Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If you can give up your citizenship, you can pay a grand fee to take your money from the Union.
From a personal belief/political standpoint, I'm all for reducing the debt. I just haven't heard this idea being floated to do that. It's usually tied to more entitlement spending. I actually am of the belief at some point we are going to have to raise revenue to reduce the debt, or at least we should before we are forced to. I don't think a wealth tax is the vehicle for it. Ideally yes we should cut costs along with that. But as with anything else, nobody wants to give up anything so costs never go down. Pie in the sky for me is we raise some revenue and cut some costs, not totally focusing on just one side of the equation, until we get debt eliminated or to some reasonable level and then those rates are reversed or placed at a lower sustainable level. The more likely scenario I'm afraid is we get all the programs and spending associated with people who suggest things and only the cost side increases, leading to eventual forced austerity.
Programs never get implemented the way a presidential candidate wants. Congress and the realities of government get in the way. I care more about the spirit behind what they want to do. For example, if a goal is to tax the rich more to help the poor and middle class with the cost of health care, I’m on board. The particulars can be figured out later.
Brad is in a household with assets over $50 million. He already is in a position to consume more than he could ever need in a lifetime. But your argument is that a 2% tax is going to convince him not to send his kid to college?Maurile Tremblay said:
Gustavo Fring said:
Why do we need to monitor everyone's net worth? Warren's tax is estimated to hit about 75,000 families. Let's just monitor them.Maurile Tremblay said:
most people live within their meansdawgtrails said:
Hell, I can barely get through when I try to call. Probably close to 1/2 of the time, it's that call volume is too high and I'll need to call back later. The IRS is pretty strapped right now.beef said:
In theory, they do - see Sec. 877A (and former Sec. 877).
In general, a tax on savings shifts behavior from savings to consumption.
Yeah, we'd focus on them. But identifying who's in the 75,000 and who's not would require paying attention to far more than 75,000 households.
I'm not sure I agree with this, I need to think about it some more. If I own a ten million dollar home, how does that fit into your equation? That's not just worth on paper. But it's also not really "consumption" unless the home is losing value.
This tax (IMO) would end up a lot like the AMT. Not so much people now, but a ####load later. $10 says they wouldn't tag the threshold to CPI or inflation, either.
That's a good point. Luxury real estate would absolutely crash and burn. People would be strapped to an asset that they're paying a ton of tax on.
I'd categorize a residence as mainly consumption. If you live in a mansion that you're renting for $50,000 a month, that would unquestionably be consumption. If you own that same mansion and live in it yourself, you're really renting it out from yourself at its rental value, which is the exact same consumption. Building a house would be investment, but living in it is consumption.
Why would a wealth tax influence a really rich person to rent out a second home? Is it your impression that the ultra-rich are regularly renting out their homes?
most people spend all the money they make .... ultra-wealthy are a bit different .... none the less I stand firm, 10% of a person's income is a lot regardless of who it is
IMO, if instituted (which it won't be - constitutionality) I don't think we'll end up at 50M. It will need to be much lower. 5-10. Then we will see inflation creep into that number.
OK once we start discussing what you imagine the plan will look like instead of what's actually been proposed it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion of its merits.
Why do feel this way? Taxes have been low, especially on the top earners, for decades. If anything the trend is the opposite of what you describe.
Interesting use of the word only and still in the two sentences. Perhaps they should be flipped
That wasn't my claim. I was just addressing your statement that living in a $10 million home isn't consumption unless it's losing value. I think it is consumption.
I'm hopelessly confused. Do you think that rich people will buy fewer houses if there's a wealth tax?
Almost certainly. (For one thing, they won't be able to afford quite as many.)
Call it impatience if you have to. I'm just ready for some facts. If you know of a good site for some unbiased democratic nominee views, I'm all for reading it.
Of what? The richest Americans? That would be those with the most wealth. Is there a different definition?
That’s crazy talk. No way someone living paycheck to paycheck views 10% income tax the same as a six figure earner.
You said you’re concerned you’d be included in the rich Americans, while suggesting you think otherwise. What income constitutes “rich”, in your opinion? Would you be ok if that group were taxed more?
They already do, but if they taxed it more, I’d not be too bent if I felt other high earners shouldered a similar burden.
The rich are taxed more already.
Would the government give him back his money if the value of the stock went to zero?jon_mx said:
Easy to quickly get in the weeds when talking taxes but are many wealthy paying proportionally less than everyone else (ex: Warren Buffett)supermike80 said:The rich are taxed more already.
But to answer your question....No I am not ok with a wealth tax at all--regardless of how much wealth they possess. And one reason, was what I mentioned above.
Kind of thought I was clear about that.
Yes. It would be like a net operating loss which could be carried back three years and then forward.
He went public and it is just stock, so why not? Why is that type of wealth accumulation more special than others?
He would pay tax when he sold it on his own on the gain. Why remove his incentive in the company and force a sale before he decides on his own.
