Reply to "Tax the Rich"

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to ""Tax the Rich""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

This isn’t true.

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

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.[/quote]

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."

[/quote]

Look, [b]you [/b]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics