Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[struth]

There are two types of property taxes that state and local govt levy, a personal property tax, ie cars, boats....real estate is on, well real estate. The tax rates vary state to state, and the value of the property being taxed is appraised by the Govt, then taxed. The rates are the same for all citizens in the State or locality. This tax like a sales is based on consumption of the taxed

However there is a huge discrepancy between what percentage of wealth is taxed between the haves and have-nots.

The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn't Rich Americans? - CounterPunch.org

"Now let’s shift to the other end of the American wealth spectrum, to the poorest 50 percent of Americans.

"Taken as a group, the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold.

"But this $3.85 trillion in taxable property makes up most of the assets — 52 percent — that America’s poorer half holds.

"So we have a situation where America’s bottom half pays an annual wealth tax on over half its wealth and America’s top 1 percent pays no annual tax on almost 90 percent of its wealth."

Well actually the rich pay a higher rate, in income....but yes we all pay the same rates as to cap gains, property, sales etc..

They may pay a higher right per their income total, but way less dollars, but that's merely because they don't have as much wealth saved up.

 

[georgephillip]

I believe tax cuts are good for my fellow americans. I want people to keep their own money.

Why do you think you have a right to your pre-tax income?
How much pre-tax income would you have without government providing necessary infrastructure?

 

[dblack]

They don't. But that's not really the question. The question is, "Why did society decide to give them that money in the first place, and why should government overrule that decision?"

Markets, money, and corporations are creations of government.

Yes, yes, yes - everything is due to government. And we all owe our lives and our unending loyalty to government.

Fuck you.

 

[dblack]

I believe tax cuts are good for my fellow americans. I want people to keep their own money.

Why do you think you have a right to your pre-tax income?

Because, fuck you.

 

[jc456]

I believe tax cuts are good for my fellow americans. I want people to keep their own money.

Why do you think you have a right to your pre-tax income?
How much pre-tax income would you have without government providing necessary infrastructure?

Why do you think I don’t? Did you do my work?

 

[georgephillip]

Show the math

Follow the links.
MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?
"Exceedingly rich and average Americans both, of course, own property subject to property taxes.

"But the real estate holdings of our richest — our top 1 percenters — make up only a small share of their net worth, just 12.1 percent according to the latest Federal Reserve figures..."

"Now let’s shift to the other end of the American wealth spectrum, to the poorest 50 percent of Americans.

"Taken as a group, the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold."

 

[Blues Man]

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

Which people? Not me.

There can't be.

Again, so the fuck what? Should we seek to maximize liberty or not? I just get tired of seeing this as an excuse.

OK so tell me what current economic regulations are robbing you of liberty?

And how did you like the results of Clinton's deregulation of banks?

 

[Blues Man]

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

Which people? Not me.

There can't be.

Again, so the fuck what? Should we seek to maximize liberty or not? I just get tired of seeing this as an excuse.

So now you are saying you don't want a lawless economic system?

This is essentially just the "there has never been perfect liberty" argument turned around. It's a strawman. Every time someone proposes expanding liberty (in a way you don't like) you accuse them of being anarchist. I never said I wanted a lawless economic system.

No it's not there is a need for regulation and laws pertaining to business you seem to think that all these laws are robbing you of your liberty.

 

[Blues Man]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

But, the problem with that is, if we get into this idea that, hey, if we need more money, then we can just raise taxes. It gives no incentive to reduce spending if government thinks they can keep raising taxes to cover spending.

You have to cut spending because there is a limit to how much you can tax the people. At some point, people will be giving more money to the government than they keep for themselves....we're almost already there.

People in general don't care, and don't even think about the debt, they think about how much money they have in their paychecks. Most people don't even realize what the government is using all of their money for, they just take it for granted that "when payday comes, the government gets their cut and I get mine".

When you raise taxes, government doesn't say "oh hey, we have more money, let's do something so we can lower taxes later", they say "hey, we have more money now, so we can spend more" or, often, "we have to raise taxes to cover what we've already spent".

The debt ceiling keeps going up and up, every year it seems like we run into the debt ceiling and they keep raising it. That represents money that has to be paid back to someone, with interest. If you keep incurring debt, you can't make the payments if you never increase taxes. This is why I think we need to focus on spending cuts. We have to get spending under control so we can maybe someday lower taxes.

I'm no economist, but I did stay at a holiday Inn express last night......and I also realize that if you keep borrowing more money, you have to keep increasing your taxes to cover that borrowing.

Tax payers will only pay so much before anger.

Most tax payers have no clue what they actually pay in taxes.

They know how much their paychecks are. When a tax increase cuts pay, they will not be happy. Everyone loves their freebies now. The right loves military spending cause they have never paid for it. The left loves big gov cause they don’t pay for it. Everybody hates taxes...

All they know is the net.

Most people have absolutely no clue how much they pay in taxes besides no one is talking about raising taxes on most working people

Don’t underestimate the rich influence on politics. If they are unhappy about a tax increase, policy will be to cut spending.

It hasn't happened yet and the rich have owned our political system for 200 years.

And they pay drastically less in taxes. Tax cuts fuel big gov.

Even when the rich paid 70% the government never cut spending.

If you give the government more revenue they will simply spend that too.

In reality the government doesn't care how much revenue they take in they will spend more every year no matter what.

Yet we didn’t have a deficit problem back then . Deficit problems started with Reagan who cut taxes...

We've been running deficits almost every year since 1929

And they weren’t a large percent of gdp till the 80s. Obviously small deficits are not a big problem.

It's all cumulative.

We are still paying for the deficits from 1929.

And why don;t you show me where government has ever actually cut spending in all that time? There is absolutely no reason to think that government will ever cut spending even if taxes are raised.

The first Bush raised taxes and then spending cuts lead to lower deficits during Clinton.

So what if deficits were lower? Overall spending increased and Clinton left a larger debt than he inherited.

And don't try to minimize the effects of the tech bubble on revenues either.

Clinton just got lucky that that particular bubble didn't burst on his watch

Deficits declined, that’s a big deal. By comparison they increased with Reagan, bushes, Trump... if they always declined debt would shrink as a percent of gdp

it doesn't really matter as the debt still grew so IOW Clinton still spent more than government revenue.

You said increased taxes lead to spending cuts and they don't. All increased revenue does is give corrupt politicians more to spend and spend they will.

You are lying to yourself. Decreasing deficits matter. You just aren’t fiscally responsible.

But they don't all that matters is the increasing debt.

And like I said Clinton didn't decrease spending he benefited from the tech bubble and the additional tax revenues it brought in and he was just lucky enough that that bubble didn't burst until right after he left office.

You need to look at the whole picture not just the parts you cherry pick

Debt increases a lot faster with increasing deficits. Had we maintained low deficits after Clinton the debt would be a fraction of what it is now. Your arguments are bad math...

I don't deal with ifs buts and maybes.

I deal with the facts.

The fact is that increased taxes has never resulted in a spending cut. We have been running deficits for almost 100 years no matter which party was in office. In the big picture it doesn't matter that one guys deficits might have been a little less than another's because it's all cumulative.

You partisans love Clinton but you ignore the fact that the tech bubble is what propped up the economy in his last couple years and he just got lucky that the tech recession happened just a few months after he left office.

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

You are utterly incapable of seeing the big picture because you are unable to see the reality that a president's policies play a role in future economies and don't just stop after the next election.

Let me know if you ever get serious about debt. Right now you are just ignoring facts.

We've been over this before. The debt isn't as big of a deal as you seem to think.

almost 25% of it isn't debt at all because it's what the government owes itself and it will never be paid off because it was never meant to be paid off.

Of the remaining 75% less than 7 trillion is owed to foreign governments and the rest is owned by American banks, insurance companies, mutual funds and the public. The interest paid on the debt owed to Americans is actually good for the economy as T bills are used as a base for pension funds, retirement accounts and in countless portfolios.

You like to ignore the facts not me.

 

[Blues Man]

Income is not wealth.

It is typical of partisans to ignore the meanings of words in their propaganda.

Not sure how that distinction applies to my link.
Would you care to elaborate?
Do you see any reason why a property tax should not apply to stocks and bonds?

MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?

"Might the United States, home to the world’s wealthiest people, sometime soon sport a tax on wealth?

"Media outlets the nation over have begun speculating on just that question.

"But many of these reflections are missing the point: The United States already has a wealth tax.

"We call this already existing levy the 'property tax,' and almost all Americans feel its pinch — with one exception.

"The rich.

"America’s current “wealth tax” only taxes the category of wealth that makes up the bulk of the net worth of average Americans.

"The financial assets that make up the bulk of wealthy people’s net worth — stocks and bonds, for instance — face no wealth tax."

if you want a property tax on stocks and bonds how do you figure them out on an asset with a value that can fluctuate hundreds of times if not more every year?

And why would you want people to pay property taxes on their IRAs, 401ks and college savings plans?

And why not charge a property tax on everything people own ?

The government gets a cut of all the profits made on the sale of stocks and bonds already there is no need for more.

 

[Blues Man]

Income is not wealth.

It is typical of partisans to ignore the meanings of words in their propaganda.

Not sure how that distinction applies to my link.
Would you care to elaborate?
Do you see any reason why a property tax should not apply to stocks and bonds?

MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?

"Might the United States, home to the world’s wealthiest people, sometime soon sport a tax on wealth?

"Media outlets the nation over have begun speculating on just that question.

"But many of these reflections are missing the point: The United States already has a wealth tax.

"We call this already existing levy the 'property tax,' and almost all Americans feel its pinch — with one exception.

"The rich.

"America’s current “wealth tax” only taxes the category of wealth that makes up the bulk of the net worth of average Americans.

"The financial assets that make up the bulk of wealthy people’s net worth — stocks and bonds, for instance — face no wealth tax."

if you want a property tax on stocks and bonds how do you figure them out on an asset with a value that can fluctuate hundreds of times if not more every year?

And why would you want people to pay property taxes on their IRAs, 401ks and college savings plans?

And why not charge a property tax on everything people own ?

The government gets a cut of all the profits made on the sale of stocks and bonds already there is no need for more.

and I will remind you again that income is not wealth. Therefore income taxes are not taxes on wealth they never have been. so people are not paying taxes on 40% of their wealth

 

[Blues Man]

Show the math

Follow the links.
MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?
"Exceedingly rich and average Americans both, of course, own property subject to property taxes.

"But the real estate holdings of our richest — our top 1 percenters — make up only a small share of their net worth, just 12.1 percent according to the latest Federal Reserve figures..."

"Now let’s shift to the other end of the American wealth spectrum, to the poorest 50 percent of Americans.

"Taken as a group, the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold."

The entire premise of that article is bullshit.

Income is not wealth it never was and never will be.

 

[my2¢]

The way I see it, the nation's only taxes on wealth are the capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Sometime in near future I need to look up how much revenue the government gets from people's income compared to how much the government is taking in through the above 2 sources based on wealth. I'd say a 50% to 50% balance between income and wealth would be proper. I have no idea what that mix is today, so before determining how to address the situation I'd first have to be convinced that the balance is out of line currently.

 

[jc456]

Show the math

Follow the links.
MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?
"Exceedingly rich and average Americans both, of course, own property subject to property taxes.

"But the real estate holdings of our richest — our top 1 percenters — make up only a small share of their net worth, just 12.1 percent according to the latest Federal Reserve figures..."

"Now let’s shift to the other end of the American wealth spectrum, to the poorest 50 percent of Americans.

"Taken as a group, the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold."

The entire premise of that article is bullshit.

Income is not wealth it never was and never will be.

The demofks don’t believe in piggy banks

 

[Blues Man]

The way I see it, the nation's only taxes on wealth are the capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Sometime in near future I need to look up how much revenue the government gets from people's income compared to how much the government is taking in through the above 2 sources based on wealth. I'd say a 50% to 50% balance between income and wealth would be proper. I have no idea what that mix is today, so before determining how to address the situation I'd first have to be convinced that the balance is out of line currently.

Income tax is the main revenue source of the federal government.

86% of the federal government's revenue is derived from income and payroll taxes

What are the sources of revenue for the federal government?

TOTAL REVENUES The federal government collected revenues of $4.9 trillion in 2022—equal to 19.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (figure 2). Over the past...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

 

[dblack]

No it's not there is a need for regulation and laws pertaining to business you seem to think that all these laws are robbing you of your liberty.

No - that's the strawman you're trying to build because you can't defend your position. Or just don't want to try.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, yes, yes - everything is due to government. And we all owe our lives and our unending loyalty to government.

Try thinking of government as a fourth factor of production that isn't concerned with making a profit. Government exists to lower the costs of living and doing business.

Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture | Michael Hudson

"ABSTRACT. Reflecting the Progressive Era’s reform agenda Simon Patten (1852–1922) argued that freeing markets from one source of economic rent (by taxing land rent) would merely leave the surplus to be taken by other monopolists and rent extractors (railroads, Wall Street trusts, and basic privatized utilities).

"To prevent unearned income (economic rent) from adding to the economy’s cost of living and doing business, potentially rent-yielding infrastructure should be kept in the public domain as a “'fourth factor of production.'"

 

[georgephillip]

Because, fuck you.

without government

 

[georgephillip]

Why do you think I don’t? Did you do my work?

Do you have a moral or legal right to your pre-tax income?

No it’s not your money: why taxation isn’t theft - Tax Justice Network

"So if there is a general right to one’s pre-tax income, then it must be a moral right.

"But it is implausible to suppose that each person has a moral right to his or her pre-tax income, for that would imply that the distribution of pre-tax incomes the market happens to throw up is perfectly just, and this is clearly not the case.

"There is no justice in the fact that the pre-tax income of a City banker is many hundreds of times the pre-tax income of scientist working on a cure for cancer."

 

[Blues Man]

No it's not there is a need for regulation and laws pertaining to business you seem to think that all these laws are robbing you of your liberty.

No - that's the strawman you're trying to build because you can't defend your position. Or just don't want to try.

You're the one whining about regulation not me.