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

Gimmesometruth said:

It says this as top marginal rates are continually lowered by GOP admins. The top don't have to move much of anything anymore, your ilk are doing their bidding.

Click to expand...

Whose bidding are you doing? The unions, Hollywood (ultra rich), race hustlers, Wall Street.....

Lutherf said:

Is there ever a difference between appraised value and what a person is likely to actually get if they choose to sell an item? For example, what happens if the value of my collectible decreases during the term of the contract? Staying with the baseball card example, cards were selling at astronomical rates in the 1990s but then the market got flooded with new "collector's edition" cards and the value of all cards dropped quite a bit. Would I have to get a new policy if I was 2 years into a 5 year contract?

Click to expand...

There are almost always differences, but the catch is the contract. Most contracts will include a clause that, in insurance terms, insures the property for a specific limit and will pay that limit regardless of devaluation in the annual term of the contract. In your example, if your card collection caught fire and you have a schedule for that card at, say, $200,000, the contract will most likely pay you the $200,000 for the card regardless of depreciation in the term of the contract. It all depends on the payout type; typically collectibles like this are treated on an agreed value basis, hence the increased cost for that type of insurance. Most contracts will also include a clause that artificially inflates a payout to account for appreciation during a policy/contract term.

My company only writes annual contracts and will not depreciate the value of an item unless prompted to do so - and usually doesn't, but that's my company in specific, if this makes any sense.

mrjurrs said:

Since the wealthiest of Americans make use of more of the American commons than others, asking the very top of that group to pay seems like a reasonable way to recoup some of the wealth created from that which belongs to all of us

Click to expand...

that's not really true and the top one percent pay 40% of the income tax. No matter how hyperbolic the analysis is, there is no way you can establish the top one percent use 40% of the resources funded by the federal income tax while the bottom 50% don't use any of it

Drawdown said:

I don't support wealth taxes. I would be fine with transaction fees on stock transfers. Even a penny per share per trade would generate a huge amount of income and be the same end as a wealth tax. That would be a half a cent per side or you could put it one or both sides. It would also have the benefit of discouraging all the churning created by computers.

Click to expand...

A stock market transaction tax like you describe would be very very proper and needed.

Gimmesometruth said:

Duh....which is why it is stoopid and silly to bring up personal anecdotes about a tax rate you pay, you can say it is anything, to pretend without end.

Silly indeed.

Click to expand...

Nah.. not really. AS I provided the information.. Not everyone benefited from lower taxes after trump. Some actually had higher taxes. I fall into that category.

If you don't want to be so wrong.. so much of the time.. I suggest you read more and post less.

A simple wealth tax is the estate tax. Make it very difficult if not impossible to inherit any estate over the amount of say, 50 million per heir. No more trusts, no more tax code gimmicks. Everything above that must be liquidated and sold. Dynasties will be broken. As for an estate tax while the person is alive, do it with the tax code at source. Imposing a wealth tax is very hard to do because it is far too easy to hide wealth. Now one thing that could be done nationally is to impose a national property tax for second homes for anyone with an income greater then say, one million a year.

mrjurrs said:

If your job involves profiting from polluting the air, you are polluting our air. If you produce a product that creates ill health and we have to pay for that health care, if you use our water, electrical, or power grid, that belongs to all of us. If you hire workers educated in the US, we paid for that. The commons.

Click to expand...

your existing in a certain geo-political area does not create a just claim on the wealth of others who also reside in that area.Those things don't belong to you. and many Americans didn't pay for those things

Vadinho said:

A simple wealth tax is the estate tax. Make it very difficult if not impossible to inherit any estate over the amount of say, 50 million per heir. No more trusts, no more tax code gimmicks. Everything above that must be liquidated and sold. Dynasties will be broken. As for an estate tax while the person is alive, do it with the tax code at source. Imposing a wealth tax is very hard to do because it is far too easy to hide wealth. Now one thing that could be done nationally is to impose a national property tax for second homes for anyone with an income greater then say, one million a year.

Click to expand...

sounds like parasitic thought. Why do you want to take wealth from those more successful than you are?

TurtleDude said:

sounds like parasitic thought. Why do you want to take wealth from those more successful than you are?

Click to expand...

Good question. I am against dynasties and large inheritances. Its a matter of avoiding generational wealth transfers and giving heirs the chance to earn their own fortunes even with the horrible disadvantage of only starting out with 50 million bucks. I feel their pain. As for a wealth tax, Pinketty explained very well how wealth gets concentrated and destroyed over time. In essence, wealth redistribution provides an economy with a way of spreading the gains of an economy and state to promote social welfare, infrastructure investments and diminishes the power of big money in controlling a democracy. All of these things are good for the nation and have nothing to do with my own income level. I can see from your response that you likely have never made a lot of money. If you had, you would understand that even a million dollar year can change a life so dramatically that wishing for more is about greed not need.

jaeger19 said:

Nah.. not really. AS I provided the information

Click to expand...

No, you are not providing any information, you just said you are not. this is is you creating total falsehoods on top of anecdotal personal claims that cannot be verified.....to defend an argument.

It is bs built on nothing.

mrjurrs said:

If your job involves profiting from polluting the air, you are polluting our air. If you produce a product that creates ill health and we have to pay for that health care, if you use our water, electrical, or power grid, that belongs to all of us. If you hire workers educated in the US, we paid for that. The commons.

Click to expand...

yes the people who paid FIT paid for a lot of things corps use to make their profits.
in 2017 42% of all corps paid NO FIT and the GAO posted that after the Trump tax cut that percent would go up to about 65%
YES 65% or about that percent do not pay one cent in FIT and use a lot of programs that the FIT pays for
that is not fair to the people and the other 36% of Corps that do pay FIT
They use these programs to make their millions if not Billions in profits so why shouldn't they help pay for them
I believe a flat 8 to 10% FIT on all corps with NO deductions would be fair to everybody
( the people who pay FIT and the other 35% of large Corps that do pay FIT )
and IF they would pass a Balanced Budget amendment with some REAL teeth in it so they could not spend more then they take in ( except in case of a war or a deep Recession / Depression ) and if we can hold down what we spend if we have an increase in revenues from this flat corp. FIT we could start paying off the debt
I also believe we should have a 1% sales tax just to pay off the debt and when it was paid off it would be suspended and could only be brought back if we did have a war/ recession/ depression to pay off any debt we may have to get into
Have a nice day

Vadinho said:

Good question. I am against dynasties and large inheritances. Its a matter of avoiding generational wealth transfers and giving heirs the chance to earn their own fortunes even with the horrible disadvantage of only starting out with 50 million bucks. I feel their pain. As for a wealth tax, Pinketty explained very well how wealth gets concentrated and destroyed over time. In essence, wealth redistribution provides an economy with a way of spreading the gains of an economy and state to promote social welfare, infrastructure investments and diminishes the power of big money in controlling a democracy. All of these things are good for the nation and have nothing to do with my own income level. I can see from your response that you likely have never made a lot of money. If you had, you would understand that even a million dollar year can change a life so dramatically that wishing for more is about greed not need.

Click to expand...

LOL, I have paid well over ten million in federal income taxes in the last 30 years.

Tbird19482 said:

yes the people who paid FIT paid for a lot of things corps use to make their profits.
in 2017 42% of all corps paid NO FIT and the GAO posted that after the Trump tax cut that percent would go up to about 65%
YES 65% or about that percent do not pay one cent in FIT and use a lot of programs that the FIT pays for
that is not fair to the people and the other 36% of Corps that do pay FIT
They use these programs to make their millions if not Billions in profits so why shouldn't they help pay for them
I believe a flat 8 to 10% FIT on all corps with NO deductions would be fair to everybody
( the people who pay FIT and the other 35% of large Corps that do pay FIT )
and IF they would pass a Balanced Budget amendment with some REAL teeth in it so they could not spend more then they take in ( except in case of a war or a deep Recession / Depression ) and if we can hold down what we spend if we have an increase in revenues from this flat corp. FIT we could start paying off the debt
I also believe we should have a 1% sales tax just to pay off the debt and when it was paid off it would be suspended and could only be brought back if we did have a war/ recession/ depression to pay off any debt we may have to get into
Have a nice day

Click to expand...

What's your source on corporate FIT percentages? CBO just reported a 12% increase on corporate FIT revenue.

TurtleDude said:

LOL, I have paid well over ten million in federal income taxes in the last 30 years.

Click to expand...

Great. That means you made a ton of dough. Only way your taxes could be that high is if you made 20 million or more, likely way more. How much is enough for you?

iguanaman said:

You refuse to understand what I said. The 90% tax rates were never meant to be paid. G]

Click to expand...

Yeah..OR.. which is what really happened.. is that the margin that it kicked in was set so high.. and the other tax deductions.. were so great.. that the 90% was moot.

It didn't change any behavior.. it just convinced rubes like yourself that you were sticking it to the rich.

Because think about what it would mean for us.. to have a rate of 90%.

We SURE as heck are NOT going to adjust salaries on tax rate.. versus market base!... that's absolutely stupid. Think about it. I have business that is making say 10 million in profit..and any more over that... I get taxed at 90%?

Why would I expand and do over that 10million? Why take that risk. .just so I could pay my employees more? So..I am basically going to take all the risk of building for no profit?

AND to boot.. I am going to take that money and give it to my employees as salary... so that when I make less in one year.. I have extremely high salaries that are not based on the market value of employees.. but is based on my fluctuating tax rate?

Come now.

This chart should explain it all to you....Executives of companies went from taking 20 times their employees salaries to as much as 400 times their workers wages. Do you think that would have happened with top tax rates at 90% or even 75% ? Not in a million years.

Click to expand...

BWAAAHHH... this illustrates your lack of understanding. So..the answer to your question of could this happen if top rates were 90%? The answer is YES. YES.

Because CEO salary is expensed. Its an expense so.. to the business. While the 90% would deal with my income. SO..if market forces were such that I needed to pay CEO salaries that were 200 times the other employees... then yes I would.. the top rate is on my income.. and CEO compensation would essentially reduce that income.

Now.. lets say you said : Well we set the earned income level so low.. for that top rate that CEO pay themselves would hit that 90% tier? Well then.. if market forces required more compensation.. then we would find ways to reimburse/compensate CEO's in manners that did not hit that 90% tier.

AND if there was no way to compensate around that tier? Why then. that would mean that all my competitors had their ceo pay capped artificially by the government.. and so all of us owners could simply get more profit.. instead of paying the CEO.

Sorry man.. but there is NO mechanism that makes it beneficial for me to pay my employees more based on my tax status. NONE. IF the rates are too high... then it makes sense for me to avoid making money past that amount with things..like manufacturing.. or services.. that entail risk on my part.

Vadinho said:

Great. That means you made a ton of dough. Only way your taxes could be that high is if you made 20 million or more, likely way more. How much is enough for you?

Click to expand...

I think you make to much if you make more than minimum wage.. so.. we should reduce your wages or tax you much more.

How you like that?

jaeger19 said:

I think you make to much if you make more than minimum wage.. so.. we should reduce your wages or tax you much more.

How you like that?

Click to expand...

Well, my position leaves you with millions. Your position leaves me with peanuts. Which one has the higher moral ground?

Gimmesometruth said:

Reduced to ad hom. I don't believe ALL wealthy folks are complete, total bastards....just the vast majority, which is backed by experience and data. But alas, this is just another whatabaout since you can't make a defensible point.

Click to expand...

Most wealthy people are typically very liberal.

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.

Version 1: each year, every taxpayer is required to report their Section XXX (XXX = a new section of the tax code) net worth.

Problem: for many taxpayers (some of quite modest means), calculating their Section XXX net worth could be a huge burden. Sorry folks - the time and cost required to calculate Section XXX net worth each year could constitute a nasty "tax" on a broad swath of Americans, not just the ultra-weathy. :thumbdown

Problem: the inquisitive bean-counters in the IRS might be delighted at the prospect of requiring every American to cough up a net worth estimate each year, but in my opinion this would be a revolting expansion of government power / intrusion into American life.

Version 2: each year, every taxpayer is required to check a box indicating whether they have Section XXX net worth > $50M. If so, then they report their Section XXX net worth so the corresponding wealth tax can be calculated. Taxpayers who don't check the box don't have to report their Section XXX net worth.

Problem: with this approach, super-wealthy taxpayers could simply not check the box and "dare" the IRS to come after them. Only during an audit would the taxpayer be required to justify their Section XXX net worth claim.
Summary: a warning to Democrats - proposing a wealth tax is a deal-killer for this independent (no party affiliation) voter. :2wave:

Click to expand...

The wealthy already pay too much taxes on income. If you tax them on capital gains they will simply move to another country and buy stock in that country. Plus if you tax capital gains somebody still has to actually pay the tax. That somebody will be the consumer in the form of higher prices. We will still be the ones paying the tax. Every wealthy person I worked for simply raised prices to cover expenses and that includes taxes.

Drawdown said:

I don't support wealth taxes. I would be fine with transaction fees on stock transfers. Even a penny per share per trade would generate a huge amount of income and be the same end as a wealth tax. That would be a half a cent per side or you could put it one or both sides. It would also have the benefit of discouraging all the churning created by computers.

Click to expand...

If we tax the stock market what is to stop the stock market from moving to another country. I would rather keep all that wealth in this country.

Vadinho said:

Well, my position leaves you with millions. Your position leaves me with peanuts. Which one has the higher moral ground?

Click to expand...

if you want more than peanuts, do something that is valued more than peanuts.

PIPEWRENCH said:

The wealthy already pay too much taxes on income. If you tax them on capital gains they will simply move to another country and buy stock in that country. Plus if you tax capital gains somebody still has to actually pay the tax. That somebody will be the consumer in the form of higher prices. We will still be the ones paying the tax. Every wealthy person I worked for simply raised prices to cover expenses and that includes taxes.

Click to expand...

Liberal "thinking" is trying to pretend that envy and greed are really based on "the common good" and "social justice". Those who pay less than they use in government services, ought to thank the rich daily for subsidizing the cost of their citizenship benefits, rather than whining that the rich don't pay enough

TurtleDude said:

if you want more than peanuts, do something that is valued more than peanuts.

Click to expand...

I'll ask again - what have you ever done that is valued by society? What have you ever produced in your life?

This is our point. The rich don't do anything but skim off of other people's work.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

I'll ask again - what have you ever done that is valued by society? What have you ever produced in your life?

This is our point. The rich don't do anything but skim off of other people's work.

Click to expand...

That's really stupid. If a rock act sells 1000000 albums and sells out 50 arenas for concerts, how are they skimming off others work? If a man starts a corporation with his own work and money and it becomes successful and he sells it for 10 million, how did he "skim off the work of others

your posts are nothing more than trying to justify you taking from those who are more successful than you are

TurtleDude said:

That's really stupid. If a rock act sells 1000000 albums and sells out 50 arenas for concerts, how are they skimming off others work? If a man starts a corporation with his own work and money and it becomes successful and he sells it for 10 million, how did he "skim off the work of others

Click to expand...

Neither one of those examples is one of skimming. The artist created music that people bought. And the entrepreneur invested his time and money to produce something that people bought. You have done neither.

TurtleDude said:

your posts are nothing more than trying to justify you taking from those who are more successful than you are

Click to expand...

What, exactly, are you successful at? Inheriting a bunch of money?

You are no more successful than some schmo who hits the lottery, or somebody on welfare. In every case, money was given to someone even though they did nothing to earn it. The amount hardly matters.