• 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!

a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

What if...? said:
Nah.

But a tiny percentage are completely amoral in their efforts to be the richest most powerful person in the world.

But a thousand aspiring ghengis khans is a LOT of ghengis khans.

At the end of the day, all of the worlds output is going to this game.

All the folks who die in wars too. Dying for another man's power.

Of course you need to draw a silly line.

But both sides play the game.

Obama "went after" the wealthy. Starting at $250k a year. The successful, not the problematic. A tactical move to prevent the class that makes up the "money powers" from being hindered in their quest to be "the One".
Click to expand...

Then why attack all of the rich for what you claim is a "tiny percentage"?
 
Moderate Right said:
That was a lot of words just to admit that I was right. You are jealous of rich people who you think are mostly greedy selfish evil bastards.
Click to expand...
No, you were not correct, I rarely believe in absolutes. How does it feel to lose so many arguments with me?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Conflates revenue per quintile.....with....effective rates.

.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. interesting.. if the EFFECTIVE rates were so much higher gimmee.. then why didn't they bring in more revenue per GDP.. than when effective rates were supposedly LOWER?

Please explain your "new" math.

I just did.
Click to expand...
''

Interesting.. please show that GDP was higher 30 years ago with higher marginal rates.. than it is now.. With lower marginal rates.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Why do democrats think someone else should pay for what they don't have? I spend a lifetime working and raising myself up and I expect others to do the same.
Click to expand...

Simple. Leftist always covet what others have. They are greedy, selfish bastards, insanely jealous of others, and will seek to punish anyone who they think is doing better than them. You see it in the legislation they propose, the candidates they nominate, in every aspect of their lives. Leftists are truly pathetic mentally deranged individuals.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Conflates revenue per quintile.....with....effective rates.

.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. interesting.. if the EFFECTIVE rates were so much higher gimmee.. then why didn't they bring in more revenue per GDP.. than when effective rates were supposedly LOWER?

Please explain your "new" math.

I just did.
Click to expand...
''

Interesting.. please show that GDP was higher 30 years ago with higher marginal rates.. than it is now.. With lower marginal rates.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm.. interesting.. if the EFFECTIVE rates were so much higher gimmee.. then why didn't they bring in more revenue per GDP.. than when effective rates were supposedly LOWER?

Please explain your "new" math.
Click to expand...
Anytime you want to show they "did not bring in more per gdp", feel free....but.....that was not the point I made.

You are engaging in straw, as you often do.

''

Interesting.. please show that GDP was higher 30 years ago with higher marginal rates.. than it is now.. With lower marginal rates.
Click to expand...
Once again, that is not what I argued, that is not my point.

If there is any consistency with you it is your need to change an opponents words. You are the King of Straw.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, you were not correct, I rarely believe in absolutes. How does it feel to lose so many arguments with me?
Click to expand...

So what would you say is the percentage of the rich who are greedy selfish evil bastards? One of your friends claimed it to be a tiny percentage of the rich.
 
Glitch said:
Alaska does. Alaska has a constitutionally protected Permanent Fund with a principal balance of $47.7 billion that it invests on behalf of Alaskan residents. The dividends from investing $47.7 billion is then paid to every qualifying Alaskan resident. It also means every Alaskan resident (even two year-old children who receive PFD checks) must file a Schedule B Dividend Income form with the IRS and pay their taxes.
Click to expand...
Alaska isn't a stock.
 
jaeger19 said:
please show that GDP was higher 30 years ago with higher marginal rates..
Click to expand...
Let me clarify this, I was speaking to gdp gains, not nominal gdp levels. You know better than to think I don't know gdp is higher today.

But I know you will jump on the smallest detail for any "win".
 
socca said:
Some Democratic presidential candidates have floated the idea of a new U.S. wealth tax (one version: 2% on net worth > $50M; 3% on net worth > $1B). There are a couple of ways that this tax could be implemented in a future version of everyone's favorite document: IRS Form 1040.
Click to expand...

That's illegal since it violates the US Constitution, specifically 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.

That's why you have a 16th Amendment.

Let's say you wanted to levy a federal income tax of 15% on anyone earning more than $20,000/year.

That's illegal under the Constitution. The only way to make it legal under the Constitution is to apportion the tax by population.

So, people living in California would pay 30%, Texas 28%, Florida 27%, New York 26.5%, Ohio 22%...Kentucky 15%...Vermont 2.5%, Wyoming 1% like that.

The 16th Amendment lets you get around that and levy one single uniform tax for everyone:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

See the key clause? "...without apportionment among the several states..."

That's what that means.

But, note the other key clause: "...on incomes, from whatever source derived..."

You can only tax income, not wealth.

You can tax income derived from labor, rentals, sales or anything else, but you cannot directly tax assets or wealth.

If you want to tax assets or wealth, you must apportion it by population, which means this:

People living in California would pay 30%, Texas 28%, Florida 27%, New York 26.5%, Ohio 22%...Kentucky 15%...Vermont 2.5%, Wyoming 1% like that.

Can you not see a stampede of people fleeing the five most populous States -- California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania -- for lower populated States?

Because that's what would happen.

Or....you would see wealth transfers to lower populated States.

If I lived in California, I would open a bank account in North Dakota, transfer my wealth from California to North Dakota and close all of my California bank accounts.

If I owned any business in California, I would immediately terminate the registrations, domicile the businesses in North Dakota or Montana or Vermont, then re-register the businesses in California as foreign entities.

I would buy a house in one of the least populated States and transfer all my assets there.

I would do that in order to avoid the tax.

A wealth tax is illegal and will never happen unless there's an amendment to the Constitution like this:

Amendment NN
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on assets without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Anytime you want to show they "did not bring in more per gdp", feel free....but.....that was not the point I made.

You are engaging in straw, as you often do.
Click to expand...

Nope.. I just understand the subject much more than you do. You pointed out how "effective rates were so much higher"...

IF effective rates REALLY were much higher.. then the percentage of taxation per GDP.. should also be higher.. in other words you should be collecting more tax as a percentage of GDP.

But what you find out.. is that no.. that taxation per GDP did NOT go up.. so effective taxation rates.. were not really higher. Certainly not in aggregate.

NOW.. you may argue "well.. well.. the effective rates were higher on the rich..and lower on the poor and middle class back then.. so that's why the percentage of tax as a percentage of GDP is that same"...

Except.. you actually look at effective tax rates..our taxation has become MORE progressive.. not less. A bigger portion of taxation is provided by the rich than before.

Once again, that is not what I argued, that is not my point.
Click to expand...

Actually yes you did. You said that there was a positive correlation between high marginal rates and GDP.

Okay.. then if that's the case.. the GDP of today should be lower (with lower marginal rates).. than the GDP was in the 1950's and 1960's. (with higher marginal rates)
 
This in the week the rich were paying lower taxes than working men.
 
Moderate Right said:
you only have one train of thought. Little guy good. Rich people are all evil greedy bastards.
Click to expand...

modern leftist thought is nothing more than attempting to hide greed and envy under a facade of "economic justice"or "fairness.
 
Manc Skipper said:
This in the week the rich were paying lower taxes than working men.
Click to expand...

they should since they pay so much more in actual dollars and don't get any additional governmental benefits
 
Bullseye said:
Huh? What mumbo-jumbo are you talking about?
Click to expand...

he claims a few billionaires pay a lower effective rate than some people making less money. BFD. the top one percent still pay almost 40% of the FIT and yet make less than 22% of the total income
 
TurtleDude said:
he claims a few billionaires pay a lower effective rate than some people making less money. BFD. the top one percent still pay almost 40% of the FIT and yet make less than 22% of the total income
Click to expand...

He's still relying on Warren Buffett's babbling about his secretary paying a higher rate that he did. Shot done more times that Snoopy. Billionaires still pay higher rates. And nearing half have no federal income tax obligation. SOME even get money back they never paid in do to EITC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom