Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Dems unveil ultra-millionaire tax on top 0.05%
Comments
-
They'll pass the Super Duper Big Meanie Gazillionaire Tax and run in the midterms on it.
And nobody will ever pay it. And the Dems could care less. They just want the votes. -
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
-
20% flat tax for any person/corp over 50k
No loopholes.
No Corp deductions.
Deal? -
Absolutely terrible idea.thechatch said:20% flat tax for any person/corp over 50k
No loopholes.
No Corp deductions.
Deal? -
Too high, 8%thechatch said:20% flat tax for any person/corp over 50k
No loopholes.
No Corp deductions.
Deal? -
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit. -
You mean when we had a 90% income tax rate that few if any people paid?HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit. -
Lawyers should pay a 90% flat rate.
-
I'd be in favor of a 100% tax on phony conservatives who claimed Mike Brown was shot in the back while running away.Sledog said:Lawyers should pay a 90% flat rate.
-
Imagine my surprise that the usual suspects can't engage.
-
Coming from the Kunt who loves dodging questions that's pretty funny Dazzler.HHusky said:Imagine my surprise that the usual suspects can't engage.
-
The effective tax rate of income 1%ers today is about 30%. During the entire 1950s it averaged 42%. Yes, I would say the very well off used to pay a shitload more in taxes than they do today.SFGbob said:
You mean when we had a 90% income tax rate that few if any people paid?HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit. -
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy.
Don't be surprised if enacted, this criteria doesn't start dropping into the single millions. -
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.greenblood said:
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.HHusky said:
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.greenblood said:
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
If only taxes effected the economy you might be right. Did you forget the rat lead forced mortgage lending practices housing market crash/debacle? The dotcom bust? 9/11?HHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs.
Trumps economy saw the poverty rate at an all time low (the true measure of a country's health and stability), unemployment at an all time low, stock market at all time highs and growing, increases in manufacturing, more fairness in trade and above all else, lower taxes. Very similar to the Revenue Act of 1964 which was wildly successful. You burden corporations and the individual with higher taxes and you kill the health of the economy.
Why you rats continue to deny history is beyond me. The high tax socialist nirvana you all seem to want to force us into has never worked but by God you are bound to give it another shot. -
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policies and the current recession caused by the China virus we pretty much have had 20 years of a good economy.HHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
HorseshitSFGbob said:
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policiesHHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?HHusky said:
HorseshitSFGbob said:
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policiesHHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
The long-term, fixed rate mortgage is a "liberal policy", says blob.SFGbob said:
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?HHusky said:
HorseshitSFGbob said:
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policiesHHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
White flag.HHusky said:
The long-term, fixed rate mortgage is a "liberal policy", says blob.SFGbob said:
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?HHusky said:
HorseshitSFGbob said:
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policiesHHusky said:
If you were right, we should have been in an uninterrupted economic boom for the past 20 years.Bendintheriver said:
You mean when a 1500 sq ft house cost $2900.00? The fed got real greedy in 1944 (I think it was 1944) and the price of goods went through the ceiling (comparatively speaking) due to the higher taxes.HHusky said:
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.Bendintheriver said:
"Progressive tax"? There is no such thing. All taxes create a negative reaction. The "little people" will pay the bill at the end of the day.HHusky said:
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.alumni94 said:Why don't we go back to the fine idea of a flat tax and simplify (i.e. eliminate) much of the tax process? I would vote for this before a system that goes after successful people, what type of culture does that breed?
A commie one is what is breeds.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
In other words Einstein, the little people got hurt.
When you tax the "rich", investment goes down, prices go up, cash leaves the system, and the tax base for those you attempt to penalize for their hard work will go down. Again, the little people get hurt.
The only answer I have to solve the tax revenue issue is for the federal government to spend less and get the fuck out of the way of business entrepreneurs. -
The tax code is not written mostly by people with 50 million dollars in assets. Look, I don't think this proposal is going anywhere, but taxing people who have done very well under our system more heavily isn't new or revolutionary.greenblood said:
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.HHusky said:
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.greenblood said:
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
Since most of the newly minted billionaire class support leftists I say tax the shit out of them.
-
It isn't new or revolutionary, but it doesn't work either. And that isn't new or revolutionary. But what the heck HH why don't you and your rat buddies give it another shot!HHusky said:
The tax code is not written mostly by people with 50 million dollars in assets. Look, I don't think this proposal is going anywhere, but taxing people who have done very well under our system more heavily isn't new or revolutionary.greenblood said:
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.HHusky said:
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.greenblood said:
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
Doesn’t work? Expand on that.Bendintheriver said:
It isn't new or revolutionary, but it doesn't work either. And that isn't new or revolutionary. But what the heck HH why don't you and your rat buddies give it another shot!HHusky said:
The tax code is not written mostly by people with 50 million dollars in assets. Look, I don't think this proposal is going anywhere, but taxing people who have done very well under our system more heavily isn't new or revolutionary.greenblood said:
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.HHusky said:
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.greenblood said:
That's the thing. By moving them into trusts, they avoid a large portion of that tax. These types of taxes tend to migrate into lower and lower income tiers because the expected revenue never comes to fruition.HHusky said:
I don't know why it would become illegal now either. But there's nothing inherently offensive about taxing wealth. In fact, it's a very republican (small r) thing to do.greenblood said:
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTHHHusky said:
The appreciation on long held assets hasn't been taxed. Large fortunes primarily consist of appreciated assets. And tracking the flows in order to discover tax evasion wouldn't be insurmountable at all. Plus the prize would be large. (Why not add multimillion dollar penalties and interest to the 2% assessment, right?)greenblood said:
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.HHusky said:
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.Sledog said:How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Either way, you know the ultra wealthy will just transfer their hard assets, right? Money can be sent to overseas accounts, and physical property can be transferred within family, or to trusts. They already have a plan.
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-to-protect-client-assets-from-a-wealth-tax-53392.html#:~:text=Meanwhile, a charitable remainder trust,wealth tax, according to Aucamp.
Then once the government realizes they are running short on the funds they want, they'll progressively move the needle down until they can get the revenue they are wanting. Rich stay rich for a reason. They are either smarter or hire smarter people than we? are.
All that said, this won't get enacted anytime soon. It could be useful, however, as a vehicle for looking at the tax code and how it favors the establishment of a permanent upper class and an oligarchy. -
the wealth tax was tried in 1894 - but today the Supremes would not give a rat's ass
From the Heritage Foundation
In 1894, with little attention to constitutional issues, Congress again enacted an unapportioned income tax with the clear goal of shifting the tax burden from regressive tariffs and excises to a levy based on ability of the individual to pay. Congressional debates were full of statements about how the well-to-do had not been paying their fair share. The sponsors of the income tax intended to accomplish what consumption taxes had not, and, to that end, the 1894 tax reached only the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.
This time the Supreme Court refused to approve the idea. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), a closely divided Court reinvigorated the direct-tax clauses, holding that the 1894 tax was direct and, because not apportioned, unconstitutional. With Pollock on the books, something had to be done if there was to be an unapportioned income tax.
