Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets
Comments
-
I’d be concerned about the bill’s unintended consequences, if it had a prayer of being enacted. However, that maneuver was anticipated. It would would cost him 40% of his asset value in one swoop.HFNY said:Wealth inequality will decline when the stock market goes in the tank. More tax reform would help a little as well.
But to confiscate someone's property (assets) is crazy and would have loads of unintended consequences. Bezos would likely give up his American citizenship and move elsewhere instead of give up billions upon billions of his net worth each year. -
HFNY said:
Wealth inequality will decline when the stock market goes in the tank. More tax reform would help a little as well.
But to confiscate someone's property (assets) is crazy and would have loads of unintended consequences. Bezos would likely give up his American citizenship and move elsewhere instead of give up billions upon billions of his net worth each year.
But! But! That $50 Million early exit fee will keep him here!!!! -
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Well it is their money
Politics of envy -
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
-
The desir
I will. I need to start wtfing Hondo's posts more often, too.RaceBannon said:
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
That's better.Fenderbender123 said:The desir
I will. I need to start wtfing Hondo's posts more often, too.RaceBannon said:
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
If demand goes down like fender seems to not care about. No one is going to invest in shit. But why let basic economics get in the way of your wants.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
