Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,899
- 1,530
Well, imo wealth disparity is just because the % of income growth in the top 1% and more so the top .1% grew much faster than workers' incomes, and their taxes did not rise in % to their income growth. The supply siders and tools of Norquist who dream they too could invent the computer will say "but the top 10% pay by far most of the total taxes." While that's true, it's actually evidence of the unequal share of who earned the increases in gnp. It's totally opposite to what occurred from 1950-1980 when the middle class emerged. Partially, post-1980 was the decline in unions and globalization.That's about half of what we spent on stimulus in the past 2 years, and even that is never going to pass. A 10% surtax?A wealth tax would raise 4.35 TRILLION over a ten year period and the uber-wealthy wouldn't even notice it.
Great idea - DO IT!
How Much Revenue Would a Wealth Tax Raise?
Former Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have proposed progressive annual wealth taxes. Warren’s proposal would enact a wealth tax with a rate of 2 percent per year on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion and 6 percent per...www.aei.org
We'd better figure out something to address wealth inequality and pay down the national debt or we'll all be F'd. Cleaning up and simplifying a tax code that enables a company like Amazon to pay nothing or a cheat like Rump to pay $750 two years in a row is also essential.
Jeff Bezos Adds Record $13 Billion in Single Day to Fortune
Jeff Bezos added $13 billion to his net worth on Monday, the largest single-day jump for an individual since the Bloomberg Billionaires Index was created in 2012.www.bloomberg.com
But we taxed the shit out of the rich before Reagan. I'd say our problem was not how much we taxed them, but the ways we let them avoid any tax by not earning profit on their "nut." But we had the Reagan boom because so much money sought productive investments after we cut the top income tax rate to 33% or whatever. Now we have the opposite problem. Not enough places to invest. So we have housing and equity bubbles faster than we did before.
Most of the top 1% money doesn't come from income it comes from investments.
Like I said they could tax the wealthy at 100% and not put a dent in the debt.Lizzy Cheekbones teamed up with Bernie "Please may I have another screwing over at the voting Booth" Sanders to propose a "wealth tax"
It's slated to be only 2% annual tax on wealth over $50MM, but why stop there?
Are CCPdemocrats aiming too low? I mean the Gate Trust alone must have $50 BILLION!!! Why aren't dems targeting that idle wealth?
Actually if you were paying any attention last year you would know that it is Bernie who has teamed up with Elizabeth. That wealth tax was her idea and one of the things she campaigned on last year.
Our national debt is over 20 trillion.
How do you plan to get that paid?
No amount of cutting the budget will get that paid.
Especially when no politician is willing to make those cuts.
The budget deficit is again at a record level at over a trillion dollars.
How do plan to balance the budget?
No amount of cutting the budget will get that record deficit removed and our budget balanced.
Especially since no politician is willing to make those cuts.
The filthy rich have been showered with trillions ever since the reagan years.
The tax cuts for the rich is one of the reasons why we have such a high debt and deficit.
The filthy rich are the ones sending American jobs overseas reaping even more wealth without having to pay much of any tax on it.
Why not have them finally financially contribute to getting that deficit eliminated and the debt paid off? They can afford it.
I believe we need a separate tax on the rich that will be only used to balance the budget then pay off our national debt. I would make that tax much higher than just 2% and the floor on wages to have to pay it much lower.