Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ultra Millionaire Tax Proposal


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

They are available to everyone in the sense that "once you hit X, you can take advantage of this loophole", sure.  Practically, they aren't.  Never have been.  That's by design.

These folks are taking advantage of capital losses and interest expense on debt, for the most part.   These are absolutely available to all.  Both of those are deferral techniques, so eventually there will be some big bills come due.

 

5 hours ago, Dickies said:

Why not institute higher marginal tax rates?  I'm not talking about going from 37% to 39%, I'm talking about having 25+ brackets that make their way up to the 90% range as income increases.

Replace income tax rates with capital gain rates and you're about there.

BTW, I find the Propublica article to be a bit disingenuous:

"His tax avoidance is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018, a period for which ProPublica has complete data. Bezos’ wealth increased by $127 billion, according to Forbes, but he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal federal taxes is a massive number — yet it amounts to a 1.1% true tax rate on the rise in his fortune."

Wealth <> income.  He held Amazon stock without selling.  When he sells it, then he gets hit with cap gains taxes.  So this comparison is specifically designed to provoke an emotional response than presenting data in a robust manner.  Very disappointing.  There was more than enough in here on they tax rate vs. income to show what these folks were doing to shield themselves from taxes.  I suspect there was a lot of business expensing and a bunch of stock based debt.  These folks can take a loan against their stock and actually get a tax benefit with the interest expense against that debt.  This is a bit of a loophole, but again only defers taxes as the stock will end up being sold at some point and generating a tax liability.

(BTW, Newsome has been documented doing the same thing with the loans to fund a tax light lifestyle).

Also, Wyden has promoted a plan to tax unrealized capital gains every year.  Even though this would help even out the taxation on these ultra rich folks, it's overall a miserably bad idea.

Edited by Sand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sand said:

Also, Wyden has promoted a plan to tax unrealized capital gains every year.  Even though this would help even out the taxation on these ultra rich folks, it's overall a miserably bad idea.

I assume you think that wealth accumulation in the hands of ~100 people is a bad idea.  Do you have a suggestion about decreasing the wealth gains of the uber wealthy vs. the rest of the populace? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I assume you think that wealth accumulation in the hands of ~100 people is a bad idea.  Do you have a suggestion about decreasing the wealth gains of the uber wealthy vs. the rest of the populace? 

Probably a bad assumption.  If we had 10 Bill Gates, with 10x the number of really good jobs like those at Microsoft, then I'm all for having 10 uber rich people around.

As far as blunting this wealth gain, I don't think we can.  With globalization we see some real statistical outlier winners coming about.  If I was in charge of the henhouse, though, I'd do three things - eliminate the carried interest loophole, institute a bit higher cap gains taxes at higher income levels (though nowhere near the 40+% POTUS wants), and restricting the interest expense that can be claimed against stock loans.

Those make things a bit more even, though we'll never get to a point where we don't have these uber rich folks.  As long as they create wonderful companies with high paying jobs, then I'm all for these folks existing and succeeding.

Edited by Sand
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

These folks are taking advantage of capital losses and interest expense on debt, for the most part.   These are absolutely available to all.  Both of those are deferral techniques, so eventually there will be some big bills come due.

 

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Probably a bad assumption.  If we had 10 Bill Gates, with 10x the number of really good jobs like those at Microsoft, then I'm all for having 10 uber rich people around.

 

:goodposting:s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sand said:

Probably a bad assumption.  If we had 10 Bill Gates, with 10x the number of really good jobs like those at Microsoft, then I'm all for having 10 uber rich people around.

As far as blunting this wealth gain, I don't think we can.  With globalization we see some real statistical outlier winners coming about.  If I was in charge of the henhouse, though, I'd do three things - eliminate the carried interest loophole, institute a bit higher cap gains taxes at higher income levels (though nowhere near the 40+% POTUS wants), and restricting the interest expense that can be claimed against stock loans.

Those make things a bit more even, though we'll never get to a point where we don't have these uber rich folks.  As long as they create wonderful companies with high paying jobs, then I'm all for these folks existing and succeeding.

It's a bit of a false equivalency though.  Maybe we end up with 9 Bill Gates that creates companies that hire lots of high paying jobs, but the Bill Gates-guys ends up with only 30% of the wealth as before.  

It's not likely either or here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

It's a bit of a false equivalency though.  Maybe we end up with 9 Bill Gates that creates companies that hire lots of high paying jobs, but the Bill Gates-guys ends up with only 30% of the wealth as before.  

It's not likely either or here. 

That's ok, too.  I was just trying to point out that having uber rich people who create 100k good paying jobs is a good thing.

All us working sots have a visceral distaste for those who just live off the largesse of their parents (looking at you, Hunter!).  Good news is that generational wealth almost never gets past the third generation.  The grandkids destroy it pretty effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GoBirds said:

I’m old enough to remember the outrage of the Donald’s spending. OK as long as there’s a (D)?

what do you remember ?

this is the increasing national debt every year since GW ............ Obama added around 9 trillion in 8 years incredibly. Trump didn't escalate that, but kept it steady until the massive covid spending of 2020/2021

7 trillion in the last 2 years ............. and "taxing the rich" is going to bring in only 3 trillion in 10 years

we can make every excuse in the book - bottom line, we are never never NEVER NEVER NEVER going to get out of this national debt - EVER

taxing higher won't make a damn bit of difference 

 

does anyone not see the massive problem there?  Its like getting a $0.20 raise and spending $500 more a week and calling it a success

it isn't - spending is the problem and this Govt is so out of control and nobody wants to address it - and voters are dumb to it all I think 

 

 

End of Fiscal                YearDebt (in billions, rounded)

 

2000  $5,674

2001  $5,807

2002  $6,228

2003  $6,783

2004  $7,379

2005  $7,933

2006  $8,507

2007  $9,008

2008  $10,025

2009  $11,910

2010  $13,562

2011  $14,790

2012  $16,066

2013  $16,738

2014  $17,824

2015  $18,151

2016  $19,573

2017  $20,245

2018  $21,516

2019  $22,719

2020  $27,748

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Obama added around 9 trillion in 8 years incredibly. Trump didn't escalate that, but kept it steady until the massive covid spending of 2020/2021

Couple things here:

1.  The psychology of acknowledging part of what Trump admin spent on and not mentioning what Obama spent on.
2.  Trump added $7T+ in four years.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal isn't to change tax policy to eliminate the national debt (at leastnot this discussion). It's to change tax policy to reduce the crazy disparity in wealth between the uber rich and the rest of us.  If we think of "making America great again" then maybe we should seek to return to a time when the very richest among us pay the very most in taxes (as a % of their wealth).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

The goal isn't to change tax policy to eliminate the national debt (at leastnot this discussion). It's to change tax policy to reduce the crazy disparity in wealth between the uber rich and the rest of us.  If we think of "making America great again" then maybe we should seek to return to a time when the very richest among us pay the very most in taxes (as a % of their wealth).

You sure this was ever true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 10:37 AM, urbanhack said:

It's time.

Time to intentionally leak tax returns for political gain?  Evidently, it is.

Blue team right back to weaponizing the IRS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sand said:

Time to intentionally leak tax returns for political gain?  Evidently, it is.

Blue team right back to weaponizing the IRS.  

Political gain? 

Amazing everyone doesn't think this group should pay more in taxes.  But ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 8:47 AM, The Z Machine said:

It's to change tax policy to reduce the crazy disparity in wealth between the uber rich and the rest of us

wow

so tax people heavily who have worked hard and succeeded to reward those who haven't

I am 100% against that philosophy on life

I don't think you should take a 4.0 student down to a 3.0 to elevate a 2.0 student to 3.0

I don't think w should work someone 50 hours a week to compensate for the people working 30 hours so they both even out at 40 hours

and I don't think you should take $$ from someone who's worked hard to get where they're at to offset people who haven't 

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 8:47 AM, The Z Machine said:

(as a % of their wealth).

so you believe in flat taxes ?

the only reason some people don't pay more % wise is that they have so many writeoff's but hey, if you're lobbying for rich people to stop donating money and resources, for them to stop investing and all the little things they do to capitalize on IRS codes then lobby for that

but I don't think you or anyone wants that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 6:04 PM, GoBirds said:

I’m old enough to remember the outrage of the Donald’s spending. OK as long as there’s a (D)?

Nope, just don't care about republican criticism. It isn't much different than immigration policy. The approach from both sides are poor ones, so neither one moves the needle.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 8:47 AM, The Z Machine said:

It's to change tax policy to reduce the crazy disparity in wealth between the uber rich and the rest of us.  

SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

 

I'm googling where in the constitution taxation is designed to change wealth disparity ..... can you link me to that please ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:
On 6/9/2021 at 9:47 AM, The Z Machine said:

It's to change tax policy to reduce the crazy disparity in wealth between the uber rich and the rest of us

wow

so tax people heavily who have worked hard and succeeded to reward those who haven't

I am 100% against that philosophy on life

I don't think you should take a 4.0 student down to a 3.0 to elevate a 2.0 student to 3.0

I don't think w should work someone 50 hours a week to compensate for the people working 30 hours so they both even out at 40 hours

and I don't think you should take $$ from someone who's worked hard to get where they're at to offset people who haven't 

NONE of that is what he said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Political gain? 

Amazing everyone doesn't think this group should pay more in taxes.  But ok.

You can't honestly say that the timing of this, right when we have a push by the administration for higher taxes on the wealthy, isn't a nice "coincidence".  I wasn't talking about my personal take on what these ultra-rich folks should be paying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

NONE of that is what he said

sure it is

 

If someone grew up with nothing, poor ... and made themselves into a millionaire through hard work and good decisions .... that mentality of taxing someone because of success to offset someone's lack of success is horrifying. 

Its no different than taking a 4.0 student who studies hard every night and on weekends down to 3.0 to elevate a 2.0 student who doesn't study and parties to 3.0

its simply madness to suggest such a thing

 

oh, and its not Constitutional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 7:09 PM, Sand said:

Probably a bad assumption.  If we had 10 Bill Gates, with 10x the number of really good jobs like those at Microsoft, then I'm all for having 10 uber rich people around.

As far as blunting this wealth gain, I don't think we can.  With globalization we see some real statistical outlier winners coming about.  If I was in charge of the henhouse, though, I'd do three things - eliminate the carried interest loophole, institute a bit higher cap gains taxes at higher income levels (though nowhere near the 40+% POTUS wants), and restricting the interest expense that can be claimed against stock loans.

Those make things a bit more even, though we'll never get to a point where we don't have these uber rich folks.  As long as they create wonderful companies with high paying jobs, then I'm all for these folks existing and succeeding.

Bill Gates personal wealth is distinct from Microsoft.  They spend their fortune building rockets so they can fly to space or buying art or whatever.  I don't think a higher marginal tax rate or wealth tax is going to be a disincentive to anyone trying to build the next Amazon.

Edited by formerfourdigit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, formerfourdigit said:

Bill Gates personal wealth is distinct from Microsoft. 

This is incorrect - his personal wealth is highly dependent on MSFT performance.  To the tune of about 100 million shares.

19 minutes ago, formerfourdigit said:

They spend their fortune building rockets so they can fly to space or buying art or whatever. 

You chose as your comparison here the one individual who is currently the greatest philanthropist in the world (easily).  Gates has done some amazing things for humanity with his money.  

That doesn't negate your comments on marginal tax rates, but I'd argue that Bill, as an individual, has used his monies much, much more effectively than they would be used in the tax vaults in DC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, formerfourdigit said:

Bill Gates

he earned every penny he has - yes, he was born into a nice family but he started his own was at age 14 IIRC

 

taking money from him through taxation in order to elevate people who haven't earned what he's earned is preposterous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

he earned every penny he has - yes, he was born into a nice family but he started his own was at age 14 IIRC

 

taking money from him through taxation in order to elevate people who haven't earned what he's earned is preposterous 

This is how taxation works in order to maintain a functioning society.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dickies said:

This is how taxation works in order to maintain a functioning society.  

At least for me the question becomes when does it become unfairly confiscatory.  90% is way, way over the line.  IMO, I don't think a person, no matter the station, to pay more than 50% in taxes.  That's just in my head, though. 

We see a lot of folks with ideas that border on "just send me everything and we'll benevolently decide how much we'll send back."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sand said:

At least for me the question becomes when does it become unfairly confiscatory.  90% is way, way over the line.  IMO, I don't think a person, no matter the station, to pay more than 50% in taxes.  That's just in my head, though. 

We see a lot of folks with ideas that border on "just send me everything and we'll benevolently decide how much we'll send back."  

I would be in favor of it going higher than 90%.  I haven't drawn the line on where that kicks in, but I assure you those people will have enough to feed their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I would be in favor of it going higher than 90%.

I can't respectfully put into words how wrong I find this statement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm of the belief that if you do something that makes a lot of money, you're entitled to more than 10% of it.  If you're doing something that makes 100 million, the standard should not be "tax them until they're just able to feed their families."

 

Edited by jm192
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

I can't respectfully put into words how wrong I find this statement.

The entirety of the 50's had a top marginal tax rate of 91%.  Last I checked, people look back at this decade as one of the most prosperous in our country's history.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I guess I'm of the belief that if you do something that makes a lot of money, you're entitled to more than 10% of it.  If you're doing something that makes 100 million, the standard should not be "tax them until they're just able to feed their families."

 

That's not my standard, but it would be better than the flat tax I see proposed by some in here that would tax low income earners until they're unable to feed their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dickies said:

This is how taxation works in order to maintain a functioning society.  

except it isn't

 

the US Fed Govt is approaching 30 trillion in debt

 

I think its safe to say taxation is a massive failure. In fact, why not reduce taxes by 50% on everyone? Its all funny money now anyway with the Fed Govt spending 3X-5X MORE money than it brings in every year

Seriously, taxation isn't about raising funds anymore, the Govt raises funds itsself by printing/borrowing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I would be in favor of it going higher than 90%. 

I'd bet my entire 401K you wouldn't volunteer 90% of your income

You just want other people to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

except it isn't

 

the US Fed Govt is approaching 30 trillion in debt

 

I think its safe to say taxation is a massive failure. In fact, why not reduce taxes by 50% on everyone? Its all funny money now anyway with the Fed Govt spending 3X-5X MORE money than it brings in every year

Seriously, taxation isn't about raising funds anymore, the Govt raises funds itsself by printing/borrowing

So you cite the rising debt as a problem, but your solution is to cut revenue?  

  • Thinking 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dickies said:

The entirety of the 50's had a top marginal tax rate of 91%.  Last I checked, people look back at this decade as one of the most prosperous in our country's history.

This may be what was on paper, but in real life this was a fantasy rate.  Nobody paid at that rate.  It's disappointing to see this trotted out as a strawman over and over.

This is what the 0.1% actually paid during 51 and 52 (actually lower than at some other times, BTW).  1951,52 were totally within the band of normal income tax paid during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sand said:

Bill, as an individual, has used his monies much, much more effectively than they would be used in the tax vaults in DC

Maybe, maybe not.  If we take this to the extreme, then each and every one of us could use the money they paid in taxes more effectively than putting in the tax vaults in DC.  But I don't think that would be just, equitable or result in a very healthy and prosperous society.  Not sure why it's different when you have 100000000x more money than the average Joe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sand said:

This may be what was on paper, but in real life this was a fantasy rate.  Nobody paid at that rate.  It's disappointing to see this trotted out as a strawman over and over.

This is what the 0.1% actually paid during 51 and 52 (actually lower than at some other times, BTW).  1951,52 were totally within the band of normal income tax paid during that time.

Sure, the total tax rates for the 0.1% has only gone down 10% since the 1950s.  That said, their wealth growth has significantly outpaced everyone else.  It's not only about tax rates, it's about the distribution of wealth throughout society.  Concentrating that wealth more and more is not good for society, and we should seek ways to combat that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sand said:

This may be what was on paper, but in real life this was a fantasy rate.  Nobody paid at that rate.  It's disappointing to see this trotted out as a strawman over and over.

This is what the 0.1% actually paid during 51 and 52 (actually lower than at some other times, BTW).  1951,52 were totally within the band of normal income tax paid during that time.

Why do you expect that tons of people would pay at that rate today when very few did back then?  The article said top income earners paid around 10% higher taxes then versus today.  I would be okay with that, and I suspect it would take a massive top end marginal tax rate to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Sure, the total tax rates for the 0.1% has only gone down 10% since the 1950s.  That said, their wealth growth has significantly outpaced everyone else.  It's not only about tax rates, it's about the distribution of wealth throughout society.  Concentrating that wealth more and more is not good for society, and we should seek ways to combat that. 

I would argue that the 50s is one of the most unusual times in history.  WWII flattened society out a ton and now is more a reversion to the mean than an unusual state of affairs.

Edited by Sand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I guess I'm of the belief that if you do something that makes a lot of money, you're entitled to more than 10% of it.  If you're doing something that makes 100 million, the standard should not be "tax them until they're just able to feed their families."

 

And give it to the guy who hasn't done squat his entire life

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

 

I'm googling where in the constitution taxation is designed to change wealth disparity ..... can you link me to that please ?

Why?  You already posted it.   Wealth disparity is a threat to the security and viability of the nation.  Congress has the power, and should have a duty to address such threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I think its safe to say taxation is a massive failure. In fact, why not reduce taxes by 50% on everyone? Its all funny money now anyway with the Fed Govt spending 3X-5X MORE money than it brings in every year

Seriously, taxation isn't about raising funds anymore, the Govt raises funds itsself by printing/borrowing

Taxation isn't the problem.  Since we've moved off the gold standard the politicians knew that spending was unshackled.  

 

45 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Why?  You already posted it.   Wealth disparity is a threat to the security and viability of the nation.  Congress has the power, and should have a duty to address such threats.

You're going to have to prove this.  We had tremendous inequality in the early 1900s and we're still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dickies said:

So you cite the rising debt as a problem, but your solution is to cut revenue?  

why not ?

as I've already talked about, you can tax the rich 20% more, you can tax them 40% more and blur collar American's 40% more, and with the spending and the 30 Trillion in debt ......... it'll never catch up

so when you realize the Fed Govt creates money by printing it and borrowing it, that taxation and tarrif's etc no longer funds the Govt, that its self funding ...

why even tax anyone anymore ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Why?  You already posted it.   Wealth disparity is a threat to the security and viability of the nation.  Congress has the power, and should have a duty to address such threats.

 

in no way is the above factual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sand said:
3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Why?  You already posted it.   Wealth disparity is a threat to the security and viability of the nation.  Congress has the power, and should have a duty to address such threats.

You're going to have to prove this.  We had tremendous inequality in the early 1900s and we're still here.

Yes we fended off the income disparity with the New Deal and the Great Society.  Wonder what happened around 1980 to change this?

(Yes, I know I'm mixing and matching wealth and income here, but the same general pattern exist.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yes we fended off the income disparity with the New Deal and the Great Society.

October 28,1929.

Edited by Sand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sand said:

October 28,1929.

Yes there was a small decline in disparity at the end of the 1920s.  There was a much larger decline a decade later and while the graph zig zags that stuck for forty years.  Then we got the "Trojan Horse" :bs:  justifications for cutting taxes for the wealthy and have ran the debt through the roof, returned to the inequality that helps fuel great depressions and great recessions, and have radical political murmurs from all directions.   We got voodoo economics! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...