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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As it is today, what do that 47 % care about how high someone else's taxes increase so long as they get something else for free?

By the same token, what does a millionaire care if a poor person pays more taxes? Your point is stupid.

If we are going to tax income, it has to be a progressive tax. And the fact that so many people pay none is a reflection on wages vs. cost of living.

 

[Andylusion]

so give me the definition of your corporate welfare. Who gives them the money? which agency?

You do when you believe that they shouldn't be taxed and get to keep all expenditures. You are the problem. I am saying cut their taxes by over 100 % with no expenditures and so many of you people have lost your mind. Try and keep up.

I don't even know what to make of this point. If there is even a point. I can't even translate what you've written to anything that could be understood. Please elaborate. Scratch that - Please clarify.

You do not understand cutting their tax rate by over 100% but eliminating their expenditures?

If you eliminate expenditures and Capital purchases, you are essentially saying that the costs of goods for their product is essentially zero (this includes labor). So the government would be taxing 100% of revenue. Is that what you mean?

Cutting anything by 100% yields zero. So you're saying no tax burden at all?

Nope, the only expenditure the corporations can deduct are wages. They already have a deduction from 21% to 10%. They can pay for upgrading their own systems and equipment to make more profits. Why should you and I?

I've read through this thread twice, and still have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

However, I will just point out this...

Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.

Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.

So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.

Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.

However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.

Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.

Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.

The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?

Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.

The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.

Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?

And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.

So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.

So I'll say it again....

Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers. Those are the only two areas money comes from. A company does not have one penny, that does not come from either the customer in higher prices, or the employees in lower benefits. That's it.

 

[Questioner]

As far as serious history or discussions on the subject go, most of the simplistic and emotional arguments on this are irrelevant, given that most of them will just boil down to debates over the meaning of "general welfare", which only applies to Federal taxes anyway.

As far as state taxes go, the Constitution says nothing about it other than it being under the states' delegation (and I've gotten the impression that most people don't even know the difference),

Akin to the "anarchist or "anarcho-capitalists" who are ignorant of history or human nature in their utopian ideals, and believe that any perfectly "voluntary" or "cooperative" system has or will ever exist, except perhaps in the case of small groups of individuals doing on their own, given that "taxes" in some form or another have been a part of every government from the present day to ancient Rome, and who don't seem to be actually disbanding from their current governments or taxpayer-funded infrastructure (including the internet) in practice, more often than not, much as most internet "Marxists" aren't keen on abolishing their own private property, computers, and all.

 

[j-mac]

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....

...as proposed by Donald Trump in 1999.

Um....It's 2020....Care to find where as President he proposed that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those are the only two areas money comes from. A company does not have one penny, that does not come from either the customer in higher prices, or the employees in lower benefits. That's it.

You forgot dividends. And interest made on investment. And ... oh, nevermind.

 

[Markle]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

 

[Andylusion]

As it is today, what do that 47 % care about how high someone else's taxes increase so long as they get something else for free?

By the same token, what does a millionaire care if a poor person pays more taxes? Your point is stupid.

If we are going to tax income, it has to be a progressive tax. And the fact that so many people pay none is a reflection on wages vs. cost of living.

Being a progressive tax, just makes the elites in government wealthy, because they can sell favors to the rich, to avoid the tax.

There will never be a time, where you can levy high taxes on the wealthy, and not have government issue loopholes and deductions the wealthy use to avoid the tax, in exchange for favors.

You need to just stop this greed and envy based politics. It's never worked in all human history, and it won't at any point in the future.

Your system doesn't work.

A flat tax would be better. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income, rich or poor. Everyone is equal.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm fine with a national sales tax. The point I am making is that the poor here are doing just fine with our sales tax. Nobody is starving.

Here we part company.

A National Sales Tax would be disastrous for our country. In other countries, it is called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Wherever it is in place, it started, as do all new taxes, small and insignificant, one or two percent. Now, most West European Countries have an 18 to 20 percent VAT. The last thing we need to do is to provide politicians with another huge revenue stream!

Exactly. We need to fight off the idea of a sales tax at all costs. A sales tax will destroy the poor, and the rich will be fine.

We tried this already with the Yacht tax in the 90s. The result was all the rich bought their yachts elsewhere in the world.

A national sales tax will only hit the people too poor to escape the tax. The wealthy will be fine. And the poor will end up like France, where all the poor people are burning in the streets to fight the never ending increase in taxes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Being a progressive tax, just makes the elites in government wealthy, because they can sell favors to the rich, to avoid the tax.

Not if we prevent that, they can't. And that is not all it does, as evidenced by the one of the finest economies the world has ever seen.

 

[Markle]

By the same token, what does a millionaire care if a poor person pays more taxes? Your point is stupid.

By your own admission, if my point is stupid, yours is as well.

It doesn't matter if the lower half or top half CARE how much the other is paying in income taxes, it only matters that they care what THEY are paying.

Today, the top 50% of workers are concerned about their taxes increasing while the lower 50% could care less. Who do the lower-income workers vote for? Whoever promises them the most STUFF with no concern for the cost. How is that a good thing?

 

[Questioner]

Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.

That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".

Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.

Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.

So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.

That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.

Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.

However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.

Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.

Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.

That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.

The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?

Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.

The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.

Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?

And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.

So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.

Even there the logic is faulty.

In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.

(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).

So I'll say it again....

Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.
[/quote]
Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.

(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)

So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.

You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.

 

[Andylusion]

I see a difference between using tax laws and exploiting them. Exploitation hurts us all.

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

No I don't have it backwards. We have tried numerous times, going back to the 1980s, to have tax reform. The entire time, it wasn't business fighting it, it was politicians in government who know the moment they can't pass deductions for all their special interests and backers, their revenue streams will dry up.

Do you even know the history of tax deductions and write offs came from? Who was the first special interest lobbyists?

History lesson... the first "wine and dine" lobbying effort was in the 1930s, when the high taxes of FDR, choked off charitable donations to ivy league schools.

As we on the right-wing have said a million times, when you increase taxes too high, the wealthy conceal their wealth... which mains they don't take it in taxable cash, which they can donate to say, an ivy league school.

In the 1930s, ivy league schools sent lobbyists to Washington to persuade politicians with lobby money and fine-dining, that they needed a tax deductions for charitable donations to ivy league schools.

From that time, until now, the politicians know that high taxes, and convoluted tax code, is exactly how they line their own pockets with lobby money.

Think about it..... if the corporate tax rate was just 5%.... would it be worth spending millions of dollars to get a 2% reductions in taxes? Of course not. You would spend almost more money getting the deduction, than how much you saved in taxes.

But if the tax rate is 40%, and you can save 10%... now it starts making sense.

Politicians know this. That is exactly why they whip up the mindless lemmings on the left-wing to support their every increasing tax plan.... because they know it will line their own pockets with money.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By your own admission, if my point is stupid, yours is as well

Yes, it would be stupid to lay that on only one segment. So we are in agreement.

Today, the top 50% of workers are concerned about their taxes increasing while the lower 50% could care less.

Oops, you just did the same dumb thing again. The lower 50% are also concerned with their taxes increasing, while the upper 50% could care less.

You are not going to slither and contort your way to the point you are trying to lay on poor people.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I am making it so their rate is lower. That has nothing to do with me.

That was the point I made. It doesn't have anything to do with you, and you won't be harmed either way.

So why not lower their taxes by over 100%.

Because then corporations would not be paying any tax, that's why.

Sure they would 10%. How many are paying no taxes under the current tax system.?

A 10% tax is not a 100% reduction. A 100% deduction is not paying any tax.

I have no idea how many are not paying any tax.

Reducing the tax rate from 21% to 10% is

I am making it so their rate is lower. That has nothing to do with me.

That was the point I made. It doesn't have anything to do with you, and you won't be harmed either way.

So why not lower their taxes by over 100%.

Because then corporations would not be paying any tax, that's why.

Sure they would 10%. How many are paying no taxes under the current tax system.?

A 10% tax is not a 100% reduction. A 100% deduction is not paying any tax.

I have no idea how many are not paying any tax.

If you have 10 and add 10 to it have you not added 100% to it?

 

[Markle]

I would rather see a small fee on every stock and real estate transaction

You can be wealthy....but if you try to move your money around, you will pay

Please show us all a tax or fee, that it was said, "it is only a small fee" in the beginning, a small fee ot tax today?

I already pay tax on my profits when I sell stocks. I also pay taxes when I buy or sell a property.

Why should you or I PAY simply for having moved money from one investment to another?

 

[dblack]

Well, as the owner of a business, it's up to you ofcourse. But, I'm just saying, even if you as the IRS they'll tell you, it's up to you to use the tax laws to your benefit.

I see a difference between using tax laws and exploiting them. Exploitation hurts us all.

Well, good for you....I'll try and keep as much of my hard earned money as possible, thanks.

I think it’s pretty dumb that the wealthiest Americans can wind up paying smaller tax rates than average Joes. But then again, the country is run by wealthy Americans so I shouldn’t be surprised that they give themselves loopholes.

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

Yep. And the statist nitwits cheer for it, as long as they're convinced they're getting "free shit".

 

[Lovebears65]

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....

So polling 4400 people is the majority of America LOL. I never got called

 

[Markle]

Oops, you just did the same dumb thing again. The lower 50% are also concerned with their taxes increasing, while the upper 50% could care less.

You are not going to slither and contort your way to the point you are trying to lay on poor people.

You are ignoring the FACT that 47% of households pay no Federal Income Tax, so I say again, in spite of your childish text, that the lower 50% don't care about tax increases since they pay none. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reducing the tax rate from 21% to 10% is

Not if you're paying less than that, then it's an increase.

If you have 10 and add 10 to it have you not added 100% to it?

You said a reduction. A 100% reduction is 0 dollars.

 

[j-mac]

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....

So polling 4400 people is the majority of America LOL. I never got called

What? It's a poll....Meant to discuss....What's the matter with you?