Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets
Comments
-
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
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.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
-
Whoosh!RaceBannon said:Well it is their money
Politics of envy
No consumer spending, no reason to invest in employees, plant and equipment making consumer goods.
-
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.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 -
Well all taxes are paid by people with their money. Your question takes us absolutely nowhere.Sledog said: -
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
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.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
-
You've never cared about basic economics. See: Obamacare2001400ex said:
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
Go fuck yourself with a rusty nail. -
Socialists here seem to think they deserve what others make. HTHHHusky said: -
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
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.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed. -
Hmmm. It was my understanding that the first $24k of income was not taxable for the real poors. And those that make more are still paying the rate on ALL of their income with a limit of $10K in deductions for interest and taxes. I’d think that even if I’m wrong about that, the $125K earner is still gonna take it on the chin with the new plan.2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
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.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed. -
You don't get money back you loan it to the government interest free2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
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.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed.
Flip that burger
