Billionaire tells other Billionaires to relax

[Middle_Ground]

Any candidate that makes Billionaires uncomfortable, scared or whatever is one I support.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Assets and income from the sale/transfer of assets are two entirely different things and you know that.

 

[jimbo]

None of this really matters, most of these proposals are still the 'I am trying to appeal to the furthest left' ideas that have no real chance at being said the same way during the general election campaign no matter how much the furthest left advocates for over-taxation, or confiscation taxation (which is an accurate description of these plans to tax someone again after the income is taxed on a 2nd round just because of someone's net worth.) It is also rather ignorant to assume all other factors stay constant.

The real issue is our tax code as it stands now, namely all the means politically given to people to lessen their tax liability. There will still be impact to behavior but at least we would be addressing why our tax code is a nightmare with all sorts of questionable results.

Not that any of that will happen, "free this and free that" will rally the furthest left which is all Warren, or Sanders, or the others care about (and yes I am saying not a one of them really cares about the economic faults of massive excesses in the hands of the few.)

The largest tax loopholes of all are being poor and having kids. How would you address those loopholes?

 

[poweRob]

The largest tax loopholes of all are being poor and having kids. How would you address those loopholes?

Well become stupid poor then if it's that's so appealing to you.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Wealthy Europeans seem to do just fine. And wealthy Americans did just fine in the 50s when our tax rate was much higher.

This just goes to show the elite live in bubbles almost completely isolated from the rest of the world.

Wealthy Europeans invest here. They like the US tax haven.

Yes, tax rates were higher in the 1950's, but allowable write offs brought lower levels of tax revenues from the wealthy.

When John Rockefeller was Governor of NYS, earning a $120k annual salary, he wrote off his daughter's million $ wedding as a business expense. That year he earned more than $30 mil from business interests, paid $12k taxes. At today's lower tax rates he would have paid $12 million in taxes, and he would not have been able to write off his daughter's wedding. That was in 1975.

In 1977 this was part of his argument for reducing NYS tax write offs.

 

[poweRob]

Wealthy Europeans invest here. They like the US tax haven.

Yes, tax rates were higher in the 1950's, but allowable write offs brought lower levels of tax revenues from the wealthy.

When John Rockefeller was Governor of NYS, earning a $120k annual salary, he wrote off his daughter's million $ wedding as a business expense. That year he earned more than $30 mil from business interests, paid $12k taxes. At today's lower tax rates he would have paid $12 million in taxes, and he would not have been able to write off his daughter's wedding. That was in 1975.

In 1977 this was part of his argument for reducing NYS tax write offs.

A lot of the write offs back in the day however rediverted money back into the business and not so much into executive pockets. Yes a lot went into executive pockets but it seems the flow was more into reinvestment.

 

[OldFatGuy]

yet both are still great ideas that should be implemented.

The laws of unintended consequences.

 

[Northern Light]

Assets and income from the sale/transfer of assets are two entirely different things and you know that.

Yes... and...?

I still don't get your point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes... and...?

I still don't get your point.

Read the 16A and tell me where it addresses a property or asset tax.

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.

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[jimbo]

Well become stupid poor then if it's that's so appealing to you.

I prefer just hiring a good accountant.

But, surprise, you failed to address the question. These two loopholes allow these two groups to be the lowest taxed groups in the nation. How would you address that?

 

[charliebrown]

wealth taxes will be riddled with headaches for accountants as well as the IRS. It has been done in other countries and quickly evolves into a mess.

Just put a sales tax on ALL assets above 100K sold. The would be stocks, bonds, houses, businesses with NO EXCEPTIONS FOR THE POLITICALLY CONNECTED.

1% federal sales tax would generate a ton of revenue and slow up high speed trading.

 

[Chomsky]

This (loony?) rich guy is also for Sanders' stock market transaction tax and heavily into crypto-currency markets which would likely benefit from such a "Wall Street transaction" tax. He probably also knows that a federal "wealth" (property) tax is extremely unlikely to be passed into law or to survive an immediate SCOTUS challanege even if it is.

He would also likely rather have a 2% to 3% tax on his "reported" (personal?) assets than to have his personal federal income tax rate doubled. These uber rich folks know full well that their accountants can (and will) structure the ($500M+) assets which he controls such that no single pile of them exceeds whatever "wealth" theshhold ($50M?) might (against all odds) be established.

Exactly. They'll just structure themselves using trusts & corporations. High net-worth individuals often have very little in their personal assets. If you marry one or sue one, be prepared to get very little in settlement.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly. They'll just structure themselves using trusts & corporations. High net-worth individuals often have very little in their personal assets. If you marry one or sue one, be prepared to get very little in settlement.

That is not always the case, thus the use of prenuptial contracts. That is also why folks sue the corporate entity rather than it's CEO or primary stock holder(s).

 

[Northern Light]

Read the 16A and tell me where it addresses a property or asset tax.



Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

I guess you could technically make that argument, but the IRS has already been granted so many expanded powers over the years - all justified through the courts eventually - that I think you'd have a hard time stopping a wealth tax on a constitutional basis alone. It would mean that we'd have to retroactively reform the IRS, and that's the last thing any standing government will do.

 

[Wings]

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

Those numbers are too high under both plans.

We, as a nation, need to get the government both state and federal to operate with less of OUR money.

Tax goods and services and allow for a refund of those taxes for folks making less than a certain threshold. But for the love of god 20% or so of my income is too damn much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OldFatGuy]

A lot of the write offs back in the day however rediverted money back into the business and not so much into executive pockets. Yes a lot went into executive pockets but it seems the flow was more into reinvestment.

Yes, luxury limousines, yachts, business lunches at the Jockey Club, golf at the company paid golf club membership, the company apartment for midday executive dalliances, and so forth went right back into the business, not executive pockets.

A friend's father told me he used to write off his mortgage interest from his income taxes, the law changed so his sole owned company bought him a new much larger house, and depreciated the investment, writing off the costs of his wife's annual redecorating. Then he retired, selling his company but transferring the fully amortized house into his name prior to the sale, for $10, mortgage free, free of transfer taxes. His wife passed just prior to his retirement. He never allowed his new trophy wife to redecorate.

Prior to his own passing a few years ago at 94, he told me something very interesting. Every dime he did not pay in tax revenues pursuant to gross tax rates, allowed him to become a great philanthropist. He said that with a powerful belly laugh. As a holocaust survivor, he had nothing but distrust for politicians.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess you could technically make that argument, but the IRS has already been granted so many expanded powers over the years - all justified through the courts eventually - that I think you'd have a hard time stopping a wealth tax on a constitutional basis alone. It would mean that we'd have to retroactively reform the IRS, and that's the last thing any standing government will do.

I certainly agree that the IRS has overstepped its initial bounds, but not to such an extent that it levies federal sales or asset taxes. Rest assured that a constitutional challenge would be made and likely succeed.

Think about it - if one must sell $X of their property (for "income"?) in order to pay a new "wealth" tax levied upon it then they are being at least double taxed on that $X amount (perhaps even triple taxed if you assume that the property was initially bought using already taxed income).

 

[OldFatGuy]

I guess you could technically make that argument, but the IRS has already been granted so many expanded powers over the years - all justified through the courts eventually - that I think you'd have a hard time stopping a wealth tax on a constitutional basis alone. It would mean that we'd have to retroactively reform the IRS, and that's the last thing any standing government will do.

The federal income tax was ostensibly created temporarily to pay off WWI debts. Tariffs had been the main source of Federal government revenues, closely followed by leasing of mineral and resources rights on federal lands. A straight 10% of gold mined on federal lands went directly into federal coffers. Even at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce, this translated as $multimillions of gold for the Federal government. Today the rate is 15% but far less gold is mined on Federal lands, partly because of conservation issues. Not that I quarrel with that.

 

[Northern Light]

I certainly agree that the IRS has overstepped its initial bounds, but not to such an extent that it levies federal sales or asset taxes. Rest assured that a constitutional challenge would be made and likely succeed.

Think about it - if one must sell $X of their property (for "income"?) in order to pay a new "wealth" tax levied upon it then they are being at least double taxed on that $X amount (perhaps even triple taxed if you assume that the property was initially bought using already taxed income).

Yes, I'm certain that even if Warren had her way, there would be endless legal challenges rendering the law ineffectual anyway. That's how our political system works now, through pure obfuscation and not really rational debate among adversarial colleagues. But I digress...

You're right, it would mean multiple levels of re-taxation, but that's really the point. Our economy is suffering from stagnation partly because of mass sequestration and hording. The standard income tax model is not sufficient to address this because billionaires are not necessarily acquiring assets through income. They are also influencing government to re-write tax code to allow them to pay next to nothing. Bezos paid no income this year, zippo. He gets to pocket everything and convert it to assets, and because the tax code is what it is, we can't go after that in future years.

Balance must be restored. I don't care how we do it but we need to redistribute that horded wealth. If it forces billionaires to liquidate assets then oh well. They can afford it, and it would benefit the nation hugely.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What bubble? You mean like these bubbles?

View attachment 67266607

View attachment 67266608

View attachment 67266609

 

[Chomsky]

That is not always the case, thus the use of prenuptial contracts. That is also why folks sue the corporate entity rather than it's CEO or primary stock holder(s).

Firstly, many states do not enforce prenupts. But your statement is fair. A prenupt, if enforceable, puts everything out in the open fairly.

As to your "suing the corporate entity", the specific purpose of establishing a corporation is to isolate personal & corporate assets from each other. I have been incorporated, and unless my lawyer was telling me wrong, I was pretty bullet proof. And this was indeed proven in a nuisance suit.

And trusts are even more bullet proof. Even the beneficiaries, at times, can't get the assets out! Much less legal attackers!

 

[OrphanSlug]

The largest tax loopholes of all are being poor and having kids. How would you address those loopholes?

According to the US treasury, Pew, and a few other resources the largest tax breaks for individuals are employer paid healthcare, lower tax rates on capital gains and long term dividends, deferral of income from foreign controlled corporations, state and local write offs, and mortgage interest deductions.

Earned income credit is on the outside looking in for the top 5.

You get into corporate tax and the mess is amplified on who really benefits.

So what conversation do you really want to have? Or are you content with centering this on the lowest income quintile? (Who's pay is largely sent right back into the economy via spending since this group tends to have the least capital sitting still somewhere.)

 

[poweRob]

I prefer just hiring a good accountant.

But, surprise, you failed to address the question. These two loopholes allow these two groups to be the lowest taxed groups in the nation. How would you address that?

We have a progressive tax structure and no matter what kind of semantic game you'd like to play, being impoverished isn't a loophole.

 

[poweRob]

Those numbers are too high under both plans.

We, as a nation, need to get the government both state and federal to operate with less of OUR money.

Tax goods and services and allow for a refund of those taxes for folks making less than a certain threshold. But for the love of god 20% or so of my income is too damn much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree and so does the constitution's preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

It doesn't end with ...and to ensure to put all this in the back seat to pinch penny's.

 

[poweRob]

Sounds like a passion. I wish I had that green egg in the background there for sure though.