The Top Fifth

[Landlord]

"The bad stuff where people got rich off the exploitation of other people groups was a long time ago and I had nothing to do with it so any notion of trying to right historical wrongs should be met with mockery."

[knapplc]

 

And here's Landlord to turn this into a race issue...

 

The issue of over a trillion dollars being accrued on the backs of others. Our government has never done a single thing to try and reverse any of that - only thing I'm trying to get at is why it seems so wrong for the state to work towards equality and fairness and reparation. It's not just a black/white thing. It's an American thing.

 

 

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

So I can get rich off them, exploit their helplessness, then resist any fingers being lifted by others to help them"

 

This has nothing to do with race. That's a whole 'nother conversation, LOMS.

 

Nobody is writing today's tax laws as a means of repairing the ills of yesterday's America. I urge you not to go off on this tangent.

[Landlord]

This has nothing to do with race. That's a whole 'nother conversation, LOMS.

Nobody is writing today's tax laws as a means of repairing the ills of yesterday's America. I urge you not to go off on this tangent.

 

 

Then what is the point/intent of the conversation surrounding whether or not massive inheritances should be taxed heavily or capped?

 

Admittedly I joined into this conversation very late and didn't read the first few pages.

 

Edit: The ills of yesterday's America still influence and inform and contribute to many of the ills of today's America.

[JJ Husker]

 

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Come on, ED. You're better than a "rich white men are the victims" argument.

 

Now who's introducing strawmen?

 

I'm not the one 5 pages into championing increased taxes on the rich.

I'm not the one who dragged race into the tax discussion.

But sure, go ahead and do tell how my observations translates to rich white men are victioms.

[zoogs]

There is not a big red line defining what is Communism and what isn't.

 

Personally, I believe if you're getting into that 40-45% range...your at best starting to sniff communism. As the tax rate increases, it becomes more and more communistic.

Okay. Circling back to this: I think you're seriously confusing a progressive tax structure with communism. Communism is about establishing a classless society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

 

It's used, quite often, as a bogeyman to combat progressive policy. Whatever you may feel about such policy, it's a disservice to everyone to invoke this word in such grossly inaccurate ways. The U.S. is quite clearly not a class-free society, nor do even the most self-described socialist movements that exist here aim for that (I think). Similarly, European nations with far more income inequality and explicitly socialist leadership are not remotely in the realm of no class no state communism. This is an absurd specter to be raising.

 

Let's talk about the numbers that have you thinking "communism". The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. is already 39.6%. This applies to taxable income above ~$413,000 (as of 2015). That's federal income tax. Let's turn to the estate tax. The top marginal estate tax rate, currently, is 40%. That's above the $5,490,000 exemption line. Has America been sniffing communism all this time? Surely that's not a reasonable position to stake out, whatever your political views.

 

Now, you may be opposed to any or all of this; you may prefer the estate tax to be zero or income tax to be flat. And that's fair; reasonable people will agree to disagree. But to be plain, the sides to this debate are Progressive Tax Structure vs Flat(ter) Tax Structure; there are many nuanced layers to this and it can make for great conversation. This is not an existential duel to the death 'twixt the Commies and Western capitalism and free society itself, and it's a disservice to all to frame it that way. I hope this much can be extremely clear.

[knapplc]

 

This has nothing to do with race. That's a whole 'nother conversation, LOMS.

 

Nobody is writing today's tax laws as a means of repairing the ills of yesterday's America. I urge you not to go off on this tangent.

 

Then what is the point/intent of the conversation surrounding whether or not massive inheritances should be taxed heavily or capped?

 

Admittedly I joined into this conversation very late and didn't read the first few pages.

 

Edit: The ills of yesterday's America still influence and inform and contribute to many of the ills of today's America.

 

We're having a conversation about wealth and taxation, specifically as it pertains to today's tax laws. You're throwing a left-field comment about race into it.

 

It's like talking about the Infield Fly rule and someone comes in late to the conversation and wants to talk about the injustices of the Negro Leagues.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Come on, ED. You're better than a "rich white men are the victims" argument.

 

Now who's introducing strawmen?

 

I'm not the one 5 pages into championing increased taxes on the rich.

I'm not the one who dragged race into the tax discussion.

But sure, go ahead and do tell how my observations translates to rich white men are victioms.

 

My apologies, you didn't mention men. But you're clearly making a rich white people are the real victims when you say, "Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner." LOMS did indeed bring up race out of nowhere, but I'm not claiming rich people are evil, and you know it.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

There's a lot of variations in how assets are taxed. In Nebraska for example, agricultural land is taxed at only 75% of its value.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

 

I was pointing out that the government isn't necessarily double or triple taxing as knapplc suggested. I don't think the number of times you get taxed is a persuasive argument, as I'd rather get taxed at 10% twice than 20% once, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up as I don't really care whether the estate tax is taxing the same assets or not.

 

Why the strawman that I want to override the 75% limit? I don't know enough about the Nebraska agricultural land tax situation to have an opinion either way.

 

I'm not attempting to override or "make whole" any other tax.

 

I wasn't trying to introduce a strawman. I figured you mentioned that it was taxed at only 75% of value for some reason. As in there is another 25% of value to be taxed. My bad if that is not what you were getting at.

 

I think you explained some of what I have trouble with. You don't care if it's already been taxed multiple times or not. You just see another opportunity to tax the rich and transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. While were at it, maybe we should impose a breathing air tax on anyone who makes over $250K (or pick any limit you like) per year. We could figure the average respiration rate of people and charge whatever is needed per breathe to achieve your sense of wealth fairness. As long as it's from few enough ultra rich people we probably could ram it through.

 

So we're doing melodrama now? Let me give it a try:

 

No please, don't let me have $40 million (or pick any limit you like) tax-free!! I might have to sell off an island in the Caribbean. Oh no, the humanity of it all!!

 

I'm sorry, I am just trying to get to the heart of the matter.

I'll put it out there since some others want talk around it.

There's this group of people in this country who have way more than they need. There's this other much larger group that has way less than the other group.

Obviously the solution is to play Robin Hood and take it from the rich and give it to the poor. But we'll choose our words and amounts wisely so as to get as many people on board with the wealth transfer. When needed we'll make the people who have the funds seem like they deserve to have their money taken from them and we'll make the group who wants to receive those funds seem more worthy of getting them. We'll ignore whose money it actually is and create claims by the state on their wealth to make it seem more fair.

Now any proposal is valid as long as the money gets from group A to group B.

 

Does that about cover it?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Come on, ED. You're better than a "rich white men are the victims" argument.

 

Now who's introducing strawmen?

 

I'm not the one 5 pages into championing increased taxes on the rich.

I'm not the one who dragged race into the tax discussion.

But sure, go ahead and do tell how my observations translates to rich white men are victioms.

 

My apologies, you didn't mention men. But you're clearly making a rich white people are the real victims when you say, "Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner." LOMS did indeed bring up race out of nowhere, but I'm not claiming rich people are evil, and you know it.

 

Yes, I realize that. I was starting to get a little frustrated and the usual snark and hyperbole ensued.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

There's a lot of variations in how assets are taxed. In Nebraska for example, agricultural land is taxed at only 75% of its value.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

 

I was pointing out that the government isn't necessarily double or triple taxing as knapplc suggested. I don't think the number of times you get taxed is a persuasive argument, as I'd rather get taxed at 10% twice than 20% once, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up as I don't really care whether the estate tax is taxing the same assets or not.

 

Why the strawman that I want to override the 75% limit? I don't know enough about the Nebraska agricultural land tax situation to have an opinion either way.

 

I'm not attempting to override or "make whole" any other tax.

 

I wasn't trying to introduce a strawman. I figured you mentioned that it was taxed at only 75% of value for some reason. As in there is another 25% of value to be taxed. My bad if that is not what you were getting at.

 

I think you explained some of what I have trouble with. You don't care if it's already been taxed multiple times or not. You just see another opportunity to tax the rich and transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. While were at it, maybe we should impose a breathing air tax on anyone who makes over $250K (or pick any limit you like) per year. We could figure the average respiration rate of people and charge whatever is needed per breathe to achieve your sense of wealth fairness. As long as it's from few enough ultra rich people we probably could ram it through.

 

So we're doing melodrama now? Let me give it a try:

 

No please, don't let me have $40 million (or pick any limit you like) tax-free!! I might have to sell off an island in the Caribbean. Oh no, the humanity of it all!!

 

I'm sorry, I am just trying to get to the heart of the matter.

I'll put it out there since some others want talk around it.

There's this group of people in this country who have way more than they need. There's this other much larger group that has way less than the other group.

Obviously the solution is to play Robin Hood and take it from the rich and give it to the poor. But we'll choose our words and amounts wisely so as to get as many people on board with the wealth transfer. When needed we'll make the people who have the funds seem like they deserve to have their money taken from them and we'll make the group who wants to receive those funds seem more worthy of getting them. We'll ignore whose money it actually is and create claims by the state on their wealth to make it seem more fair.

Now any proposal is valid as long as the money gets from group A to group B.

 

Does that about cover it?

 

Or you could see it as, to accumulate wealth you need a healthy society - one that doesn't want to revolt, kill you, or steal your money. In service of that healthy society, we need certain standards of living, which require services and money. Those that have the most to lose (the wealthy) should pay the most into the system because it's most beneficial to them to have that healthy society.

 

The alternative (which has played out over and over again in history) is to allow the wealthy to benefit themselves to the detriment of others until a crisis point is reached. There's an article I've read but can't find right now that talks about how historically those crisis points have been resolved by revolt, war, and... can't remember the third. I have to go right now, but I'll try to find that article and update later.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

Along with the breathing air tax on rich people maybe we should also be proposing a whites only reparation tax. If you check the whites only box on your tax return simply send in an extra $2,500 per household member yearly. Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Come on, ED. You're better than a "rich white men are the victims" argument.

 

Now who's introducing strawmen?

 

I'm not the one 5 pages into championing increased taxes on the rich.

I'm not the one who dragged race into the tax discussion.

But sure, go ahead and do tell how my observations translates to rich white men are victioms.

 

My apologies, you didn't mention men. But you're clearly making a rich white people are the real victims when you say, "Now we're making headway on two fronts and, in many cases, getting the desirable added benefit of taking it from those evil rich AND white people. Winner winner chicken dinner." LOMS did indeed bring up race out of nowhere, but I'm not claiming rich people are evil, and you know it.

 

Yes, I realize that. I was starting to get a little frustrated and the usual snark and hyperbole ensued.

 

Fair enough.

[Landlord]

I entered in based off a quote I saw talking about breaking up a chain of inherited wealth, followed by somebody responding that that is Un-American. The poorly crafted intent of my post is to show that a massive amount of inherited wealth in this country came by equally if not grossly more "Un-American" means. I realize now that I dove into a side tangent and didn't actually pick up on the overall direction of the conversation.

 

 

There is nothing at all unreasonable for some sort of increasing tax rate as people's wealth gets bigger. The reason being that a large number of poor people never chose to be poor, a large number of rich people never chose to be rich, we don't only exist as autonomous individuals, and it is expensive as f#*k to be poor. Not only is being poor just difficult to deal with, often through no or little fault of the poor person, but poor people can't afford (monetarily) to be poor.

 

Poor people get eaten alive by exorbitant fees if they are unbanked, they often have to spend 3-6% of their paychecks just to be able to cash them, might have to buy money orders, high fees if they're able to open a checking account, they can't get credit, have to spend a much higher portion of their income on transportation, get stuck in cycles of fines/tickets, then more fines/tickets because they can't pay the original ones, suffer the results of inflation more than more wealthy people, and are often forced into situations where you can only afford something at the moment, even though long-term it's much more costly (staying in a budget hotel on a week-by-week basis because you can't afford first/last months rent and deposit for an apartment, or buying cheap, unhealthy food because you can't afford good groceries but suffering from bad health later on), so on and so forth.

 

Poor people also currently pay higher taxes than the top two fifths. That sucks.

[BigRedBuster]

And you clearly didn't read the thread and came in with both barrels blazing about something the thread was not about.

 

I'm the one that said that thought process was un-American along with claiming I was being somewhat hyperbolic.

 

I didn't say any of the atrocities you listed were what America stands for either.

 

So, your post made no sense in context with the thread.

[BigRedBuster]

So....LOMS....I assume you agree that the state has the right and justification to set an amount like 40,000,000 and basically take everything else when someone dies.

[JJ Husker]

I entered in based off a quote I saw talking about breaking up a chain of inherited wealth, followed by somebody responding that that is Un-American. The poorly crafted intent of my post is to show that a massive amount of inherited wealth in this country came by equally if not grossly more "Un-American" means. I realize now that I dove into a side tangent and didn't actually pick up on the overall direction of the conversation.

 

 

There is nothing at all unreasonable for some sort of increasing tax rate as people's wealth gets bigger. The reason being that a large number of poor people never chose to be poor, a large number of rich people never chose to be rich, we don't only exist as autonomous individuals, and it is expensive as f#*k to be poor. Not only is being poor just difficult to deal with, often through no or little fault of the poor person, but poor people can't afford (monetarily) to be poor.

 

Poor people get eaten alive by exorbitant fees if they are unbanked, they often have to spend 3-6% of their paychecks just to be able to cash them, might have to buy money orders, high fees if they're able to open a checking account, they can't get credit, have to spend a much higher portion of their income on transportation, get stuck in cycles of fines/tickets, then more fines/tickets because they can't pay the original ones, suffer the results of inflation more than more wealthy people, and are often forced into situations where you can only afford something at the moment, even though long-term it's much more costly (staying in a budget hotel on a week-by-week basis because you can't afford first/last months rent and deposit for an apartment, or buying cheap, unhealthy food because you can't afford good groceries but suffering from bad health later on), so on and so forth.

 

Poor people also currently pay higher taxes than the top two fifths. That sucks.

 

Please explain how poor people (the 1st quintile I assume) pay higher taxes than the top 40%.

 

And for the record, nowhere have I stated that the upper class or rich, or any class for that manner, should not be paying their fair share.

I don't particularly have a problem with a progressive tax that charges a higher percentage to the higher brackets.

I do believe that an inordinate amount of the tax burden is already placed on the richest and I also believe the middle class could use some relief. And I realize that the lower classes don't have it to take from but that they also likely receive the lions share of government distributions, even if it may not be enough in some cases.

This all pertains to known tax brackets. It does not begin to address the loopholes that typically favor the richest, and allow them to forego paying their fair share.

I am all for removing such loopholes and collecting what is owed by everyone.

 

Where I begin to have a problem is when the subject gets approached generally and it always seems to get condensed to, just take more from the rich with the only justification being because they have it. I'm not one of those rich. It's not a matter of me looking out for me. I just have this sense of fairness and justice and like to be provided the details. I'm sure there are many in that rich classification who should be paying more. Just as I'm sure their are many who are bilking the government out of benefits unfairly. But I do have a problem with inheritance taxes. I don't think someone's death should be yet another opportunity for the government to be the first in line with their hand out.

 

I do believe the wealth imbalance in this country is unhealthy. As zoogs pointed out earlier, poverty and extreme wealth are too sticky. And it gets harder by the day for the middle to climb and easier for them to fall. I think reasonable taxation with consistent and fair enactment is crucial, But there are also other ways to help begin to balance out wealth inequities. Helping people break the cycle of poverty involves much more than taking from Peter to pay Paul. Teach a man to fish... I believe the real issue here is to get back to representative government and break the aristocracy that is creating the unfair playing field. It's not the simple matter of just pointing our fingers at the most obvious source. Let's fix the actual problems and then we can begin to make the tax code actually fair. When a person like Trump can avoid paying taxes, it kind of makes a moot point of discussing raising taxes on the rich. When there are perfectly able bodied citizens feeding off the government dole, it kind of makes a moot point of the poor being treated unfairly. We can do much better than this pseudo class warfare if we really try.