Billionaire tells other Billionaires to relax

[Northern Light]

The wealth tax is actually a property tax, not an income tax, because its assessment is based on total asset value, and not how much money you make. That's the whole point of it. Income tax does not really redistribute wealth, especially if old money is involved. You may have billions of dollars but your actual income is less than $80K a year, in which case you are only paying tax on that $80K. The ultra wealth tax takes the assets of billionaires and redistributes them.

Here's a great video that summarizes the whole thing:


I support this tax for the ultra wealthy because it could really financially stabilize our nation at a time when we are facing an increasing fiscal crisis. The billionaires can afford it without their ultra wealth really being impacted, and it's the morally correct thing to do from a fiduciary perspective. Most of our billionaires have used the economic resources of entire nations to rake in money and assets, with no real accountability to help the societies they are taking from. This is now happening on a global scale.

Nobody needs $50 billion. If I were a billionaire, I would definitely be redistributing a lot of that money to humanity. Think of the good you could do in the world, the real good. You could pay to lift entire populations out of poverty; you could build infrastructure; you could pay for people's education or health care; you could fund technology research to advance humanity's understanding of sciences.

It's beyond me why someone would have so much money and basically just sit on it. The only explanation is a desire for power through financial control, and that kind of power is no bueno in democracies. If people are using their money to influence government, then the money should be redistributed.

We need to move beyond this end stage capitalism phase where money is more important than people. So much suffering could end tomorrow with redistribution, and it would not even seriously affect the ultra wealthy's coffers. They would still be the richest people in the world, even after redistribution.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The speculation tax would be good on so many levels. First you are generating revenue for balancing the budget, but more importantly, it would help stave off fractional computer transactions that ultimately devalue the stock market and destablize our economy. I don't know what you know and you might even know more than I do on the topic so don't take this as me talking down to you.

Fractional computer transactions is where these assholes put high speed servers as close to wall street as possible that run on algorithms that trade in fractional amounts but by the gazillion in speed. These don't trade on health and strength of a company and is basically unfair to actual traders and speculators as well as the company's whose stock may be getting undermined by these speedy algorithms doing God knows what. Have a tiny transaction tax and it would prohibit someones desires to build these fractional high transaction trades and we could get back to real value.

Nice try to justify adding an entirely new federal taxation power, but Sanders' Wall Street transaction tax applies to "good" (initiated by regular people) trades as well as "bad" (initiated by computer algorithm) trades. If you really wanted to be more "fair" then you would tax capital gains income at the same bracket rates as wage, salary, interest and lottery/gambling winnings income.

 

[Mason66]

If a 2 percent wealth tax on billionaires bankrupts a billionaire then they must be as dumb as a billionaire who goes bankrupt on a casino and several other businesses.

Please read what I posted instead of what you think I posted.

 

[poweRob]

If people's wealth is going to be taxed after it is taxed when they earn it, why doesn't everybody pay that yearly?

How long will it be before everybody declares bankruptcy?

BTW... the Ultra-Millionaire tax (aka wealth tax) kicks in for income over $50 million.

Rates and Revenue

Zero additional tax on any household with a net worth of less than $50 million (99.9% of American households)

2% annual tax on household net worth between $50 million and $1 billion

1% annual Billionaire Surtax (3% tax overall) on household net worth above $1 billion

10-Year revenue total of $2.75 trillion (estimate by Saez and Zucman)​

 

[poweRob]

Nice try to justify adding an entirely new federal taxation power, but Sanders' Wall Street transaction tax applies to "good" (initiated by regular people) trades as well as "bad" (initiated by computer algorithm) trades. If you really wanted to be more "fair" then you would tax capital gains income at the same bracket rates as wage, salary, interest and lottery/gambling winnings income.

I never said a speculation tax was only for one kind of trading. It would be on all wall street transactions.

Here's the numbers:

Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5.​

I was just stating that it would have a bigger effect on and slow down transactions that are done with more frequency like the computer aided transactions done with mega high frequency, which is needed. It would barely even be noticed by low frequency transaction (good) traders. Hell they already have to pay transaction "fees" all over the place with the org they trade through that is much higher.

 

[poweRob]

Please read what I posted instead of what you think I posted.

Here... I'll help everyone read it:

If people's wealth is going to be taxed after it is taxed when they earn it, why doesn't everybody pay that yearly?

How long will it be before everybody declares bankruptcy?

 

[poweRob]

The wealth tax is actually a property tax, not an income tax, because its assessment is based on total asset value, and not how much money you make. That's the whole point of it. Income tax does not really redistribute wealth, especially if old money is involved. You may have billions of dollars but your actual income is less than $80K a year, in which case you are only paying tax on that $80K. The ultra wealth tax takes the assets of billionaires and redistributes them.

Here's a great video that summarizes the whole thing:


I support this tax for the ultra wealthy because it could really financially stabilize our nation at a time when we are facing an increasing fiscal crisis. The billionaires can afford it without their ultra wealth really being impacted, and it's the morally correct thing to do from a fiduciary perspective. Most of our billionaires have used the economic resources of entire nations to rake in money and assets, with no real accountability to help the societies they are taking from. This is now happening on a global scale.

Nobody needs $50 billion. If I were a billionaire, I would definitely be redistributing a lot of that money to humanity. Think of the good you could do in the world, the real good. You could pay to lift entire populations out of poverty; you could build infrastructure; you could pay for people's education or health care; you could fund technology research to advance humanity's understanding of sciences.

It's beyond me why someone would have so much money and basically just sit on it. The only explanation is a desire for power through financial control, and that kind of power is no bueno in democracies. If people are using their money to influence government, then the money should be redistributed.

We need to move beyond this end stage capitalism phase where money is more important than people. So much suffering could end tomorrow with redistribution, and it would not even seriously affect the ultra wealthy's coffers. They would still be the richest people in the world, even after redistribution.

Fantastic visual explanation in that video.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The wealth tax is actually a property tax, not an income tax, because its assessment is based on total asset value, and not how much money you make. That's the whole point of it. Income tax does not really redistribute wealth, especially if old money is involved. You may have billions of dollars but your actual income is less than $80K a year, in which case you are only paying tax on that $80K. The ultra wealth tax takes the assets of billionaires and redistributes them.

Here's a great video that summarizes the whole thing:


I support this tax for the ultra wealthy because it could really financially stabilize our nation at a time when we are facing an increasing fiscal crisis. The billionaires can afford it without their ultra wealth really being impacted, and it's the morally correct thing to do from a fiduciary perspective. Most of our billionaires have used the economic resources of entire nations to rake in money and assets, with no real accountability to help the societies they are taking from. This is now happening on a global scale.

Nobody needs $50 billion. If I were a billionaire, I would definitely be redistributing a lot of that money to humanity. Think of the good you could do in the world, the real good. You could pay to lift entire populations out of poverty; you could build infrastructure; you could pay for people's education or health care; you could fund technology research to advance humanity's understanding of sciences.

It's beyond me why someone would have so much money and basically just sit on it. The only explanation is a desire for power through financial control, and that kind of power is no bueno in democracies. If people are using their money to influence government, then the money should be redistributed.

We need to move beyond this end stage capitalism phase where money is more important than people. So much suffering could end tomorrow with redistribution, and it would not even seriously affect the ultra wealthy's coffers. They would still be the richest people in the world, even after redistribution.

Why did you find it necessary to change (inflate?) $50M to $50B? Why not use the same "way too much" threshold as is now used for the inheritance (death?) tax?

The concept of a federal property (or wealth) tax should require constitutional amendment to become a federal taxation power exempted from the equal apportionment requirement for direct taxes. The 16A waived that constituional mandate for the taxation of "income from all sources" yet makes no mention of taxing individual (or business) property/assets.

 

[poweRob]

Why did you find it necessary to change (inflate?) $50M to $50B? Why not use the same "way too much" threshold as is now used for the inheritance (death?) tax?

The concept of a federal property (or wealth) tax should require constitutional amendment to become a federal taxation power exempted from the equal apportionment requirement for direct taxes. The 16A waived that constituional mandate for the taxation of "income from all sources" yet makes no mention of taxing individual (or business) property/assets.

Here we go with "DEATH TAXES!" boogeyman talk.

As far as needing to amend the constitution, what beyond this that is already in the constitution would you think that is needed for these taxes to be levied?

16th Amendment: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.

SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.​

 

[Mason66]

Here... I'll help everyone read it:

As I said, it should be for everybody, which would bankrupt those people.

If the country is going to institute a second tax on the same money earned, it should be for everybody.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes. The definition of "income" needs to be revamped to be more honest.

I agree - it should become gross income from all sources above a reasonable and truly standard (deduction) amount. It should also be taxed at a single rate just as business income is - if Walmart should pay at the same tax rate as a taco truck operator then why not have a doctor (CEO or lawyer) pay at the same tax rate as a cashier (carpenter or bus driver)?

 

[poweRob]

As I said, it should be for everybody, which would bankrupt those people.

If the country is going to institute a second tax on the same money earned, it should be for everybody.

Well it's not for everybody so you are strawmanning an argument that isn't there.

 

[trixare4kids]

All balloons burst. If either wins and the stock market reacts like that, it's just a verification that it was riding high on false value.

Yeah, sure. :roll:

The billionaire investor mentioned in the Barron's article wasn't talking about a balloon bust but tell yourself whatever you want.

 

[poweRob]

I agree - it should become gross income from all sources above a reasonable and truly standard (deduction) amount. It should also be taxed at a single rate just as business income is - if Walmart should pay at the same tax rate as a taco truck operator then why not have a doctor (CEO or lawyer) pay at the same tax rate as a cashier (carpenter or bus driver)?

So you don't believe in a progressive tax bracketing system like the ones I posted in Post#16?

 

[Mason66]

Well it's not for everybody so you are strawmanning an argument that isn't there.

As I said, you should have answered what I posted and not what you wanted to see.

 

[Northern Light]

Why did you find it necessary to change (inflate?) $50M to $50B? Why not use the same "way too much" threshold as is now used for the inheritance (death?) tax?

I didn't inflate anything, I just chose an arbitrary number in the discussion. If you want to bring it down to $50 million, I'm good with that.

The concept of a federal property (or wealth) tax should require constitutional amendment to become a federal taxation power exempted from the equal apportionment requirement for direct taxes. The 16A waived that constituional mandate for the taxation of "income from all sources" yet makes no mention of taxing individual (or business) property/assets.

I don't agree with requiring a constitutional amendment simply because the policy does not have to be permanent. It could be implemented on a temporary basis with expiring features that get re-evaluated periodically. Also, taxing of assets beyond a threshold is not a new (positive) power of the government. It already does it in other instances, as you've mentioned. The proposed law would simply expand the scope of its application.

We have entered an unprecedented era where the sheer hording of wealth is crushing the progress of our nation. This has never happened before in our history. We have never had a time where money caused such widespread toxic features to the polity. The ultra wealth tax is a real, viable and even temporary solution that could restore balance for hundreds of millions of Americans.

 

[Carjosse]

I agree - it should become gross income from all sources above a reasonable and truly standard (deduction) amount. It should also be taxed at a single rate just as business income is - if Walmart should pay at the same tax rate as a taco truck operator then why not have a doctor (CEO or lawyer) pay at the same tax rate as a cashier (carpenter or bus driver)?

In Canada there are two different rates for corporate taxes, a lower one for small businesses and a higher one for everyone else. Certainly the opposite logic applies as well, we tax income with progressively higher rates why not business income as well even with only two brackets?

The fact is the more money you have the less an additional dollar matters.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you don't believe in a progressive tax bracketing system like the ones I posted in Post#16?

I do not. Just as we do not tax business income on a progressive rate basis. Using a fairly generous and truly standard deduction, of the FPL for a three (or four) person household, would make using a flat tax rate (on any income above that level) effectively quite progressive for those below the level of "the rich".

 

[ttwtt78640]

I didn't inflate anything, I just chose an arbitrary number in the discussion. If you want to bring it down to $50 million, I'm good with that.



I don't agree with requiring a constitutional amendment simply because the policy does not have to be permanent. It could be implemented on a temporary basis with expiring features that get re-evaluated periodically. Also, taxing of assets beyond a threshold is not a new (positive) power of the government. It already does it in other instances, as you've mentioned. The proposed law would simply expand the scope of its application.

We have entered an unprecedented era where the sheer hording of wealth is crushing the progress of our nation. This has never happened before in our history. We have never had a time where money caused such widespread toxic features to the polity. The ultra wealth tax is a real, viable and even temporary solution that could restore balance for hundreds of millions of Americans.

That (bolded above) is nonsense - the federal government cannot "temporarily" give itself extra constitutional powers - see Japanese internment camps or the PPACA mandate that states offer expanded Medicaid benefts.

 

[poweRob]

I do not. Just as we do not tax business income on a progressive rate basis. Using a fairly generous and truly standard deduction, of the FPL for a three (or four) person household, would make using a flat tax rate (on any income above that level) effectively quite progressive for those below the level of "the rich".

I disagree but I understand where you are coming from.

 

[poweRob]

That (bolded above) is nonsense - the federal government cannot "temporarily" give itself extra constitutional powers - see Japanese internment camps or the PPACA mandate that states offer expanded Medicaid benefts.

How is levying taxes extra constitutional? 16th Amendment says congress can.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In Canada there are two different rates for corporate taxes, a lower one for small businesses and a higher one for everyone else. Certainly the opposite logic applies as well, we tax income with progressively higher rates why not business income as well even with only two brackets?

The fact is the more money you have the less an additional dollar matters.

On that (bolded above) I agree, but we are very inconsistent in that regard. Wage, salary and interest income is taxed at progressive rates while capital gains income is taxed at a flat (and often lower) rate.

I also agree that after a certain "basic needs" income threshold is reached (the proper standard deduction amount?) that additional income should be subject to federal taxation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How is levying taxes extra constitutional? 16th Amendment says congress can.

Yep, but very specifically applies to "income from all sources" - it is not a federal power to tax anything and everything without regard to equal apportionment among the states.

 

[washunut]

Current tax plan vs. Bernie's tax plan. Tax percentages stay the same for anyone making less than $200,000/year. Add a couple tax brackets, and the highest bracket is topped out at 52% for income over $10 million in the year.

View attachment 67266611 View attachment 67266612

Tweaking the brackets is fine,but does address the systemic leaks that allow so much money to be under-taxed. For example when Buffet gives to "charity" 1 share of Berkshire he gets to call that about $400K of charity. Lets remember that his basis in that stock is probably close to zero. So he has $400K that was NEVER taxed. He forgets to mention this when he talks about tax rates. Same will be true when he leaves his kids money in his estate. The kids will get a step-up in basis.

So the great unwashed get transfixed with the noise while the donors laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Northern Light]

That (bolded above) is nonsense - the federal government cannot "temporarily" give itself extra constitutional powers - see Japanese internment camps or the PPACA mandate that states offer expanded Medicaid benefts.

You're missing the point.

I'm not agreeing with you that this is a constitutional matter in the first place. All my rationales flow from that. If you read my post from that lens, then it will make sense to you, even if you disagree. If it still doesn't make sense, then let me know how I can further clarify.