• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Deficits are exploding – and neither party seems to care

If Dems get full control of government there will be a massive recession

There is going to be a recession within the next year regardless of who is elected to POTUS. The severity and duration will be a function of how much fiscal and monetary policy dry powder is available. Trillion dollar deficits and 250 basis points don't leave for much hope.
 
An annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the country, would pay $4.1 billion under the new tax.

Every year?

YIKES!!!!!
 
If you read my previous posts on this thread, I won't have to be repeating it.

Your first post in the thread stated:

The best place to start is raise the taxes on people earning more than 50 million a year.

Then you switched gears to wealth:

An annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the country, would pay $4.1 billion under the new tax.

I have a feeling you haven't thought about this topic nearly enough.
 
If you read my previous posts on this thread, I won't have to be repeating it.

Your previous post was an annual tax.

Originally Posted by HumblePi
An annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the country, would pay $4.1 billion under the new tax.

Basically that means the most a person can own is 50 million unless he/she continues to make millions. If there income drops or they retire without income.. then their wealth ends up being taxed until they are down to 50 million.
 
Basically that means the most a person can own is 50 million unless he/she continues to make millions. If there income drops or they retire without income.. then their wealth ends up being taxed until they are down to 50 million.

It's problematic in that most wealthy is held in equities, which can be volatile. A jump in stock price can bring someones wealth above $50 million one day, and below it the next.
 
Your first post in the thread stated:



Then you switched gears to wealth:



I have a feeling you haven't thought about this topic nearly enough.

Here we go, are you ready? There's a vast inequality in this country between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The wealth inequality is growing exponentially since Trump gave a big tax cut to the top 10%. Everyone knows that, or should know that. There's no way that this country can survive economically with 90% of the country paying more in taxes than the top 10%, that's basic economics.

A wealth tax would levy an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion (the top .01% of .10%) A wealth tax would raise substantial revenue — by one estimate almost $3 trillion in the next decade. So, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million, and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. All household assets held anywhere in the world will be included in the net worth measurement, including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trust, retirement assets, assets held by minor children, and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more. Therein lies the secret, taxing properties and other assets that have been shielded under tax shelters to avoid taxation.

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing estate taxes for the wealthy, and has floated the idea of an annual 1% tax on “extreme wealth,” which he defines as assets exceeding $21 million. But Elizabeth Warren’s plan is the most detailed and ambitious so far. University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

Warren is banking on a $2.75 trillion revenue projection to fund a host of her priorities
Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
Raise wages for all child care workers and preschool teachers “to the professional levels that they deserve.”
Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
$50 billion for historically black colleges and universities.
Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
“Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Warren campaign says there are no loopholes or exemptions for different types of assets, that the IRS already has estate tax rules in place on how to value assets, and that her plan would increase funding for the IRS to crack down on evasion.

The rate would rise to 3% for any fortune that crossed the $1 billion threshold.That means billions of dollars would be transferred from the richest Americans to the larger population. Jeff Bezos, whose $137 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest person in the world, would have to fork over $4.1 billion annually under such a plan. Bill Gates would pay an additional $2.9 billion in taxes, and Warren Buffett would owe $2.5 billion more. President Donald Trump, whose estimated $3.1 billion fortune made him the 259th-richest person in America as of September, would owe an additional $80 million.
 
Here we go, are you ready? There's a vast inequality in this country between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The wealth inequality is growing exponentially since Trump gave a big tax cut to the top 10%. Everyone knows that, or should know that. There's no way that this country can survive economically with 90% of the country paying more in taxes than the top 10%, that's basic economics.

A wealth tax would levy an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion (the top .01% of .10%) A wealth tax would raise substantial revenue — by one estimate almost $3 trillion in the next decade. So, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million, and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. All household assets held anywhere in the world will be included in the net worth measurement, including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trust, retirement assets, assets held by minor children, and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more. Therein lies the secret, taxing properties and other assets that have been shielded under tax shelters to avoid taxation.

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing estate taxes for the wealthy, and has floated the idea of an annual 1% tax on “extreme wealth,” which he defines as assets exceeding $21 million. But Elizabeth Warren’s plan is the most detailed and ambitious so far. University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

Warren is banking on a $2.75 trillion revenue projection to fund a host of her priorities
Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
Raise wages for all child care workers and preschool teachers “to the professional levels that they deserve.”
Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
$50 billion for historically black colleges and universities.
Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
“Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Warren campaign says there are no loopholes or exemptions for different types of assets, that the IRS already has estate tax rules in place on how to value assets, and that her plan would increase funding for the IRS to crack down on evasion.

The rate would rise to 3% for any fortune that crossed the $1 billion threshold.That means billions of dollars would be transferred from the richest Americans to the larger population. Jeff Bezos, whose $137 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest person in the world, would have to fork over $4.1 billion annually under such a plan. Bill Gates would pay an additional $2.9 billion in taxes, and Warren Buffett would owe $2.5 billion more. President Donald Trump, whose estimated $3.1 billion fortune made him the 259th-richest person in America as of September, would owe an additional $80 million.

The thing about these types of taxes is that they would not really affect the billionaires at all. When you have this kind of money, taxes are like parking tickets.
 
The thing about these types of taxes is that they would not really affect the billionaires at all. When you have this kind of money, taxes are like parking tickets.

Not to mention grossly violating the US Constitution in the process.
 
Here we go, are you ready? There's a vast inequality in this country between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The wealth inequality is growing exponentially since Trump gave a big tax cut to the top 10%. Everyone knows that, or should know that. There's no way that this country can survive economically with 90% of the country paying more in taxes than the top 10%, that's basic economics.

A wealth tax would levy an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion (the top .01% of .10%) A wealth tax would raise substantial revenue — by one estimate almost $3 trillion in the next decade. So, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million, and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. All household assets held anywhere in the world will be included in the net worth measurement, including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trust, retirement assets, assets held by minor children, and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more. Therein lies the secret, taxing properties and other assets that have been shielded under tax shelters to avoid taxation.

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing estate taxes for the wealthy, and has floated the idea of an annual 1% tax on “extreme wealth,” which he defines as assets exceeding $21 million. But Elizabeth Warren’s plan is the most detailed and ambitious so far. University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

Warren is banking on a $2.75 trillion revenue projection to fund a host of her priorities
Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
Raise wages for all child care workers and preschool teachers “to the professional levels that they deserve.”
Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
$50 billion for historically black colleges and universities.
Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
“Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Warren campaign says there are no loopholes or exemptions for different types of assets, that the IRS already has estate tax rules in place on how to value assets, and that her plan would increase funding for the IRS to crack down on evasion.

The rate would rise to 3% for any fortune that crossed the $1 billion threshold.That means billions of dollars would be transferred from the richest Americans to the larger population. Jeff Bezos, whose $137 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest person in the world, would have to fork over $4.1 billion annually under such a plan. Bill Gates would pay an additional $2.9 billion in taxes, and Warren Buffett would owe $2.5 billion more. President Donald Trump, whose estimated $3.1 billion fortune made him the 259th-richest person in America as of September, would owe an additional $80 million.

Don't spend that 2.75 trillion; apply it towards deficit/debt reduction.
 
It's problematic in that most wealthy is held in equities, which can be volatile. A jump in stock price can bring someones wealth above $50 million one day, and below it the next.

Yeah.. I didn't even think of that. How do you establish wealth? Heck..the value of properties fluctuates... what establishes your land values for taxing purposes?

Its not a moot question really. As I understand it.. one of the democratic front runners has proposed a wealth tax.
 
Here we go, are you ready? There's a vast inequality in this country between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The wealth inequality is growing exponentially since Trump gave a big tax cut to the top 10%. Everyone knows that, or should know that. There's no way that this country can survive economically with 90% of the country paying more in taxes than the top 10%, that's basic economics.

A wealth tax would levy an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion (the top .01% of .10%) A wealth tax would raise substantial revenue — by one estimate almost $3 trillion in the next decade. So, households would pay an annual 2% tax on all assets — net worth — above $50 million, and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion. All household assets held anywhere in the world will be included in the net worth measurement, including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trust, retirement assets, assets held by minor children, and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more. Therein lies the secret, taxing properties and other assets that have been shielded under tax shelters to avoid taxation.

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing estate taxes for the wealthy, and has floated the idea of an annual 1% tax on “extreme wealth,” which he defines as assets exceeding $21 million. But Elizabeth Warren’s plan is the most detailed and ambitious so far. University of California, Berkeley, economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who study wealth inequality, say Warren’s tax would fall on about 75,000 U.S. households (less than 0.1%) and would raise around $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

Warren is banking on a $2.75 trillion revenue projection to fund a host of her priorities
Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
Raise wages for all child care workers and preschool teachers “to the professional levels that they deserve.”
Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
$50 billion for historically black colleges and universities.
Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
“Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Warren campaign says there are no loopholes or exemptions for different types of assets, that the IRS already has estate tax rules in place on how to value assets, and that her plan would increase funding for the IRS to crack down on evasion.

The rate would rise to 3% for any fortune that crossed the $1 billion threshold.That means billions of dollars would be transferred from the richest Americans to the larger population. Jeff Bezos, whose $137 billion fortune makes him the wealthiest person in the world, would have to fork over $4.1 billion annually under such a plan. Bill Gates would pay an additional $2.9 billion in taxes, and Warren Buffett would owe $2.5 billion more. President Donald Trump, whose estimated $3.1 billion fortune made him the 259th-richest person in America as of September, would owe an additional $80 million.

in other words.. it sets a limit on how much person a person can own.

Stupid idea.
 
The thing about these types of taxes is that they would not really affect the billionaires at all. When you have this kind of money, taxes are like parking tickets.

50 million is not a billionaire.

It would force the dissolution of a lot of family owned corporations or S corps. The unintended consequences would be very bad for the economy.
 
50 million is not a billionaire.

It would force the dissolution of a lot of family owned corporations or S corps. The unintended consequences would be very bad for the economy.

50 million in net worth should be able to pay a wealth tax, that is a lot of dough. But a prudent person would first check to see how many 50 million dollar estates are out there before pulling the trigger.
 
50 million in net worth should be able to pay a wealth tax, that is a lot of dough. But a prudent person would first check to see how many 50 million dollar estates are out there before pulling the trigger.

Its not dough.

For example.. I own an S corp that's worth more than 50 million of you count tractors, land, buildings, and all sorts of other assets... stuff that's needed to run and operate the corporation.

At times.. because of various reasons.. that particularly corporation ran at a loss or barely broke after payroll etc. It can be the nature of agriculture, or just because the corporation turned its money back into more infrastructure (or example when we upgraded to solar energy).

Well.. if that S corp was taxed on those assets.. despite the fact that there was little profit on those years.. it would have seriously hurt the corporation and jobs. The money would have had to come from selling assets.. or from getting rid of some employees.. or downsizing.. or from deciding NOT to go to solar.

That's what I mean about unintended consequences.. You don't realize that the wealthy.. don't generally keep their wealth.. in cookie jars.. or even in back accounts.. a lot of time its in things like property and businesses.. that may have much more in "asset value"... but may not be generating income.
 
Its not dough.

For example.. I own an S corp that's worth more than 50 million of you count tractors, land, buildings, and all sorts of other assets... stuff that's needed to run and operate the corporation.

At times.. because of various reasons.. that particularly corporation ran at a loss or barely broke after payroll etc. It can be the nature of agriculture, or just because the corporation turned its money back into more infrastructure (or example when we upgraded to solar energy).

Well.. if that S corp was taxed on those assets.. despite the fact that there was little profit on those years.. it would have seriously hurt the corporation and jobs. The money would have had to come from selling assets.. or from getting rid of some employees.. or downsizing.. or from deciding NOT to go to solar.

That's what I mean about unintended consequences.. You don't realize that the wealthy.. don't generally keep their wealth.. in cookie jars.. or even in back accounts.. a lot of time its in things like property and businesses.. that may have much more in "asset value"... but may not be generating income.

This is a great point and should be considered if a wealth tax is levied. In one way, a wealth tax could force up assets to work. Think about it. If you put money to work in a company like you suggested, you avoid the tax. If you let it sit around in cash, stock or bonds, you pay the tax. Now what if you put it to work buying land and property? In my mind, it would be like a national property tax. The key is to tax large estates. What does large mean? That is the hard part.
 
This is a great point and should be considered if a wealth tax is levied. In one way, a wealth tax could force up assets to work. Think about it. If you put money to work in a company like you suggested, you avoid the tax. If you let it sit around in cash, stock or bonds, you pay the tax. Now what if you put it to work buying land and property? In my mind, it would be like a national property tax. The key is to tax large estates. What does large mean? That is the hard part.

Why are you so anti wealth creation and so pro big gov't and allowing gov't to get involved in personal lives? Still waiting for an explanation as to why every working American shouldn't be paying something in FIT and when I say every American I would limit that to the legal adult age addressing the 44% that aren't paying any FIT. FIT funds the Federal Operating Expenses of the country and there is more than enough FIT revenue to pay for discretionary spending which is what FIT is supposed to pay for.
 
Why are you so anti wealth creation and so pro big gov't and allowing gov't to get involved in personal lives? Still waiting for an explanation as to why every working American shouldn't be paying something in FIT and when I say every American I would limit that to the legal adult age addressing the 44% that aren't paying any FIT. FIT funds the Federal Operating Expenses of the country and there is more than enough FIT revenue to pay for discretionary spending which is what FIT is supposed to pay for.


Dude.. it has already explained to you ad nauseum why every working American shouldn't pay something in FIT.

It makes no fiscal sense to take money out of the hands of a poor working family... and then because you took money out of their hands in FIT... to then have to turn around and pay a person to administer a welfare program to get that money back to the working family.

Please explain why you think its better to cost taxpayers MORE money.. by taxing people it makes no fiscal sense to tax...and then have to turn around and put them on welfare or increase their welfare benefits.
 
Dude.. it has already explained to you ad nauseum why every working American shouldn't pay something in FIT.

It makes no fiscal sense to take money out of the hands of a poor working family... and then because you took money out of their hands in FIT... to then have to turn around and pay a person to administer a welfare program to get that money back to the working family.

Please explain why you think its better to cost taxpayers MORE money.. by taxing people it makes no fiscal sense to tax...and then have to turn around and put them on welfare or increase their welfare benefits.

Yes, you gave an opinion which lacked basic logic, common sense and any personal responsibility. Keep thinking with your heart, keep expecting the rich to pay for personal responsibility issues, and keep ignoring the concept of having "skin in the game!" It really isn't hard for someone who isn't paying any FIT to support politicians that cater to that ideology
 
Yes, you gave an opinion which lacked basic logic, common sense and any personal responsibility. Keep thinking with your heart, keep expecting the rich to pay for personal responsibility issues, and keep ignoring the concept of having "skin in the game!" It really isn't hard for someone who isn't paying any FIT to support politicians that cater to that ideology
\
I am sorry... you have to explain to me.. exactly how... realizing the fact... that it makes no fiscal sense to tax people who are poor.. so that you end up spending MORE money than you take in.. to turn around and pay that money back in welfare..

How realizing that FACT... is lacking in common sense or logic.

Sir.. you are the one thinking with the heart. I am thinking with logic. YOU want to tax Me.. a rich person MORE.. you want MY TAXES to go up... so that we can tax a poor person.. then turn around and have to pay more government employees and increase the size of government.. in order to give that money back..to the poor person in the form of welfare.

You want to tax me MORE.. when I ALREADY PAY MORE FIT IN ONE YEAR THAN YOU HAVE EVER PAID IN YOUR LIFETIME.

Unless you have been a multi millionaire your whole life. Which I strongly doubt given your lack of understanding of even simply economic concepts. (unless Daddy gave it to you... )
 
Why are you so anti wealth creation and so pro big gov't and allowing gov't to get involved in personal lives? Still waiting for an explanation as to why every working American shouldn't be paying something in FIT and when I say every American I would limit that to the legal adult age addressing the 44% that aren't paying any FIT. FIT funds the Federal Operating Expenses of the country and there is more than enough FIT revenue to pay for discretionary spending which is what FIT is supposed to pay for.

Every Alaskan resident who receives a State-issued Permanent Fund Dividend check must pay federal income taxes. Even if they are a two year old child. Since it is dividend income, they also can't use the short-form. Try explaining that to a two year old. :doh
 
\
I am sorry... you have to explain to me.. exactly how... realizing the fact... that it makes no fiscal sense to tax people who are poor.. so that you end up spending MORE money than you take in.. to turn around and pay that money back in welfare..

How realizing that FACT... is lacking in common sense or logic.

Sir.. you are the one thinking with the heart. I am thinking with logic. YOU want to tax Me.. a rich person MORE.. you want MY TAXES to go up... so that we can tax a poor person.. then turn around and have to pay more government employees and increase the size of government.. in order to give that money back..to the poor person in the form of welfare.

You want to tax me MORE.. when I ALREADY PAY MORE FIT IN ONE YEAR THAN YOU HAVE EVER PAID IN YOUR LIFETIME.

Unless you have been a multi millionaire your whole life. Which I strongly doubt given your lack of understanding of even simply economic concepts. (unless Daddy gave it to you... )

I am not the one that wants to tax you more but I do want you to explain how you know what the 44% of income earning Americans not paying any FIT can afford to pay? You are truly amazing in how you know what I pay in taxes and what I earn. Do you know each other?
 
Back
Top Bottom