Elizabeth Warren wealth tax

[Hack]

So Warren is proposing a wealth tax. Basically it means that if you have saved up money, the government could take some of it every year.

Thoughts?

Sponsored

 

[watisthis]

The basic plan is to levy a 2 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $1 billion. Only the 75000 richest families. Are you worried the tax will affect you?
Basically, if it affects you, you spend more on yacht maintenance in a year than most people spend on vehicles their entire life.

 

[Old Ickabod]

While Warren's currently stated "wealth tax" would not likely affect many forum members, plans like this one should concern everyone who has managed to save/build any wealth whatsoever, as the projected revenue from the plan will never be enough to cover the actual costs, which are almost surely understated, and will eventually require additional funding sources (i.e. regular people). This part of her proposal isn't a tax at all, it's government confiscation of citizens' wealth that has already been taxed. It is essentially the many, wanting something for free and using the government as a club to steal from the few to pay for it.

The plan also calls for the $9 trillion that corporations are currently spending on health care to instead be sent to the government, as well as an additional 6% fee to levied against companies to help fund the plan. This will undoubtably affect the pay of typical Americans.

Additionally, the plan projects paying hospitals/medical professionals lower rates of inflation/escalation for future procedures, as a cost control, eventually affecting compensation for those in the medical field. Will this also have an adverse affect on quality of care - tbd?

The government isn't known for being able to manage anything efficiently, and the dems in particular, have a fairly storied history of selling programs by professing to take aim at the wealthy for funding, and then end up hitting the middle class.

 

[cosmo]

The basic plan is to levy a 2 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $1 billion. Only the 75000 richest families. Are you worried the tax will affect you?
Basically, if it affects you, you spend more on yacht maintenance in a year than most people spend on vehicles their entire life.

You're going against their narrative. Remember, you're talking to disenfranchised billionaires here. They want to ensure when they finally are let go of their liberal chains and become a billionaire too, they can enjoy all the benefits.

We should be thanking people like Jeff bezos for successfully navigating and avoiding billions in taxes for Amazon in exchange for a $98 million dollar donation (equivalent to a person with a $50k salary donating ~$50).

 

[cosmo]

While Warren's currently stated "wealth tax" would not likely affect many forum members, plans like this one should concern everyone who has managed to save/build any wealth whatsoever, as the projected revenue from the plan will never be enough to cover the actual costs, which are almost surely understated, and will eventually require additional funding sources (i.e. regular people). This part of her proposal isn't a tax at all, it's government confiscation of citizens' wealth that has already been taxed. It is essentially the many, wanting something for free and using the government as a club to steal from the few to pay for it.

The plan also calls for the $9 trillion that corporations are currently spending on health care to instead be sent to the government, as well as an additional 6% fee to levied against companies to help fund the plan. This will undoubtably affect the pay of typical Americans.

Additionally, the plan projects paying hospitals/medical professionals lower rates of inflation/escalation for future procedures, as a cost control, eventually affecting compensation for those in the medical field. Will this also have an adverse affect on quality of care - tbd?

The government isn't known for being able to manage anything efficiently, and the dems in particular, have a fairly storied history of selling programs by professing to take aim at the wealthy for funding, and then end up hitting the middle class.

Why should it concern anyone else? We're already paying what we should. Historically it's the wealthiest paying the least % wise today, and when you think about the fact that the amount of money REQUIRED to live (pay food, housing, water, clothing) doesn't scale with income, it makes the situation worse.

The healthcare claim is bogus too. You're already paying it through your paycheck, instead it will be collected through your taxes. And I'm fine with the government overseeing vs private corporations which have already shown their priority (profits).

 

[watisthis]

You're going against their narrative. Remember, you're talking to disenfranchised billionaires here. They want to ensure when they finally are let go of their liberal chains and become a billionaire too, they can enjoy all the benefits.

We should be thanking people like Jeff bezos for successfully navigating and avoiding billions in taxes for Amazon in exchange for a $98 million dollar donation (equivalent to a person with a $50k salary donating ~$50).

"It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times." - Kurt Vonnegut

I forget who said it but the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Also, the capitalism w/ taxes and progressive policies=socialism misconception doesn't help.

 

[cosmo]

"It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times." - Kurt Vonnegut

I forget who said it but the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Also, the capitalism w/ taxes and progressive policies=socialism misconception doesn't help.

I feel gross saying it but it's been a fantastic propaganda machine by those against progressive policies. Stir up classism, but when you control the media you just put the middle class vs the lower class.

It's been very effective as shown by many, many posts and topics in this sub-forum.

 

[watisthis]

While Warren's currently stated "wealth tax" would not likely affect many forum members, plans like this one should concern everyone who has managed to save/build any wealth whatsoever, as the projected revenue from the plan will never be enough to cover the actual costs, which are almost surely understated, and will eventually require additional funding sources (i.e. regular people). This part of her proposal isn't a tax at all, it's government confiscation of citizens' wealth that has already been taxed. It is essentially the many, wanting something for free and using the government as a club to steal from the few to pay for it.

The plan also calls for the $9 trillion that corporations are currently spending on health care to instead be sent to the government, as well as an additional 6% fee to levied against companies to help fund the plan. This will undoubtably affect the pay of typical Americans.

Additionally, the plan projects paying hospitals/medical professionals lower rates of inflation/escalation for future procedures, as a cost control, eventually affecting compensation for those in the medical field. Will this also have an adverse affect on quality of care - tbd?

The government isn't known for being able to manage anything efficiently, and the dems in particular, have a fairly storied history of selling programs by professing to take aim at the wealthy for funding, and then end up hitting the middle class.

I would encourage you to look into the genesis of wealth taxes in ancient Rome. The primary purpose of taxing large estates is to recirculate hoarded money and help mitigate family dynasties. Even the super wealthy only spend so much money. The remainder just sits, consolidates, and builds on itself. After this continues for multiple generations you start getting into the territory of one family holding huge amounts of sway over the democratic process. An example from our time would be the Koch's. It doesnt matter what side of the aisle you sit on, I think everyone can agree that when billionaires start playing in politics and doing things like bank rolling false grass roots operations it gets a little fucky. You might consider it theft. I consider it calibration. To redistribute wealth and affect positive social change is the end goal. Most of the wealth in these great estates has never been taxed, and may never be taxed without some wealth tax like this.

 

[Weather Man]

It's unconstitutional, so it is a moot point.

 

[watisthis]

It's unconstitutional, so it is a moot point.

No, there is widespread legal agreement and standing precedent that there is no limit on what congress can tax, the only constitutional dispute here is when the apportionment clause must apply and a tax be apportioned. If the wealth tax is the same as the income tax, then it should be allowed by the 16th amendment. Wealth is just accumulated income.

Edit: If I remember correctly, the real argument against Warren's proposal is if you think personal property taxes are not covered by the 16th amendment, and fall under the apportionment clause, an argument which would have to rely heavily on Pollock as precedent. However, I haven't dealt with constitutional law in a few years.

 

[95CobraR]

The federal income tax started as a tax on the rich. Now most folks pay it as well as State income tax (all but a few States).

The wealth tax is not a problem for any of us until the dishonest Washington money-grabbers lower it to hit middle class taxpayers that saved well in a 401K, IRA, or a family business or family farm.

 

[Weather Man]

No, there is widespread legal agreement and standing precedent that there is no limit on what congress can tax, the only constitutional dispute here is when the apportionment clause must apply and a tax be apportioned. If the wealth tax is the same as the income tax, then it should be allowed by the 16th amendment. Wealth is just accumulated income.

Edit: If I remember correctly, the real argument against Warren's proposal is if you think personal property taxes are not covered by the 16th amendment, and fall under the apportionment clause, an argument which would have to rely heavily on Pollock as precedent. However, I haven't dealt with constitutional law in a few years.

I actually heard an interesting argument that the Feds could estimate your wealth and then estimate a "reasonably" income from that wealth per year and "tax" that reasonable income at whatever rate they wished. Your actual income wouldn't matter.

 

[Hack]

The basic plan is to levy a 2 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $1 billion. Only the 75000 richest families. Are you worried the tax will affect you?
Basically, if it affects you, you spend more on yacht maintenance in a year than most people spend on vehicles their entire life.

When income tax was started, it was a 1% rate on only the richest people. Government always tends to grow and try to take more freedom from the people.

Heck yes I'm worried that the tax will eventually affect me. Even if it doesn't take money directly from me, it could have pretty significant ill effects on the US.

Why would people continue to save for retirement if the government might just decide to take it away?

You're going against their narrative. Remember, you're talking to disenfranchised billionaires here. They want to ensure when they finally are let go of their liberal chains and become a billionaire too, they can enjoy all the benefits.

We should be thanking people like Jeff bezos for successfully navigating and avoiding billions in taxes for Amazon in exchange for a $98 million dollar donation (equivalent to a person with a $50k salary donating ~$50).

I think income tax should be abolished and replaced with a sales tax. Sales tax is a fair and ethical tax. Plus the IRS could go away. People and companies who spend a lot will pay a lot of taxes. I like that system.

"It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times." - Kurt Vonnegut

I forget who said it but the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Also, the capitalism w/ taxes and progressive policies=socialism misconception doesn't help.

Kurt had a way with words, but that quote comes off as naive to me when considering how things are in modern day America. I understand it's from many years ago when things were different here, so I give him a break.

However, I don't understand how you think the quote applies to modern times. Americans are so wealthy compared to the rest of the world that it's difficult to even fathom. The poor people here have sensible, used cars. The poor people in other countries can't feed themselves. There's no comparison. It's obvious that the system here has worked very well. But some people want to change that system. Will it improve our lives if Americans stop saving money and have no reason to work hard to accumulate wealth over time? Or will it make America more like other countries where people don't work hard because they understand their money will just be confiscated anyway?

The answer seems obvious to me.

 

[95CobraR]

When income tax was started, it was a 1% rate on only the richest people. Government always tends to grow and try to take more freedom from the people.

Heck yes I'm worried that the tax will eventually affect me...

I am also worried about taking money from the middle class. It is really a transfer of money from the hard working folks to the losers in this society.

The difference is some guys work harder and have higher goals. They just work hard and stay focused.

 

[1MEAN18]

So Warren is proposing a wealth tax. Basically it means that if you have saved up money, the government could take some of it every year.

Thoughts?

banks can also do a bail in of your money at anytime, legally. She'll never be president, she's too liberal and her ideas can't be paid for or even passed in Congress if the R's hold on thru '20. But her ideas, they can already be legally done by the banks/central bank so I'd worry more about them than her. Here's an article explaining bail in's. https://www.investopedia.com/articl...716/why-bank-bailins-will-be-new-bailouts.asp

Sponsored