The Tax Thread

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
I'm not so sure. I think it will be a tough slog in the federal courts (of course, the Constitution of the United States means whatever a federal judge wants it to mean, so who knows?), but if you were to confront the average citizen with the proposition, I'd bet a lot would support it.
There is a qualitative difference between someone with $100k/year in income with $500k in assets (including one's house) and someone earning $10 million dollars/year in income and $50 million in assets. Those are two different beasts.

The problem with Warren's policy would be capital flight. Rich people would not stand pat and be shorn like sheep. They would invest in London real estate (that's what Russian oligarchs do to protect their money) or find some other overseas asset in which to invest. If the CBO bases their analysis on the wealthy holding their money within reach if the U.S. tax collector, then that analysis is fundamentally flawed. Money would fly out of the U.S. until the cost of leaving and the risk premiums balanced.
This was one of my first thoughts as well. The world has changed from the world of the 1930's. Yes, some things are eternal, but (although I'm not an expert) it seems simpler these days to move your money is such a way as to shield it to some degree - more so the richer one gets. That means that once again the somewhat wealthy get hosed while the uber rich escape intact.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
I'm not so sure. I think it will be a tough slog in the federal courts (of course, the Constitution of the United States means whatever a federal judge wants it to mean, so who knows?), but if you were to confront the average citizen with the proposition, I'd bet a lot would support it.
There is a qualitative difference between someone with $100k/year in income with $500k in assets (including one's house) and someone earning $10 million dollars/year in income and $50 million in assets. Those are two different beasts.

The problem with Warren's policy would be capital flight. Rich people would not stand pat and be shorn like sheep. They would invest in London real estate (that's what Russian oligarchs do to protect their money) or find some other overseas asset in which to invest. If the CBO bases their analysis on the wealthy holding their money within reach if the U.S. tax collector, then that analysis is fundamentally flawed. Money would fly out of the U.S. until the cost of leaving and the risk premiums balanced.
Much easier to just tax their income instead of wealth. Why do we not want people to spend their money in America acquiring wealth instead of blowing it on other stuff?
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
And reduce GNP? Are you kidding?

IOW, our government has interest in promoting a consumerist society and little interest in promoting a wealthy society.
I think that is a mistake. The more wealthy people there are, the less people we have living off the government teet when they no longer have income coming in (whether they are retired or we get another huge jump in unemployment). I wonder if we had less of a consumerism society how many less federal workers would have been upset about being furloughed for a month?
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,609
10,693
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
FWIW, from Time, Feb 4/Feb 11 2019 pg 75
In the US, the top 0.1% of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, and the ratio between a top CEO's pay and the pay of a typical worker has grown from 30 to 1 in 1978 to 312 to 1 today
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,597
39,812
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I think that is a mistake. The more wealthy people there are, the less people we have living off the government teet when they no longer have income coming in (whether they are retired or we get another huge jump in unemployment). I wonder if we had less of a consumerism society how many less federal workers would have been upset about being furloughed for a month?
Do you mean you think it's a mistake promoting consumerism (as is being done) or a 17's making a mistake? Because he's not....
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
Do you mean you think it's a mistake promoting consumerism (as is being done) or a 17's making a mistake? Because he's not....
I took it as promoting consumerism over wealth is a mistake. I agree with that take (with caveats). Judging from history, I'd venture a guess that you have similar leanings. Certainly, balance is required for a healthy economy and I'm not sold on Warren's "solution" in terms of balance though it may have some merit at some point.
 

twofbyc

Suspended
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,370
187
And reduce GNP? Are you kidding?

IOW, our government has interest in promoting a consumerist society and little interest in promoting a wealthy society.
And that interest for promoting consumerism combined with massive deregulation in consumer markets (and no regulation where there is supposed to be, legitimately)is destroying both our society and our planet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
And that interest for promoting consumerism combined with massive deregulation in consumer markets (and no regulation where there is supposed to be, legitimately)is destroying both our society and our planet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Balance is always the key in a "free" society. Unfettered freedom can be as bad as unfettered regulation if bad behavior is rewarded.
 

twofbyc

Suspended
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,370
187
In regards to capital flight should her ideas come to fruition, tax overseas “investments” heavily; force them to either redirect that wealth back in to our economy or pay for it.
Businesses reinvest in themselves now to avoid taxes; make it so the uber- wealthy who want to hide it from Uncle Sam play by the same rules.
I think reducing capital gains for small cap stocks and venture capital endeavors should be the target; not buying a gazillion shares of Amazon or Apple. Give them a little incentive for reinvesting here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,609
10,693
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Since the big orange sphincter will maybe eventually get around to infrastructure repair, where do you think we may get the funding? (hint, it will be borrowed). Seems to me like it would be a good time to increase the fuel tax (gas & diesel) and legislate it to be ONLY used tor transportation issues. It hasn't been increased for 25 years (18.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon respectively)
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,242
45,024
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Since the big orange sphincter will maybe eventually get around to infrastructure repair, where do you think we may get the funding? (hint, it will be borrowed). Seems to me like it would be a good time to increase the fuel tax (gas & diesel) and legislate it to be ONLY used tor transportation issues. It hasn't been increased for 25 years (18.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon respectively)
infrastructure week is just around the corner. it is going to be amazeballs
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
You kidding me? GOP sending smokesignals to the uber-rich and professing their loyalty.

Top GOP senators propose repealing estate tax, which is expected to be paid by fewer than 2,000 Americans a year

Three Republican Senators introduced a plan Monday to repeal the federal estate tax, moving to eliminate a tax on a small number of the wealthiest households just as leading Democrats ramp up calls to tax the richest Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-SD), members of the Senate Finance Committee, in releasing legislation to permanently repeal the federal estate tax...

The GOP’s renewed push to outright eliminate the estate tax comes the week after presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed a new 2 percent “wealth tax” on Americans with more than $50 million, as well as a 3 percent tax on those with over $1 billion. Warren’s tax would affect 75,000 of the wealthiest U.S. families.
 

twofbyc

Suspended
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,370
187
Another screaming endorsement for campaign finance reform.
And they blame us for trying to start a class war.
[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Not sure I have an opinion on this yet, but it's out there now.

House Democrats Unveil Social Security Expansion Bill

Democratic Reps. John Larson (Conn.), Conor Lamb (Pa.) and Jahana Hayes (Conn.) are introducing the Social Security 2100 Act on Wednesday, legislation that would expand Social Security benefits across the board and prolong the program’s solvency for the next 75 years and beyond. The legislation finances a more generous benefit and cost-of-living adjustment formula, a reduction in income taxes on benefits and the closure of Social Security’s long-term funding gap by lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes and raising those tax rates...

To finance the ambitious legislation, Larson would subject earnings of $400,000 or more to the Social Security payroll tax.

Currently, Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $132,900 that they earn based on a cap that rises with average wage growth. The new legislation would leave income between $132,900 and $400,000 untaxed. Over time, the present-day cap would rise to $400,000, at which point all earnings would be subject to the tax.

Larson’s legislation would also raise the payroll tax by 1.2 percentage points on both employees and employers, phasing in the change over 24 years.

At the same time, the bill cuts income taxes on Social Security benefits for those who receive them by raising the income threshold at which they would be taxed. Under the legislation, 12 million beneficiaries ― out of nearly 63 million total ― would receive a tax cut, according to Larson.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Poll shows majority support for Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax

The survey of 1,282 registered voters asked “Would you (support or oppose/oppose or support) imposing a 2% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $50 million and a 3% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $1 billion?”

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they supported the proposal, with 46 percent “strongly” supporting it. Twenty-one percent opposed the idea, with 15 percent doing so “strongly.” The rest were unsure or neutral.

Notably, a plurality of Republicans supported Warren’s wealth tax by a 44-37 margin. Independents supported it by a 61-23 margin while Democrats went for it 76-6.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
Not sure I have an opinion on this yet, but it's out there now.

House Democrats Unveil Social Security Expansion Bill
That will only work if they start collecting employment tax on capital gains. When you increase income tax on business owners they have the ability to reduce their wage and increase their capital gains and give themselves dividends on the profit without it ever showing up as income.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.