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

[Mycroft]

What , you gonna use the old too big to fail like they did in 2008??.

If any american wealth corporation moves America would just stop?

I remind you sir of Budweiser {who really owns it] of Chrysler [{who has controlling stock } just a few.
A small reminder Honda, Toyota, just a few corporations that came to America and hired American workers, plus Walmart we all know where the majority of products comes from.eace

???

Too big to fail has nothing to do with it.

 

[Lutherf]

LOL The "logistics" are already in place. Your land has the value that the State has determined for their taxes. Your "art" has the value that it is insured for, your stocks have the value the stock exchange gives them. Plus you are not eligible for the wealth tax with $10 million in assets. People with over 50 million in assets know their net worth to the penny because they pay accountants to keep track.

Maybe this is a dumb question but do you insure your appreciable assets for what they're worth or for more than they're worth? For instance, if you but a Picasso for $1 million do you insure it for a million dollars or do you insure it for $2 million with the assumption that it's going to increase in value?

With regard to land and real estate, have you ever looked at the tax valuation and compared that to actual market values? Do you believe that encumbrances on the property, such as a mortgage, should effect valuation? For example, if you have a mansion with a fair market value of $20 million and a mortgage of $19 million would you value that property at $20 million or at $1 million?

 

[presluc]

???

Too big to fail has nothing to do with it.

That's what a lot of politicians were saying when corporations went crying like a bitch for bailouts was it not?

That don't work for small business though, small business sink or swim , big business too big to fail .

Now you're saying if we tax the wealth they might move , a majority already has, their labor overseas, their money most in off shore accounts.eace

 

[iguanaman]

Maybe this is a dumb question but do you insure your appreciable assets for what they're worth or for more than they're worth? For instance, if you but a Picasso for $1 million do you insure it for a million dollars or do you insure it for $2 million with the assumption that it's going to increase in value?

With regard to land and real estate, have you ever looked at the tax valuation and compared that to actual market values? Do you believe that encumbrances on the property, such as a mortgage, should effect valuation? For example, if you have a mansion with a fair market value of $20 million and a mortgage of $19 million would you value that property at $20 million or at $1 million?

It is fraud to insure things for more than they are worth. Your liabilities are deducted from your assets when determining net worth. You'd think I was a CPA but I am not and still know these things.

 

[mrjurrs]

You said "our air"..which means that some of its yours.. is it not.

And I didn't say that my taxes pay for all my workers education. YOU tried to make the point that I did not contribute to that education but benefited from it. When the fact is.. I pay a ton of taxes that benefit education.. in fact.. I probably pay MORE in taxes than what was necessary for my employees.. in other words.. I am subsidizing OTHER people.. other than just my workers.

Never said I did. but then again.. I PAY for those employees that help me.. and I PAY large amounts of taxes for the services etc...

SO..you make the claim on how the money I earn is actually yours.

Keep your words out of my mouth, I never said the money you earn is mine. I'm saying that your business relies on the commons, and the time of allowing businesses (or individuals) from profiting by using what belongs to all of us is over. A widget firm that has generated profits they don't deserve by not including the true cost of their product needs to adjust. If they make more profits because they choose to pollute, that's not okay. Do you honestly believe that tobacco companies deserve all of their profits? They have shifted a huge cost of their products to us, and that is not right.

 

[Lutherf]

It is fraud to insure things for more than they are worth. Your liabilities are deducted from your assets when determining net worth. You'd think I was a CPA but I am not and still know these things.

It is absolutely, positively NOT fraud to insure something for more than it's worth. It happens all the time. You are purchasing insurance for the purpose of mitigating the economic effect of a possible loss of whatever is being insured and future value is absolutely part of that consideration.

While you're correct, generally speaking, about the calculation for net worth that's not what you suggested as the tax base for assessing a wealth tax. You specifically stated that the assessed property tax base would be used for assessing the wealth tax. Are you now arguing that you want a net worth tax rather than a wealth tax?

 

[iguanaman]

It is absolutely, positively NOT fraud to insure something for more than it's worth. It happens all the time. You are purchasing insurance for the purpose of mitigating the economic effect of a possible loss of whatever is being insured and future value is absolutely part of that consideration.

While you're correct, generally speaking, about the calculation for net worth that's not what you suggested as the tax base for assessing a wealth tax. You specifically stated that the assessed property tax base would be used for assessing the wealth tax. Are you now arguing that you want a net worth tax rather than a wealth tax?

Boy do you want to make this confusing. A wealth tax would be levied on Net worth obviously.

Oh and it is fraud to insure for more than the value.

Another basis for fraud is over-insurance, in which someone insures property for more than its real value.[2] This condition can be difficult to avoid, especially since an insurance provider might sometimes encourage it to obtain greater profits.[2] This lets fraudsters profit by destroying their property, because they receive an insurance payout greater that the value of the property.

Insurance fraud - Wikipedia

 

[Obscurity]

It is absolutely, positively NOT fraud to insure something for more than it's worth. It happens all the time. You are purchasing insurance for the purpose of mitigating the economic effect of a possible loss of whatever is being insured and future value is absolutely part of that consideration.

While you're correct, generally speaking, about the calculation for net worth that's not what you suggested as the tax base for assessing a wealth tax. You specifically stated that the assessed property tax base would be used for assessing the wealth tax. Are you now arguing that you want a net worth tax rather than a wealth tax?

Patently wrong. I am an underwriter for an insurance company; artifically inflating value is fraud. While the client may pay for it, the premiums they pay are miniscule in comparison to the amount a company pays out on a total loss.

I'll elaborate.

Let's assume you purchase a home for, $100,000 cash. You think it's worth more, so you "buy" additional coverage to $150,000. This is called either stated amount, or, agreed value, in which case the company has to AGREE to cover the item at the amount requested. Now, let's assume for a moment you can convince the company to use NEITHER of these terms and instead insure the home for replacement cost, and list it at $150,000.

If and when the home is a total loss, most companies have a clause that increases the total payout to account for inflation; in some cases as high as 150%. So let's assume you have a guy, like Trump, who knows someone in the industry, who agrees to insure the house for $150,000 instead of $100,000.

The house burns to the ground; the company will be stuck paying out in accordance with its contract; 150% of the $150,000; in other words, $225,000; if the client had insured the home at appraised value $100,000, the company would only pay out $150,000.

A $75,000 difference. Guess who pays for that? The rest of the insurance pool.

Artificially increasing the value of insured items -is- absolutely fraud. 100%. Saying otherwise is incorrect and outright false in the case of MOST americans.

 

[jaeger19]

Well income tax rates are at record lows and your employees taxes, wages and benefits are fully deductible from you income so there is that. l]

Actually my effective income tax rate went UP after Trump's "tax cuts". And Gosh.. you guys have to think a bit. Yes.. my employees wages and benefits and taxes are deductible from my income.... THATS BECAUSE THEY REDUCE MY INCOME.. :doh

Too much of increased profits are being directed upwards where they languish and slow economic growth

That makes no sense. Increased profits from languishing and slow economic growth? You realize the more economic growth.. the more profit right?

The world is awash with capital seeking returns leading to higher risks of financial collapse. [

So.. first you want economic growth.. but then you state that the economic growth which has led to that capital and the growth is from that capital seeking returns.. is going to lead to financial collapse...

I don't think you realize your intellectual disconnect here.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Actually my effective income tax rate went UP after Trump's "tax cuts".

Prove it.

 

[iguanaman]

Actually my effective income tax rate went UP after Trump's "tax cuts". And Gosh.. you guys have to think a bit. Yes.. my employees wages and benefits and taxes are deductible from my income.... THATS BECAUSE THEY REDUCE MY INCOME.. :doh

That makes no sense. Increased profits from languishing and slow economic growth? You realize the more economic growth.. the more profit right?



So.. first you want economic growth.. but then you state that the economic growth which has led to that capital and the growth is from that capital seeking returns.. is going to lead to financial collapse...

I don't think you realize your intellectual disconnect here.

You are the one suffering from a disconnect. Capital is languishing because demand is not there for economic expansion. The increased profits went almost exclusively to the top. Do you even know where demand comes from? It is not from the 1%. Also whether your taxes went up or not you are enjoying record low tax rates and that is why you complain about what you pay your employees. It is probably less than they are worth too. If top tax rates were much higher you would be happy to give more to your employees instead of giving it to the IRS. That was the reason our ancestors set those high confiscatory rates. It was not for revenue, it was to control greed and maximize economic growth.

 

[jaeger19]

Prove it.

Sure.

ZARROLI: And it barred taxpayers from deducting business expenses, such as computer software or magazine subscriptions. The Tax Policy Center says about 6 percent of Americans saw their taxes rise as a result of the bill

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sure.

I did not ask "if it happened to someone", I asked for you to prove it happened to you.

or is this just more pretending to be something/someone?

 

[charliebrown]

So, Jeff Bezos owns a large portion of Amazon. Lizzy would like to gain 3% control of Amazon every year until they become a majority shareholder in the company. At least at that point, Lizzy will not want to break it up any longer.

 

[Lutherf]

Patently wrong. I am an underwriter for an insurance company; artifically inflating value is fraud. While the client may pay for it, the premiums they pay are miniscule in comparison to the amount a company pays out on a total loss.

I'll elaborate.

Let's assume you purchase a home for, $100,000 cash. You think it's worth more, so you "buy" additional coverage to $150,000. This is called either stated amount, or, agreed value, in which case the company has to AGREE to cover the item at the amount requested. Now, let's assume for a moment you can convince the company to use NEITHER of these terms and instead insure the home for replacement cost, and list it at $150,000.

If and when the home is a total loss, most companies have a clause that increases the total payout to account for inflation; in some cases as high as 150%. So let's assume you have a guy, like Trump, who knows someone in the industry, who agrees to insure the house for $150,000 instead of $100,000.

The house burns to the ground; the company will be stuck paying out in accordance with its contract; 150% of the $150,000; in other words, $225,000; if the client had insured the home at appraised value $100,000, the company would only pay out $150,000.

A $75,000 difference. Guess who pays for that? The rest of the insurance pool.

Artificially increasing the value of insured items -is- absolutely fraud. 100%. Saying otherwise is incorrect and outright false in the case of MOST americans.

Do you underwrite collectibles? If I buy a T-206 Wagner in excellent condition for $100k will you write a policy for $200k if I came in with an appraisal for that much?

 

[Obscurity]

Do you underwrite collectibles? If I buy a T-206 Wagner in excellent condition for $100k will you write a policy for $200k if I came in with an appraisal for that much?

An appraisal establishes value. You dont get to increase the value without an appraisal saying the value has increased. Yes I underwrite collections.

When you have an item you buy for 100k and insure through appraisal for 200k that's different. The person who sold it to you sold it at an appraisal loss.

You dont get to increase the 200k further without another appraisal. For example if you dont update the value and the market for whatever reason fluctuates to say the item is now worth 500k, you wont make that, unless you reappraise it at the new value.

There is a difference between appraising an item and defrauding a company by artificially changing things that alter value.

Edit: my specialty is not in cards fyi, mine is in real estate, particularly Florida and catastrophe prone areas.

 

[jaeger19]

You are the one suffering from a disconnect. Capital is languishing because demand is not there for economic expansion. The increased profits went almost exclusively to the top. Do you even know where demand comes from? It is not from the 1%. Also whether your taxes went up or not you are enjoying record low tax rates and that is why you complain about what you pay your employees. It is probably less than they are worth too. If top tax rates were much higher you would be happy to give more to your employees instead of giving it to the IRS. That was the reason our ancestors set those high confiscatory rates. It was not for revenue, it was to control greed and maximize economic growth.

Yeah.. you don't get it. Look.. yes.. demand comes from the 99%. And when they get money.. it ENDS UP IN MY BANK ACCOUNT..and every other rich person who owns a company that provides services to them. So when you say.. gee we are going to have more economic expansion.. well guess what? Its still back in my bank account.

If top tax rates were much higher you would be happy to give more to your employees instead of giving it to the IRS.

No.. that's stupid. Why would I do that? IF the tax rate gets so high.. I am better off simply NOT doing as much business. Cripes.. trying to set pay rates based on my yearly tax rate? Versus market value for labor? How stupid. Think about it. So you want me to give my employees a raise and pay them because we have a lot of profit.. and I want to lower my taxes rather than send it to the government. and then the next year.. if there is a slow down.. then I have to cut my workers pay because my taxable income has dropped? Foolish.

You liberals just have no idea how things are done.

That was the reason our ancestors set those high confiscatory rates. It was not for revenue, it was to control greed and maximize economic growth.

that was so funny. No.. those rates didn't apply to the rich really.. and they didn't cause the rich to "pay more".. what a crock. Those marginal rates simply fooled rubes like you into believing you were taking from the rich.. when really.. you weren't.. in reality taxes were LESS progressive and the poor and middle class were paying a greater portion of the countries taxes. If you doubt me.. just do some research. You will find that what I say is true.

 

[jaeger19]

I did not ask "if it happened to someone", I asked for you to prove it happened to you.

or is this just more pretending to be something/someone?

Naw.. just for some unknown reason.. I don't feel like posting two years of my tax returns on the internet. Why anyone wouldn't want to do that.. well is just silly right?

So color me Gimmee Silly.. for not wanting to post my personal tax returns on the internet.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Naw.. just for some unknown reason.. I don't feel like posting two years of my tax returns on the internet. Why anyone wouldn't want to do that.. well is just silly right?

So color me Gimmee Silly.. for not wanting to post my personal tax returns on the internet.

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.

 

[iguanaman]

Yeah.. you don't get it. Look.. yes.. demand comes from the 99%. And when they get money.. it ENDS UP IN MY BANK ACCOUNT..and every other rich person who owns a company that provides services to them. So when you say.. gee we are going to have more economic expansion.. well guess what? Its still back in my bank account.



No.. that's stupid. Why would I do that? IF the tax rate gets so high.. I am better off simply NOT doing as much business. Cripes.. trying to set pay rates based on my yearly tax rate? Versus market value for labor? How stupid. Think about it. So you want me to give my employees a raise and pay them because we have a lot of profit.. and I want to lower my taxes rather than send it to the government. and then the next year.. if there is a slow down.. then I have to cut my workers pay because my taxable income has dropped? Foolish.

You liberals just have no idea how things are done.



that was so funny. No.. those rates didn't apply to the rich really.. and they didn't cause the rich to "pay more".. what a crock. Those marginal rates simply fooled rubes like you into believing you were taking from the rich.. when really.. you weren't.. in reality taxes were LESS progressive and the poor and middle class were paying a greater portion of the countries taxes. If you doubt me.. just do some research. You will find that what I say is true.

You refuse to understand what I said. The 90% tax rates were never meant to be paid. They were meant to make people like you understand that you can't take all of the increased profits as income, you need to share it with your workers or use it to grow your business. It does none of us any good languishing in your bank account. The outrageous incomes of the 1% are unsustainable and if we need to tax the hell out of them to curb the greed we certainly can and will. 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.

 

[Lutherf]

An appraisal establishes value. You dont get to increase the value without an appraisal saying the value has increased. Yes I underwrite collections.

When you have an item you buy for 100k and insure through appraisal for 200k that's different. The person who sold it to you sold it at an appraisal loss.

You dont get to increase the 200k further without another appraisal. For example if you dont update the value and the market for whatever reason fluctuates to say the item is now worth 500k, you wont make that, unless you reappraise it at the new value.

There is a difference between appraising an item and defrauding a company by artificially changing things that alter value.

Edit: my specialty is not in cards fyi, mine is in real estate, particularly Florida and catastrophe prone areas.

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?

 

[vesper]

I do not think it is a stretch at all to say a lot of folks who fall into the middle class tax brackets over income could, when adding up all their assets including real estate, be worth well over a million or two. Many folks purchase rare and valuable items as an investment and sometimes they inherit them. They have them appraised and insured. The older the person, the greater their assets to be substantial.

I have no idea how the leftists plan on determining the wealth of any individual but if it includes an IRA, investments and anything of value they possess and an insurance policy on such items, senior citizens could be targeted with a wealth tax.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I do not think it is a stretch at all to say a lot of folks who fall into the middle class tax brackets over income could, when adding up all their assets including real estate, be worth well over a million or two. Many folks purchase rare and valuable items as an investment and sometimes they inherit them. They have them appraised and insured. The older the person, the greater their assets to be substantial.

I have no idea how the leftists plan on determining the wealth of any individual but if it includes an IRA, investments and anything of value they possess and an insurance policy on such items, senior citizens could be targeted with a wealth tax.

I am against a wealth tax, but I dont know how in the hell anyone in the middle class could ever be targeted with a wealth tax that only taxes total wealth over 50 million.

 

[vesper]

I am against a wealth tax, but I dont know how in the hell anyone in the middle class could ever be targeted with a wealth tax that only taxes total wealth over 50 million.

Is 50 million the magic number? And all their policies the left are promoting from Medicare for all, green new deal, etc., that require trillions and trillions of dollars to implement. How soon will it be before to implement their agenda will they need to increase taxes on anyone past making 50 million? You know if they are successful in making 50 million pay excessive taxes, it won't be long after that there will not be anyone or company making that kind of money because they taxed them out of business. So where will they go to get the money they need to feed the kitty?

Lets be honest here, the agenda the left is pushing is going to raise taxes every which way but loose and it will not stop at those corporations or individuals making 50 million. All the free stuff they are proposing there isn't enough money to cover.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Is 50 million the magic number? And all their policies the left are promoting from Medicare for all, green new deal, etc., that require trillions and trillions of dollars to implement. How soon will it be before to implement their agenda will they need to increase taxes on anyone past making 50 million? You know if they are successful in making 50 million pay excessive taxes, it won't be long after that there will not be anyone or company making that kind of money because they taxed them out of business. So where will they go to get the money they need to feed the kitty?

Lets be honest here, the agenda the left is pushing is going to raise taxes every which way but loose and it will not stop at those corporations or individuals making 50 million. All the free stuff they are proposing there isn't enough money to cover.

They will never pass Medicare for All or much of what was proposed in The Green New Deal.