The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

Exactly. This whole discussion is a load of crap. The wealthy are never going to actually pay those taxes, other than Trump's SALT taxes, which they did pay.

And we've all watched the rich humble brag about how rich they are, and how they don't need a taxcut, so screw 'em.

I dare the Left to actually raise their taxes, while complete confident that they won't actually raise them.

Do I care if a bunch rich privileged gentry, that tend to be Leftists, pays more in taxes?

I don't. Raise their taxes, I dare you.

 

It's also not OK to tax people in order to give money to people that don't do anything, don't plan to do anything, and don't care to do anything in order to deserve such gifts.

What is your solution that shrinks the tendency of slackers to take and never give?

 

We have a solution. It's called capitalism. Require the government to spend only what it takes in through direct taxes. Stop spending, stop printing money. This will dramatically narrow what gap their is.

 

It would have been nice if you had responded to ANY of the several points I made. That is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to take place.

You know...Impracticality and outrageous expense of everyone having to have an accountant prepare an official and government verifiable annual balance sheet? The rich already pay far in excess of their share of income and this would make it worse? The government having to repay unrealized gains that have dropped in value? Never going to pass Congress in your lifetime? Comparable to the left constantly discussing another fantasy which is the mythical popular vote and how it seems that many of them spend their life arguing fantasy rather than reality? Anything? I gave you plenty of targets.... Bueller?

 

The really interesting thing in all of this is that if there are no rich there is no middle class and almost everything the Dems have done for fifty years now has as it's primary target at least in this reality the destruction of small businesses.

 

That's why taxes are way down on my list of public policy priorities. Trump's personal income tax rates expire in 2025 so if Biden or his golem win, all they have to do is nothing and they get their tax increase.

I just don't believe they will do that.

 

I love not having to do a schedule B.

Trump's taxcuts save the poor, working and middle class a LOT of money, but if Trump isn't elected, all these folks could be looking at a big big tax increase.

The wealthy privileged gentry normally can evade taxes, but they were not able to evade Trump's SALT taxes, so they very well may let Trump's tax cuts expire, just to get rid of the SALT deduction cap.

If the GOP carries the Congressional Elections, and Trump carries the presidential election and both are favored to, look for Trump's tax cuts to stay in place.

 

Based both on this forum and Chuck Schumer's remarks, it seems the worse aspect of Trump's tax cuts was the limit to the SALT deduction, so yeah, Democrats absolutely want to get rid of the SALT cap, which is in effect a tax cut ONLY for the rich.

 

Yes.

Normally taxcuts for the rich are little paid, because they drafters deliberately write in "loopholes" that they exploit, well, except for the SALT deduction cap, that many of them were unable to dodge, so yes, these lying rich bastards are willing to see all of us lose the Trump tax cuts, just so that the Privileged Gentry get the SALT deduction cap removed.

 

It's all by design, no way can a labor be paid beyond the point of freedom.. If labor is paid to much it will become unreliable and to hard to control.. Another factor is, replacing/training/testing expertise is time consuming and a gamble..

Bottom line, the best workers are those that reduce their wage with debt. House, two cars, CHILDREN and whatever other fun toys they can squeeze into the equation. Those people are so buried they no longer can afford to be independent, they voluntarily sold themselves in to slavery, again, by design

THE RICH simply take advantage of stupid! They simply dangle the shinnies and the small fish take the bait

 

ROUND TWO

Once again, Clinton’s top two tax rates, 36% and 39.6% were retroactive to Jan 1st, 1993, and remained on the books throughout his presidency.

Five fiscal years later, Gingrich & Co. managed to balance the budget with Receipts at 18.7% to GDP, and Outlays at 18.9% to GDP.

Cumulative Receipts, end of fiscal year 1997; $1.579 Trillion, nominal
Nominal GDP, end of fiscal year 1997: $8.451 Trillion
$1.579T/$8.451T = 18.7%

Source; OMB Historical Tables

End of fiscal year 1997/September 30th, 1997, Gingrich & Co’s cumulative individual income tax receipts amounted to $831 billion (Gross), as a percentage of GDP, 9.83%, ($831B/$8.451T).

————-

Fast forward to FY2007, thus, after Bush lowered Clinton’s tax rates, Bush nearly balanced the budget with Receipts at 18% to GDP, and Outlays at 19.1%.

Receipts; $2.568 Trillion
GDP; $14.305 Trillion
18%

Source; OMB Historical Tables

End of fiscal year 2007, Bush’s cumulative individual income tax receipts amounted to $1.366 Trillion, (Gross), and as a percentage of GDP; 9.55%, ($1.366T/14.305T)

NOTE; Gingrich & Co. FY1997’s individual income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP; 9.83%

————-

MY PROPOSAL; We should moderately increase the top two tax rates, HOWEVER, the additional revenues said tax increase would generate over 10 years, should be applied against the debt. Deal or No Deal?

 

That's a lot of fluff and no substance. You haven't refuted this simple fact:

When you factor wealth held assets accrual by the rich, adding that to money, which is also wealth, the percentage of the total compare to that paid in taxes is miniscule. Since inflation drives that accrual, those who cannot hedge pay for it. Inflation is a transfer of wealth from those who cannot hedge (the poor) to those who can hedge (the rich). In point of fact, the rich pay far more, via this avenue, if you look at it as it really is, not just on the surface, which is all you are doing if all you are doing is looking at the income tax.

Lying eyes? Truth eyes, actually. You're attempt to relabel it is cute, but inaccurate.

Wealth should be taxed, given this reality.

 

When Congress enacts a 'social safety net' policy, it cannot traffic in stereotypes, which is what you are doing, it's being simplistic and that's not how tax policy is done.

The debate over welfare programs centers on whether taxes should fund assistance for those in need. Proponents argue that such programs reflect social responsibility, economic stability, and human dignity. They emphasize that a compassionate society cares for its vulnerable members. Moreover, the electorate’s preference for welfare policies underscores the collective decision to create safety nets. However, critics, often associated with the political right, label recipients as “bums” or “freeloaders.” This stereotype oversimplifies complex situations and ignores the genuine struggles faced by individuals who rely on welfare. In reality, welfare programs aim to empower recipients, bridge economic gaps, and ensure a more equitable society.

Remember that nuanced discussions are essential to understanding the multifaceted nature of welfare policies and their impact on both individuals and society as a whole.

You see, there's this thing called 'democracy' and the electorate wins, and the electorate has elected representatives and presidents who have deemed that in order to live in a more just, civilized society, we need social safety nets, and there just may come a day when you need to avail yourself of it, too. Did not the famous Ayn Rand, who spent her life singing your anti-welfare tune, she had to apply for welfare near the end of her life?

Don't be a hypocrite, for you may need that safety net, someday, yourself, and when and if that day comes, you'll understand that your point of view is simplistic, where life is complex and nuanced. You'll understand why it is a good thing for society.

No, I'm not for paying for bums, freeloaders, no one is, really, that's not what being a Democrat or liberal is about (my how the right loves to paint us with that brush) but assuming that all of them are freeloaders, is wrong, and not true.

Ever tried to go on SSI? You have to clear a number of hurdles, it's not easy to get. So, the point is, the gov does go out of it's way to weed out those who do not truly need it.

 

That's nice, but you'll have to get congress and the president to change the entire system.

1. The fractional reserve system installed by the Federal Reserve in 1913
2. The appropriations process.

Etc.

You see, LibDave, the problem is not right or left, it is SYSTEMIC.

 

Those concerns can all be solved. We have to deal with the philosophical issue, first.

Either you accept the validity of a wealth tax, or you don't. I stated why I beleive we should.

Insofar as cumbersome issues, they are beside the point, as if the super rich have a problem hiring accountants, I'm not buying that one at all. We do have wealth taxes, property taxes, which are based on assessments. It's not a problem that can't be solved.

I repeat, the 'income' doesn't factor in wealth accrual. Money is wealth, wealth is wealth, it's all the same, and not paying taxes on wealth that just accrues in value due to inflation is a legal tax avoiding scheme. It shifts the burden to those who cannot hedge (the poor). AS a percentage of total wealth, they pay very little. We are not saying tax all wealth, only those above a certain threshold (as recommended by AOC and Warren).

As far as getting it through congress, this is a separate and irrelevant argument., which is deciding whether or not we should have a wealth tax.

 

...and in response, I stated why I believe we should not.

 

You espouse an underlying belief that I find strange, which is that the government has a right to access whatever someone possesses.

I could not possibly disagree more. To me, this is the quintessential difference between right and left.

When the top 1% pays 45% of federal income taxes, I find it obscene for you to think that the government deserves more. To support an intrusive government that looks at every citizens yearly balance sheet I find to be shocking. They will sell it to the gullible as soak the billionaires, but watch your wallet, they will be coming for you too.

 

Fake News.

Adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment: Unapportioned Direct Taxes, Except Income Taxes, are Unconstitutional
'The Court’s Pollock decision came as a surprise, and was unpopular with some not because of its reasoning but because of the effect: absent a constitutional amendment, Congress could not impose a progressive income tax, or at least not the one they wanted to impose without regard to each state’s population. An apportioned income tax would result in lower rates in high-income states and higher rates in lower-income states, which would defeat the redistributive goal of income tax proponents. Justice Edward White, at the time the most junior justice but a future Chief Justice himself, dissented, disparaging “the views of economists” as irrelevant and urged the Court to defer to Congress on its powers of taxation.[19] The Court reissued its opinions a month later adding that taxation of income from bonds and stocks was unconstitutional as well; the identical 5-4 result included Justice Henry Brown’s dissent rejecting the notion that “the definitions of a direct tax given by the courts and writers upon political economy” should be binding on Congress and popular will, and accusing the majority of “surrender[ing] the taxing power to the moneyed class.”[20]'

'A Wealth Tax Would Be an Unapportioned Direct Non-Income Tax, and Consequently Unconstitutional'

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional

Fake news.

I'm under no such obligation, rather those proposing a wealth tax have the duty to demonstrate that the Constitution empowers them to impose such a tax.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

 

a wealth tax is disgusting and the death tax should be abolished as well. wealth parasites and class envy warriors love the wealth tax because it can force people to give up things they own due to this cancer. You inherit say an expensive piece of art-an item that brings you no income and you have to pay thousands of dollars each year merely to possess it-that is the goal of the wealth parasites

 

why should people pay taxes on items that do not produce income?

 

1. If the government isn't printing the fractional reserve system doesn't much matter. Regardless, you can always allow a small amount of printing under the amount of increase in GDP to keep prices stable. But Biden is printing 20% every year. No way productivity can increase that much.
2. If the people wise up and demand it, they could and likely would maintain spending limits. Otherwise, we get rid of them.

 

Err,.. how about considering the Overall Tax Burden and not just 'cherry picking' income tax? A recent Forbes Magazine noted that after rolling in all other forms of Federal Taxes the total share of taxes paid by the richest 1% of Americans dropped from 49.2 % (counting only income tax) in 2020 to 29.2% . Why? Because most of their income is derived from sources not subject to income tax! Sources which, if taxed at all are taxed at much lower rates than would be applicable if these sources of wealth were assessed as 'income' and taxed accordingly.

On top of that and people in the lower lack brackets, especially those in the bottom 50% of tax payers derive most, if not all of their annual income as wages and salaries (which are of course subject to income tax) and almost none from those lowly taxed sources such as unrealized capital gains which are either not taxed at all (until realized) and even then? They are still taxed at much lower rates than plain old vanilla salaries and wages.

And to top all of that? When a very wealthy person dies? Under Section 1014 of the Internal Internal Revenue Code? Property inherited from a deceased relative is also not subject to income tax. Basically? The difference between the value of the asset at the time in was acquired by the deceased person and its value at the time of their death is ignored for income tax purposes. So for example if a property is worth 10 million at the time of the owners death was purchased for 1 million by the deceased many years ago? If the asset is liquidated by the beneficiary upon receipt the 9 million in capital gain is not counted for the purposes of determining accessible income that year. It's tax free!

And estate taxes? At the Federal Level they don't cut in until an estate reaches a value of 13,61 million USD! And any estate over that value is taxed marginally using a specific table. e.g 15 million dollar estate would pay estate taxes of only on the USD 1.39 mil remainder and even then at a very low rate.

In conclusion this topic comes up all the time. And each and every time in does? The author of the thread somehow (conveniently) manages to forget to include the elephant in the room i.e. the much lower rates of tax applicable to other forms of income not readily accessible/available to poorer Americans.

 

No one is talking about 'whatever someone possesses', that's really weird way of looking at it, but very right wing agenda driven viewpoint.

However, I regret to inform you that the government's right to tax is in the US Constitution.

 

You're right.

Bribed Joe borrowed so he could spent 18% more money than the government took in, in 2022.
And borrowed 26% more than income in 2023.



Given all this hot money, I would expect that inflation is going to prove more stubborn than Bribed Joe's administration is claiming.

Young Voters Are Concerned With the Economy. That's Bad for Bribed Joe



The economy was fine for young folks during the Trumpian era of low inflation, strong wage growth, and no new wars.

 

On a side note, as long as we're cherry picking taxes, nearly the entire wealth tax is paid by the middle and lower income earners.
Yep, only beer is taxed. The $3000 bottle of imported wine? Nope. Bud Lite? Yep.