Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Billionaires are getting scared

Wealth tax. Actual progressive margins tax rates. What is ha gladigotaphdinstead02/06/19
Time to March on Oprah's compound of evil. Finally. imoothereforeim02/06/19
That Starbucks dude will fix all of this. doublefriedchicken02/06/19
Take all their money and guillotine them for all I care. midlaw02/06/19
I’ve been saying that for years. I would love to have been gladigotaphdinstead02/06/19
How’d that work out for Robespierre? exnite02/06/19
People remember his name. Will anyone remember your name? gladigotaphdinstead02/06/19
180 esquirewalletsmatter02/07/19
This is why the MSM is circling the wagons to elevate Schult whatnext02/06/19
Why we are even talking about a wealth tax. It’s illegal u rastaman02/06/19
Midlaw already rebutted your baseless claim. It’s the same gladigotaphdinstead02/06/19
Actually, no. Whether a wealth tax would actually be constit actionbronson02/07/19
Unless you are suggesting some form of wealth integration in rastaman02/07/19
How is it the same? It’s a direct tax that is neither inco rastaman02/07/19
Dumb plebes. Apportionment is not hard and my accountants bangbus02/07/19
Bangbus, Out of curiosity , what exactly is it you do? Th rastaman02/08/19
"We dont really have federal direct taxation... Oh...exce bangbus02/08/19
“We don’t really have federal direct taxation, except wi rastaman02/08/19
"Hey, y’all want to push for an amendment to the constitut bangbus02/08/19
I DONT THINK YOU GRASP APPORTIONMENT. If you apportion it, i rastaman02/08/19
Oprah, Tom Steyer, Tim Cook, David Geffen (let's add the ent imoothereforeim02/06/19
I think wealth is too easy to hide and move overseas to effe batman02/06/19
Doesn't most of the money just get hidden in Equity nowadays theimmigrant02/06/19
All I know is ... I'm building a guillotine. soiled_nappies02/07/19
I prefer the Haiti solution. However, I will offer hot daug imoothereforeim02/07/19
Families like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, et plumber02/07/19
And yet in many countries they manage to redistribute income midlaw02/07/19
Which Western countries? plumber02/07/19
Norway, Iceland, Finland, France, Germany etc. midlaw02/07/19
And this is why I laugh with libtards that talk about the ol wearyattorney02/07/19
The estate tax, which is the bane of conservative existence, onefortheteam02/07/19
If you were paying 90% income tax under Eisenhower, you were therewillbeblood02/07/19
These tax rates don’t exist. Taxes are only for people wh wearyattorney02/07/19
Sure, that’s why the rich aren’t freaking out about AOC midlaw02/07/19
You still sticking with "Dems are the party of the super wea whatnext02/07/19
"old ninety percent tax rates. The tax rates never applied t wutwutwut02/07/19
This is the thread where conservatives posters list every De onefortheteam02/07/19
I'm pretty amused that so many conservatives are up in arms actionbronson02/07/19
Action bro is right on that point The conservative congr bangbus02/07/19
Of course, on the flip side of this coin we have hysterical actionbronson02/07/19
Huh? Try looking at the tax data. The IRS releases ton bangbus02/07/19
You're a strange person. But I wouldn't have you any other w actionbronson02/07/19
We had fun this evening, but now it's time for you to leave. bangbus02/07/19
Yeah, no. By very easily measurable and not at all flawed m gladigotaphdinstead02/07/19
whenever it's on MSNBC it's prima facie fake news. whiteguyinchina02/08/19
Truth. plumber02/08/19
I think a wealth tax system is inevitable. It's actually bangbus02/08/19
"Now the top 1% owns 95% of the wealth in the country." wutwutwut02/08/19
It depends how you compare it. If it's just a private to pr bangbus02/08/19
You’re mixing up income taxes paid versus wealth I believe gladigotaphdinstead02/08/19
Don’t worry about them. Income taxes started at 1% (at $70 rastaman02/08/19
"You’re mixing up income taxes paid versus wealth I believ wutwutwut02/08/19



gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 6, 2019 - 5:53 pm)

Wealth tax. Actual progressive margins tax rates. What is happening!? Didn’t they get their $1000 bonuses??!!?? Ingrates!!!!!! Madness!!!!! Noooooooooooo

Somehow we’ll become Venezuela despite no parallels whatsoever between the two countries! You’ll seeeeeeeeee

Reply
imoothereforeim (Feb 6, 2019 - 5:58 pm)

Time to March on Oprah's compound of evil. Finally.

Reply
doublefriedchicken (Feb 6, 2019 - 6:08 pm)

That Starbucks dude will fix all of this.

Reply
midlaw (Feb 6, 2019 - 6:37 pm)

Take all their money and guillotine them for all I care.

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 6, 2019 - 6:37 pm)

I’ve been saying that for years. I would love to have been Robespierre, sending those rich bastards off to their final haircuts.

Reply
exnite (Feb 6, 2019 - 6:52 pm)

How’d that work out for Robespierre?

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:54 pm)

People remember his name. Will anyone remember your name?

Reply
esquirewalletsmatter (Feb 7, 2019 - 7:03 am)

180

Reply
whatnext (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:02 pm)

This is why the MSM is circling the wagons to elevate Schultz. They want him to play spoiler to protect their money.

Reply
rastaman (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:57 pm)

Why we are even talking about a wealth tax. It’s illegal unless we amend the constitution

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 6, 2019 - 8:19 pm)

Midlaw already rebutted your baseless claim. It’s the same as any other tax that the federal government levies on us.

Reply
actionbronson (Feb 7, 2019 - 1:03 pm)

Actually, no. Whether a wealth tax would actually be constitutional is very much an open question.

Reply
rastaman (Feb 7, 2019 - 11:00 pm)

Unless you are suggesting some form of wealth integration in the income tax code, an unapportioned direct tax is most certainly unconstitutional.

Now, could a wealth integration metric, used within the income tax be constitutional? Perhaps. I personally do not think it would be-but I acknowledge there is some gray area and wiggle room here. However any tax liability that exceeds 100% of an individuals income (even high net worth) would likely be seen as either a taking or unapportioned direct tax.

Reply
rastaman (Feb 7, 2019 - 11:02 pm)

How is it the same? It’s a direct tax that is neither income based, nor apportioned.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 7, 2019 - 11:26 pm)

Dumb plebes.

Apportionment is not hard and my accountants do it all the time at the state level already for income taxes AND net worth/capital taxes.

You can do the same thing at the fed level and add an apportionment schedule to return just like every other state

It wont impact the plebes because they dont own property in multiple states...or any property.

Reply
rastaman (Feb 8, 2019 - 6:04 am)

Bangbus,

Out of curiosity , what exactly is it you do? Thanks

Apportionment here refers to a fed tax that is equal based on a state’s population. We don’t really have federal direct taxation, except with the income tax. Most other fed taxes are indirect transfer taxes.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 8, 2019 - 12:31 pm)

"We dont really have federal direct taxation...

Oh...except for income taxes..."

Which coincidentally accounts for like 45% of the feds collections.


...and is unconstitutional right?

A wealth tax is unconstitutional unless its apportioned and I have no idea how we would do that in a digital, global economy, where businesses and people are apportioning income and capital on a regular basis across hundreds of different jurisdictions already.

I just dont know how we could figure out an acceptable method.

You know what, I don't even know if a work around is possible.

I guess that settles its boys.

We cant do anything because professor rasta man said it is so.

Lol

Reply
rastaman (Feb 8, 2019 - 1:05 pm)

“We don’t really have federal direct taxation, except with the income tax”

That’s the full quote man. Unapportioned Direct taxatation exists, but within the limited confines of the 16A

Hey, y’all want to push for an amendment to the constitution to allow for a wealth tax OR use wealth integration methods go for it. But if you think the traditional wealth tax is legal at the federal level, you don’t really understand the law here. I’m sorry, you just don’t.

I know Midlaw is a lawyer, but he should really look into the precedent on this before responding.

As for Glad and bang, you guys do understand the constitution puts limits on the federal govt right? Like, that’s kind of the point???

Also, you’ve never answer me...

Bangbus, what exactly is it you do for a living. Very curious.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 8, 2019 - 1:08 pm)

"Hey, y’all want to push for an amendment to the constitution to allow for a wealth tax OR use wealth integration methods go for it. But if you think the traditional wealth tax is legal at the federal level, you don’t really understand the law here. I’m sorry, you just don’t."

Or you could...you know...apportion it

Oh...you're just a theory guy and never seen apportionment...at the fed level so you cant really opine on it.

Got it

Reply
rastaman (Feb 8, 2019 - 1:19 pm)

I DONT THINK YOU GRASP APPORTIONMENT. If you apportion it, it’s not really a wealth tax. An apportioned direct tax means EITHER

1) person A in state A pays the EXACT SAME amount as person B in state B. A might be richer or poorer than B, doesn’t matter

OR

State A pays person A’s federal tax bill-and uses its own mechanism (wealth, income, sales, gas, tea, property, etc) to recoup the costs. This would allow states rich in wealth to use a wealth tax and states rich in oil and gas to tax oil and gas.

This is apportionment.

Reply
imoothereforeim (Feb 6, 2019 - 8:01 pm)

Oprah, Tom Steyer, Tim Cook, David Geffen (let's add the entire Hollywood to that),... Hahaha I'm so ready.

Reply
batman (Feb 6, 2019 - 8:42 pm)

I think wealth is too easy to hide and move overseas to effectively tax. Income is harder to do the same with. There's a lot of loopholes where you can "lessen" your income, so that needs to be addressed as well.

Right now it's 37% for income from 501k and more. Probably should add more tiers, say 42% for 1 million and up and 50% for 2 million and up or whatever.

Reply
theimmigrant (Feb 6, 2019 - 11:43 pm)

Doesn't most of the money just get hidden in Equity nowadays? Bill Gates probably has like $5000k liquid.

Reply
soiled_nappies (Feb 7, 2019 - 8:15 am)

All I know is ... I'm building a guillotine.

Reply
imoothereforeim (Feb 7, 2019 - 11:17 am)

I prefer the Haiti solution. However, I will offer hot daughters protection, after sending the ugly ones to the happy happy reeduccation camp.

Reply
plumber (Feb 7, 2019 - 8:55 am)

Families like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, etc. have been wealthy for many generations and even centuries. You really think they are scared? You all ought to know by now that whenever laws are enacted to take from or "soak the rich" end up taking from the working class/middle class.

Reply
midlaw (Feb 7, 2019 - 10:47 am)

And yet in many countries they manage to redistribute income and wealth from the rich to the middle class. This is ahistorical nonsense masquerading as savvy cynicism.

Reply
plumber (Feb 7, 2019 - 10:58 am)

Which Western countries?

Reply
midlaw (Feb 7, 2019 - 2:15 pm)

Norway, Iceland, Finland, France, Germany etc.

Reply
wearyattorney (Feb 7, 2019 - 1:31 pm)

And this is why I laugh with libtards that talk about the old ninety percent tax rates. The tax rates never applied to people that had real money, they only applied to the wage slaves: always the wage slaves.

Guys like bangbus don’t aggravate me as much because he at least knows what he is doing, ie he wants to hammer the wage salves so he can personally benefit and the whole helping the little guy is a con job. But the idiot rank and file Democractic voter that thinks tax rates are going to apply to the oligarchy, said voter really agitates me.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 7, 2019 - 1:49 pm)

The estate tax, which is the bane of conservative existence, is a great way to tax wealth. Raise it to 95% on anything above 5 mill.

Done.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Feb 7, 2019 - 2:51 pm)

If you were paying 90% income tax under Eisenhower, you weren't a wage slave.

Reply
wearyattorney (Feb 7, 2019 - 2:58 pm)

These tax rates don’t exist. Taxes are only for people who work, irrespective of the income amount, and will never apply to those who collect rent.

Reply
midlaw (Feb 7, 2019 - 3:08 pm)

Sure, that’s why the rich aren’t freaking out about AOC and Warren. You are beyond clueless.

Reply
whatnext (Feb 7, 2019 - 3:13 pm)

You still sticking with "Dems are the party of the super wealthy"? How do you feel about McConnell and Trump getting ready to eliminate the estate tax entirely?

Reply
wutwutwut (Feb 7, 2019 - 3:27 pm)

"old ninety percent tax rates. The tax rates never applied to people that had real money, they only applied to the wage slaves"


It never applied to anyone, really. Those paying the highest tax rates then were paying about 3-4% more than those paying the highest tax rates now.

Reply
onefortheteam (Feb 7, 2019 - 11:07 am)

This is the thread where conservatives posters list every Den billionaire they can remember in a futile attempt to convince the rest of us that we're not WAY past time to raise taxes on the 1%.

Reply
actionbronson (Feb 7, 2019 - 1:10 pm)

I'm pretty amused that so many conservatives are up in arms about AOC's tax proposal. The 2017 Republican-backed tax legislation all but guarantees that a large category of corporate executives end up paying north of a 60% marginal tax rate anyway.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 7, 2019 - 3:42 pm)

Action bro is right on that point

The conservative congress kind of messed it up.

Wasnt supposed to go that way.

But yes, we did get hurt on that side of tax reform.

The bulk of my compensation comes from stock.

I make 83b elections as soon as my grants are issued and this helps ensure that I pay mostly cap gainz when my stock vests or I exercised my options.

Also my company would get to take as a deduction, the full fair market value of my non cash compensation.

Now, we did get screwed there. I can still make 83b elections and get cap gain treatment on my stock, but my company doesnt get the deduction anymore under the reformed tax code.

But dont worry, we'll fix that in the next round of middle class tax cuts

Reply
actionbronson (Feb 7, 2019 - 4:02 pm)

Of course, on the flip side of this coin we have hysterical liberals who are acting as if it has been decades since we've significantly taxed the wealthy and that AOC's tax proposal is going to revolutionize the country and substantially alleviate income inequality.

These same people also fail to appreciate that income inequality in the US has actually been going down over the last two decades, and that all claims to the contrary (as far as I know) are based on an academic study that is now being exposed as deeply flawed by experts on all sides of the political spectrum.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 7, 2019 - 4:14 pm)

Huh?

Try looking at the tax data.

The IRS releases tons of spread sheets and data.

If you run some analytics on it, one pattern has been very clear.

Overall collections has remained flat as a percentage of GDP.

However, revenues collected from businesses and estates has dropped off the map and the top rates on individuals have gone down.

Payroll tax collections are now the same amount as income tax collections.

What this means is we have cut taxes on people like me and people like you have graciously stepped up to fill the gap.

But what I think you're saying is, it was the right move.

You prefer this arrangement and I am very grateful for people like you

Reply
actionbronson (Feb 7, 2019 - 4:33 pm)

You're a strange person. But I wouldn't have you any other way.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 7, 2019 - 6:02 pm)

We had fun this evening, but now it's time for you to leave. I'll get you an uber and call you next time I'm in town

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 7, 2019 - 7:51 pm)

Yeah, no. By very easily measurable and not at all flawed metrics we have seen income inequality rapidly accelerate. Now the top 1% owns 95% of the wealth in the country.

Reply
whiteguyinchina (Feb 8, 2019 - 7:13 am)

whenever it's on MSNBC it's prima facie fake news.

Reply
plumber (Feb 8, 2019 - 9:20 am)

Truth.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 8, 2019 - 12:37 pm)

I think a wealth tax system is inevitable.

It's actually getting harder to hide wealth now that we have a digital economy and that every conceivable item is tracked, cataloged, stored, and shared by millions of computers.

When you can pull up a person's net worth with a key stroke, it gets harder to justify that you should be allowed to hoard that wealth and people will attack you.

Your wealth will make you a target, people will give up more of their money

Reply
wutwutwut (Feb 8, 2019 - 1:26 pm)

"Now the top 1% owns 95% of the wealth in the country."


It's actually a bit under 40% of the wealth owned by the top 1%.


A lot - yes - but no where near 95%.


It was higher in the early 60s, but not at any time in between then and now.

Reply
bangbus (Feb 8, 2019 - 1:31 pm)

It depends how you compare it. If it's just a private to private comparison, 95% sounds right.

You can dilute the ratio though if you start including state owned wealth, but its not really an apples to apples comparison.

We can also make assumptions about the attribution of sovereign wealth

Reply
gladigotaphdinstead (Feb 8, 2019 - 3:01 pm)

You’re mixing up income taxes paid versus wealth I believe. I read two days ago the 95% figure on CNN or something fairly reputable.

I think you vastly underestimate how poor you are compared to the actual rich and how relatively little they are taxed compared to you when it comes to a true effect on their pocketbooks.

Basically jacking up taxes on the rich wouldn’t affect them or their spending habits at all. They don’t even notice the difference at the end of the day. (Note: Really rich people, 10-15mm+ net worth, not like doctors and lawyers)

And the proposals are targeting ppl with 50m+ and 1b+. These people are obscenely wealthy. Don’t worry about them.

Reply
rastaman (Feb 8, 2019 - 3:33 pm)

Don’t worry about them. Income taxes started at 1% (at $70k in today’s dollars)-and that’s hasn’t moved (eye roll emoji)

Reply
wutwutwut (Feb 8, 2019 - 3:37 pm)

"You’re mixing up income taxes paid versus wealth I believe"

.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/7707-w24085.pdf


You are mixing something up. Your statement was about wealth owned. The richest 1 percent now own almost 40% of the wealth, which is the highest share since the 1960s (links above). I think you must have misunderstood what you read on CNN, because there is no way the 1% own 95% of the wealth (no matter how you slice it, to address the dust kicking by banbus).



As far as your mention of income taxes paid, the top 1% pay more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016



"I think you vastly underestimate how poor you are compared to the actual rich and how relatively little they are taxed compared to you"


I don't find this relevant to trying to correct a misapprehension about wealth owned by the top 1%, but okay. I can readily agree that the ultra-wealthy like Gates have a net worth that is 5000X my paltry net worth.

I'm not worried about increasing taxes on ultra high earners. I'm just picking nits on an incorrect statement like the assertion that the top 1% own 95% of the wealth.

You've gotta include the top 20% before you get to 90% of the wealth. Is that too much? [edit: "too much" = concentration of wealth.] Maybe so. It's also interesting that the top 1% own 40% of the wealth and the next 9% own the next 50%.
I think you have to include the top 30% before you actually get to 95%.

Reply
Post a message in this thread