President plans to unveil new 20% 'minimum tax' on 700 super-rich Americans that would levy ALL forms of income for families worth more than $100M

[AntonToo]

I read it. It's a stupid idea.

Well you are welcome to discuss that instead of wasting our time parsing technical definition of income under current taxation system.

 

[bripat9643]

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
These are taxes levied against wages on the super rich. This is not taking their property for public use but taxing their property.
Biden has reached new heights of idiocy. Does he actually believe any Republican is going to vote for that?

Are you fucking kidding me? How is taking 20% of my stocks not taking private property?

 

[hadit]

We can have this more-or-less discussion, but that rate is CERTAINLY not 5% EM has effectively paid and it's not ~8% richest people in America have paid. Those rates are obscenely low compared to the rates middle class pays and is certainly undermining our long term fiscal stability.

They're paying the same tax rates on income that we are, the difference is they can take in a lot of money that is not considered regular income by the tax law. Now if you want to tax capital gains as regular income, you're going to hurt a lot of elderly people living off a lifetime of stock purchases.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well you are welcome to discuss that instead of wasting our time parsing technical definition of income under current taxation system.

You're the one whining about Musk not paying tax on something that was never taxable.

Like when you said he paid 5%. I showed he paid over 50% actual tax on actual income .
No comment on that fact?

 

[bripat9643]

No bs, true income, is the comulative increase in wealth plus whatever you've spent along the way.

That is what minimum taxation should be based on.

That isn't the way the IRS defines it, douchenozzle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We can have this more-or-less discussion, but that rate is CERTAINLY not 5% EM has effectively paid and it's not ~8% richest people in America have paid. Those rates are obscenely low compared to the rates middle class pays and is certainly undermining our long term fiscal stability.

There is a difference between income tax and payroll tax. Payroll tax funds your local entities like city, state, and I'm sure in some places, the county. If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will get all your SS and Medicare money back and probably more than you contributed. These are not real income taxes; the taxes outside of Medicare and SS that funds our entire federal government. Many middle-class working people don't even pay that tax or pay very little of it.

 

[bripat9643]

HOW?? How are you going to do that as a matter of political question?

People generally hate program spending cuts and they hate more taxes.

Either party going for one side of the budget balance equation agressively enough to make a serious difference in the oceans of red ink we are facing will be crucified in the very next election.


Which is why a GRAND BARGAIN has always been the only realistic scenario - cut some spending, raise some taxes, sacrifice some growth to get to fiscal sanity.

The way to make a difference in the oceans of red ink we are facing is to quit spending. Until Congress can learn to control its spending, there is no justification for giving it more money to play with.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

But politicians and their Chinese government ass-kissing CEO cohorts are all exempt..............right?

 

[AntonToo]

That isn't the way the IRS defines it, douchenozzle.

Stop spamming and just read the thread. Coversation is consistently a step ahead of everything you say.

 

[hadit]

The way to make a difference in the oceans of red ink we are facing is to quit spending. Until Congress can learn to control its spending, there is no justification for giving it more money to play with.

Until we can regain any sense of fiscal responsibility, the FIRST question that should meet any spending increase on an existing program or, God forbid, new program should be, "Where are you going to cut in order to afford this?". Program sponsors should have to actually defend their pet projects, not sneak them into massive spending bills that nobody reads until it's far too late to do anything about them.

 

[jc456]

I was saying `5% which is what he is so far paying on the wealth growth he has had over the last decade.

In 2012 Musk was worth 2 billion. Today it is 280 billion and so with 12 billion or so he paid on taxes that is about 5% effective tax rate.

Why don't you just read and UNDERSTAND what people are saying before responding? Will save time for both of us.

Worth and income aren’t the same thing. You are clueless

 

[AntonToo]

There is a difference between income tax and payroll tax. Payroll tax funds your local entities like city, state, and I'm sure in some places, the county. If you live the average lifespan in the US, you will get all your SS and Medicare money back and probably more than you contributed. These are not real income taxes; the taxes outside of Medicare and SS that funds our entire federal government. Many middle-class working people don't even pay that tax or pay very little of it.

Language of the proposal is not released yet, but it will almost certianly not include state/local taxes.

SS tax is capped at a small ammount to matter, Medicare is additional 2.35%

And Middle class not paying payroll taxes? Nonsence. Payroll taxes are far less progressive than federal "income" part of the taxation.

 

[bripat9643]

Stop spamming and just read the thread. Coversation is consistently a step ahead of everything you say.

Progs never post anything that isn't spam. Why should I waste my time responding to spam with any substantive?

 

[bripat9643]

Language proposal not released yet, but it will almost certianly not include state/local taxes.

SS tax is capped at small ammount to matter, Medicare is additional 2.35%

Middle class not paying payroll taxes? Nonsence. Payroll taxes are far less progressive than federal "income" part of the taxation.

you're babbling incoherently.

 

[jc456]

Are you fucking kidding me? How is taking 20% of my stocks not taking private property?

That’s exactly what it would be, and it wouldn’t stop them from imposing it on everyone

 

[AntonToo]

You're the one whining about Musk not paying tax on something that was never taxable.

Like when you said he paid 5%. I showed he paid over 50% actual tax on actual income .
No comment on that fact?

You are just recycling points you've already made and I've already addressed. I have no interest in circular tail chasing.

 

[AntonToo]

you're babbling incoherently.

It may seem that way if you have a poor base understanding of the subject.

 

[jc456]

Progs never post anything that isn't spam. Why should I waste my time responding to spam with any substantive?

The real question is what congressional person would vote for it? Don’t they want donor money?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The obviously deserve it, but the rest of us don't.

We do because we allowed him to get elected.

 

[AntonToo]

I don't know if you've noticed, but I don't really get too bothered by the wealthy paying small percentages in taxes.

1. They pump a whole lot more into the economy than I can. Paris Hilton, for example, can spend more on one weekend shopping trip than I can in a year.
2. Taxing them more is not going to have any significant impact on the federal budget. There's just not that much income to tax.
3. I don't envy them their wealth and don't really want them punished for being successful. I'd rather my tax bill go in their direction than theirs to go in mine.

I simply find it interesting that some apparently believe Bill Gates actually wants to pay more in taxes when his actions say otherwise. If he wanted to, he could, but he won't, because he doesn't want to.

Well thats fine, you and Republicans you support are very welcome to make the argument that rich should pay a considerably smaller % of their income than middle class.

By all means.