Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Mar 26 17:49:00 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Sen Warren's wealth tax
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Thu Mar 07 13:45:59
No tax on your first $60 million assets after that you pay 2% a year.

If you have $100 million assets you pay $800K in taxes.

This will bring in $200 billion/year. This can pay for alot of things and still reduce the debt.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:47:54
Odds of the majority of congress critters having assets just south of $60 million?
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:56:34
"If you have $100 million assets you pay $800K in taxes."

That's fucking insane. The income that that wealth was created from was already taxed, twice if it was generated from corporate profits. How many times do you want to put your hands in the cookie jar?

The solution to lowering the deficit is keeping socialist scum the fuck out of power and reduce spending.
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:58:21
Or we can put economy-destroying taxes in place to fund fantasy rail projects in California. Your call.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:59:47
All those Republican deficit causing bills are the result of socialists?
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:03:09
I'm not absolving the Republicans of both fuckery and hypocrisy if that's what you're asking.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:05:07
"The income that that wealth was created from was already taxed"

why is that a problem, when you get you wages, the amount is being taxed several times, for income tax, for payroll tax, etc. Or lets say, tobacco product, you pay sales tax plus excise tax, plus sin tax sometimes. Why is wealth special?
yankeessuck123
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:20:01
Sounds like a great proposal, if there are ways to make sure they can't just stuff all the wealth offshore.

If you think a small wealth tax on the uber-rich is going to destroy the economy, you're pretty far gone.
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:33:27
"Small"

2% of ASSETS is not small.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:43:56
you have to learn what marginal means. If I am reading it right, it is anot ALL assets, it is all assets above $50mil
hood
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:46:47
"2% of ASSETS is not small."

When you have 50,000,000 of them, 1,000,000 of them is pretty small. And that's not even how it works.
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:54:13
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring the cap. And in any case, $1,000,000 per year adds up pretty quickly.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 14:59:54
You never pay "2% of ASSETS" because first $50mil is not taxed
Average Ameriacn
Member
Thu Mar 07 15:26:10
This would destroy all motivation to work harder and achieve the American dream. People would get lazy and the USA would become another Liberia only poorer.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 07 15:38:34
what is the solution to the ridiculous level of wealth inequality other than a wealth tax?


http://amp...4c6bb3f7942699cdcf-750-415.jpg
^ that black man needs plundered
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 07 15:52:44
i vaguely recall Romney's tax return where i believe it showed ~$4 million in interest... that's not from hard work, that's from doing literally nothing

so that's $4 million of free money each year to put toward his wealth tax
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 07 16:16:52
Seems reasonable.

Pretty sure collected assets of $100m produce way more than $800k.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 07 16:30:51
I would rather see this done at the inheritance level. The inheritance tax on high net worth folks should be pretty damn high. We arnt a monarchy, after all.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 07 16:36:14
Also the wealth inequality in the US is only a little higher now than ideal values. So a minor correction is needed... but not one that gives the government any more power.
yankeessuck123
Member
Thu Mar 07 16:55:26
A wealth tax encourages that money to be invested or otherwise put to use, which is a good thing for the economy. Hoarding is not.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 07 18:18:10
the estate tax isn't working... plus R's keep trying to eliminate it

you could take that black guy & his 40% entirely out of the above linked graph & it would look fine (still plenty of super-rich people relative to the masses)
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 07 18:20:40
"plus R's keep trying to eliminate it "

Well thats cause they are retards too.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Mar 07 18:31:05
"A wealth tax encourages that money to be invested or otherwise put to use, which is a good thing for the economy. Hoarding is not."

Then again, hoarding could be good for the hoarders in the event of a revolution or a poor people uprising. Super rich people could invest more into things like anti-mob laser canons, alligator moats, and counter-intelligence programs that can pinpont potential troublemakers and neutralize them. Culling and neutralizing poor people could be good for the economy.
kargen
Member
Thu Mar 07 18:53:53
"I would rather see this done at the inheritance level. The inheritance tax on high net worth folks should be pretty damn high. We arnt a monarchy, after all."
Fuck that. The owner of the estate has already paid the tax on that a few times. The reason Snyder owns the Redskins is because of that damn tax and that alone is reason enough to scrap it.

I also do not like tax based on assumed wealth. If I am given a painting I shouldn't be taxed until I realize the worth of that painting. So long as it hangs on my wall I don't pay taxes on it. If I sell it then tax on the amount it was sold for because then it becomes income.

It was criminal that the government decided to tax a guy on what they estimated a home run ball to be worth so that he couldn't afford to keep it.

What we need is a two tier flat tax. Federal taxes should be lowered significantly and state tax raised. Do away with most federal programs and instead put them in place at the state level.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 07 19:01:14
"The owner of the estate has already paid the tax on that a few times"

and now he's dead
hood
Member
Thu Mar 07 20:19:21
"If I am given a painting I shouldn't be taxed until I realize the worth of that painting."

Funny story about inheritance taxes. When the owner dies, the property transfers to a new owner. We tax 2-party transactions in the US.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 20:55:43
“If I am given a painting I shouldn't be taxed until I realize the worth of that painting."

You aren’t. Moreover, all the increase in value of that painting, the capital gain, is never taxed for it. If you keep the painting until your death, your heir pays zero for that capital gain, if the heir sells the painting, the capital gain is calculated from the basis at the time his inheritance. Large parts of estates that actually taxed for inheritance. Is made of such unrealized capital gains, which are never taxed

CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 20:56:34
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stepupinbasis.asp

Breaking Down Step-Up in Basis
A step-up in basis reflects the changed value of an inherited asset. For example, an investor purchasing shares at $2 and leaving them to an heir when the shares are $15 means the shares receive a step-up in basis, making the cost basis for the shares the current market price of $15. Any capital gains tax paid in the future will be based on the $15 cost basis, not on the original purchase price of $2.

The step-up in basis rule changes tax liability for inherited assets in comparison to other assets. For example, Sarah bought a loft in 2000 for $300,000. When Paul inherited the loft after Sarah's death, the loft was worth $500,000. When Paul sold the loft, his tax basis was $500,000. He paid taxes on the difference between the selling price and his stepped-up basis of $500,000. If Paul's cost basis were $200,000, he would have paid much more in taxes when selling the loft.
kargen
Member
Thu Mar 07 21:06:48
"and now he's dead"

and for that you want to punish the family.

"Funny story about inheritance taxes. When the owner dies, the property transfers to a new owner. We tax 2-party transactions in the US."

and that is fucked up. Until the property either generates wealth or is sold there shouldn't be a tax. Until I realize the worth of that painting I shouldn't have to pay tax on it.

Crownroyal take a look at gift tax.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 21:10:29
“Crownroyal take a look at gift tax.”

We done with estate tax, with the false outrage of double taxation? You realized how some appreciation is not taxed at all? Ok, cool. What do you want to discuss about the gift tax?
kargen
Member
Thu Mar 07 21:45:12
Estate tax and gift tax are basically the same thing just different rates apply and the person giving the gift is alive instead of dead.

So in my painting example it is a gift tax that would apply. Both estate and gift taxes are wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Mar 07 22:02:27
Romney isn't even a billionaire (of which there are hundreds) but using his $4 million in interest... let's say he leaves his fortune to 2 kids... each can now 'earn' $2 million a year without ever working (who most likely can save some & grow the principal) let's assume each marries someone of equal royalty, so back up to $4 million... then they have 2 kids who go down to $2 million each again

you feel that should be allowed to continue in perpetuity until a moron blows it?
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:05:03
“Both estate and gift taxes are wrong and shouldn't be allowed.”

Nice statement, but it wouldn’t hurt to explain the reasoning behind it. Since “already been taxed” bullshit has already been explained, do you have any other reasons, or that’s it?
Pillz
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:32:46
Wealth taxes make more sense and are more practical than estate/inheritance taxes.
Pillz
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:37:51
Because you want to carry assets forward to so they can earn. Not give them to the government.

A wealth tax is essentially a small correct in the short comings of sales taxes (if we continue to operate under the assumption sales taxes are necessary).

Estate taxes are theft. We do not live just to hand over our life's earnings and worth to the government when we die. That is some weird saddist communist death cult shit, cr
hood
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:38:58
"Until the property either generates wealth"

The fuck? It just generated a shit ton of wealth for the person who inherited it. Those assets certainly weren't counting towards the inheritee's networth until they inherited it.

You're a fucking idiot.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:42:50
“We do not live just to hand over our life's earnings and worth to the government when we die. ”

You don’t hand over anything, my boi. You are dead. You heir, after claiming gigantic exemptions and getting all the increased value of your assets, without paying a dime in capital gain taxes, gets to pay a reasonable tax.

“That is some weird saddist communist death cult shit, cr”

What communist do you want me to quote first, on the estate taxes? Off the top of my head, Adam Smith, Jefferson or Madison
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Mar 07 22:51:54
People ought to earn shit, not inherit it. Nobody is saying confiscate everything, in US current exemption is over $10mil, the heir pays zero taxes on first ten million dollars, despite the fact he done shit to earn it. Estate tax is good for society, and for the heirs too
“The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and tempts him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would'”
Carnegie, another commie
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 08 00:53:22
"you feel that should be allowed to continue in perpetuity until a moron blows it?"

Yeah. They should pay a flat tax on income and be done with it at the federal level.

"It just generated a shit ton of wealth for the person who inherited it. Those assets certainly weren't counting towards the inheritee's networth until they inherited it.'

I am not surprised you completely failed to grasp what I am saying. If I inherit a house or am given a rare painting my income has not increased so there should be no tax on my acquiring the house or painting. Now that I own it a property tax if applicable would apply at state and local levels of government.
If I sell that house or that painting then I would have to pay for the income it generated through the sale. Wealth/worth is not the same thing as income and at the federal level only income should be taxed and that should be a two tiered flat tax.

And no the state and local governments shouldn't have estate/gift taxes either.

" Since “already been taxed” bullshit has already been explained, do you have any other reasons, or that’s it?"

No it really hasn't. I make money I pay tax on that money. I buy a house with what is left. The money was taxed meaning what I bought with the remaining had been taxed as it is simply a replacement of that money. The house might then rise in value but until that increased value is realized through a sale there has been no added income.
Anything you spend money on has been taxed just as the money was.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 08 01:15:09
so if someone inherits cash you're ok with it being taxed, and if an employee is paid with houses they shouldn't pay income tax?
jergul
large member
Fri Mar 08 03:20:07
I do get the counter arguments. If the alternative to taxation is government funding through interest free loans (interest rates lower than inflation) where the net principle will never be repaid, the its a no brainer.

But if the idea is a sustainable society in equilibrium, then of course the equation changes.

Lamp posts and piano wire are ultimately the final arbitrators of unseemly wealth accumulation across the generations.

Redistribution that way is the historical norm.
jergul
large member
Fri Mar 08 03:29:08
The compelling point is of course that in a functioning democracy, policies will tend towards reflecting the best interests of the population.

Redistribution is in the best interests of the great majority of the population, just as most government policies are.

The idea that government is basically just a security franchise simply lacks any form of popular support, so is incompatible with democracy.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Mar 08 05:39:05
“The house might then rise in value but until that increased value is realized through a sale there has been no added income. “

No, you dolt. The owner does not pay capital gains for the increased value because the house is not sold. When heir sells the house, he does not pay capital gains taxes for the increase in value that happened before he inherited the house. So, nobody pays capital gains taxes on that increase in value, ever.
hood
Member
Fri Mar 08 07:25:28
"If I inherit a house or am given a rare painting my income has not increased"

Well then it's good that it isn't called "income on inheritance tax," isn't it? It's a tax on a transaction, just like if you were to buy the house from the owner. The house has transferred ownership. That transfer of ownership is being taxed, just like nearly all transfers of ownership are. It's laughable that you think I didn't understand you. You're pretty simple. Stupid, wrong, simple.

We also recognize that this need to tax an inherited transfer of ownership isn't reasonable on the everyday schmoe, which is why there's such a high allowance before ever needing to pay a cent.
Seb
Member
Fri Mar 08 07:58:34
For all the focus on art, primary residence and obscure cultural artefacts, let's be honest, if you have over the threshold value of $60m, it's not those particular items that will constitute the bulk of your wealth.

I mean there might be the odd Scion of an industrial family and all he has left is the family mansion be grew up in etc. but let's face it: the number of cases like that are probably vanishingly small.

So, you won't likely need to sell the painting. And you could make an exception to cultural artefacts on public display if you wanted to.
smart dude
Member
Fri Mar 08 08:25:52
Seb: "[insert hedge words]. QED!!!*

*durrrr, science!

[insert Matt Damon voice] Let's science the shit out of this!
smart dude
Member
Fri Mar 08 08:32:00
"seems"

”pretty sure"

"might be"

-durrr I'm a scientist so STFU (I.e. middle manager).

smart dude
Member
Fri Mar 08 08:35:26
”Falsifiability? WTF is that? If you or die before you can prove me wrong, that's not my fault! Go fuck yourself!"

Seb, 2019
smart dude
Member
Fri Mar 08 08:46:18
Seb: I'm a physicist. That makes me an expert I'm all fields of science. The world is burning!

Seb's father (c. 1970): The world is cooling! We will all be dead by 2020!!!

Seb's grandfather: Oh, you're the king? Because you were born in the right place at the right time? Please, please, PLEASE let me suck your cock!!!
Pillz
Member
Fri Mar 08 08:47:27
ITT communists try to rob the dead
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Mar 08 09:05:41
the heirs are very much alive
Seb
Member
Fri Mar 08 09:41:26
Smart dude:

Are you drunk?

Ok, you want to speak on certain absolutes, so you must have data then. Who specifically are the people who would be ineligible to pay the proposed tax and would be fundamentally unable to do so without reducing their wealth by the amount of tax owed, or sell of their primary residence?
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Mar 08 10:20:41

"and for that you want to punish the family."

Yes. We are not a monarchy. Inherited money is the epitome of unearned.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Mar 08 10:33:14
English Bob suggested we should appoint a King or Queen in Unforgiven. Just saying.
jergul
large member
Fri Mar 08 15:56:29
And sammy threw in a curveball.
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 08 18:11:43
Yeah it was a bit outside though. Not worth swinging at.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Mar 08 18:16:10
you're satisfied w/ the wealth distribution in the US?

and in fact want to help it pool to the top by eliminating the estate tax? (or 'death tax' as you hear about it)
jergul
large member
Fri Mar 08 18:18:08
Kargen
It just boils down to social contracts where "taxation is theft" is as convincing as "property is theft" or not so much.

In a well-functioning democracy, people will tend to get their way over time and policies will rotate around voter best interests.

The great American challenge is opting for poorly functioning democracy so that people do not get their way over time and policies do not rotate around voter best interests.

Its all swell and dandy for as long as there is access to free money, but at some point, that will change.
kargen
Member
Fri Mar 08 19:00:44
Not so much as satisfied as indifferent. Somewhere along the way someone earned all that accumulated wealth and if they want to keep it in the family more power to them.

This is more about government and what they think they can get away with. I am for a smaller federal government that for the most part stays the hell out of our lives. The government doesn't need more money they need to be more responsible with the money they get already.

I think a two tiered income tax at the federal level would be fair. Within your tier you pay the same amount of tax on your first dollar as you do on your ten millionth dollar and you pay the same percent as everyone else in your tier.

States and local governments can have a sales tax and a property tax on top of the states income tax.
jergul
large member
Sat Mar 09 02:48:31
Kargen
You do understand that the most expensive government policies are hugely popular and that government is in no way close to generating enough taxes to pay for those policies?

The government needs a lot more money than it generates though taxation.

It also has a clear mandate to tax as it does through the representative democratic system you enjoy.

Security apparata is by far the most intrusive part of government btw.

What is your position on Huawei? It should build your network under safeguards if you want to get government out of your life.
kargen
Member
Sat Mar 09 03:07:19
"The government needs a lot more money than it generates though taxation."

No it doesn't. Most of what the government does should be done by the private sector.

The federal government shouldn't be doing much more than defense, infrastructure and treaties.
jergul
large member
Sat Mar 09 03:26:41
Kargen
The federal government should be doing whatever the people give it a mandate to do.

The moral-ethical question is not about what a government with a mandate does, but rather if the people should be allowed to give a mandate at all.

You constitution with all its preambles is pretty clear on the peoples right to give a mandate.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share