and see also my fourth point above that income/wealth taxation isn't a penalty, just the tail end of society's wealth distribution process).

The fundamental issue/question is whether or not the ultra-rich should pay more. Merely critiquing the fine details of a particular proposal seems like a way of saying "no" without actually addressing that issue. Obviously many believe they should pay more including, at least in terms of lip service to the idea, the Biden administration. Personally I'd say they should pay much, much more for the fifth reason above, the thoroughly destructive tendencies which extreme concentration of wealth has against democracy, the environment and sustainability of human civilization - to say nothing of the incalculable good which could be accomplished by vastly expanded public investment in healthcare, education, science, international development, infrastructure, environmental protection/rewilding and space programs. So I suppose I'd criticize plans like this as essentially providing a smokescreen, a false veneer of having 'done something' when all it would accomplish is raise a little extra revenue without seriously addressing either the core injustices/upwardly-concentrating nature of the current economic system nor the profound negative consequences which result from it.

But ultimately, whatever its shortcomings it seems like it would at least be a tiny, tiny step in the right direction. Odds are that many Democrat politicians will be glad of any obstruction coming from Manchin and the Republicans, so they can tell their constituents that that they tried, they really did, while also not upsetting their donors by actually accomplishing anything.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those don't seem to be fundamental objections at all; your first three points are very much fine-details (income 'cliff' vs. more gradual phase-in, though I agree the latter would make sense) or even essentially semantic objections ('income' vs. increase in wealth, 'billionaires' vs. hundred-millionaires), while your fourth seems to be a non-starter given the long history of 'sin taxes' (and see also my fourth point above that income/wealth taxation isn't a penalty, just the tail end of society's wealth distribution process).

The fundamental issue/question is whether or not the ultra-rich should pay more. Merely critiquing the fine details of a particular proposal seems like a way of saying "no" without actually addressing that issue. Obviously many believe they should pay more including, at least in terms of lip service to the idea, the Biden administration. Personally I'd say they should pay much, much more for the fifth reason above, the thoroughly destructive tendencies which extreme concentration of wealth has against democracy, the environment and sustainability of human civilization - to say nothing of the incalculable good which could be accomplished by vastly expanded public investment in healthcare, education, science, international development, infrastructure, environmental protection/rewilding and space programs. So I suppose I'd criticize plans like this as essentially providing a smokescreen, a false veneer of having 'done something' when all it would accomplish is raise a little extra revenue without seriously addressing either the core injustices/upwardly-concentrating nature of the current economic system nor the profound negative consequences which result from it.

But ultimately, whatever its shortcomings it seems like it would at least be a tiny, tiny step in the right direction. Odds are that many Democrat politicians will be glad of any obstruction coming from Manchin and the Republicans, so they can tell their constituents that that they tried, they really did, while also not upsetting their donors by actually accomplishing anything.

The simplest way, by far, to make the rich pay more is to simply raise the upper income tax bracket rates or impose a ‘minimum alternate tax rate’ on gross (rather than adjusted gross) income. The problem is that there are about 80K pages of federal income tax law with many devoted to establishing deductions, credits, exclusions, ‘supplemental’ schedules and special accounting methods - most with the express purpose of letting the rich pay less in taxes.

 

[Craig234]

It seems to me that most debates about taxes focus more on what is just and fair over efficacy.

If that's to be the focus, then a flat tax seems the fairest. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of all income, regardless of how it's acquired.

Yes, lower income earners would pay more than they do now, but I say that's only fair.

No, it's not. Why don't you go back and read from a century ago why we have a progressive income tax, from Teddy Roosevelt, and use a little common sense why someone with little and someone with billions don't have a 'fair' distribution of burden to pay tax?

“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth……"

“No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar?s worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

 

[Craig234]

Well, he's a democrat elected by the reddest state in the nation. Whatever his partisan affiliation, he's certainly representing the people who elected him.

Some of the poorest people in the nation have no reason to support the tax burden be shifted off of the 0.01% onto them. You're confusing Republican propaganda because they're entirely corrupt with the interests of the Republican voters.

 

[NatMorton]

Because of COURSE Manchin wants to gut a core benefit for the country the rest of Democrats support.

Manchin Blasted for Opposing Biden's Plan to Tax US Billionaires | Common Dreams

"Manchin is apparently eager to tax the obscenely rich in every way except the ones by which they actually make their obscene money."

www.commondreams.org

If you’d like to base your opinions on something that is not a lie, here are the actual average tax rates by income bracket.



The Biden administration is full of shite on this issue, and their Greek Chorus is here to help them shovel it.

 

[HangLow]

I think I'm out of my depth, heh. This is lazy of me but to me it's about the principle.
I dislike the notion of taxing the rich at a higher percentage for no other reason than they're rich and can stand it. The government ought not distinguish between people on that basis, as if to say, "We dislike you and think being rich is morally suspect, so we're going to take it from you." I think rather the approach should be: You're an American, and as an American you have X responsibility in terms of taxes. That X should be held constant for all citizens. It's the price of being a citizen that encumbers each of us equally.

Thank for looking out for me...
-peace

​

From an ole girlfriend of mine...
"Heh. Somewhere along the line, this country failed at educating its lower classes.
Whatever the trailer-bangers think *elite* means, they're wrong.
To be concise, *elite* means better than you.

• Rich people drive better cars than you do.
• Rich people live in better houses than you do.
• Rich people wear better clothes than you do.
• Rich people attend better schools than you do.
• Rich people have better-looking children than you do.
• Rich people have dogs that don't eat their own shit.

This is your brain.
This is your brain on ingrained poverty."

Any questions?

 

[Integrityrespec]

They've payed the humongous share of total tax revenue for decades. Biden's plan is idiotic.

When you take an honest look at who is paying taxes you find the democrats are lying and their supporters evidently don't bother to check to see what the facts are.

 

[Bullseye]

When you take an honest look at who is paying taxes you find the democrats are lying and their supporters evidently don't bother to check to see what the facts are.

Dems rely on low information, gullible fools for their support.

 

[Atreus21]

Thank for looking out for me...
-peace

View attachment 67383084​

From an ole girlfriend of mine...
"Heh. Somewhere along the line, this country failed at educating its lower classes.
Whatever the trailer-bangers think *elite* means, they're wrong.
To be concise, *elite* means better than you.

• Rich people drive better cars than you do.
• Rich people live in better houses than you do.
• Rich people wear better clothes than you do.
• Rich people attend better schools than you do.
• Rich people have better-looking children than you do.
• Rich people have dogs that don't eat their own shit.

This is your brain.
This is your brain on ingrained poverty."

Any questions?

I'm sorry, I just don't look at wealthy people and immediately envy them. I'm not a marxist.