Elizabeth Warren, Other Progressives Propose ‘Ultra-Millionaire’ Tax

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
People didn’t pay the top rate. They restructured their income to avoid taxes. What’s interesting is that federal tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn’t changed much over the past 80 years despite the big swings in marginal rates.

I’m sorry the Trump era was not prosperous for you.

And people don't do that today?
Stupid argument.

Yea what has changed is that the tax burden has fallen more on the middle class which is ONE OF the reasons inequality has gotten so extreme.
 

jovs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,694
Reaction score
219
Points
63
I'd be in favor of this. The massive wealth of a few is bad for democracy.

Agree, taxes generally very in a given range, it has been at a historical low the last couple of years, the concentration of wealth in a very few is not good for the economy or socially and politically.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,602
Reaction score
1,638
Points
113
Would you say the country was a failure in the 1950 and 60's when the top tax bracket was way way higher than it is today?

If not, why wasn't the country failing under that insurmountable burden of taxation?

Why was inequality much lower?

Why was the middle class larger?

I base my decision on what I think will make the country stronger and more prosperous far into the future. If I voted greed like many, I would have voted for Trump.

The funny thing is most of the dumbasses voting for Trump out of greed are actually losing but they are to dumb to realize it.
If I could write off an unlimited amount of depreciation like they could in the 50/60s , I’d gladly accept a 70% marginal rate. I’d come out far ahead of where I’m at now.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
If I could write off an unlimited amount of depreciation like they could in the 50/60s , I’d gladly accept a 70% marginal rate. I’d come out far ahead of where I’m at now.

There is a bunch of accelerated depreciation in Trumps tax cut.

I would probably be fine with more liberal depreciation rules.

More liberal depreciation allowances are anticipated to have far-reaching economic
effects. The incentives resulting from the changes are well timed to help maintain the
present high level of investment in plant and equipment. The acceleration in the speed
of the tax-free recovery of costs is of critical importance in the decision of management
to incur risk. The faster tax write-off would increase available working capital and
materially aid growing businesses in the financing of their expansion. For all segments
of the American economy, liberalized depreciation policies should assist modernization
and expansion of industrial capacity, with resulting economic growth, increased pro-
duction, and a higher standard of living.*5
 
Last edited:

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,196
Reaction score
1,794
Points
113
I for one do not like where Pocahontas is going with this. She may well be infringing on my wealth.
 

FormerFatOL

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
248
Reaction score
226
Points
43
Agree, taxes generally very in a given range, it has been at a historical low the last couple of years, the concentration of wealth in a very few is not good for the economy or socially and politically.

The increasing concentration of wealth has more to do with globalization, cronyism and immigration policy than marginal U.S. tax rates on the rich (which are always avoided anyways). Your hero Trump ;) would agree with you.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,061
Reaction score
11,257
Points
113
I for one do not like where Pocahontas is going with this. She may well be infringing on my wealth.
I have a unique tax sheltering plan to avoid this awful tax: Give half your money to me. I'll keep it safe until this awful thing is repealed.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
The increasing concentration of wealth has more to do with globalization, cronyism and immigration policy than marginal U.S. tax rates on the rich (which are always avoided anyways). Your hero Trump ;) would agree with you.

So there is nothing we can do..

Except isolate the country and destroy our wealth and power. Great idea.

Immigration is the one thing the US has going for it, without it we will have a massive demographic problem due to low birth rates. It is why we will stay ahead of China and why Japans power , what they have left is in serious jeopardy.
 

FormerFatOL

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
248
Reaction score
226
Points
43
So there is nothing we can do..

Except isolate the country and destroy our wealth and power. Great idea.

Immigration is the one thing the US has going for it, without it we will have a massive demographic problem due to low birth rates. It is why we will stay ahead of China and why Japans power , what they have left is in serious jeopardy.

OK. Then be content with low/stagnant wages for the middle and lower income classes and content with the increasing concentration of wealth. Don't bitch about it. That's what you are advocating.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
OK. Then be content with low/stagnant wages for the middle and lower income classes and content with the increasing concentration of wealth. Don't bitch about it. That's what you are advocating.

No I am not, that is just what your limited imagination envisions.

The US is a nation of immigrants, I think its worked pretty well so far. But I guess you disagree...
 

FormerFatOL

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
248
Reaction score
226
Points
43
No I am not, that is just what your limited imagination envisions.

The US is a nation of immigrants, I think its worked pretty well so far. But I guess you disagree...

We'll agree to disagree. We are no longer a growing undeveloped nation where a high volume of immigrants are needed to populate wild Native American land where everyone pulls their own weight or sinks (no welfare/safety net). There was no zero-sum game from most unskilled jobs. We are now a developed urban nation with a strong welfare system and safety net. There is a zero sum game for low skilled jobs and also reaching up into the trades. This used to be an old-school Democratic party platform issue because of unions but now has been abandoned to capture votes and serve corporate interests.
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,848
Points
113
There is a zero sum game for low skilled jobs and also reaching up into the trades.
Hispanic immigrants work our fields, clean our buildings, build our buildings, perform mechanic service on our vehicles, cook our meals in restaurants (not talking about Mexican food ... you might be surprised how often you find a Hispanic person in the kitchen, go take a look), fix our roofs, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical.

Jobs that pay well, that employers struggle to find people interested. Especially the higher skill trades like plumbing. Saw on TV or YouTube recently the guy was saying you can make $200k as a plumber.

That's the opposite of having too many applicants, that have to be turned away.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
We'll agree to disagree. We are no longer a growing undeveloped nation where a high volume of immigrants are needed to populate wild Native American land where everyone pulls their own weight or sinks (no welfare/safety net). There was no zero-sum game from most unskilled jobs. We are now a developed urban nation with a strong welfare system and safety net. There is a zero sum game for low skilled jobs and also reaching up into the trades. This used to be an old-school Democratic party platform issue because of unions but now has been abandoned to capture votes and serve corporate interests.

Due to demographics with the lack of children being born we will need immigrants or our economy will stagnate. Somebody will have to wipe your butt when your in a home and I sure as hell ain't doing it...
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,145
Reaction score
2,348
Points
113
You need to see the bigger picture. At times people with 20/20 vision can be blind. Just like roads narrow minds are dangerous.
Perhaps it's you that needs to look at the bigger picture. None of these billionaires will feel that tax. ( You wouldn't feel a 2% tax either.) Most of them gained wayyyyy more than 2% due to Trump/R policies the previous 4 years alone, much less say the inherent feature that starting with wealth induces high rates of wealth gain as a feature of socio-capitalism. But I'm not surprised that you worry about the poor billionaires. Poor, poor billionaires. Maybe we can just make them all Presidents and be done with it. It's not like they don't rule us all already.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,602
Reaction score
1,638
Points
113
Perhaps it's you that needs to look at the bigger picture. None of these billionaires will feel that tax. ( You wouldn't feel a 2% tax either.) Most of them gained wayyyyy more than 2% due to Trump/R policies the previous 4 years alone, much less say the inherent feature that starting with wealth induces high rates of wealth gain as a feature of socio-capitalism. But I'm not surprised that you worry about the poor billionaires. Poor, poor billionaires. Maybe we can just make them all Presidents and be done with it. It's not like they don't rule us all already.
The billionaires really felt pinched during the Obama years. And the health insurers too.

You’re a f&cking 🤡.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
The billionaires really felt pinched during the Obama years. And the health insurers too.

You’re a f&cking 🤡.

Obama was a Republican lite, I said it then and I will say it now. Thats why they hated him so much.

He was not a progressive, he was center right.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,602
Reaction score
1,638
Points
113
Obama was a Republican lite, I said it then and I will say it now. Thats why they hated him so much.

He was not a progressive, he was center right.
I think our political spectrums are a tad different.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
I think our political spectrums are a tad different.

I live in reality.
He had
Republican healthcare plan.
Against gay marriage initially
No real progressive policies

Obama is a rightwing candidate in the rest of the free world.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,145
Reaction score
2,348
Points
113
The billionaires really felt pinched during the Obama years. And the health insurers too.

You’re a f&cking 🤡.
Yes, Snowflake, the billionaires are always gaining ground, accelerated greatly by the advent of Reaganomics and the reversal of tax structures that kept deficits relatively low and wealth gaps reasonable. Billionaires have gained mightily in particular from Republican Party sponsored tax and subsidy policies, especially those that have cut capital gains rates far below the level they should be for their income brackets. Republicans are also great at pushing more and more government (i.e., deficit) funding and subsidies in the direction of billionaires. Supply-side economics is the giant failure that caused this.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,730
Reaction score
4,416
Points
113
Perhaps it's you that needs to look at the bigger picture. None of these billionaires will feel that tax.
The battle cry of the truly pathetic. “Those rich folks don’t need that much money anyway.” Jealousy is a terrible look.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,145
Reaction score
2,348
Points
113
The battle cry of the truly pathetic. “Those rich folks don’t need that much money anyway.” Jealousy is a terrible look.

You're clearly not putting any thoughts into these posts, neither when you are reading them nor when you are writing them. Try harder, please.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,730
Reaction score
4,416
Points
113
You're clearly not putting any thoughts into these posts, neither when you are reading them nor when you are writing them. Try harder, please.
“None of these billionaires will feel that tax”. Sound familiar? How about 5% more? Why not 10%?. They don’t need that much money. No one does. Tax them more, they won’t even feel it. Jealousy is sad and petty.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,602
Reaction score
1,638
Points
113
Yes, Snowflake, the billionaires are always gaining ground, accelerated greatly by the advent of Reaganomics and the reversal of tax structures that kept deficits relatively low and wealth gaps reasonable. Billionaires have gained mightily in particular from Republican Party sponsored tax and subsidy policies, especially those that have cut capital gains rates far below the level they should be for their income brackets. Republicans are also great at pushing more and more government (i.e., deficit) funding and subsidies in the direction of billionaires. Supply-side economics is the giant failure that caused this.
People that are billionaires have become so because they created something of value that millions of people wanted. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc etc. They own companies. Their billions aren’t sitting in a bank, it represents their ownership stake in their company. If you want to tax them even more, they will have to sell a portion of their ownership stake in their companies, diluting the value they are creating for society.

You really haven’t thought this through ❄️.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
814
Points
113
People that are billionaires have become so because they created something of value that millions of people wanted. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc etc. They own companies. Their billions aren’t sitting in a bank, it represents their ownership stake in their company. If you want to tax them even more, they will have to sell a portion of their ownership stake in their companies, diluting the value they are creating for society.

You really haven’t thought this through ❄.
You're trying to explain something to a person who's primary knowledge of taxes ends in the letters "EZ". Makers and takers.... it doesn't take all that much to connect the dots on who is who
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
“None of these billionaires will feel that tax”. Sound familiar? How about 5% more? Why not 10%?. They don’t need that much money. No one does. Tax them more, they won’t even feel it. Jealousy is sad and petty.

Their taxes have been getting cut pretty consistently for the last 40 years.

Lets just get rid of the government, everyman for himself.
🙄🙄🙄
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
You're trying to explain something to a person who's primary knowledge of taxes ends in the letters "EZ". Makers and takers.... it doesn't take all that much to connect the dots on who is who

Boo hoo. Woe is me.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
3,618
Points
113
People that are billionaires have become so because they created something of value that millions of people wanted. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc etc. They own companies. Their billions aren’t sitting in a bank, it represents their ownership stake in their company. If you want to tax them even more, they will have to sell a portion of their ownership stake in their companies, diluting the value they are creating for society.

You really haven’t thought this through ❄.

Yes tax them when they sell or die. It really is simple. Nothing to think thru.

If you don't want to pay taxes give it to charity.

Wow that's complex🙄🙄🙄🙄
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,145
Reaction score
2,348
Points
113
People that are billionaires have become so because they created something of value that millions of people wanted. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc etc. They own companies. Their billions aren’t sitting in a bank, it represents their ownership stake in their company. If you want to tax them even more, they will have to sell a portion of their ownership stake in their companies, diluting the value they are creating for society.

You really haven’t thought this through ❄.

Just tax them at 0%. Hell, why not give the billionaires all of our money and 100% of our governmental control. Let them own every single penny's worth of this country, and we can all be their slaves, since that's in the obvious direction of economic betterness in Johngaltdumbshitville.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,145
Reaction score
2,348
Points
113
“None of these billionaires will feel that tax”. Sound familiar? How about 5% more? Why not 10%?. They don’t need that much money. No one does. Tax them more, they won’t even feel it. Jealousy is sad and petty.
Why should capital gains income be taxed at half the rate of salary income? Please explain.
 
Top Bottom