I asked ChatGPT what would happen if billionaires paid the same rate of taxes as middle class

[BackAgain]

No, those on the right that consistently spout off those distorted numbers about how much of the total income taxes paid by the wealthy are the real dopes. Uninformed for the most part. Easily manipulated as well. I have admitted that the Berkley study was disingenuous, but that is not to say that the right doesn't do it as well.

First, in every single right wing study the FICA tax is left out. Why? It is a tax, you have to pay it. Why is it left out? And just try to use AI to find out what percentage of total FICA receipts are paid by the top one percent or top ten percent. LOL, good luck finding that number. Probably highly classified.

Sometimes, like in this op-ed by Phil Gramm and John Early, they completely leave out earnings from capital gains, REALIZED capital gains.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wealthy-americans-already-pay-their-share-11582676377

Gramm and Early define the effective tax rate as “taxes actually paid, as a percentage of income earned and received in transfer payments.” I don't see how a reputable source would even post such dishonest shit. Capital gains are not "earned" therefore, they don't count. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should figure that shit out, but no, you will find that op-ed posted time and time again to defend the wealthy.

So, the poor pay the FICA tax, and they earn that money. But hey, that don't count. The rich don't pay the FICA tax on capital gains, they didn't earn that money, but that doesn't count. Can you start to see how we are getting screwed? Money comes out of the pockets of the poor, doesn't count. Money flows into the pockets of the wealthy, doesn't count. I am here to tell you, the Founders would be up in arms, literally.

But the distortion continues. The number of C-corporations have continued to decline since, of course, the 80's. Income that used to be taxed at the corporate level, by the company, is now flowing through pass-through entities resulting in personal income taxes being paid instead of corporate income taxes, that distorts the number. And then, to add insult to injury, the 199A pass through income exemption was made permanent in the big beautiful bill. No one even mentioned that. I mean what purpose does that exemption serve?

Worse, pass through entities, like an LLC, still have the protection of the corporate veil. Why? They are not a corporation. They don't pay corporate taxes, so they are getting that protection for free. Talk about sucking off the government teat.

Look, I agree, the poor and middle class should shoulder a greater percentage of the total tax burden than the status quo. But that is not a taxing problem, it is an income problem.

You’re a drone.

And you’re also full of shit.

You libturds aren’t satisfied just having the government confiscate so much from our paychecks. Nowadays, you idiots even think there is any economic sense in taxing wealth.

Apparently none of you morons can grasp the moral of the story about killing the golden goose.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hell no the cap on monthly Social Security payments should not be phased out. Damn, I suggested we phase out the benefit entirely once a certain income is achieved.

So you want "the wealthy" to pay more into Social Security but actually get less or even nothing back from Social Security?

Is that how Social Security was sold to the people by the Democrats?

Look, if you retire, you don't work, and you have an income of ten grand a month. No Social Security check for you. Maybe, phase that benefit out over time. Eighty years old, paying taxes on Social Security. Hell, fix that problem. No more Social Security for you.

So above a certain income, money that a person is entitled to, after paying into Social Security for up to forty years or more can simply be confiscated and used as . . . I suppose as the confiscator sees fit?

The Boomers have no idea why Social Security, and later, Medicare, were implemented. It never was about taking care of the beneficiaries. It was always, and still is, about taking care of the children of those beneficiaries. Two hundred years ago, you had an obligation to take care of your parents when they got older. That was the purpose of Social Security and Medicare, to remove that responsibility from the children. And it worked, fantastically. The problem is the Boomers have taken it for granted, not surprising, there has never been a more spoiled generation.

Wait, wait.

Do you not understand that it is social welfare, such as Medicaid, that takes the burden off of family, friends, and communities to take care of people who find themselves temporarily unable to support themselves? Do you really not know that young people now have little idea that this is even possible, so accustomed we are to government-as-nanny?

Take help from family, and most people will be highly motivated to get back on their feet to avoid further embarassment. Once the government checks start coming in, with no stigma, and it soon becomes a lifestyle.

Social Security and Medicare is not government charity, like TANF (that is anything but temporary), SNAP, and Medicaid. That is where your misunderstanding leads you to the worst of your fallacies. Working people pay for it, whether they work as ditch diggers or renown plastic surgeons to the stars.

And if we are suggesting readings I would submit this one,

https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/ab/c9/abc9fb4b-dc86-4ce8-ae31-a983b9a326ed/ccny_essay_1889_thegospelofwealth.pdf

Always willing to be enlightened so long as the proposed reading is topical, which that was.

Yes, Carnagie advocated that wealth be taken at a person's death and given to the state. He put his money where his mouth is, but donating much of his wealth to good causes. Good for him, if that is what he chose.

I disagree with his wanting to make such charity mandatory, and doubt very seriously that it would bring about beneficial changes in the behavior of the wealthy.

I believe you may have said in another post that no one has a right to inherit money or other wealth. I fully agree. But I have just as much right to decide who will get my wealth after I die as Carnagie had to donate his wealth to causes the believed in. Pass a law that requires my wealth be confiscated upon my death and I lose the right as a living person to make arrangements for my property before I die.

What about highly personal and sentimental items that also have monetary value? Will they also be taken, and thrown into the coffers of government? If a man or woman builds a large business that remains a sole proprietorship, or corporation in which he owns majority stock, will his or her estate not be allowed to pass that business on, even to adult childen who have worked all their lives to prepare to run it as well as the founder?

Let me ask you this (and I notice you seem almost alergic to answering questions): What makes you think that government would be wiser with the money of the deceased wealthy than would the heirs of the wealthy? Why would government not spend it on the same graft, pet projects, boondoggles, and vote-buying, lobbyist pleasing, and featherbedding as it now spends it on?

Would you attach some amendment to this law you advocate mandating turning over inherited property to the government that will forestall the usual waste, fraud, and abuse? How will that work, exactly.

 

[Oddball]

ChatGPT
Log in

You said:​

What if billionaires paid taxes at the same rate as middle class?

ChatGPT said:​

If billionaires paid taxes at the same effective rate as the middle class, it would have significant economic and social implications. Let’s break it down:

---

​

• Billionaires' effective tax rate: Often 8%–23%, depending on how it's calculated (e.g., unrealized capital gains are often untaxed until assets are sold).
• Middle-class effective tax rate: Roughly 20%–25%, including payroll and income taxes.

Billionaires often pay lower rates due to:

• Capital gains preference: Long-term capital gains and dividends are taxed at lower rates than wages.
• Tax deferral: Unrealized gains aren't taxed until assets are sold.
• Use of loopholes and shelters: Trusts, offshore accounts, etc.

---

​

Let’s assume billionaires paid a 25% effective tax rate, similar to the middle class.

1.​

• A 2021 analysis by the White House estimated that the 400 wealthiest families paid an average of 8.2% effective federal tax.
• If raised to 25%, that’s three times more, potentially yielding hundreds of billions of dollars more per decade.

Estimates:

• A wealth tax proposal (like Warren or Sanders suggested) could raise $2–3 trillion over 10 years.
• Just closing the capital gains loophole could raise hundreds of billions.

2.​

• More revenue could reduce the federal deficit, lowering interest payments on national debt.

3.​

• Funds could support programs like:
  • Universal pre-K and childcare
  • Climate initiatives
  • Health care expansion
  • Infrastructure

4.​

• Many people feel the system is unfair. Aligning tax rates could improve public trust in government and institutions.

5.​

• Disincentives to invest: Critics argue that higher taxes on the wealthy could reduce investment or encourage capital flight.
• Valuation challenges: Taxing unrealized gains would require annual asset valuation, which is complex.
• Legal and lobbying resistance: The wealthy have powerful tools to shape or resist policy.

---

Example Thought Experiment:​

If Elon Musk (worth ~$250B) paid 25% tax on wealth growth instead of much less, and if this model applied across the top 1,000 billionaires globally, governments might see over $1 trillion/year in additional revenue.
_____________________________________________

So now we know where the federal deficit comes from. But listening to repubs, it is middle and lower income earner's fsult.

Here's something else AI said, slapnuts...Wanna run with that too?

 

[BackAgain]

Here's something else AI said, slapnuts...Wanna run with that too?



View attachment 1134302

You just gave ol’ slapnuts a kick in the nadz.

Too bad the dopey ***** won’t grasp it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, I agree, the poor and middle class should shoulder a greater percentage of the total tax burden than the status quo. But that is not a taxing problem, it is an income problem.

 

[Winston]

You’re a drone.

And you’re also full of shit.

You libturds aren’t satisfied just having the government confiscate so much from our paychecks. Nowadays, you idiots even think there is any economic sense in taxing wealth.

Apparently none of you morons can grasp the moral of the story about killing the golden goose.

Do you really think that rich people lay golden eggs? Obviously you don't even understand Aesop's fable. The goose that laid the golden egg is a warning against greed. And that is what is happening here. The wealthy, they are not the damn goose, you and I are. The workers, the salt of the earth, they are the goose, and the wealthy, well they are the ones that are out to kill the goose. The moral of the story, put simply, "Greed loses all by striving all to gain".

And that is the problem with the "Big, Beautiful, Bill". At no point in history has there been such a shift in wealth codified within the federal government. I mention the Lorentz curve, or the Gini Coefficient, quite often. History has shown us that once it reaches a certain point the society collapses. That is killing the goose.

Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth—that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence—the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse. To give the suffrage to tramps, to paupers, to men to whom the chance to labor is a boon, to men who must beg, or steal, or starve, is to invoke destruction. To put political power in the hands of men embittered and degraded by poverty is to tie firebrands to foxes and turn them loose amid the standing corn; it is to put out the eyes of a Samson and to twine his arms around the pillars of national life.

Progress and Poverty, Volumes I and II An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth

www.gutenberg.org

Look, I know you won't read the entire book, Poverty and Progress, but damn, at least spend some time in that chapter, How Modern Civilization May Decline. I mean that was written in 1879. I mean just to up the ante,

In all the great American cities there is to-day as clearly defined a ruling class as in the most aristocratic countries of the world. Its members carry wards in their pockets, make up the slates for nominating conventions, distribute offices as they bargain together, and—though they toil not, neither do they spin—wear the best of raiment and spend money lavishly. They are men of power, whose favor the ambitious must court and whose vengeance he must avoid. Who are these men? The wise, the good, the learned—men who have earned the confidence of their fellow-citizens by the purity of their lives, the splendor of their talents, their probity in public trusts, their deep study of the problems of government? No; they are gamblers, saloon keepers, pugilists, or worse, who have made a531 trade of controlling votes and of buying and selling offices and official acts. They stand to the government of these cities as the Prætorian Guards did to that of declining Rome. He who would wear the purple, fill the curule chair, or have the fasces carried before him, must go or send his messengers to their camps, give them donatives and make them promises. It is through these men that the rich corporations and powerful pecuniary interests can pack the Senate and the bench with their creatures. It is these men who make School Directors, Supervisors, Assessors, members of the Legislature, Congressmen. Why, there are many election districts in the United States in which a George Washington, a Benjamin Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson could no more go to the lower house of a State Legislature than under the Ancient Régime a base-born peasant could become a Marshal of France. Their very character would be an insuperable disqualification.

I mean hello howdy. Almost 150 years ago and nailing it. I am a proud supporter of Georgism, or what it is called now, Geoism. The central premise, there should be one tax and one tax only, on WEALTH, specifically, land. And I am in good company. Milton Friedman, Michael Hudson, Joseph Stiglitz, economists, Georgist. Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, hell, even William Buckley, Georgist. But you can bet your sweet ass no college is going to be assigning that book to read, the Koch brothers will make sure of it. No, they donate tens of thousands of dollars to universities that require them to assign Atlas Shrugged. Damn what a terrible screed from a ******* hypocritical idiot.

 

[Winston]

So you want "the wealthy" to pay more into Social Security but actually get less or even nothing back from Social Security?

Is that how Social Security was sold to the people by the Democrats?

So above a certain income, money that a person is entitled to, after paying into Social Security for up to forty years or more can simply be confiscated and used as . . . I suppose as the confiscator sees fit?

Wait, wait.

Do you not understand that it is social welfare, such as Medicaid, that takes the burden off of family, friends, and communities to take care of people who find themselves temporarily unable to support themselves? Do you really not know that young people now have little idea that this is even possible, so accustomed we are to government-as-nanny?

Take help from family, and most people will be highly motivated to get back on their feet to avoid further embarassment. Once the government checks start coming in, with no stigma, and it soon becomes a lifestyle.

Social Security and Medicare is not government charity, like TANF (that is anything but temporary), SNAP, and Medicaid. That is where your misunderstanding leads you to the worst of your fallacies. Working people pay for it, whether they work as ditch diggers or renown plastic surgeons to the stars.

Always willing to be enlightened so long as the proposed reading is topical, which that was.

Yes, Carnagie advocated that wealth be taken at a person's death and given to the state. He put his money where his mouth is, but donating much of his wealth to good causes. Good for him, if that is what he chose.

I disagree with his wanting to make such charity mandatory, and doubt very seriously that it would bring about beneficial changes in the behavior of the wealthy.

I believe you may have said in another post that no one has a right to inherit money or other wealth. I fully agree. But I have just as much right to decide who will get my wealth after I die as Carnagie had to donate his wealth to causes the believed in. Pass a law that requires my wealth be confiscated upon my death and I lose the right as a living person to make arrangements for my property before I die.

What about highly personal and sentimental items that also have monetary value? Will they also be taken, and thrown into the coffers of government? If a man or woman builds a large business that remains a sole proprietorship, or corporation in which he owns majority stock, will his or her estate not be allowed to pass that business on, even to adult childen who have worked all their lives to prepare to run it as well as the founder?

Let me ask you this (and I notice you seem almost alergic to answering questions): What makes you think that government would be wiser with the money of the deceased wealthy than would the heirs of the wealthy? Why would government not spend it on the same graft, pet projects, boondoggles, and vote-buying, lobbyist pleasing, and featherbedding as it now spends it on?

Would you attach some amendment to this law you advocate mandating turning over inherited property to the government that will forestall the usual waste, fraud, and abuse? How will that work, exactly.

Look, I don't think you understand the estate tax. The estate tax is the only tax that I know of that is completely voluntary. If you don't want to pay it, or more correctly, if you don't want your heirs to pay it, then handle it. If you donate you assets to charity at death, no damn tax. From the Gospel of Wealth,

Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, they understand this concept. I mean Trump is a case in point, he inherited his money and he has left little more than destruction in the wake. And the thought of his fortune passing to his children is, well damn right scary, they are all ******* idiots. Eric? I mean give me a break. Even Ivanka, the smartest of the bunch, so stupid she posts a picture of herself in front of multi-million dollar artwork that she didn't file with the government.

But look, if you want to leave your wealth to your kids then fund the damn tax. It is called a second to die policy, cheap as shit. Use all that tax money you are saving to fund it and then curse your kids with that inheritance if you so desire.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you really think that rich people lay golden eggs?

What a moronic “question.”

Honestly, I didn’t bother to even give a cursory skim to the rest of your usual blather.

Go play in traffic.

 

[Flopper]

ChatGPT
Log in

You said:​

What if billionaires paid taxes at the same rate as middle class?

ChatGPT said:​

If billionaires paid taxes at the same effective rate as the middle class, it would have significant economic and social implications. Let’s break it down:

---

​

• Billionaires' effective tax rate: Often 8%–23%, depending on how it's calculated (e.g., unrealized capital gains are often untaxed until assets are sold).
• Middle-class effective tax rate: Roughly 20%–25%, including payroll and income taxes.

Billionaires often pay lower rates due to:

• Capital gains preference: Long-term capital gains and dividends are taxed at lower rates than wages.
• Tax deferral: Unrealized gains aren't taxed until assets are sold.
• Use of loopholes and shelters: Trusts, offshore accounts, etc.

---

​

Let’s assume billionaires paid a 25% effective tax rate, similar to the middle class.

1.​

• A 2021 analysis by the White House estimated that the 400 wealthiest families paid an average of 8.2% effective federal tax.
• If raised to 25%, that’s three times more, potentially yielding hundreds of billions of dollars more per decade.

Estimates:

• A wealth tax proposal (like Warren or Sanders suggested) could raise $2–3 trillion over 10 years.
• Just closing the capital gains loophole could raise hundreds of billions.

2.​

• More revenue could reduce the federal deficit, lowering interest payments on national debt.

3.​

• Funds could support programs like:
  • Universal pre-K and childcare
  • Climate initiatives
  • Health care expansion
  • Infrastructure

4.​

• Many people feel the system is unfair. Aligning tax rates could improve public trust in government and institutions.

5.​

• Disincentives to invest: Critics argue that higher taxes on the wealthy could reduce investment or encourage capital flight.
• Valuation challenges: Taxing unrealized gains would require annual asset valuation, which is complex.
• Legal and lobbying resistance: The wealthy have powerful tools to shape or resist policy.

---

Example Thought Experiment:​

If Elon Musk (worth ~$250B) paid 25% tax on wealth growth instead of much less, and if this model applied across the top 1,000 billionaires globally, governments might see over $1 trillion/year in additional revenue.
_____________________________________________

So now we know where the federal deficit comes from. But listening to repubs, it is middle and lower income earner's fsult.

I wonder if they will qualify for Medicaid

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hell no the cap on monthly Social Security payments should not be phased out. Damn, I suggested we phase out the benefit entirely once a certain income is achieved. Look, if you retire, you don't work, and you have an income of ten grand a month. No Social Security check for you. Maybe, phase that benefit out over time. Eighty years old, paying taxes on Social Security. Hell, fix that problem. No more Social Security for you.

The Boomers have no idea why Social Security, and later, Medicare, were implemented. It never was about taking care of the beneficiaries. It was always, and still is, about taking care of the children of those beneficiaries. Two hundred years ago, you had an obligation to take care of your parents when they got older. That was the purpose of Social Security and Medicare, to remove that responsibility from the children. And it worked, fantastically. The problem is the Boomers have taken it for granted, not surprising, there has never been a more spoiled generation.

And if we are suggesting readings I would submit this one,

https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/ab/c9/abc9fb4b-dc86-4ce8-ae31-a983b9a326ed/ccny_essay_1889_thegospelofwealth.pdf

I am going to need a quote on that. The Constitution does not forbid the government from collecting taxes on property, wealth, or intangibles.

No it is not, you have not documented it in any way. Evidently you have never heard of single mothers syndrome, it has a devastating effect on life expectancy.

Yes, I admitted the monthly check of the poor single mother is a higher percentage of her FICA contributions than the wealthy. But damn, the wealthy draw that check for at least ten more years, 120 additional checks. How can you just ignore that.

Well yes, it kind of is. That is intuitive. Live hard, die young. Live easy, live a long time. Mom is 84, she has lived a life of wealth since the day she was born. She easily has another ten years.

Private accounts are a bad idea, only benefits the traders. A life insurance benefit makes more sense, and not a couple hundred dollars. Funny, for the single Mom the goal is to die early, collect survivor benefits for the children. After they turn 18, it is too late. For the wealthy, live forever and keep collecting that monthly check.

We have already boosted the Medicare tax in case you didn't know. Actually taxing capital gains now, we didn't before. But it appears you agree, Social Security benefits for the wealthy should be means tested.

Hell no. I don't know how many times I have said it. If the wealthy want to pay a lower percentage of the total taxes they will have to pay a higher marginal rate, significantly higher. You are a fool if you believe they failed. They won, big time. They pay a much lower marginal rate than when that tax burden was more evenly distributed.

You seem to basically understand the system. Taxes you pay are the cost of taking money out of an investment. When that cost is high, well you put money back into the business, you hold on to the investment. That trickles down. But when you cash out, when you take the money out, it doesn't trickle down. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and all of us get fucked.

I am going to need a quote on that. The Constitution does not forbid the government from collecting taxes on property, wealth, or intangibles.

Article 1, Section 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

16th Amendment

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.

Which of those I listed gives the federal government the power to tax property, wealth or intangibles?

No it is not, you have not documented it in any way.

What more do you need than your own words?

the monthly payments of the wealthy are a lower percentage of their FICA contributions than those of the poor, but damn,

And

Yes, I admitted the monthly check of the poor single mother is a higher percentage of her FICA contributions than the wealthy.

LOL!

But damn, the wealthy draw that check for at least ten more years, 120 additional checks. How can you just ignore that.

I agree, a private account they can pass to their children would be better than the current system where the poor die before they can collect their share of the benefits.

Private accounts are a bad idea, only benefits the traders.

Would also benefit the poor kids of the poor single mother who died early.

We have already boosted the Medicare tax in case you didn't know.

And we can boost it more; in case you didn't know.

Social Security benefits for the wealthy should be means tested.

Yes. And accounts should start to have a private, individual component.

You are a fool if you believe they failed. They won, big time. They pay a much lower marginal rate than when that tax burden was more evenly distributed.

The poor won, they pay much less of the income tax burden than they did, basically zero for the bottom 50%

You seem to basically understand the system. Taxes you pay are the cost of taking money out of an investment. When that cost is high, well you put money back into the business, you hold on to the investment.

Even if you have a better idea for investing the money, if the rate is too high, the money sits there.
If the cost is lower, you're willing to exchange it, and pay the tax, in order to make the new investment.

If the cost is too high, it prevents many of the newer ideas from ever being funded. But it's worth it, to have a high rate that rarely gets collected as long as you can stick it to that rich guy. Fewer taxes collected from him, fewer new businesses started by him. Sounds like victory!!!

But when you cash out, when you take the money out, it doesn't trickle down.

When a rich guy sells his investment and pays the 20% LTCG tax, he hides the money under his pillow?
Never spends it, never reinvests it ever again? No new jobs, no trickle down ever?

That's so sad!

Not as sad as your ignorance though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, those on the right that consistently spout off those distorted numbers about how much of the total income taxes paid by the wealthy are the real dopes. Uninformed for the most part. Easily manipulated as well. I have admitted that the Berkley study was disingenuous, but that is not to say that the right doesn't do it as well.

First, in every single right wing study the FICA tax is left out. Why? It is a tax, you have to pay it. Why is it left out? And just try to use AI to find out what percentage of total FICA receipts are paid by the top one percent or top ten percent. LOL, good luck finding that number. Probably highly classified.

Sometimes, like in this op-ed by Phil Gramm and John Early, they completely leave out earnings from capital gains, REALIZED capital gains.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wealthy-americans-already-pay-their-share-11582676377

Gramm and Early define the effective tax rate as “taxes actually paid, as a percentage of income earned and received in transfer payments.” I don't see how a reputable source would even post such dishonest shit. Capital gains are not "earned" therefore, they don't count. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should figure that shit out, but no, you will find that op-ed posted time and time again to defend the wealthy.

So, the poor pay the FICA tax, and they earn that money. But hey, that don't count. The rich don't pay the FICA tax on capital gains, they didn't earn that money, but that doesn't count. Can you start to see how we are getting screwed? Money comes out of the pockets of the poor, doesn't count. Money flows into the pockets of the wealthy, doesn't count. I am here to tell you, the Founders would be up in arms, literally.

But the distortion continues. The number of C-corporations have continued to decline since, of course, the 80's. Income that used to be taxed at the corporate level, by the company, is now flowing through pass-through entities resulting in personal income taxes being paid instead of corporate income taxes, that distorts the number. And then, to add insult to injury, the 199A pass through income exemption was made permanent in the big beautiful bill. No one even mentioned that. I mean what purpose does that exemption serve?

Worse, pass through entities, like an LLC, still have the protection of the corporate veil. Why? They are not a corporation. They don't pay corporate taxes, so they are getting that protection for free. Talk about sucking off the government teat.

Look, I agree, the poor and middle class should shoulder a greater percentage of the total tax burden than the status quo. But that is not a taxing problem, it is an income problem.

First, in every single right wing study the FICA tax is left out. Why?

Because the rich pay the same rate as the poor, all the way up to the cap.
And then the rich get less per dollar paid than the poor get per dollar paid.

The rich don't pay the FICA tax on capital gains, they didn't earn that money, but that doesn't count. Can you start to see how we are getting screwed?

The poor don't pay FICA on capital gains. The poor often pay 0% cap gains tax on their capital gains.

The number of C-corporations have continued to decline since, of course, the 80's. Income that used to be taxed at the corporate level, by the company, is now flowing through pass-through entities resulting in personal income taxes being paid instead of corporate income taxes, that distorts the number.

Rich individuals paying taxes on S-Corp income distorts what number?

Worse, pass through entities, like an LLC, still have the protection of the corporate veil.

And the rich owner still pays tax on the earnings.

 

[Winston]

What a moronic “question.”

Honestly, I didn’t bother to even give a cursory skim to the rest of your usual blather.

Go play in traffic.

And you go ahead and ask your Mom to make you some pizza rolls and deliver them to your basement apartment.

 

[Winston]

I am going to need a quote on that. The Constitution does not forbid the government from collecting taxes on property, wealth, or intangibles.

Article 1, Section 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

16th Amendment

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.

Which of those I listed gives the federal government the power to tax property, wealth or intangibles?

No it is not, you have not documented it in any way.

What more do you need than your own words?

the monthly payments of the wealthy are a lower percentage of their FICA contributions than those of the poor, but damn,

And

Yes, I admitted the monthly check of the poor single mother is a higher percentage of her FICA contributions than the wealthy.

LOL!

But damn, the wealthy draw that check for at least ten more years, 120 additional checks. How can you just ignore that.

I agree, a private account they can pass to their children would be better than the current system where the poor die before they can collect their share of the benefits.

Private accounts are a bad idea, only benefits the traders.

Would also benefit the poor kids of the poor single mother who died early.

We have already boosted the Medicare tax in case you didn't know.

And we can boost it more; in case you didn't know.

Social Security benefits for the wealthy should be means tested.

Yes. And accounts should start to have a private, individual component.

You are a fool if you believe they failed. They won, big time. They pay a much lower marginal rate than when that tax burden was more evenly distributed.

The poor won, they pay much less of the income tax burden than they did, basically zero for the bottom 50%

You seem to basically understand the system. Taxes you pay are the cost of taking money out of an investment. When that cost is high, well you put money back into the business, you hold on to the investment.

Even if you have a better idea for investing the money, if the rate is too high, the money sits there.
If the cost is lower, you're willing to exchange it, and pay the tax, in order to make the new investment.

If the cost is too high, it prevents many of the newer ideas from ever being funded. But it's worth it, to have a high rate that rarely gets collected as long as you can stick it to that rich guy. Fewer taxes collected from him, fewer new businesses started by him. Sounds like victory!!!

But when you cash out, when you take the money out, it doesn't trickle down.

When a rich guy sells his investment and pays the 20% LTCG tax, he hides the money under his pillow?
Never spends it, never reinvests it ever again? No new jobs, no trickle down ever?

That's so sad!

Not as sad as your ignorance though.

First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a tax on wealth. I mean try again. Are property taxes unconstitutional? How come the estate tax still exists, it is on wealth, is it unconstitutional? I mean has anyone even attempted to make that argument in the courts. Damn son, turn your brain on.

And no, we don't need a private component to Social Security, we need a real death benefit. The way the system is now, well if you are poor die when your kids are young. If your wealthy, then live as long as possible. Does that not seem FUBARED to you? Because have no doubt, that is how the system works.

And I got to ask. Wealthy dude sells his stock. What does he do with the profits. He buys more stock. In God's name, tell me, how the **** does that create jobs? I mean get a grip hoss.

Look, it is really simple. I wouldn't tax the wealthy one cent, if they worked to make more pie. But they don't and I am not sure why, unless it is just sheer laziness. They work to take more of the pie that is already there. **** that. Hell, that is not trickle down, that is trickle up. And I really don't like the whole trickle down thing. It is called horse and sparrow. You feed the horse, the wealthy, then the sparrows can come get some food digging threw the shit of the horse. Now, evidently, the wealthy don't even shit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Look, I don't think you understand the estate tax. The estate tax is the only tax that I know of that is completely voluntary. If you don't want to pay it, or more correctly, if you don't want your heirs to pay it, then handle it. If you donate you assets to charity at death, no damn tax.

By that logic, every tax is completely voluntary. You don't want to pay taxes on income, don't have a job or earn income in any other way. You don't want to pay property taxes, don't buy a house. You don't want to pay property taxes even indirectly through your landlord, live in the woods. You don't want to pay sales tax, only buy non-taxable items.

If you really don't understand that paying a tax merely for right to participate in the economy makes that tax involuntary, then your credibility is shot.

From the Gospel of Wealth,

Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

I get it. You don't like rich kids who inherit money and neither did Andrew Carnagie.

Difference is that Andrew Carnagie put his money where his mouth is, while it is only OPM that you put where your mouth is.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, they understand this concept. I mean Trump is a case in point, he inherited his money and he has left little more than destruction in the wake.

That's absurd, counter-factual, and lowers your credibility even more. You're about to bottom out, dude.

Love him or hate him, Trump did not squander his father's millions, he turned them into billions. I get that you think that means he should be punished and have to start over at square one. If he started with a hundred million, and now has two billion, that means that he "only" earned 1.9 Billion? Have you even approached that kind of wealth creation?

And the thought of his fortune passing to his children is, well damn right scary, they are all ******* idiots. Eric? I mean give me a break. Even Ivanka, the smartest of the bunch, so stupid she posts a picture of herself in front of multi-million dollar artwork that she didn't file with the government.

If they are idiots, they will soon lose the money. They will mismanage it and it will go to creditors, trading partners, and buyers when their businesses and assett must be liquidated.But what Donald Trump built will remain, abeit in other hands. Trump Tower will still stand, his casinos will still stand, Mar-a-Lago, his hotels, resorts, residential buildings, golf courses will remain.

That's the beauty of wealth. It rarely gets destroyed, except through government actions. It can change hands from the incompetent to the competent, but that's what you advocate, is not not? Or are you so insanely jealous of Donald Trump that you wishfully think those things will go away when a Democrat or "not Democrat" finally shoots straight?

But look, if you want to leave your wealth to your kids then fund the damn tax. It is called a second to die policy, cheap as shit. Use all that tax money you are saving to fund it and then curse your kids with that inheritance if you so desire.

Oh, we plan to spend as much of our childrens inheritance as we can. On ourselves though, not on charity.

I'm not concerned about the inheritance tax as it exists. We'll shelter what we can legally, but the Next Gen Flops folk get a windfall, our kids are by far smarter than the tax collectors, so they will wind up paying a token amount, if any.

That is what will happen if your Party (or "not your Party) ever tries what you suggest. The wealthy are way smarter than you and the government about making and keeping money. That's why they are wealthy, and not living on a government check.

Pass laws as much as you please, to separate the wealthy from the wealth. Their lobbyists will write the loopholes as fast as their congressman can insert the loopholes in.

 

[HikerGuy83]

If Elon Musk (worth ~$250B) paid 25% tax on wealth growth instead of much less, and if this model applied across the top 1,000 billionaires globally, governments might see over $1 trillion/year in additional revenue.

Great.

So now we can pay the interest on the debt you morons (meaning you and the centrists GOP....and that huge asshole GWB) had no problem promulgating.

And we are still doing it.

Biden ran huge deficits. However, he was paying a lot more in interest. His last deficit was 1.7 trillion. Over a trillin in interest.

Suck on it.

 

[BackAgain]

And you go ahead and ask your Mom to make you some pizza rolls and deliver them to your basement apartment.

When you have nothing of any value or interest to say, we all know it immediately, because you post

 

[JimH52]

I wonder if they will qualify for Medicaid

They would if they could.

 

[Winston]

By that logic, every tax is completely voluntary. You don't want to pay taxes on income, don't have a job or earn income in any other way. You don't want to pay property taxes, don't buy a house. You don't want to pay property taxes even indirectly through your landlord, live in the woods. You don't want to pay sales tax, only buy non-taxable items.

If you really don't understand that paying a tax merely for right to participate in the economy makes that tax involuntary, then your credibility is shot.

I get it. You don't like rich kids who inherit money and neither did Andrew Carnagie.

Difference is that Andrew Carnagie put his money where his mouth is, while it is only OPM that you put where your mouth is.

That's absurd, counter-factual, and lowers your credibility even more. You're about to bottom out, dude.

Love him or hate him, Trump did not squander his father's millions, he turned them into billions. I get that you think that means he should be punished and have to start over at square one. If he started with a hundred million, and now has two billion, that means that he "only" earned 1.9 Billion? Have you even approached that kind of wealth creation?

If they are idiots, they will soon lose the money. They will mismanage it and it will go to creditors, trading partners, and buyers when their businesses and assett must be liquidated.But what Donald Trump built will remain, abeit in other hands. Trump Tower will still stand, his casinos will still stand, Mar-a-Lago, his hotels, resorts, residential buildings, golf courses will remain.

That's the beauty of wealth. It rarely gets destroyed, except through government actions. It can change hands from the incompetent to the competent, but that's what you advocate, is not not? Or are you so insanely jealous of Donald Trump that you wishfully think those things will go away when a Democrat or "not Democrat" finally shoots straight?

Oh, we plan to spend as much of our childrens inheritance as we can. On ourselves though, not on charity.

I'm not concerned about the inheritance tax as it exists. We'll shelter what we can legally, but the Next Gen Flops folk get a windfall, our kids are by far smarter than the tax collectors, so they will wind up paying a token amount, if any.

That is what will happen if your Party (or "not your Party) ever tries what you suggest. The wealthy are way smarter than you and the government about making and keeping money. That's why they are wealthy, and not living on a government check.

Pass laws as much as you please, to separate the wealthy from the wealth. Their lobbyists will write the loopholes as fast as their congressman can insert the loopholes in.

First, yes Trump mishandled his inheritance. I mean you talk about his casinos, his Trump Towers, how many times has he declared bankruptcy and how many people has he shafted? It is pretty simple, had he simply placed his inheritance in an index fund, bought a yacht and chased porn starts the rest of his life, he would have more money. He is a flippin idiot, plain and simple.

I mean how simple minded can you get. Trump has money, he is God. How ******* stupid. Trump was born on third base, now he is a pickle between third and second, he sure as hell isn't looking to steal home plate. And his spawn, sorry, they can only hope for a walk to first.

I mean this shit ain't hard. Check out Matthew chapter 25. How did Trump handle his talents? I mean come on, we are not judged by where we are. We are judged, like that verse in Matthew, by what we do with what we are given. Trump has failed spectacularly, until now, thanks to idiots like you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

First, yes Trump mishandled his inheritance. I mean you talk about his casinos, his Trump Towers, how many times has he declared bankruptcy and how many people has he shafted? It is pretty simple, had he simply placed his inheritance in an index fund, bought a yacht and chased porn starts the rest of his life, he would have more money. He is a flippin idiot, plain and simple.

It is idiotic to believe that.

I mean how simple minded can you get. Trump has money, he is God. How ******* stupid.

I said nothing like that.

Trump was born on third base, now he is a pickle between third and second, he sure as hell isn't looking to steal home plate. And his spawn, sorry, they can only hope for a walk to first.

You must not realize what a jealous loser you sound like.

I mean this shit ain't hard. Check out Matthew chapter 25. How did Trump handle his talents? I mean come on, we are not judged by where we are. We are judged, like that verse in Matthew, by what we do with what we are given. Trump has failed spectacularly, until now, thanks to idiots like you.

Trump has succeeded spectacularly.

If you want to have a debate in which you take the side that we must follow all Biblical teachings to the letter, while I oppose that stance, I'm willing. If so, be sure to let me know what version of the Bible.

But, I suspect, you cherry pick verses and hope someone thinks it makes you look smart.

 

[my2¢]

Almost all the emphasis is placed on income tax rates while the tax code defining taxable income seems totally neglected.

I'd be all for single tax rate, but I'd also want a person's or couple's income defined as the net of money received minus the money it took them to garner that gain. Get rid of the capital gains and inheritance taxes and fold both of those into one's income. Have a high enough standard deductible to ease bookkeeping for ordinary costs for education, commuting, clothing, and other necessities of employment.

Consider the thousand upon thousand pages of tax code the politicians put there for special interests. The rates are easy, the defining of income is massive.