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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
You mean when we had a 90% income tax rate that few if any people paid?
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.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
Don't be surprised if enacted, this criteria doesn't start dropping into the single millions.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policies
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policies
Horseshit
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policies
Horseshit
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?
The long-term, fixed rate mortgage is a "liberal policy", says blob.
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.
Nothing says chattel slavery like a progressive tax on multimillionaires.
"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.
Your comment is typical rat bullshit.
Of course. We all remember the postwar hellscape of the mid 20th Century.
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.
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.
But for the 2008 recession, caused by liberal policies
Horseshit
Brutal rebuttal. Completely destroyed my claim. Were Freddie and Fannie liberal or conservative policy ideas Dazzler?
The long-term, fixed rate mortgage is a "liberal policy", says blob.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.
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.
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.
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.
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!
How does the constitution allow disparate treatment because you make more money? Asking for a friend.
Your $50,000,001 gets taxed at the same rate as my $50,000,001. Equal treatment.
Out of principle, I think it's bullshit to tax money that has already been taxed. But that's another discussion.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Moving those assets into trusts is not illegal HTH
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.
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.
The tax code isn't set in stone. The whole topic is changing the tax code.
Most of these people making the tax code fall into this category. To think they won't create loopholes is naive.
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.
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!
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.
Comments
Don't be surprised if enacted, this criteria doesn't start dropping into the single millions.
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.
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.