• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Billionaires have avoided taxation by paying themselves very low salaries while amassing fortunes

make less money = pay less taxes

no one deserves preferential loopholes....

why should anyone receive tax cuts for donating money?
 
make less money = pay less taxes

no one deserves preferential loopholes....

why should anyone receive tax cuts for donating money?
Exactly!!
So fair tax then. A simple percentage from everyone ought to follow nicely with your mantra. I can't wait to hear the backpedaling.
 
Nonsense.

Why not just have a pure tiered flat tax?

First 10k is 0%
10k-30k is 5%
30k-50k is 10%
etc.

Need to get the folks like Razoo actually paying taxes. All he wants to do is extract more money from people he is envious of.
 
Why not just have a pure tiered flat tax?

First 10k is 0%
10k-30k is 5%
30k-50k is 10%
etc.

Need to get the folks like Razoo actually paying taxes. All he wants to do is extract more money from people he is envious of.

WTF? You have now dropped all deductions after asserting that they were necessary.

2022 Standard Deductions​

The deduction set by the IRS for 2022 is:




 
WTF? You have now dropped all deductions after asserting that they were necessary.

No, I said you would see charitable contributions plummet without a deduction. If you are ok with that, fine.

Why should there be any amount of income that is tax free? What % of the population gets a free ride?
 
No, I said you would see charitable contributions plummet without a deduction. If you are ok with that, fine.

Why should there be any amount of income that is tax free? What % of the population gets a free ride?

IMHO, those making 1/2 (or less) than the median income should owe no FIT.
 
In an era of profound inequality, few issues illustrate such stark differences in economic priorities as capital gains taxes. Capital gains accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthy and receive favorable tax treatment in several ways.

Cutting capital gains taxes would confer another windfall on the wealthy, exacerbate the tax preference for income from wealth over income from work, increase inequality, and drain revenue.

By contrast, raising capital gains taxes and closing loopholes would make the wealthy pay more of their fair share, lessen tax code disparities, reduce inequality, and raise substantial revenue for the country.

Capital gains and dividends accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthy and are taxed at preferential rates​

A capital gain is the profit from selling an asset such as a stock or other financial instrument, an interest in a business, or real estate. The gains from the sale of such assets held more than one year are considered long-term gains and taxed at special low rates.

While ordinary income such as wages and salaries is taxed at rates ranging from 0 percent for low levels of income to 37 percent for the highest levels of income, long-term capital gains are taxed at 0 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent.

Most corporate dividends that are paid to shareholders are also taxed at these favorable rates. There is also a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on high-income taxpayers’ net investment income, including capital gains and dividends.

The 3.8 percent net investment income tax (NIIT) was enacted in companion legislation to the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and essentially parallels the Medicare tax on wages.1

Capital Gains Tax Preference Should Be Ended, Not Expanded

https://www.americanprogress.org › article › capital-gai...
Sep 28, 2020 — Congress should close—not expand—capital gains loopholes and tax income from wealth the same as income from work.
There really is a simple solution to this problem. Simply get rid of private ownership of everything. If the government simply owned all real estate, all businesses and all intangible assets then we would have no wealth discrepancies. The government would provide adequate food, housing and clothing for everyone and nobody would be allowed to have more than anyone else. Problem solved!
 
There really is a simple solution to this problem. Simply get rid of private ownership of everything. If the government simply owned all real estate, all businesses and all intangible assets then we would have no wealth discrepancies. The government would provide adequate food, housing and clothing for everyone and nobody would be allowed to have more than anyone else. Problem solved!

That worked well in the DPRK. ;)
 
I would use income inequality of OECD countries as a measure of input:

And use wealth inequality as a measure of outcome:

The distance in % from the middle would be the percentage of how fair and unfair in plus+ and -, respectively. Ultimately, the fairness would be the wealth gap.

The measure of the whole number of OECD countries would be the figure at the middle going up or down from one point in time to another.

The same "fairness" % can be applied to all countries.

How would you do it?
1659237391558.png
 
But you can't refute the fact of what I said.

What you said is utter nonsense. It takes a special sort of thinking to complain about wealth inequality when you are sitting in the country with the highest median income of any major developed nation. You would rather change policies to mimic poorer countries? Policies even those countries have largely abandoned?

Neat.
 
It's a very smart way to avoid taxes. I've done it for myself.
 
Lul, what? Corporate taxation has nothing to do with the progressivity of a code. Progressivity is a metric of individual tax burdens. Get the basic definitions before you claim basic facts.

FWIW, the lower/middle class received the bulk of the benefit from the TCJA tax reforms. IRS even said so, keep up with the news.



Again, lol.

The US having the most progressive tax code inherently means that it is the least advantaged to those at the higher end.



Oh, please go a pure VAT system. Let the half the country not paying in start paying.

Edit: Posting something as collateral has nothing to do with realization of a gain or loss. When someone posts their house as collateral to a mortage or home equity line, should that trigger a realization of capital gains? There is a hard and fast definition of what realization is, and that is based upon the disposal of an asset. Meaning, change in ownership. So as long as you remain the owner of an asset, then there has been no realization.

"...corporate tax is generally progressive whether it falls 80 percent on labor, for example, or 80 percent on capital, or is split evenly between the two."

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...m,capital, or is split evenly between the two.

"The TCJA Shifted The Benefits Of Tax Expenditures to Higher-Income Households"


Plus the fact that most individuals in the lower/middle incomes received very little per person.

Calling a tax system "progressive" doesn't mean it favors the lower incomes when the net effect of the tax system, progressive or otherwise, favors the rich and large corps.

I don't think a VAT is the way to go when we can simply change existing policy.
 
What you said is utter nonsense. It takes a special sort of thinking to complain about wealth inequality when you are sitting in the country with the highest median income of any major developed nation. You would rather change policies to mimic poorer countries? Policies even those countries have largely abandoned?

Neat.

I'm saying, regardless of how well-off Americans are, those in the lower incomes do not get their fair share of the pie as proven by wealth inequality. The fact also is that most other developed countries have better wealth equality level.
 
Calling a tax system "progressive" doesn't mean it favors the lower incomes when the net effect of the tax system, progressive or otherwise, favors the rich and large corps.

I don't think a VAT is the way to go when we can simply change existing policy.

Why do you insist on constantly trying to change definitions to suit your argument? Progressivity in a tax code is a hard and defined term, doesn't matter if you like it, the US has the most progressive tax code on the planet. Moreover having the most progressive tax code means, by the very definition, that it doesn't favor the rich.

I'm saying, regardless of how well-off Americans are, those in the lower incomes do not get their fair share of the pie as proven by wealth inequality. The fact also is that most other developed countries have better wealth equality level.

What is this "fair share" crap? Other nations have better wealth inequality because they are *POORER*. That's the problem with this backwards ignorant thinking, you want to emulate other nations policies to reduce inequality while ignoring that those very same policies have kept them poorer at the same time.
 
Back
Top Bottom