The Argument for A Wealth Tax

[bendog]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[OKTexas]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Why should other people subsidize your home mortgage or property taxes? How you spend your money is up to you, should others pay more to support your choices? The median home price is 200K, you're part of the 1%, the commies will be coming for more from you, not less.

.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Why should other people subsidize your home mortgage or property taxes? How you spend your money is up to you, should others pay more to support your choices? The median home price is 200K, you're part of the 1%, the commies will be coming for more from you, not less..

My property taxes go to local and state government (under Republican Governors, property taxes in CA were taken from local government by Sacramento). And, CA is a state where more revenue is sent to Wash. DC, than it receives in revenue sharing from The District.

Thus, my taxes go to Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina, and other Red States; the people there are being subsidized by me since more money from The District goes to them, than they send to Wash..

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Why should other people subsidize your home mortgage or property taxes? How you spend your money is up to you, should others pay more to support your choices? The median home price is 200K, you're part of the 1%, the commies will be coming for more from you, not less..

My property taxes go to local and state government (under Republican Governors, property taxes in CA were taken from local government by Sacramento). And, CA is a state where more revenue is sent to Wash. DC, than it receives in revenue sharing from The District.

Thus, my taxes go to Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina, and other Red States; the people there are being subsidized by me since more money from The District goes to them, than they send to Wash..

ROFLMFAO, why do you commies cry when it's your money being redistributed, yet you continue to demand money of others be redistributed. Maybe you should look to your State to reduce their demands on your resource instead of looking to the feds to give you a portion of your money back?

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Seems to be that the Federal Income Tax can be simplified, something promised by Ryan and forgotten.

Add more tax brackets, as in this example:

• 5% on the first $60,000.
• 12% on the next $20k;
• 15% on the next $20k;
• 18% on the next 25k;
• 20% on the next $50,000;
• 25% on the next $50,000;
• 50% on the next $100,000
• 75% on the next $500,000
• 90% on $500,001 to infinity.

Increase the payroll taxes to employees by .09% earning over $225,000 to support Medicare and Medicaid for the next 100 years.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases, the many will benefit and the few might be surprised by how this revenue they pay will all our nation to renew, repair or replace our aging infrastructure - which, BTW, will have cost benefits to commerce and the GDP.

 

[danielpalos]

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

why does the right wing prefer a vacuum of special pleading regarding spending not correlating with revenue.

Because there is a percentage which can be considered fair, and another which anyone can see is outrageous.
They can also see history and what happened because of 'Idealists' , take what happened under Stalin. Farmers? selling food for profit? oh my my, cant have that while people are hungry.... punish the rich to feed the poor right?
And you can see how that worked out. Its what happens when idealists who don't really know how things work because they haven't created anything themselves Fuck with the free market. Today its the billionaires but when that doesn't do the trick they will find someone else to blame for having too much.

Why not concentrate on helping people to be successful and make more money from the bottom up... grow the economy and increase tax revenue that way?

raising the minimum wage, does just that. we get the biggest bang for our buck, here not there.

 

[danielpalos]

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

why does the right wing prefer a vacuum of special pleading regarding spending not correlating with revenue.

Because there is a percentage which can be considered fair, and another which anyone can see is outrageous.
They can also see history and what happened because of 'Idealists' , take what happened under Stalin. Farmers? selling food for profit? oh my my, cant have that while people are hungry.... punish the rich to feed the poor right?
And you can see how that worked out. Its what happens when idealists who don't really know how things work because they haven't created anything themselves Fuck with the free market. Today its the billionaires but when that doesn't do the trick they will find someone else to blame for having too much.

Why not concentrate on helping people to be successful and make more money from the bottom up... grow the economy and increase tax revenue that way?

Why is it the poor cant make their own food? Why do they sit on their lazy liberal asses and do nothing and the liberal elites pander to such people?

Jason Greenslate, Food Stamp Surfer, Responds To The Haters | HuffPost

“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said in front of the news cameras. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”

May a great white shark feed on this slime ball..

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. we have a First Amendment; there is no reason to take the right wing seriously about morals.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Seems to be that the Federal Income Tax can be simplified, something promised by Ryan and forgotten.

Add more tax brackets, as in this example:

• 5% on the first $60,000.
• 12% on the next $20k;
• 15% on the next $20k;
• 18% on the next 25k;
• 20% on the next $50,000;
• 25% on the next $50,000;
• 50% on the next $100,000
• 75% on the next $500,000
• 90% on $500,001 to infinity.

Increase the payroll taxes to employees by .09% to support Medicare and Medicaid for the next 100 years.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases.

Explain why identical pieces of property should be taxed at different rates just because of where they fall in an arbitrary stack?

.

 

[danielpalos]

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

I misrepresented nothing. the whole thread was about wealth taxes, of which property taxes are a form of. The proposed wealth tax is just that, a tax on all holdings.

And that is not covered by the 16th amendment.

raising the minimum wage to raise tax revenue is more beneficial than simply taxing the one percent more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Seems to be that the Federal Income Tax can be simplified, something promised by Ryan and forgotten.

Add more tax brackets, as in this example:

• 5% on the first $60,000.
• 12% on the next $20k;
• 15% on the next $20k;
• 18% on the next 25k;
• 20% on the next $50,000;
• 25% on the next $50,000;
• 50% on the next $100,000
• 75% on the next $500,000
• 90% on $500,001 to infinity.

Increase the payroll taxes to employees by .09% earning over $225,000 to support Medicare and Medicaid for the next 100 years.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases, the many will benefit and the few might be surprised by how this revenue they pay will all our nation to renew, repair or replace our aging infrastructure - which, BTW, will have cost benefits to commerce and the GDP.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases

LOL!

 

[Lesh]

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

I misrepresented nothing. the whole thread was about wealth taxes, of which property taxes are a form of. The proposed wealth tax is just that, a tax on all holdings.

And that is not covered by the 16th amendment.

raising the minimum wage to raise tax revenue is more beneficial than simply taxing the one percent more.

We can do both

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Seems to be that the Federal Income Tax can be simplified, something promised by Ryan and forgotten.

Add more tax brackets, as in this example:

• 5% on the first $60,000.
• 12% on the next $20k;
• 15% on the next $20k;
• 18% on the next 25k;
• 20% on the next $50,000;
• 25% on the next $50,000;
• 50% on the next $100,000
• 75% on the next $500,000
• 90% on $500,001 to infinity.

Increase the payroll taxes to employees by .09% to support Medicare and Medicaid for the next 100 years.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases.

Explain why identical pieces of property should be taxed at different rates just because of where they fall in an arbitrary stack?

.

It's called marketing. I once lived in a middle class community in SF and worked in a lower MC and working poor community.

Where I lived, the prices for goods in the grocery store were less expansive than in the community I worked, and it was the same chain grocery store.

Q. Why the curious might ask

A. People were I lived had cars and could shop in several different chain grocery stores; those were I worked usually walked to the store and back.

 

[bendog]

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Who are you to demand people not change what you mean? I mean.....LOL

There’s also the possibility of capital flight — wealthy people moving their money out of the country, straining the economy. It was partly because of capital flight that some European countries, such as Sweden, got rid of their own wealth taxes in the 1990s and 2000s.



Finally, a wealth tax may be legally very difficult to implement in the U.S. The Constitution forbids so-called direct taxation of property by the federal government (note that property taxes aren’t federal), except for certain rare exceptions. So Warren’s plan might require a constitutional amendment.

If these difficulties prove insurmountable, Warren and other egalitarian tax crusaders might consider an alternative — an inheritance tax, which would close many of the loopholes that now riddle the U.S. estate tax. Taxing all income from inheritances — including trusts, foundations, gifts, estates, and any other kind of family transfers — at a very high rate would yield a result similar to a small annual wealth tax, only its constitutionality would be less in doubt. And it would focus the tax on the rich people whose fortunes Americans are most likely to think of as being undeserved
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Seems to be that the Federal Income Tax can be simplified, something promised by Ryan and forgotten.

Add more tax brackets, as in this example:

• 5% on the first $60,000.
• 12% on the next $20k;
• 15% on the next $20k;
• 18% on the next 25k;
• 20% on the next $50,000;
• 25% on the next $50,000;
• 50% on the next $100,000
• 75% on the next $500,000
• 90% on $500,001 to infinity.

Increase the payroll taxes to employees by .09% to support Medicare and Medicaid for the next 100 years.

No one will be hurt by any of these increases.

Explain why identical pieces of property should be taxed at different rates just because of where they fall in an arbitrary stack?

.

It's called marketing. I once lived in a middle class community in SF and worked in a lower MC and working poor community.

Where I lived, the prices for goods in the grocery store were less expansive than in the community I worked, and it was the same chain grocery store.

Q. Why the curious might ask

A. People were I lived had cars and could shop in several different chain grocery stores; those were I worked usually walked to the store and back.

what's the pt of his question? Identical properties within a geographical entity have differing values.

The pt is Trump ran on a more progressive tax scheme, and he's delivered the opposite. Sanders had more energy than Clinton, and had a progressive econ agenda - LIKE TRUMP- but Hillary had the black vote and the delegates. The dems seem to be determined to not repeat that mistake.

 

[Lesh]

Hillary had the black vote and the delegates.

Don't play into that stupid game

Hillary WON the delegates.

If you're talking about "super delegates" they never came into play and no longer exist

 

[Slyhunter]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

sure if you want a mass exodus of rich people from our country. They'll move to Belize or other low tax countries so we can't tax them any longer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Why should other people subsidize your home mortgage or property taxes? How you spend your money is up to you, should others pay more to support your choices? The median home price is 200K, you're part of the 1%, the commies will be coming for more from you, not less..

My property taxes go to local and state government (under Republican Governors, property taxes in CA were taken from local government by Sacramento). And, CA is a state where more revenue is sent to Wash. DC, than it receives in revenue sharing from The District.

Thus, my taxes go to Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina, and other Red States; the people there are being subsidized by me since more money from The District goes to them, than they send to Wash..

ROFLMFAO, why do you commies cry when it's your money being redistributed, yet you continue to demand money of others be redistributed. Maybe you should look to your State to reduce their demands on your resource instead of looking to the feds to give you a portion of your money back?

.

I'm not a commie, I'm a liberal who has empathy for the poor, aged, infirm and children; notwithstanding the color of their skin, the place of their birth, the language they speak, or if they believe, the God they profess.

I have no empathy for the very wealthy, too many of them have reached great wealth from the labor of others, inherited wealth (such as Trump did) or have won the lottery of birth (Athlete, Artist) or won a large lottery.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The 16th Amendment, read it.

We need to repeal the 16th.

It's no irony that the Federal Reserve, its collection wing the IRS and the 16th Amendment all got shoved down our throats in the same year.

Heck, repeal the year 1913. Ha.

I liked the income tax rate we had before 1913...0%.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

sure if you want a mass exodus of rich people from our country. They'll move to Belize or other low tax countries so we can't tax them any longer.

I doubt that. But, if they did a no bail warrant can be issued by the Federal Court System, and Congress could pass a bill taking away his/her US Citizenship, and all property left behind taking by eminent domain, and sold in lieu of his duty to pay income taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 16th Amendment, read it.

We need to repeal the 16th.

Do you ever think sagaciously?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do you ever think sagaciously?

Well, I'm certainly willing to try. I like to learn.

What is it that you think I'm not of the capacity to grasp?

I promise I'll try my hardest.