• 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!

[W:28] Wealth Tax, good idea?

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

  • Yes, the rich should pay their fair share

    Votes: 32 55.2%
  • No, the rich should pay less taxes

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Other, specify below

    Votes: 19 32.8%

  • Total voters
    58
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?



.
"Fair share" is subjective. Who's to say what's fair and what's not?

That said, I do think millionaires should pay more in taxes. How much more idk.
 
I would add up the cost of living>. Modest housing, inexpensive car, grocery store food, utility bills etc. Say the basic amount of money is 22,000 a year, which allows a family to barely live in this country. I'd make it so the taxes start at 22,000 and go up from there. When it reaches the billionaires the rate would be 50% If the billionaires don't like it, then tell them to hit the road, even move somewhere else if they want to..... because there's 267 other people that would be more-than-happy to take your place. If the world/society was always fair, I'd certainly re-evaluate my thinking but frankly this country seems to live by the cruel words of "F*ck the poor".
 
Yup. And no more billionaires. Any system that produces billionaires is inherently broken and rigged.
a system that doesn't produce some billionaires is probably trapped in poverty. Weren't any millionaires under communism, just shared misery. What I want to know is did they make those billions fair and square? You invent something that makes you a billionaire I'm happy for you; you just created something probably pretty good, and lots of people have jobs because of it. Steve Jobs was probably a billionaire. The products are great, and he would have become a billionaire even if he hadn't used slave labor.

The question then, is how much of that wealth should be confiscated as taxes? How much of what you earn should be yours to keep? What's a fair tax rate? 20% 39%? 99%?
 
Today, the top marginal earners pay a small fraction of what they did 60 years ago.
They've also gained a greater share of the wealth, naturally.

Wealth disparity in the USA is a serious problem at this point.
The uberwealthy have been coddled for far too long, to the detriment of everyone else IMO.

Thats a problem that needs addressing....but I seriously doubt it will be. The electorate doesn't control the legislature anymore.
 
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.


Could you like, post Polls half as much?

Maybe pick one or two of the best?
 
Is that Amendment right next to the one that says that the Air Force, ICE, and the DEA are constitutional?

Why do you suppose we have the 16A?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

{above is obviously from the US Constitution}

To be apportioned, a tax must be the same amount per person in every state, a very difficult burden to satisfy. For example, a dollar-per-acre tax would fail unless every state had the same acreage per capita. As a result, federal land taxes do not exist. States, unhampered by apportionment, routinely impose real property taxes. In contrast, a dollar-per-human tax (also known as a capitation) would be constitutional, as it would be the same amount per capita in every state.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment authorized an unapportioned tax on income “derived from a source.” The country adopted the Amendment to reverse the 1895 Pollock decision.

 
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?

.
Absolutely! Conservatives like to argue that the poor use government resources the most. Hardly. From a historical perspective one can look at Nazi Germany. When the Nazis came to power, and WW-II commenced who lost out the most. The rich lost their accounts, their estates, their assets, their art - everything. The poor continued to work in the factories, and continued living in their modest accomodations. The rich need a strong government, with a strong military much more than the poor. Very simply - they have much more to lose.
 
I would add up the cost of living>. Modest housing, inexpensive car, grocery store food, utility bills etc. Say the basic amount of money is 22,000 a year, which allows a family to barely live in this country. I'd make it so the taxes start at 22,000 and go up from there. When it reaches the billionaires the rate would be 50% If the billionaires don't like it, then tell them to hit the road, even move somewhere else if they want to..... because there's 267 other people that would be more-than-happy to take your place. If the world/society was always fair, I'd certainly re-evaluate my thinking but frankly this country seems to live by the cruel words of "F*ck the poor".
why does your existence justify taking wealth from others? the very successful are generally not responsible for those who are poor.
 
Absolutely! Conservatives like to argue that the poor use government resources the most. Hardly. From a historical perspective one can look at Nazi Germany. When the Nazis came to power, and WW-II commenced who lost out the most. The rich lost their accounts, their estates, their assets, their art - everything. The poor continued to work in the factories, and continued living in their modest accomodations. The rich need a strong government, with a strong military much more than the poor. Very simply - they have much more to lose.
that doesn't mean they use more government. Your argument is specious.
 
There is no constitutional basis for a federal wealth (or property) tax.
The is no constitutional basis for a lot of crap being sought to push on We the People.
 
Congress very clearly has the right to lay and collect taxes.
Yes the 16th amendment says so. But when people feel like they are getting screwed have the right to vote out the assholes that do so.
 
Yes the 16th amendment says so. But when people feel like they are getting screwed have the right to vote out the assholes that do so.
Do you make more than $50 million?
 
Do you make more than $50 million?
I thought the parasites were shooting for those with more than 50 Million in wealth which is a much larger group than those who make 50 million a year.
 
Yes the 16th amendment says so. But when people feel like they are getting screwed have the right to vote out the assholes that do so.

Nope, the 16A allows federal taxation of income from all sources - not wealth or property. See post #81.
 
I thought the parasites were shooting for those with more than 50 Million in wealth which is a much larger group than those who make 50 million a year.
Not that much larger. I think you'll find that if you polled only people with $50 million dollars in assets you'd find that the majority believe they should be paying higher taxes.
 
Not that much larger. I think you'll find that if you polled only people with $50 million dollars in assets you'd find that the majority believe they should be paying higher taxes.
I think you are wrong. and I wonder how many of them are actually giving more to the government than they have to? Now there are those who claim they should pay more-they do that to ingratiate themselves to the parasites in order to garner votes or support. The fact is, the rich are subsidizing the citizenship benefits of everyone else.
 
Irrelevant. That only prevents taxes targeted at people from certain states or groups. A wealth tax would apply to anyone with the necessary wealth.

a wealth tax should justify removal from office of any politician who supports it. It is malignant and contrary to a free nation
 
Irrelevant. That only prevents taxes targeted at people from certain states or groups. A wealth tax would apply to anyone with the necessary wealth.

Nope, that would still be a new direct tax. Picking an initial amount of wealth (or property value) high enough to make it ‘popular’ does not change that fact.
 
Nope, that would still be a new direct tax. Picking an initial amount of wealth (or property value) high enough to make it ‘popular’ does not change that fact.
Silly nonsense. We have a progressive income tax with different tax rates. That is no different. Millions of people pay no income tax at all because the standard deduction is higher than their tax burden.
 
Silly nonsense. We have a progressive income tax with different tax rates. That is no different. Millions of people pay no income tax at all because the standard deduction is higher than their tax burden.
those millions not paying taxes is what causes much of the problems in this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom