Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ultra Millionaire Tax Proposal


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Dickies said:

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.

Very few high earners earn the majority of their income through means that the marginal tax rate would even affect.  You could raise it to 99% and it would impact guys like Gates very little.  You'd be taking it from people who earn it mostly through salary type compensation packages, doctors, surgeons, attorneys.  I'm not trying to play those folks as martyrs, but those aren't the people that these discussions really are about.  So if your goal is folks at the income level of a Gates and you're talking marginal rates as a method, to paraphrase and clean up an old saying, you're peeing upstream.

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Very few high earners earn the majority of their income through means that the marginal tax rate would even affect.  You could raise it to 99% and it would impact guys like Gates very little.  You'd be taking it from people who earn it mostly through salary type compensation packages, doctors, surgeons, attorneys.  I'm not trying to play those folks as martyrs, but those aren't the people that these discussions really are about.  So if your goal is folks at the income level of a Gates and you're talking marginal rates as a method, to paraphrase and clean up an old saying, you're peeing upstream.

I don’t disagree with you. Maybe we need to re-evaluate how we tax capital gains. I don’t want to discourage investment and saving, but when it’s someone’s primary source of income perhaps we need to shift the tax treatment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

Very few high earners earn the majority of their income through means that the marginal tax rate would even affect.  You could raise it to 99% and it would impact guys like Gates very little.  You'd be taking it from people who earn it mostly through salary type compensation packages, doctors, surgeons, attorneys.  I'm not trying to play those folks as martyrs, but those aren't the people that these discussions really are about.  So if your goal is folks at the income level of a Gates and you're talking marginal rates as a method, to paraphrase and clean up an old saying, you're peeing upstream.

Agreed.  Yet another reason we shouldn't be discussing taxation on income at all, but rather taxation on consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours 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 

replace Bill Gates with the Sacklers and "elevate people" with "provide food security for children" then?  I appreciate what the Gates Foundation has done and I am actually a big fan of Bezos.  But I would prefer if we weren't so dependent on philanthropy from benevolent industry titans to keep our society functioning.  Lots of them are neutral at best and I'll bet more than the standard distribution of sociopaths.  Yes this means we need a fully functional democracy and government accountability too.  But it's a model that seems to be working in spots around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if capital gains were progressive like income tax rates?  Have $200k in cap gain?  pay 20%, Next $800k? Pay 30%.  Next $5m? Pay 40%.  You could have some carve-outs for the sale of a primary residence if you wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

What if capital gains were progressive like income tax rates?  Have $200k in cap gain?  pay 20%, Next $800k? Pay 30%.  Next $5m? Pay 40%.  You could have some carve-outs for the sale of a primary residence if you wanted.

LTCG rates sort of are already to a limited extent.  If your income including the capital gain is less than $80k for a married couple the capital gain rate is 0%.  From $80 - $497ish it's 15% and over that it's 20%.  I don't think it should be terribly controversial to add a few more brackets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Hagen said:

LTCG rates sort of are already to a limited extent.  If your income including the capital gain is less than $80k for a married couple the capital gain rate is 0%.  From $80 - $497ish it's 15% and over that it's 20%.  I don't think it should be terribly controversial to add a few more brackets.

Or a progressive consumption tax.  Don't know how to structure that really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 12:53 PM, The Z Machine said:

What if capital gains were progressive like income tax rates?  Have $200k in cap gain?  pay 20%, Next $800k? Pay 30%.  Next $5m? Pay 40%.  You could have some carve-outs for the sale of a primary residence if you wanted.

or what if the Govt didn't spend more money than it brought in every year ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

or what if the Govt didn't spend more money than it brought in every year ?

 

Then the $600+ billion they spend on the military wouldn't be possible nor would SS or Medicare

Can't have that, now can we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

Cool.  Propose your budget that does that. 

I propose the Fed Govt brings in XX $ and they spend XX$

not XX$ and spend XXXXXXXXXXXX$

Yes, I really do believe it was that simple. Its no longer feasible with 30 trillion in debt

Understand this fight over raising taxed on rich is a fight to get what, $300 billion a year? $3 trillion over a decade? Do you understand the US Fed Govt spent $3 trillion in the last 6 months?

 

398,879,561 years

New data shows it will take 398,879,561 years to pay off the debt. The US government's debt is getting close to reaching another round number—$18 trillion. It currently stands at more than $17.9 trillion.Oct 22, 2014 lol .... what do you think the numbers are today ?

 

The 2020 federal budget deficit will be around 18% of gross domestic product, and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio will soon hurdle over the 100% mark. Such figures have not been seen since Harry Truman sent B-29s to Japan to end World War II.

 

 

It is irrelevant now, as are taxes. Taxes were designed as a means you get money into the Federal Govt coffers ......... now, the Fed Govt just prints/borrows and the money coming in is totally irrelevant. 

We've lost. Raising taxes on anyone is ridiculous because it literally makes no difference 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the solution is to STOP SPENDING TRILLIONS MORE THAN YOU HAVE

do you think the Democrats or Republicans will? because I don't think so, and if they're not going to, then why in the world raise taxes?

the people spending trillions more than we have are telling people raising taxes will matter .... and it will NOT matter one bit

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Then the $600+ billion they spend on the military wouldn't be possible nor would SS or Medicare

Can't have that, now can we?

Of course it would.  It's all about prioritizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Then the $600+ billion they spend on the military wouldn't be possible nor would SS or Medicare

Can't have that, now can we?

ask 100 people and those 100 will justify NOT cutting military, farm help, SS, and studying the sex habits of quail in Nevada 

 

it does not matter anymore - do ya'll not understand? its too late, the battles lost and the war is lost. Its LOST.

the only way out is bankruptcy - defaulting on all debt the US owes

 

the USA will never, ever, EVER repay that debt and it can't even keep up a reasonable fight to pay it down. Tax everyone 95% of their income - it won't matter. 

we could triple taxes - and still only bring in what, 8-9Trillion a year?? That's not even what the Govt is SPENDING right now :(

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

TLDR; What I see is that you can't actually make a valid budget that does what you suggest. I'm talking actual numbers for actual expenditures, not a bunch of text that doesn't mean much. 

it does not matter - you and I trying to throw numbers around is irrelevant when the elected Govt is spending 2 and 3 trillion at a chunk 

why would you think us bickering on fake numbers would matter ?

people voting Democrats to "raise taxes on rich" .... LOL. For WHAT? its obviously NOT to help the national debt. Its also obviously not to make any real changes to balances of wealth. Robbing from rich is not the solution to that, never has been. 

 

Its a feel good, rallying cry to get votes and stir people up, cause division and all that. its awful to see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Then the $600+ billion they spend on the military wouldn't be possible nor would SS or Medicare

Can't have that, now can we?

As is always the way with entitlements and dependency.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

it does not matter - you and I trying to throw numbers around is irrelevant when the elected Govt is spending 2 and 3 trillion at a chunk 

why would you think us bickering on fake numbers would matter ?

people voting Democrats to "raise taxes on rich" .... LOL. For WHAT? its obviously NOT to help the national debt. Its also obviously not to make any real changes to balances of wealth. Robbing from rich is not the solution to that, never has been. 

 

Its a feel good, rallying cry to get votes and stir people up, cause division and all that. its awful to see 

So why are you complaining about raising taxes on the ultra wealthy if it doesn't matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John123 said:

Of course it would.  It's all about prioritizing.

To be fair to me, I assumed he meant in a meaningful way as to make a dent in the debt.  If that's the case, no, it wouldn't.  We can do the numbers here....how much do you think we'd have to cut out of our spending to start making a meaningful dent in our debt?  $1T?  $2T?  $3T?

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...