"Tax the Rich"

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Notwithstanding your obviously incorrect assertions that high income earners are necessarily productive and low income earners do not contribute to society, paying your f—king taxes for the benefit of a country which has allowed you to be financially successful, (relatively) healthy, and (relatively) safe IS NOT A PENALTY!

I really wish we could round up all of you “self-made” producers and drop you off in Somalia. Let’s see how productive you are then.

People with higher incomes are, by definition, more productive. They wouldn't be more highly compensated otherwise. They make more money, spend more money, invest more money, and they pay more taxes. People with lower incomes do less of all those things. It's simple enough.

Is Barron Trump more productive than a front line healthcare worker or someone who drives the trucks that delivers food to our grocery stores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lord help us if this country ever embraces socialism on a national scale. But it will be fun to watch what happens in NYC when those uninformed voters found out the hard way that nothing is free.

God forbid we end up like the socialist hellholes of New Zealand, Norway or Holland.

Those countries are not socialist. They have free market economies with some social programs. Try harder.

Which is what progressives in the US want, despite the false claims of the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you should audit a history class so you can understand that socialism never works.

[Anonymous]

you must be making a FORTUNE to average a 36% federal rate. The top rate is 751k and that puts you at 37%. Since we have a progressive system, you must be at least over a million it to hit 36% across all your income and your deductions must be miniscule. you need a really good CPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you should audit a history class so you can understand that socialism never works.

Apparently neither does capitalism: Exhibit A, the USA circa 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, I see your point. Let’s keep taxing the middle class only. It’s just too hard to tax the rich, and it would really upset them if we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you should audit a history class so you can understand that socialism [b]never works[/b{.

What does this mean, exactly? What does it mean for an economic system to “work” vs “not work”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, I see your point. Let’s keep taxing the middle class only. It’s just too hard to tax the rich, and it would really upset them if we did.

How about shutting down the loopholes that favor the very rich like borrowing against assets and carried interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wealth tax does not make sense, because you cannot tax someone on something they didn't actually earn that year. My stock options might be wealth, but are not things I can access yet (and may never be worth anything). Are you also going to refund me when the value goes down the next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you should audit a history class so you can understand that socialism never works.

Apparently neither does capitalism: Exhibit A, the USA circa 2025.

Your standard of living in 2025 is so much better than it was 50 years ago and better than most citizens of the world. Capitalism, despite its flaws, has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system invented. That mass produced phone and/or computer you're typing on is due to capitalism and free markets. The fact that you can go to a grocery store full of many choices of food is due to capitalism and free markets. I'm so tired of the uninformed drivel pushed by liberals.