Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ultra Millionaire Tax Proposal


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I think thats a better method Vs just taking it from people.

And why are you telling me the current thresholds?  That wasn't my point at all.

Aren't ALL taxes "just taking it from people"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 reinve

Because consumption equality matters about a thousand times more than wealth equality. Consider two people who live basically similar lives except that one of them has bigger numbers tucked away

between $50 million and $1 billion right? who is determining someone’s net worth? IRS?

54 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah I think thats a better method Vs just taking it from people.

And why are you telling me the current thresholds?  That wasn't my point at all.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Aren't ALL taxes "just taking it from people"?

yes but taxing everyone fairly and equally is one thing

targeting people is another thing altogether 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes but taxing everyone fairly and equally is one thing

targeting people is another thing altogether 

Kind of have to target the people that have all the money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Its an utter shame. People go out and make money, legally.  And everyone wants to take it away from them

What a counrty

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Kind of have to target the people that have all the money. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It's fine to oppose the policy but the notion that Senator Warren has "no understanding of what she's proposing" is absurd given her expertise in this area.  I see this all the time in the AOC thread, where differences in policy are attributed to AOC's purported lack of understanding.  Even when they're proposing ideas that are advocated by Nobel prize winning economists.

It’s not the first time she’s proposed something that would never work, sorry you can’t see that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

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.

For some reason this sounds like more than just a request........

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The General said:

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?

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tonydead said:

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.  

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 dick 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.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, John123 said:

For some reason this sounds like more than just a request........

Obviously 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, VandyMan said:

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

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.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

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. 

Pretty hard to not look at this and say this is messed up and there needs to be something done.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

You’re using “income” differently than the way we  typically use it when discussing taxation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

How so? Wealth is what you acquire (income) minus what you consume or give away.

Are you referring to inheritance or something else?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The General said:

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?

Yes..Thats the line TODAY.   Sigh

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urbanhack said:

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. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

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. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

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.

Assuming that inheritances and capital gains are not taxed, I think there are better ways to fix that than a wealth tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

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.

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.

Edited by supermike80
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by supermike80
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

I answered this question already.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Assuming that inheritances and capital gains are not taxed, I think there are better ways to fix that than a wealth tax.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

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.

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. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The General said:

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.

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."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

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.

That’s on your for not understanding what it’s actually about and being overly emotional about an economic issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

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 a more to make sure workers who we praised all her for being  essential have adequate health care are 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. 

Ok I don't understand anything.  I appreciate your feelings on this matter.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The General said:

This is what Warren Buffet talked about, right? That he was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

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."

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The General said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The General said:

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.

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

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.

"We aren't in need of charity"

Wow.  Ok.    That is a statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yes clearly those guys also lack the deep economic understanding of people like @supermike80 and @GoBirds.

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The General said:

I’d also wish people could do what I consider the right thing with their crazy wealth but everyone’s idea here is different. 

One of the reasons I admire Bill Gates.

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

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.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'd rather the wealthy give to charity so they can designate where their money goes 

 

To be fair, the ultra-rich already decide where Government money is spent. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...