"Tax the Rich"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

This is not accurate--a wealth tax is a very blunt instrument and is not the only way to reduce the tax benefits of borrowing against assets. At least three other ways have been proposed that specifically target the borrowing tax arbitrage as outlined in this article:

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/buy-borrow-die-options-reforming-tax-treatment-borrowing-against-appreciated-assets

This is a loophole that should end, even though as the article states "borrowing (of any kind) represents only 1% of the income of the top 0.1% by net worth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

+1

You are expecting MAGA to do math. They are too stupid

Says the liberal Dem who thinks men can get pregnant. Next!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

This is not accurate--a wealth tax is a very blunt instrument and is not the only way to reduce the tax benefits of borrowing against assets. At least three other ways have been proposed that specifically target the borrowing tax arbitrage as outlined in this article:

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/buy-borrow-die-options-reforming-tax-treatment-borrowing-against-appreciated-assets

This is a loophole that should end, even though as the article states "borrowing (of any kind) represents only 1% of the income of the top 0.1% by net worth."

Look, you said that the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. A wealth tax is clearly a way to raise an enormous sum of money from the wealthy while still leaving them with plenty (I’m pretty sure they can earn 1-2% per annum on their wealth). Whether or not a wealth tax is optimal is secondary to the point that the wealthy can contribute much more than they presently do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

This is not accurate--a wealth tax is a very blunt instrument and is not the only way to reduce the tax benefits of borrowing against assets. At least three other ways have been proposed that specifically target the borrowing tax arbitrage as outlined in this article:

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/buy-borrow-die-options-reforming-tax-treatment-borrowing-against-appreciated-assets

This is a loophole that should end, even though as the article states "borrowing (of any kind) represents only 1% of the income of the top 0.1% by net worth."

Look, you said that the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. A wealth tax is clearly a way to raise an enormous sum of money from the wealthy while still leaving them with plenty (I’m pretty sure they can earn 1-2% per annum on their wealth). Whether or not a wealth tax is optimal is secondary to the point that the wealthy can contribute much more than they presently do.

PP who posted the Yale article. I am not the poster who said the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. I will say I am a dubious about a wealth tax as 1) determining net worth is very tricky, 2) the rich will find ways around it, and 3) it will creep down to the non-ultra high worth, who are far less likely to have the wherewithal to avoid it as the rich will have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

+1

You are expecting MAGA to do math. They are too stupid

Says the liberal Dem who thinks men can get pregnant. Next!

It’s funny when they prove the point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

This is not accurate--a wealth tax is a very blunt instrument and is not the only way to reduce the tax benefits of borrowing against assets. At least three other ways have been proposed that specifically target the borrowing tax arbitrage as outlined in this article:

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/buy-borrow-die-options-reforming-tax-treatment-borrowing-against-appreciated-assets

This is a loophole that should end, even though as the article states "borrowing (of any kind) represents only 1% of the income of the top 0.1% by net worth."

Look, you said that the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. A wealth tax is clearly a way to raise an enormous sum of money from the wealthy while still leaving them with plenty (I’m pretty sure they can earn 1-2% per annum on their wealth). Whether or not a wealth tax is optimal is secondary to the point that the wealthy can contribute much more than they presently do.

PP who posted the Yale article. I am not the poster who said the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. I will say I am a dubious about a wealth tax as 1) determining net worth is very tricky, 2) the rich will find ways around it, and 3) it will creep down to the non-ultra high worth, who are far less likely to have the wherewithal to avoid it as the rich will have.

NP

1) What’s tricky about it?
2) People find ways around laws, do you think we shouldn’t have laws?
3) The minute you choose to describe someone as “non-ultra high worth” you have revealed that the individual is indeed rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do well. I am not complaining and feel very fortunate to have two very good paying careers. But we just did our end of year tax analysis with our CPA and our effective tax rate when adding federal plus DC taxes is 45% (36% federal, 9% DC and DC is only "low" because a lot of our income is through a DC C-Corp which is taxes slightly lower at 8.5%).

45% of our income going to taxes. Nearly half of what we take home. And yes -- we are utilizing every single tax strategy under the sun available to us and work with a very good CPA.

So let's change the complaint from "tax the rich" to "tax the billionaires" because the regular rich are playing PLENTY in taxes already. Sigh.

You should be investing in DC municipal bonds to get the federal and tax free income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do well. I am not complaining and feel very fortunate to have two very good paying careers. But we just did our end of year tax analysis with our CPA and our effective tax rate when adding federal plus DC taxes is 45% (36% federal, 9% DC and DC is only "low" because a lot of our income is through a DC C-Corp which is taxes slightly lower at 8.5%).

45% of our income going to taxes. Nearly half of what we take home. And yes -- we are utilizing every single tax strategy under the sun available to us and work with a very good CPA.

So let's change the complaint from "tax the rich" to "tax the billionaires" because the regular rich are playing PLENTY in taxes already. Sigh.

If you are married filing jointly, in 2025 you will pay $202,155 on income up to $751,601, for an effective federal income tax rate of less than 27%. Above that threshold, income is taxed at 37%. To get to an effective rate of 36%, your income would have to be well into the seven digits. For example, at $2m in *taxable* income, the effective federal income tax rate is 33.2%. And that's just taxable income, not taking into account the tax avoidance strategies available to the rich. And sure, I know one of you probably is a biglaw partner, so there are some extras thrown in there, but they are rounding errors at that level (although maybe not, since you only reference paying taxes in one state).

All this is by way of saying, (i) yes, billionaires should be taxed more, but (ii) no, your tax "burden" is not the least bit unfair, and really should be increased. FFS.

Also, your cute "we do well" was a nice try at making others assume you made $500k or so. But in reality, you are in the top 0.1% of HHI in the country, as is readily apparent to anyone who can do 5th grade math.

Finally, you are most definitely complaining. If you must, do it at the country club among your fellow travelers.

The mention of a C-Corp in OP’s post means that they are obfuscating the issue and aren’t comparable to regular wage earners.

That just further reinforces the point - OP is likely paying less than the 37% top tax rate on a lot of her income. Which means that to get to an effective rate of 36%, the HHI must be truly enormous.

That or, despite the economic success, they can't do math or don't understand how taxation works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wealthy need to pay more on investments - a wealth tax if you will.

People who earn money through labor, of whatever kind, are taxed more than enough already.

I'm also pretty certain that many people roll the social security/medicare cut of their check into what they think are income tax or "taxes". Despite them paying no income tax.

so let's say I own a million dollars worth of a stock, and have to pay some sort of wealth tax on it, but the next year, that same stock is worth a quarter of its value, do I get a refund?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wealthy need to pay more on investments - a wealth tax if you will.

People who earn money through labor, of whatever kind, are taxed more than enough already.

I'm also pretty certain that many people roll the social security/medicare cut of their check into what they think are income tax or "taxes". Despite them paying no income tax.

I need to understand this better as I’m not sure I agree with this.

For example, I work and get paid $100. I get taxed and take home $75. I’m ok with that. Of that $75, I decide to take a portion and save/invest. Why should I pay additional taxes on any earnings I make from that? I invested with money I already paid tax on.

Any time money exchanges hands in our system you are supposed to be taxed. The earnings on your investments do not float to you from the air. Apple gives you a dividend? You should get taxed. There is no logic for my employer paying me and I pay a tax, but Apple pays you, but you don’t pay a tax. The loopholes around this are a big driver of inequality. I as a wage earner can never catch up to you and your investments if your money keeps compounding with no tax.

Uh, taxpayers pay taxes on stick dividends. The only thing they don't pay taxes on are tax-free vehicles, which a lower rate for the benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder who has more sway on congress, the upper middle class/small rich voters or the billionaires. One has voting power that has been gerrymandered away. The other? Just move to Florida I guess and pay to play.

but then you have to live....in florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do well. I am not complaining and feel very fortunate to have two very good paying careers. But we just did our end of year tax analysis with our CPA and our effective tax rate when adding federal plus DC taxes is 45% (36% federal, 9% DC and DC is only "low" because a lot of our income is through a DC C-Corp which is taxes slightly lower at 8.5%).

45% of our income going to taxes. Nearly half of what we take home. And yes -- we are utilizing every single tax strategy under the sun available to us and work with a very good CPA.

So let's change the complaint from "tax the rich" to "tax the billionaires" because the regular rich are playing PLENTY in taxes already. Sigh.

Flatten the tax code.

The top 50% of earners do not need to pay 97% of the entire yearly income tax, while the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%.

It creates a whole class of people who pay for nothing, and demand everything.

Have you seen the recent income curves? Its like a hockey stick.

If you are going to do a flat tax, exempt the first $50,000 (and pegged to inflation) for all taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I paid $8 M in federal estate taxes last year.

So your family pocketed 26 million tax free and then paid 8 million on the other, what 60 million? My heart bleeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxes is theft plain and simple.

The rich have money to spare and taxes doesn't affect them.

If things were FAIR, then anyone making less than 100K a year and owning less than 2 million dollars of real estate, would have to pay ZERO TAXES.

So much of this post is insane... But mainly, no, taxes are absolutely not theft. Think of them as a membership fee for being part of a society.

By this logic, everyone should pay for membership. But that's not how our tax regime works. It penalizes the most productive and successful in order to benefit those who contribute the least productivity, for no apparent reason. It also distorts the economy and markets through ever-changing government efforts to apply social engineering through a system of tax-related incentives and disincentives, causing people and businesses to engage in behaviors they otherwise would eschew.

A fair system would be a flat tax where everyone, regardless of income, pays the same rate. People with higher incomes pay more, lower incomes pay less, everybody pays and feels the same amount of relative pain. The inefficiencies inherent in our convoluted system of deductions, income brackets, credits, and exemptions could be instantly eliminated.

You should audit a tax 101 class so you can understand the reasons for the things you claim have no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will make $1M this year (own a business that will likely fold in two years thanks to Trump policies) so income is variable and we pay 45% combined fed, state and local. I don’t have any qualms paying this in but I at least wish we got SOMETHING for it like universal health care or a decent plan where if our business tanks we know there would be a backup without having to co e up with an extra $2k per month for health insurance premiums.

You won't get those kinds of perks in the current system because there are simply not enough people like you to generate the tax base necessary to pay for them. Only way everyone gets a lot of "free stuff" like you mention is if they hit the middle class with big tax hikes. The middle class is where the real money is. You could take every penny the billionaires have and it wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the Democrats wildest dreams, or make any dent in our national debt for that matter.

This isn’t true.

The wealthy oftentimes diminish income by living on borrowed money collateralized by their assets. The only way the government can effectively tax them is to tax their wealth.

A 1% tax on wealth over $50 million could raise around $1.9 trillion over a decade (2025-2034), according to the Tax Policy Center.

Senator Warren's proposed tax (2% on wealth over $1 billion and 1% over $50 million) was estimated to raise around $2.75 trillion over ten years by economists.

This is not accurate--a wealth tax is a very blunt instrument and is not the only way to reduce the tax benefits of borrowing against assets. At least three other ways have been proposed that specifically target the borrowing tax arbitrage as outlined in this article:

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/buy-borrow-die-options-reforming-tax-treatment-borrowing-against-appreciated-assets

This is a loophole that should end, even though as the article states "borrowing (of any kind) represents only 1% of the income of the top 0.1% by net worth."

Look, you said that the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. A wealth tax is clearly a way to raise an enormous sum of money from the wealthy while still leaving them with plenty (I’m pretty sure they can earn 1-2% per annum on their wealth). Whether or not a wealth tax is optimal is secondary to the point that the wealthy can contribute much more than they presently do.

PP who posted the Yale article. I am not the poster who said the only way to raise meaningful tax money is to tax the middle class. I will say I am a dubious about a wealth tax as 1) determining net worth is very tricky, 2) the rich will find ways around it, and 3) it will creep down to the non-ultra high worth, who are far less likely to have the wherewithal to avoid it as the rich will have.

NP

1) What’s tricky about it?
2) People find ways around laws, do you think we shouldn’t have laws?
3) The minute you choose to describe someone as “non-ultra high worth” you have revealed that the individual is indeed rich.

1)Putting a value on shares on nonpublicly owned companies, especially sole proprietorships is difficult and can be very specialized. Under a wealth tax it would have to be done every year. Same with valuing art collections and other nonfinancial assets. The very rich have plenty of ways to dispute valuations.

2) Isn't your argument that since the rich use all sorts of legal strategies to avoid income taxes we need to tax their wealth? Why wouldn't they do the same to avoid paying wealth taxes?

3) Not sure how they are defining non-ultra high worth today, but it used to be $10 million and above. So when the wealth tax isn't producing the tax revenue projected because the very rich are successfully avoiding it, the wealth tax will creep down below the $10 million net worth level. While that may seem rich, it is very likely at a $10 million or less level that a large chunk of it is in a 401k, withdrawals from which are already required and taxed as ordinary income, and a residence on which property tax already is paid annually. Applying a wealth tax on top seems excessive.