[W:28] Wealth Tax, good idea?

[Individual]

Other - there is no constitutional basis for a federal wealth tax.

And until 1913, when the 16th and 17th amendments were passed, there was no constitutional basis for the Federal government to tax individuals income directly.
Repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments, and maybe then we (the people) can begin to regain control over our Federal governments massive spending, debt accumulation and inflation.

 

[antiquity]

Why not?

Why not? Do you want your bank account, retirement funds and/or home subject to an income tax?

 

[antiquity]

I think the rich should pay their fair share. What's fair? How about the same percentage of their income going to taxes as people in the lowest tax rate. If someone makes $50 k a year and pays $2500 in taxes, then the rich should also pay 5%. Lebron James is scheduled to make about $95 million this year. Do you think he pays $2.375 million in taxes? I don't.

I know a better way to tax the rich....close or vastly reduce all the loop holes in the tax code.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Different issue. Start a thread.

Not really.

Wealth = Income + (Net) Assets

If one of my forebearers purchased 1,000 of the original GM shares, and then took the appropriate actions with respect to each and every "split" and/or "conversion" and I inherited them last week and I sold the bundle today, why should I be taxed ONLY on the difference in share prices between last week and this?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

because it is both unconstitutional and an idiotic idea. Some wealth does not generate any income,

While I agree with the second sentence (to some extent [after all, "land" doesn't actually generate "income" but you can sure use it as security to obtain loans that you CAN use to generate "income"), I have a lot of problems with your first sentence.

Please provide a specific reference to that portion of the US constitution that states that the government can NOT "tax wealth".

To get you started, please show me where the words "except on wealth" occur in

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:​

​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

As I read that Clause, there is only one exception and two qualifications on the power of Congress to levy taxes, those being:

1. (exception) articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all;​

​

2. (qualification 1) direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the rule of apportionment​

​

and​

​

3. (qualification 2) indirect taxes must be levied in accordance with the rule of uniformity.​

As I understand it, the courts have emphasized the broad reach of this taxing power power by holding (at various times) that

1. it reaches every subject,​

​

2. it is exhaustive​

​

and/or​

​

3. it embraces every conceivable power of taxation.​

Admittedly, the courts have gone against these generalizations and curtailed (by judicial decision) the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and/or the objects for which they may be levied - WHEN THE VESTED FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE FINANCIAL ELITE WERE THREATENED.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why not? Do you want your bank account, retirement funds and/or home subject to an income tax?

A comment that reminds me of the story about Malthus' servant (who was a long time and vociferous member of the Communist Party).

When he suddenly announced that he had quit "The Party", Malthus asked him why.

In response he said "Comrade ___, from Moscow, announced, at tonight's meeting that, after the revolution, everyone would have 5,000 Francs.".

When Malthus said that he thought that that was a wonderful thing and why it so upset his servant, the servant replied "Because I have 10,000 Francs.".

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I know a better way to tax the rich....close or vastly reduce all the loop holes in the tax code.

Yep, that would work. All you'd have to do is to convince those people who rely on the largess of "The Rich" for the funds they need to finance their campaigns for re-election to write new laws that would result in them losing that largess.

 

[duckgirl]

The less people are taxed the more actual money they will bring home to support their lives with across the board. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxes, not adding more layers of it. At the very least the federal income tax shouldn't even be in existence anymore. The federal government had nothing to do with the money I, or anybody else, earned at work. When it comes to rich people I think that if people cared less about how rich someone else is and just focuses on making the best life for themselves on personal level then perhaps there wouldnt be so much jealousy and resentment.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The less people are taxed the more actual money they will bring home to support their lives with across the board. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxes, not adding more layers of it. At the very least the federal income tax shouldn't even be in existence anymore. The federal government had nothing to do with the money I, or anybody else, earned at work. When it comes to rich people I think that if people cared less about how rich someone else is and just focuses on making the best life for themselves on personal level then perhaps there wouldnt be so much jealousy and resentment.

Eliminating the federal income tax is a great idea.

Now, what 50% of the US budget expenditures do you propose to eliminate?

Additionally, I expect that you would like to see those "payroll taxes" (i.e. things like "Social Security" and "Medicare/aid") eliminated as well.

If that is the case, what 72% of the federal budget expenditures that are NOT funded from income taxes, do you propose to eliminate?

PS - Since the US federal government spends around 15% of its total budget on the military, where is the additional 6.66% going to come from after you have eliminated all but 14% of the US federal government's revenue (leaving a total of -1.0% for all other federal spending [including courts, border control, and food/drug safety])?

 

[rickc]

The less people are taxed the more actual money they will bring home to support their lives with across the board. We need to be reducing and eliminating taxes, not adding more layers of it. At the very least the federal income tax shouldn't even be in existence anymore. The federal government had nothing to do with the money I, or anybody else, earned at work. When it comes to rich people I think that if people cared less about how rich someone else is and just focuses on making the best life for themselves on personal level then perhaps there wouldnt be so much jealousy and resentment.

Spoken like a true 1%er

Or

A brainwashed rightie

 

[TurtleDude]

Spoken like a true 1%er

Or

A brainwashed rightie

or someone who realizes that the government taking more money is pernicious,

 

[rickc]

or someone who realizes that the government taking more money is pernicious,

Well history supports the opposite scenario.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

 

[Bullseye]

Well history supports the opposite scenario.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

LOL, that was post-war reactions, the boom was in-spite of taxes not because of them. Got anything else?

 

[Bullseye]

We’ve been hearing “fair share” mantra for decades, but no one will state EXACTLY what that is. The “rich” pay far more than their share bases on the percentage of total income the earn. Almost half of workers pay NO federal income tax.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well history supports the opposite scenario.

• Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

what was the actual effective tax rate then and now?

 

[rickc]

You hear a lot of rationalization about those high tax rates from the right but something certainly leveled the playing field in those days and changed drastically during the Reagan years. There was a drastic change in 1981. The top marginal tax rate was dropped from 70% to 28%. I believe this chart accurately depicts the effect of that change.

 

[Individual]

what was the actual effective tax rate then and now?

Has anyone every found any data showing how much tax was collected at the 90% tax rate?
The rich aren't stupid, and neither are politicians who write the tax laws and depend on the rich to support their election campaigns.

 

[duckgirl]

Spoken like a true 1%er

Or

A brainwashed rightie

I'm far from a 1%er and i'm not brainwashed. I just don't think the federal government should have the right to take, by threat of jail, a percentage of my income that I earned through my own work and ability.