Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
Ultra Millionaire Tax Proposal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
The General
Footballguy
I thought you were saying this was a slippery slope type thing, it perhaps would be. This proposal though is very clear about the line being 50 million.
You are in favor of generating revenue just not this method of doing it though?
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Well surprisingly the answer apparently is "I'm not in favor of it if it's being proposed by my rival team" regardless of the benefit.
Next.
Next.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
yes but taxing everyone fairly and equally is one thing
targeting people is another thing altogether
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Nobody wants to take all their money. Also if they made that money in this country they took advantage of the systems we have in place to allow for such incredible wealth. It’s fair to ask they reinvest in the county and system. We are all Americans here and should be working together to help the country.
Van Dyman
Footballguy
Sure, but targeting isn't new, imo. The change in our wealth distribution over the last 30ish years was achieved by targeting. We're just talking about targeting a different group now.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
The 1% billionaire tax would cost them $40 billion a year.
In the last year, billionaires gained $1.3 trillion during a pandemic. Yet they pay a lower tax rate than the working class and we deem the working class essential yet we can't even increase the minimum wage.
In the last year, billionaires gained $1.3 trillion during a pandemic. Yet they pay a lower tax rate than the working class and we deem the working class essential yet we can't even increase the minimum wage.
GoBirds
Footballguy
It’s not the first time she’s proposed something that would never work, sorry you can’t see that.
I think this describes me. I would vote against capitol gains tax even it was supposed to just be against the ultra wealthy, because once the get their foot in the door.
The General
Footballguy
I get this. It’s a fair argument, you don’t see taxes being reversed too often.
My thinking is the ultra wealthy can afford to pony up more. The numbers in the first proposal seem to generate a lot while not impacting the ultra wealthy.
I do think something has to be done to generate revenue, I do think the ultra wealthy as defined by, say this first proposal, is a good jumping off point to discuss who is “ultra wealthy”. Just not sure how the most effective way to do that is. As many pointed out it is problematic collecting the money in the manner laid out in Warren’s proposal and perhaps not effective. I know **** all about dodging taxes, hiding assets, or whatever you want to call this.
I also realize that I’m not being impacted by it so easy for me to say although I think if I’m in that position I get it (again easy for me to say now). I’m constantly voting for these tax increases in my hood because when they are explained I’m thinking that sounds good, let’s do it.
I also believe increasing the taxes on the ultra wealthy is popular across the board.@Shula-holicbrought up the point both parties are susceptible to being bought off. There’s a lot of truth there.
Definitely no right answer here and people can find themselves on both sides of the argument.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Yeah we have made things insanely favorable to the wealthiest people for 40 years now. Things need tilting back in a direction that better benefits the entire country.
The General
Footballguy
Absolutely. How this happens is the tricky part.
But what we got going on now doesn’t seem to work well for way too many people.
A wealth tax is a tax on income with an automatic deduction for charitable giving and consumption.
The first part is fine, but encouraging rich people to consume even more seems like horrible policy.
The first part is fine, but encouraging rich people to consume even more seems like horrible policy.
The General
Footballguy
Pretty hard to not look at this and say this is messed up and there needs to be something done.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
You’re using “income” differently than the way we typically use it when discussing taxation.
How so? Wealth is what you acquire (income) minus what you consume or give away.
Are you referring to inheritance or something else?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yes, inheritance, gifts, and capital gains are not considered “income” unde the tax code. Yet my sense is that they are the most likely ways that people become super rich.
supermike80
Footballguy
I disagree. I see a tax specifically on them, and only them, as taking their money. Plain and simple. It's jealousy..It's disgusting and it's NOT what I want my country to represent. At all.
"Hey you have too much money. GIVE ME SOME" I can't stand it.
supermike80
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Fine...You want to argue about increasing wages, that's a different conversation. To me that's not the same as this discussion. This is petty jealousy, laziness, all those things. I can't believe we are accepting of taking things from people simply because they have them. Because you can lipstick this pig as much as you want, that is exactly what this is.
randall146
Footballguy
That doesn't seem entirely fair. Most of the posts in this thread have opposed or supported for substantive reasons. Sure, the opinions are mostly divided along "team" lines, but I think in this instance that's because tax policy is one of the main differences between the teams.
Assuming that inheritances and capital gains are not taxed, I think there are better ways to fix that than a wealth tax.
The General
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It’s not jealousy, it’s trying to circulate the wealth so we can have a more healthy society. It’s sharing the resources which is what a healthy society does.
supermike80
Footballguy
I understand your feelings on the matter. Why don't we just pay everyone the same wage?
Or at least pay every position within society the same wage.
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
It's not even the concept. I mean higher incomes lead to higher tax brackets. I get that. It's what's behind it. Its totally wrong. It's nothing more than jealousy. As I said before it just comes off as "You have too much so I'm taking it from you, only because you have it" and that idea, that entire line of thinking, really bugs me.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
I missed that, sorry.
Accepting that I know very little about avoiding taxes and that the points made about Warren’s proposal being difficulty to enforce are correct, increasing capital gains definitely seems like a way to address this.
This also seems to impact a lot more people.
I don’t really see it unfair to tax the ultra wealthy however. Paying back into the country is a good long term investment for these people.
I’d be much more concerned with how it is spent then giving it to them.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
My point was solely that your description of a wealth tax as some sort of cumulative income tax was misleading, particularly with respect to the very wealthy individuals that are subject to the tax. My perception is that the individuals subject to the tax generally obtain little of their wealth through what we normally consider income.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Obviously you don’t understand this at all since you are arguing against it with an extreme imaginary take that nobody here is presenting. Saying people who made a billion dollars should chip in more to make sure workers who we praised all year for being essential have adequate health care and a minimum wage above $40,000 and so we can rebuild basic infrastructure or ease the national debt isn’t in the same ballpark as saying everyone makes the same amount.
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
I'd rather the wealthy give to charity so they can designate where their money goes than to the government that will without question mis-allocate it and generally screw it up.
I would hate to see the uber rich say "Well since you are now taking my money, I am not donating anything to charity anymore."
Ilov80s
Footballguy
That’s on your for not understanding what it’s actually about and being overly emotional about an economic issue.
supermike80
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
This was a while ago and is generally untrue now. The top end capital gains tax rate (long term) is 23.8% and hits at 500k of gains. The uber wealthy are at this level, which ends up being higher than the vast majority of folks paying income tax rates.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
I’d also wish people could do what I consider the right thing with their crazy wealth but everyone’s idea here is different.
The government has their share of screw ups but they are also performing a million different tasks under a million different scenarios.
Graft, misuse should continue to be rooted out.
The tax benefits of charity aren’t being touched so don’t think that would go away.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yes clearly those guys also lack the deep economic understanding of people like @supermike80 and @GoBirds.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Also plenty of charities are full of graft, misuse, etc. Thats just how humans operate. Taxes are democratic in the sense the money goes to the people since we are the government. We then have a say in how our resources are used. We aren’t in need of charity, we are in need of reinvesting in the country so it can be an economic superpower for the next century.
supermike80
Footballguy
All good points. But the idea behind the "wealth tax" is awful. It's punishing Americans for being successful. Yeah their billions will still be billions agfter they get taxed by the feds, but as I said, it can be a slippery slope. I legitimately worry about my 401K. I can totally see some sort of tax being applied to this (above and beyond regular income taxes) when I take my $$ out because I have "too much" and some drug addict down the street doesn't.
supermike80
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
In college I had a conversation with a friend about the NBA playoff format. I grew up with a 2-2-1-1-1 format for 7 game series, and 2-2-1 for 5 game series. They were going to change it to 2-3-2 that year, and I was strongly against that. I thought it was unfair that the lower seeded team could have a chance to win in 5 games with more home games than the higher seed. My friend didn't see the problem. Debate ensued.
I argued that ideally all series would be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1. It seemed fundamentally undeniable to me that this was fairest. I was dumbfounded that he could disagree with this foundational point. It seemed obvious that we'd want to keep things as even as possible. That was the essence of fairness, was it not?
He responded that equality wasn't necessarily fair. Playoffs weren't fair In the first place, because they denied the regular season winner their deserved victory. But if you had to have them, maybe the higher seed should have all home games. That would be fair to them, considering they won that right. Or maybe the lower seed should host all the games, which would be a fair way to even things up between the two teams. Or maybe 4-3? There were all kinds of permutations available, and any of them could be fair, depending on your priorities and definition of fairness.
I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't see his point at the time, though of course he was right.
Anyhow, I was reminded of that conversation reading here about what different people think is a fair or unfair tax system.
I argued that ideally all series would be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1. It seemed fundamentally undeniable to me that this was fairest. I was dumbfounded that he could disagree with this foundational point. It seemed obvious that we'd want to keep things as even as possible. That was the essence of fairness, was it not?
He responded that equality wasn't necessarily fair. Playoffs weren't fair In the first place, because they denied the regular season winner their deserved victory. But if you had to have them, maybe the higher seed should have all home games. That would be fair to them, considering they won that right. Or maybe the lower seed should host all the games, which would be a fair way to even things up between the two teams. Or maybe 4-3? There were all kinds of permutations available, and any of them could be fair, depending on your priorities and definition of fairness.
I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't see his point at the time, though of course he was right.
Anyhow, I was reminded of that conversation reading here about what different people think is a fair or unfair tax system.
supermike80
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I'll be the first to admit I wish I knew more economics. It's a fascinating topic to me.
I'm just one of those "There's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics" nerds.
FTR, I also condemn the "she's just a bartender" responses to AOC.
Sand
Footballguy
One of the reasons I admire Bill Gates.
Comparing efficiency of government and charity is... oh man... I don't want to get booted off of here.
We're talking about government money management. You know, the one that has allowed some 30B of unemployment fraud in California (about 1/3 of the COVID funds). Colorado even worse at 1/2 the money being lost to fraud. And that's just the latest debacle.
randall146
Footballguy
Similar threads
