[W:28] Wealth Tax, good idea?

[TurtleDude]

The wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million. It would add an additional 1 percent surcharge for net worth above $1 billion.

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities – DNyuz



trump's only accomplishment is tax cuts for rich people. Under the trump tax cuts for the rich, a man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 a year in tax savings, every year, forever.

The tax shortfall will be passed onto the backs of working people, it always is.

Warren Buffet is famous for pointing out that his house keeper pays 16% in taxes while he pays 22%. He's one of the riches men in the world.

So do you support the rich paying their fair share of taxes?



.

the rich pay far more than what they get in return. The possible answers on the poll are ridiculous btw. You are assuming that the rich don't pay their fair share.

 

[TurtleDude]

You have to have over $50 million for this tax to affect you. It's in the OP. First sentence.

so why should people who already pay a ton of tax have to pay even more? and some people have huge amounts of WEALTH that do not GENERATE much income.

 

[Overitall]

even giving has to have an incentive, no doubt SOME would give even without the incentive, but take me as example: I am hardly rich and I don't give to every charity, but I particularly like what the War Amps stand for, so give gladly and generously every year to them, but the tax right off is certainly a bonus, maybe I would still give without that write off, but would I give as much?
if some rich dude is doing something to further the wellbeing of other human beings, I would want to reward them and not hold my nose up just because I have a bone to pick with rich people.

The incentive to give is to help someone else not as fortunate as you. I personally have never claimed charitable donations on my taxes. To me it cheapens the act of giving.

 

[TurtleDude]

I like her attitude. It will ultimately force the leftwing billionaires over to our side of the aisle. And once all the rich are on the right side of the aisle, socialism will be eradicated in the USA

 

[TurtleDude]

There is a maximum Republicans follow, promise only to cut taxes for the rich and pow, and then hit the rest of the suckers with high taxes.


Somebody has to pay. Is the working man paying enough in taxes? Are the rich paying too much in taxes?

Why not cut taxes for the rich more and increase taxes for working people? It's what republicans have done under trump.



.

How about making those who want more and more government pay for it?

 

[ttwtt78640]

1) the rich pay far more than what they get in return. 2) The possible answers on the poll are ridiculous btw. 3) You are assuming that the rich don't pay their fair share.

1)If that were really the case then “the rich” would not be getting richer relative to the rest of the population.

2) Agreed.

3) See #1 which many see as being a major socioeconomic problem.

 

[Da Mole]

The wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million. It would add an additional 1 percent surcharge for net worth above $1 billion.

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities – DNyuz



trump's only accomplishment is tax cuts for rich people. Under the trump tax cuts for the rich, a man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 a year in tax savings, every year, forever.

The tax shortfall will be passed onto the backs of working people, it always is.

Warren Buffet is famous for pointing out that his house keeper pays 16% in taxes while he pays 22%. He's one of the riches men in the world.

So do you support the rich paying their fair share of taxes?



.

Instead of constantly attacking the rich, who earned their wealth but the blame where it belongs."POLITICIANS"
Back as far as the 1950's when workers were making about $2.00 an hour and the POLITICIANS had not yet created 100's of NEW forms of taxation to fleece the workers or spend indiscriminately, the government lived within its means with barely a national debt. Stop the wasteful spending and lower the taxes even more.

 

[TurtleDude]

1)If that were really the case then “the rich” would not be getting richer relative to the rest of the population.

2) Agreed.

3) See #1 which many see as being a major socioeconomic problem.

what is fair? each person paying the same amount period-that is one definition. I get one vote-why should I pay 1000X more than someone who also gets one vote

Or-if the top one percent make 20% of the income-they should pay 20% of the income tax-not 40% That also is a valid concept of fair

of course the wealthy will increase their wealth as long as investments make money

 

[TurtleDude]

The incentive to give is to help someone else not as fortunate as you. I personally have never claimed charitable donations on my taxes. To me it cheapens the act of giving.

you still are giving something away

If I give 10K to say my college or a church, that saves me some taxes-maybe 4K. But I have 6K less money than I would have had if I made no donation

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The incentive to give is to help someone else not as fortunate as you. I personally have never claimed charitable donations on my taxes. To me it cheapens the act of giving.

fair enough, that is a personal choice.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Instead of constantly attacking the rich, who earned their wealth but the blame where it belongs."POLITICIANS"
Back as far as the 1950's when workers were making about $2.00 an hour and the POLITICIANS had not yet created 100's of NEW forms of taxation to fleece the workers or spend indiscriminately, the government lived within its means with barely a national debt. Stop the wasteful spending and lower the taxes even more.

You can’t really blame politicians (aka congress critters) since they are rewarded for doing that (borrow and spend) nonsense with re-election rates of over 90%.

 

[Da Mole]

You can’t really blame politicians (aka congress critters) since they are rewarded for doing that (borrow and spend) nonsense with re-election rates of over 90%.

I agree, we are the fools that perpetuate all of the problems within government. Are we ever going to wake the hell up?

 

[Overitall]

you still are giving something away

If I give 10K to say my college or a church, that saves me some taxes-maybe 4K. But I have 6K less money than I would have had if I made no donation

I understand the appeal but if you didn’t get the tax break would it shape your charitable spirit? It seems to me that with the tax break you essentially are making the government to support your favorite charities and when you get into that who is the government but all of us?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree, we are the fools that perpetuate all of the problems within government. Are we ever going to wake the hell up?

Not likely until Austerity Day and by then it may well be too late.

 

[Waddy]

I’ve never been a landlord so my knowledge of how this is done is limited but I always figured rent was based on the amount of mortgage due (which in most cases include taxes and insurance as escrow) plus maintenance costs. With a small amount being charged for profit. Any benefit of property ownership isn’t shared afaik.

Years ago I owned four modest rental homes. typical 3 BR 1 Bath ranches. The market for these homes meant I could get about $600 per month rent. What I had to determine was what were my total costs and could I make a modest profit. Adding up expenses like mortgage, maintenance, insurance, fees, and taxes gave me the picture. I could subtract things like tax credits, etc., to arrive at a final figure. That was the figure the mortgage lender was interested in. I couldn't have gotten a loan had the numbers not added up. I can guarantee you that any tax savings are figured into the final rent. It is a competitive business. $50 per month higher than the rental property down the street can be a deal breaker.

 

[Overitall]

Years ago I owned four modest rental homes. typical 3 BR 1 Bath ranches. The market for these homes meant I could get about $600 per month rent. What I had to determine was what were my total costs and could I make a modest profit. Adding up expenses like mortgage, maintenance, insurance, fees, and taxes gave me the picture. I could subtract things like tax credits, etc., to arrive at a final figure. That was the figure the mortgage lender was interested in. I couldn't have gotten a loan had the numbers not added up. I can guarantee you that any tax savings are figured into the final rent. It is a competitive business. $50 per month higher than the rental property down the street can be a deal breaker.

Sounds like you did pretty good. I will have to bow to your personal experience and analysis of the rental market workings.

Assuming your mortgage is paid off would you still consider you’re entitled to a tax credit?

 

[Waddy]

You all do realize that large chunks of wealth are never taxed? Churches are basically tax free. The Catholic church alone has $billions invested tax free. Universities, private and public, many with endowments in the many, many $millions, pay virtually no taxes. Many corporations take advantage of tax laws, written specially for them, to avoid paying any taxes. All the NGO's, all the charities, and the laws that favor those charities. Warren Buffet pays for a million dollar life insurance policy, which costs him $185K, and donates it to a charity. He then under IRS rules can take the full $million as a deduction against his taxes. Sweet deal if you can get it. So just make sure this wealth tax of yours applies to every type of wealth, everywhere. Aren't we all in this together?

 

[mrjurrs]

The wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million. It would add an additional 1 percent surcharge for net worth above $1 billion.

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities – DNyuz



trump's only accomplishment is tax cuts for rich people. Under the trump tax cuts for the rich, a man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 a year in tax savings, every year, forever.

The tax shortfall will be passed onto the backs of working people, it always is.

Warren Buffet is famous for pointing out that his house keeper pays 16% in taxes while he pays 22%. He's one of the riches men in the world.

So do you support the rich paying their fair share of taxes?



.

Only if by fair share you mean their share of resources consumed or hoarded.

 

[Waddy]

Sounds like you did pretty good. I will have to bow to your personal experience and analysis of the rental market workings.

Assuming your mortgage is paid off would you still consider you’re entitled to a tax credit?

If the mortgage is paid off there is no tax credit. Just property tax to pay. BTW; you do know only a minority of people itemize and can therefore take advantage of that mortgage interest deduction? Most people, even those with mortgages, take the standard deduction.

The first few years I owned these properties I was heavy into renovating them, so I had a LOT of deductions. But once the properties were up to code and renovated, I realized the government was making half the profit, once you accounted for property tax, ($1800 per year on each home), zoning and license fees, inspections, city legal fees, etc. On top of that I am in the higher personal income bracket, so I had to pay local, state and federal taxes on my part of the profit. In short, I was making government more money than I was making for myself. But none of them volunteered to help pay the costs of evicting deadbeat tenants, or came by to help me clean up after they left a mess. On the contrary, they would sometimes drop by to remind me to keep the place up to code. which I did. But in the end, it wasn't worth it. And that's why so much of the inner city is run down, vacant buildings. So I sold out to a group of lawyers who simply collected as much rent as they could and let the properties go downhill before abandoning them.

 

[Threegoofs]

The wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million. It would add an additional 1 percent surcharge for net worth above $1 billion.

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities – DNyuz



trump's only accomplishment is tax cuts for rich people. Under the trump tax cuts for the rich, a man making a million dollars a year saw $69,900 a year in tax savings, every year, forever.

The tax shortfall will be passed onto the backs of working people, it always is.

Warren Buffet is famous for pointing out that his house keeper pays 16% in taxes while he pays 22%. He's one of the riches men in the world.

So do you support the rich paying their fair share of taxes?



.

This is a disingenuous way to pose the question.

I believe the rich should certainly pay much more than they do now.

But I just cant see how a wealth tax could be reasonably implemented. Much of people’s wealth when they get really rich is not liquid - its tied up in investments, usually a company. I dont see how you can require someone to liquidate 2% of their company per year just to cover a tax bill. Also, being required to liquidate seems like it would be negative for growing a business - think of a tech startup thats losing money- yet the owner needs to liquidate to pay tax, helping to throttle the growth. That’s not a good thing for the economy, the person, or really, anyone.

 

[swing_voter]

This is a disingenuous way to pose the question.

I believe the rich should certainly pay much more than they do now.

But I just cant see how a wealth tax could be reasonably implemented. Much of people’s wealth when they get really rich is not liquid - its tied up in investments, usually a company. I dont see how you can require someone to liquidate 2% of their company per year just to cover a tax bill. Also, being required to liquidate seems like it would be negative for growing a business - think of a tech startup thats losing money- yet the owner needs to liquidate to pay tax, helping to throttle the growth. That’s not a good thing for the economy, the person, or really, anyone.

They don't tax the company, they tax you.

Warren Buffet is worth billions but hardly any of it is taxed. When he makes a profit after selling stocks, he's taxed on that.



.

 

[TurtleDude]

They don't tax the company, they tax you.

Warren Buffet is worth billions but hardly any of it is taxed. When he makes a profit after selling stocks, he's taxed on that.



.

so what? does he pay more for his right to vote-than you do? of course. So what is your damage? He subsidizes the citizenship benefits of people such as you.

 

[Threegoofs]

They don't tax the company, they tax you.

Warren Buffet is worth billions but hardly any of it is taxed. When he makes a profit after selling stocks, he's taxed on that.



.

Right. But when you’re net worth is tied up in the company, that would force you to sell part of it annually.

Buffett isnt the best example of this, but think of a guy who owns a $55 Million dollar company. He’s required to pay 2%, or $1.1MM annually, but has to find a buyer each year to buy that amount of stock in his private firm? I dont think that can even work.

 

[jamesrage]

I like her attitude. It will ultimately force the leftwing billionaires over to our side of the aisle. And once all the rich are on the right side of the aisle, socialism will be eradicated in the USA

I think leftist billionaires are under the delusion that people like her won't try to bleed them dry as long as they spew leftist nonsense and throw some chump change to some idiotic leftist causes.

 

[Phys251]

There is no constitutional basis for a federal wealth (or property) tax.

Is that Amendment right next to the one that says that the Air Force, ICE, and the DEA are constitutional?