Jump to content


Progressive politics and where they go from here


Recommended Posts


29 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is the absurd expanding circles argument: We can't possibly control the wealth tax rate so it could turn into 100%!!!

 

Tax rates have existed for centuries, and we can set the rates without them wildly going to 100%

That isn't an argument against a wealth tax anymore than far right-wingers claiming there should be no taxes is an argument against taxes.

Who said anything about 100%?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is the absurd expanding circles argument: We can't possibly control the wealth tax rate so it could turn into 100%!!!

 

Tax rates have existed for centuries, and we can set the rates without them wildly going to 100%

That isn't an argument against a wealth tax anymore than far right-wingers claiming there should be no taxes is an argument against taxes.

 

Sorry there @RedDenver my point was not the wealth tax portion. I am certainly okay with the rich paying more in taxes, and think that needs to happen. 

I was making reference to the $1billion, or $100million, cap on ability to build wealth. 

The idea that the Govt can cap anyone's earning potential or overall value is ludicrous. Yet, virtually everyday, I see ultraprogressives tweeting about how no one, ever regardless of circumstances, has "earned" or "deserves" to have a billion dollars...smh

 

 

 

Link to comment

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm against a Wealth Tax.  I've stated my case a number of times on here and know people don't agree.  But....hey...we're all entitled to our opinion.

 

Just for conversation sake.  What level would anyone put the tax rate for a wealth tax?

Here's an article discussing a paper about progressive wealth tax in the US. Here's the actual paper.

 

Quote

Saez and Zucman find that the total share of wealth owned in 2018 by the 400 richest Americans (the Forbes 400) would be reduced from about 3.5 to about 2 percent had a “moderate” [2] wealth tax been in place since 1982; this share is reduced further to about 1 percent under a more “radical” [3] wealth tax in place since 1982. This 1 percent share is approximately equal to the share of wealth owned by this same group in 1982—a year when wealth inequality was close to its lowest point. According to the authors, those in the top .1 percent owned about 8 percent of total household wealth in the United States in 1982. In 2016, this share had increased to around 20 percent. Importantly, this 20 percent share is only somewhat less than the approximately 25 percent share owned by the entire bottom 90 percent in 2016.

The "moderate" rate in the paper is 2% above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion. The "radical" rate is 2% above $50 million and 10% above $1 billion.

 

Bernie Sanders has proposed a wealth tax as well:

Quote

 

It would start with a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple. That means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000.

 

The tax rate would increase to 2 percent on net worth from $50 to $250 million, 3 percent from $250 to $500 million, 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. These brackets are halved for singles.

 

 

And there's a wealth tax thread somewhere around here where we've argued various parts of wealth taxes before.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

But once revenue falls short after taking 2% of people’s wealth, well People will want that number to up.  5% wealth tax, 10%.??

No one is talking about a wealth tax that produces a certain amount of tax revenue.

 

And this is an oversimplification since the wealth increase or decrease depends on a lot of factors. It's entirely possible to have wealthy people continue to gain more wealth even though there's a wealth tax.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Thanks.

 

Do you have an answer for my asset question above?

 

And...yes, I was a part of the other thread.

I mean, if we're creating tax law we can make it apply to whatever assets we want to legislate. It's an open question. The basic wealth tax concepts generally apply to all assets, but we could put in loopholes for various scenarios.

Link to comment

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I mean, if we're creating tax law we can make it apply to whatever assets we want to legislate. It's an open question. The basic wealth tax concepts generally apply to all assets, but we could put in loopholes for various scenarios.

So let’s create another tax with more loopholes that create winners and losers based on how good your accountants are.  Another version of may the best accountant win I guess.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...