"Tax the Rich"

[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.

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?

We could absolutely tax you on what you didn’t earn that year if we, you know, changed the law. Why would you get a refund because you gambled and you lost?

And if you can’t be taxed on your unrealized stock options you ABSOLUTELY should not be able to borrow against them either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is “your” exactly? The 50 somethings of DCUM? Sure, your point largely stands. Their 20 year old children? NOPE. They can’t afford groceries in this economy, let alone rent. Wake up, dummy.

[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.

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?

+

yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

We could absolutely tax you on what you didn’t earn that year if we, you know, changed the law. Why would you get a refund because you gambled and you lost?

And if you can’t be taxed on your unrealized stock options you ABSOLUTELY should not be able to borrow against them either.

So should we tax you when you get a HELOC and borrow against your home? Because that is also "wealth"

However, if I'm not borrowing against my options, then I should not be taxed, no question about it. I could have $10M today and $7M tomorrow---until I realize it and "earn it" you should not tax it.
And yes, if you change the law and tax my "wealth" one year, then I should get a refund when it goes down. It's very different than income, I don't make the choices to have it go down

[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.

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?

High earners often get RSUs. You are taxed on those RSUs as ordinary income when they vest at the value on the vesting date, whetehr you sell or hold it. If the value drops before you sell, then yes, you will have paid taxes on money you only ever had on paper. Happens all the time. Also, if you hold the stock to avoid the higher capital gains tax (or because corporate rules block you from selling), you are paying a tax this year on money you cannot actually access. The more RSUs you get as a percnetage of income, the more likely that in such a scenario your tax bill could actually be higher than the net cash deposited from your salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

We could absolutely tax you on what you didn’t earn that year if we, you know, changed the law. Why would you get a refund because you gambled and you lost?

And if you can’t be taxed on your unrealized stock options you ABSOLUTELY should not be able to borrow against them either.

So should we tax you when you get a HELOC and borrow against your home? Because that is also "wealth"

However, if I'm not borrowing against my options, then I should not be taxed, no question about it. I could have $10M today and $7M tomorrow---until I realize it and "earn it" you should not tax it.
And yes, if you change the law and tax my "wealth" one year, then I should get a refund when it goes down. It's very different than income, I don't make the choices to have it go down

I get this is how you want things to work or think they should work, but we dont always get what we want. If we did, I would have universal healthcare and severe gun restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

We could absolutely tax you on what you didn’t earn that year if we, you know, changed the law. Why would you get a refund because you gambled and you lost?

And if you can’t be taxed on your unrealized stock options you ABSOLUTELY should not be able to borrow against them either.

So should we tax you when you get a HELOC and borrow against your home? Because that is also "wealth"

However, if I'm not borrowing against my options, then I should not be taxed, no question about it. I could have $10M today and $7M tomorrow---until I realize it and "earn it" you should not tax it.
And yes, if you change the law and tax my "wealth" one year, then I should get a refund when it goes down. It's very different than income, I don't make the choices to have it go down

But you do. By choosing not to “realize”’ you’re gambling that it won’t go down. If I take my earned income to Vegas and put it all on black, I don’t get a refund on the taxes I paid if it’s red.

You just want to have it both ways. All of the benefits of wealth while you cry poor to the taxman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

High earners often get RSUs. You are taxed on those RSUs as ordinary income when they vest at the value on the vesting date, whetehr you sell or hold it. If the value drops before you sell, then yes, you will have paid taxes on money you only ever had on paper. Happens all the time. Also, if you hold the stock to avoid the higher capital gains tax (or because corporate rules block you from selling), you are paying a tax this year on money you cannot actually access. The more RSUs you get as a percnetage of income, the more likely that in such a scenario your tax bill could actually be higher than the net cash deposited from your salary.

And I watched multiple people get burned on that in the early 2000s SV tech world. That is why we always went with buying and selling on same day for options. Would rather pay ST cap gains than owe high 6 figures on something now worth nothing. Knew 3 people who had that happen (600K+ owed in taxes on something that was virtually worthless)---they struggled for years to recover. They simply never thought the bubble would burst