Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[jc456]

Ok s0 get rid of the incentives and lower the tax rate accordingly. Otherwise the money is going to find a home somewhere else (overseas).

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

What are you saying?

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

equal share? wtf does that mean? you making shit up now?

Equal percentage

based on what?

 

[Aldo Raine]

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

What are you saying?

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

They don't pay shit! The cost is passed on to the consumer. LOL. Step back and look at the larger picture.

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

why do you think they should?

So you do not believe in equality?

 

[Thinker101]

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

That is not the government’s job. Taxes should be used to raise money to pay for the governments spending, nothing more.
It is wrong to use the tax code for social engineering.

Except when it comes to the free stuff I suppose.

What free stuff is that?

C'mon, have you been sleeping? Free healthcare, free college, not sure if free income is still on the table.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

That is not the government’s job. Taxes should be used to raise money to pay for the governments spending, nothing more.
It is wrong to use the tax code for social engineering.

That's not social engineering. Social engineering is like when HUD moves their lowlifes to a nice middle-class neighborhood, and they destroy the place. Allowing tax deductions for a mortgage encourages home buying, which also influences house construction.

They are both examples of social engineering. The government wants you to do a certain thing so they give you a financial incentive to influence your actions.
That is not the government’s job. A person should not be punished for paying off the mortgage or choosing not to own a house.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

What are you saying?

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

They don't pay shit! The cost is passed on to the consumer. LOL. Step back and look at the larger picture.

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

 

[Chuz Life]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Just proves how little the general population knows about the Constitution.

.

And economics.

 

[dblack]

-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.

Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

Talk to Ray - he doesn't understand that aspect of economics. Home prices are artificially inflated - in part because of ill-considered policies like the home mortgage tax incentives. Removing those policies will naturally be bad for people who are currently benefitting from them. They got suckered into home loans that don't make sense without state subsidies. But that's no excuse to continue bad policy.

I guess the bottom line is I don't want the government manipulating the economy, and you guys do.

 

[dblack]

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

I think dblack has it kind of backwards. If house sales are down, how will that decrease the price?

Supply and demand - Wikipedia

 

[Ken Mac]

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?
What are you saying?

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

They don't pay shit! The cost is passed on to the consumer. LOL. Step back and look at the larger picture.

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

"Handouts"? Yeah, like Solyndra. We need to do a lot more of that kind of stuff. It gives a great rate of return. Where do I sign up?

I'm not for or against, like I said, It's irrelevant. I'm sure the liberals would love raising the corporate tax rate. The end result would be the consumer giving even more money to the government through slight of hand.

The big picture: The taxes levied by the government onto the people/corporations et al, are a tax on the products and services that US businesses provide. The government provides no value except for redistribution to help out those in need, protect our interests, people and assets through providing security and to provide for a shared infrastructure in which our businesses can compete and excel. Any supposed value above and beyond that is essentially non-value added. Our government is inefficient at best at providing anything and would lose if they went head to head against the private sector. By increasing taxes, we are providing more money for them to spend in more inefficiency and only results in reducing our capacity to compete with foreign companies.

 

[Ken Mac]

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

Talk to Ray - he doesn't understand that aspect of economics. Home prices are artificially inflated - in part because of ill-considered policies like the home mortgage tax incentives. Removing those policies will naturally be bad for people who are currently benefitting from them. They got suckered into home loans that don't make sense without state subsidies. But that's no excuse to continue bad policy.

I guess the bottom line is I don't want the government manipulating the economy, and you guys do.

Ultimately I agree with you. But once that can of worms were opened, it becomes very difficulty to put them back in the can. The end result is too risky to take in one chunk. It has already started with limiting mortgage interest deductions. Slow and steady I would say so the apple cart isn't upset.

Ray is mostly talking about depreciation on assets from the ownership of rental properties. I agree with him on keeping those deductions. They are a cost of doing business just as the raw materials to make product which are expensed. If you spend $100 to produce something and you sell it for $110, the government shouldn't be taxing you on $110. It should be taxing you on $10. Otherwise you are taxing money that has already been taxed (just like the OP) and to me, that's stealing.

 

[Ken Mac]

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

I think dblack has it kind of backwards. If house sales are down, how will that decrease the price?

Supply and demand - Wikipedia

Your response is kind of making it a little too simple. There is elastic and inelastic demand which needs to be looked at as well.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

They don't pay shit! The cost is passed on to the consumer. LOL. Step back and look at the larger picture.

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

"Handouts"? Yeah, like Solyndra. We need to do a lot more of that kind of stuff. It gives a great rate of return. Where do I sign up?

I'm not for or against, like I said, It's irrelevant. I'm sure the liberals would love raising the corporate tax rate. The end result would be the consumer giving even more money to the government through slight of hand.

The big picture: The taxes levied by the government onto the people/corporations et al, are a tax on the products and services that US businesses provide. The government provides no value except for redistribution to help out those in need, protect our interests, people and assets through providing security and to provide for a shared infrastructure in which our businesses can compete and excel. Any supposed value above and beyond that is essentially non-value added. Our government is inefficient at best at providing anything and would lose if they went head to head against the private sector. By increasing taxes, we are providing more money for them to spend in more inefficiency and only results in reducing our capacity to compete with foreign companies.

I am not for any government handouts to the corporations. You have said do not tax them and give them handouts. Sorry that bothers you so.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

What are you saying?

Lowering the tax rate on everyone.
How dare your valued corporations pay an equal share. That is just shameless.

equal share? wtf does that mean? you making shit up now?

Equal percentage

based on what?

An equal percentage.

 

[Ken Mac]

They don't pay shit! The cost is passed on to the consumer. LOL. Step back and look at the larger picture.

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

"Handouts"? Yeah, like Solyndra. We need to do a lot more of that kind of stuff. It gives a great rate of return. Where do I sign up?

I'm not for or against, like I said, It's irrelevant. I'm sure the liberals would love raising the corporate tax rate. The end result would be the consumer giving even more money to the government through slight of hand.

The big picture: The taxes levied by the government onto the people/corporations et al, are a tax on the products and services that US businesses provide. The government provides no value except for redistribution to help out those in need, protect our interests, people and assets through providing security and to provide for a shared infrastructure in which our businesses can compete and excel. Any supposed value above and beyond that is essentially non-value added. Our government is inefficient at best at providing anything and would lose if they went head to head against the private sector. By increasing taxes, we are providing more money for them to spend in more inefficiency and only results in reducing our capacity to compete with foreign companies.

I am not for any government handouts to the corporations. You have said do not tax them and give them handouts. Sorry that bothers you so.

It doesn't bother me. I'm agnostic. I keep telling you that, but you don't seem to either read or comprehend. I never said don't tax them. I said I don't ******* care.

 

[Aldo Raine]

From the sale of goods and services.

Which is bought by the consumer. So...they pay income taxes plus they pay the taxes being paid by the corporation. How does that help anyone?

Are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes?

Other than deceiving some of the public who do not understand that the corporations simply increase the cost of their product, what is the upside of high income taxes for a corporation?

A nominal income tax, say no more than 5 or 10% would provide an income stream and not be destructive.

Uhm, that is EXACTLY what I have stated. Flat tax for Everyone with no expenditures either. Do you and Ray go to the same school.?

So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.

But cutting their taxes by over 100% wouldn't?

 

[Aldo Raine]

So like I have said then are you advocating that corporations pay no taxes at all of any kind.

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

"Handouts"? Yeah, like Solyndra. We need to do a lot more of that kind of stuff. It gives a great rate of return. Where do I sign up?

I'm not for or against, like I said, It's irrelevant. I'm sure the liberals would love raising the corporate tax rate. The end result would be the consumer giving even more money to the government through slight of hand.

The big picture: The taxes levied by the government onto the people/corporations et al, are a tax on the products and services that US businesses provide. The government provides no value except for redistribution to help out those in need, protect our interests, people and assets through providing security and to provide for a shared infrastructure in which our businesses can compete and excel. Any supposed value above and beyond that is essentially non-value added. Our government is inefficient at best at providing anything and would lose if they went head to head against the private sector. By increasing taxes, we are providing more money for them to spend in more inefficiency and only results in reducing our capacity to compete with foreign companies.

I am not for any government handouts to the corporations. You have said do not tax them and give them handouts. Sorry that bothers you so.

It doesn't bother me. I'm agnostic. I keep telling you that, but you don't seem to either read or comprehend. I never said don't tax them. I said I don't ******* care.

So don't tax them and YOU pay all the taxes. Sound better?

 

[jc456]

Tell you what, next time you go to work, and if you can talk to the company owner, present your idea to him or her and see what kind of reply you get. Chances are, the company you work for takes a fair if not large amount of deductions. And if they do, and lose those deductions, what do you think would happen to your future with the company?

Since I am advocating cutting their tax rate from 21% to 10%. Probably a pay on the back. And since I am sure a will never meet the owner of Bechtel I doubt I get the chance. Maybe if your owner had a lower tax rate you would have health care Ray.

If he lost his deductions, he'd probably have to close up shop.

Maybe he should run a better company and you would have health care.

No, maybe people shouldn't elect a bunch of control freak commies to our federal government and I would still have my healthcare.

Or your employer could be a better business man and not rely on the government and yours and my tax dollars to fund it.

then why would they move to your city to do business in? you still don't get it. truly sad.

 

[Ken Mac]

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

Talk to Ray - he doesn't understand that aspect of economics. Home prices are artificially inflated - in part because of ill-considered policies like the home mortgage tax incentives. Removing those policies will naturally be bad for people who are currently benefitting from them. They got suckered into home loans that don't make sense without state subsidies. But that's no excuse to continue bad policy.

I guess the bottom line is I don't want the government manipulating the economy, and you guys do.

One of Ray's points was that if you get rid of mortgage interest deduction, then you will have more people unable to purchase a home. A combination of two things will occur.

1. Home prices will drop because the demand will go down until there is enough demand to prop up the market. Who knows how far that fall will be. I'm sure there is some quant somewhere that could do that calc, but that got us CDO's and we all know where that shit went.

2. Homes will be bought up by investors as the pricing drops because the rental market will support it at some point. Investors will come in with cash and won't even need a mortgage making it even harder for people to buy a first home.

3. The rental market pricing may not even drop because of demand. People have to live somewhere and if they aren't in a home, they will be in the rental market. The demand won't change. It will be a net zero.

So essentially, IMO, the only net effect besides a reduction in personal wealth, We will have even more of the population unable to use leverage (debt) for financial gain. This will increase the wealth disparity. The only leverage that is available to most Americans is the purchase of a home. Of course, some people think that a house isn't an investment, but that's bullshit. It is a PHYSICAL asset, it has a value and that value changes (either up or down).

 

[Ken Mac]

I think it is irrelevant. The taxes paid are paid by the consumer. It's just another place to tax something. Our government loves finding new things to tax (just look at the OP).

So tax them 0 and give them handouts. Glad you are on record with it.

"Handouts"? Yeah, like Solyndra. We need to do a lot more of that kind of stuff. It gives a great rate of return. Where do I sign up?

I'm not for or against, like I said, It's irrelevant. I'm sure the liberals would love raising the corporate tax rate. The end result would be the consumer giving even more money to the government through slight of hand.

The big picture: The taxes levied by the government onto the people/corporations et al, are a tax on the products and services that US businesses provide. The government provides no value except for redistribution to help out those in need, protect our interests, people and assets through providing security and to provide for a shared infrastructure in which our businesses can compete and excel. Any supposed value above and beyond that is essentially non-value added. Our government is inefficient at best at providing anything and would lose if they went head to head against the private sector. By increasing taxes, we are providing more money for them to spend in more inefficiency and only results in reducing our capacity to compete with foreign companies.

I am not for any government handouts to the corporations. You have said do not tax them and give them handouts. Sorry that bothers you so.

It doesn't bother me. I'm agnostic. I keep telling you that, but you don't seem to either read or comprehend. I never said don't tax them. I said I don't ******* care.

So don't tax them and YOU pay all the taxes. Sound better?

LMAO. Ok, I'll pay.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Since I am advocating cutting their tax rate from 21% to 10%. Probably a pay on the back. And since I am sure a will never meet the owner of Bechtel I doubt I get the chance. Maybe if your owner had a lower tax rate you would have health care Ray.

If he lost his deductions, he'd probably have to close up shop.

Maybe he should run a better company and you would have health care.

No, maybe people shouldn't elect a bunch of control freak commies to our federal government and I would still have my healthcare.

Or your employer could be a better business man and not rely on the government and yours and my tax dollars to fund it.

then why would they move to your city to do business in? you still don't get it. truly sad.

Why wouldn't they, one has nothing to do with the other.