Biden to Propose New Minimum Tax on Wealthiest Americans

[The_Trouvere]

That's exactly what I addressed while you're still pointing out the benefit to the glazier of The Broken Window.

Bastiat

What is that supposed to mean? I document my arguments with facts. You make value assumption, which by their nature are beyond the range of rational discussion.

 

[LittleDixie]

What you feel are not truths. They are facts about you, and not very interesting facts.

Do you not agree that stealing is wrong?

 

[The_Trouvere]

According to a Nov 6, 2012 article in The Wall Street Journal, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."


http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

[The_Trouvere]

Do you not agree that stealing is wrong?

Yes, and that it is not the same as taxation under a democratically elected government.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Ron Johnson is proposing to make all corps pass-trough entities. I'll have to think on that for a bit.

 

[LittleDixie]

Yes, and that it is not the same as taxation under a democratically elected government.

What makes one right and the other wrong?

 

[Champakian]

What is that supposed to mean? I document my arguments with facts. You make value assumption, which by their nature are beyond the range of rational discussion.

I'm paraphrasing a noted economist and alluding to one of his famous economic lessons:
The Law of Unintended Consequences (The Broken Window)

A tax on the wealthy is a tax that they do not pay, but you do not look past
the act of taxing the wealthy, which for you is a desired outcome, and see its effects.

The wealthy do not pay "wealth" taxes. They pass them on.
They pass them in the forms of things like higher prices, decreased dividends,
which fall hardest on the elderly (fixed retirement incomes) and by the expedience
of reducing labor, which falls hardest on the class of yokels yammering to tax their bosses...

You think your arguments are a priori, when in fact, outside of Socialist economic philosophy,
they are debunked and provably demonstrated fallacious argument for the reasons outlined above.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Oh look, another Flat Tax numpty regurgitating the tired "but...but...teh rich folks don't pay taxes" blather.

#ErrybodyKnows teh rich don't pay taxes! Hodor!

 

[Gorgoroth]

I am not a total anarchist. I believe that there are some needs of a society that won't be served on an individual basis, and can't be properly funded through private for profit businesses. So, at the heart of it, I believe that some taxes are an odious reality. They are a necessary evil, but their necessity does not make them good.

Having a functioning civilization is evil and not good??

Sounds like an anarchist to me.

The need does not make the taking without permission moral.

Again, it's not without permission... you can get the fuck out and move to some lawless shit hole of which there are many choices.

All 3rd world of course.

We need to recognize that taxes are imposed on citizens. We need to see clearly that we are forcing people (under the threat of violence and imprisonment) to pay the government. This is a form of slavery.

I disagree about the slavery part.

It can be abused into being a form of slavery, which is what most (D)'eez want to do with wealth taxes and taxes on unrealized capital gains (wealth that doesn't actually exist).

But that doesn't make all taxation slavery. Use/consumption taxes are as fair and free as capitalism..... I want to use public roads? You buy tags for your vehicle. Don't want to use public roads?? You don't have to pay shit.

The hidden taxes and wealth/property taxes? Absolutely slavery. You shouldn't have to pay taxes to keep things you already paid taxes on. That's just evil.

The government needs to be contrite about this. The government needs to recognize the evil it is doing and to do absulutely everything it it's power to do the right thing with that money.

I understand the sentiment but that objective was lost about a century ago.

And after turning public education over to a bunch of race baiting Maoist, we have much bigger more immediate issues. Like a majority of the people and a super majority of folks under 40 who think the USA exists to provide equity of life outcome to the entire god damn planet.

You're right about taxation needing to be honest and fair. I've liked a lot of the posts you've made here lately - you and I are on the same page.

We're both very liberal, you lean further right than I do in your liberalism.... but at the end of the day we both believe that protecting and enhancing the liberty of the individual should be the primary concern of the US government.

But, I like returning to principle whenever I can. And as much as my minarchist utopia fantasy requires taxes, I can't bring myself to call them anything but a necessary evil.

I understand, and as much as you can't bring yourself to call them anything but a necessary evil I can't ignore the fact that those necessities have and can still be with honest and fair taxation that is not insidious or evil in any way, just a necessary reality of having to pay for goods and services.

That being said, the hidden/gate keeping taxes used to manipulate the economy and wealth/property taxes and taxes on theoretical wealth that doesn't actually exist?? Pure evil and anti-American...... thus the Democrats are such big fans.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Oh look, another Flat Tax numpty regurgitating the tired "but...but...teh rich folks don't pay taxes" blather.

#ErrybodyKnows teh rich don't pay taxes! Hodor!

Oh look, rob clearly triggered by facts he can't even attempt to refute.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

We are learning more about why Brandon is focusing on making sure people pay their fair share. His son is being investigated for tax evasion. People close to the president say the proposal is being dubbed “Hunter’s Law” and will require drug fiends to pay a 20% tax on all meth and crack consumed.

 

[Chobham]

In a bizarre way taxing unrealized wealth makes sense, after all you wouldn't be paying the tax with real money.

 

[icanhelp1]

I wonder if the IRS is going to issue checks for unrealized loses?

 

[The_Trouvere]

What makes one right and the other wrong?

Laws.

Are you sure you are old enough to post here? You write like a fourteen year old who just discovered Ayn Rand.

 

[phrodeau]

What makes one right and the other wrong?

Jesus did.

Thou shalt not steal.
Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I'm paraphrasing a noted economist and alluding to one of his famous economic lessons:
The Law of Unintended Consequences (The Broken Window)

A tax on the wealthy is a tax that they do not pay, but you do not look past
the act of taxing the wealthy, which for you is a desired outcome, and see its effects.

The wealthy do not pay "wealth" taxes. They pass them on.
They pass them in the forms of things like higher prices, decreased dividends,
which fall hardest on the elderly (fixed retirement incomes) and by the expedience
of reducing labor, which falls hardest on the class of yokels yammering to tax their bosses...

You think your arguments are a priori, when in fact, outside of Socialist economic philosophy,
they are debunked and provably demonstrated fallacious argument for the reasons outlined above.

Just because a right wing economist says something does not mean that it is true. During the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate fluctuated between 92% and 91%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

If what you say is true, those must have been dreadful years for America's white working class. Instead they were the years Trump's blue collar constituency is nostalgic for when they nostalgically respond to Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again." Most employees got pay raises every year that beat inflation. I read recently that after the Second World War, and for a time afterwards the average house cost only twice the average salary.

The Eisenhower administration notwithstanding, in my comment #122 I documented, using data drawn from the U.S. Chamber of Congress and The Wall Street Journal demonstrating that from 1921 to 2000 the U.S. economy has usually performed better under Democrat presidents, when the tax system was usually more progressive. Even this is true:

According to a Nov 6, 2012 article in The Wall Street Journal, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Well that didn’t take long!

Manchin Pans Biden’s Proposed Tax on Unrealized Gains of Wealthy​

“President Joe Biden’s plan to tax unrealized capital gains ran into opposition from key Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, likely dooming it just hours after it was sent to Congress.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-proposed-tax-on-unrealized-gains-of-wealthy

 

[icanhelp1]

Just because a right wing economist says something does not mean that it is true. During the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate fluctuated between 92% and 91%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

If what you say is true, those must have been dreadful years for America's white working class. Instead they were the years Trump's blue collar constituency is nostalgic for when they nostalgically respond to Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again." Most employees got pay raises every year that beat inflation. I read recently that after the Second World War, and for a time afterwards the average house cost only twice the average salary.

The Eisenhower administration notwithstanding, in my comment #122 I documented, using data drawn from the U.S. Chamber of Congress and The Wall Street Journal demonstrating that from 1921 to 2000 the U.S. economy has usually performed better under Democrat presidents, when the tax system was usually more progressive. Even this is true:

According to a Nov 6, 2012 article in The Wall Street Journal, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

Over taxing success does not breed more success, just the opposite.

 

[icanhelp1]

Personally, I'm tickled pink that the Biden administration put forward this 5.9 trillion dollar budget. It's a hilarious bill and it's dead on arrival, on to CRs till november.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Personally, I'm tickled pink that the Biden administration put forward this 5.9 trillion dollar budget. It's a hilarious bill and it's dead on arrival, on to CRs till november.

It had a good run. Took a full 24 hours for Manchin to kill it.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Over taxing success does not breed more success, just the opposite.

Then why has the economy usually performed better when the tax system was more progressive?

Also, what about the national debt? Republicans used to worry about that, and call for balanced budgets.

1945 was the last year of the Second World War. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%. By the last full of the Carter administration in 1980 this had declined to 32%. It declined during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. During this time the top tax rate was as high as 94%, and never got below 70%.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28%. When he left office in 1988 the top tax rate was 28%. The national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 50%.

Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31.0 % to 39.6%. During his administration the national debt as a percentage of GDP declined from 63% to 55%.

Bush II and Trump cut taxes for the rich. When Trump left office the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 129%.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Also, what about the national debt? Republicans used to worry about that, and call for balanced budgets.

It's a monopoly money joke at this point.

Better to STFU and make sure the equity fools who can't figure out how to do it themselves are left holding that bag.... it's theirs.

Bush II and Trump cut taxes for the rich. When Trump left office the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 129%.

Trump cut taxes for everyone.

The debt/deficit is a congressional issue, which is broken because of a stark divide on core values.

 

[icanhelp1]

Then why has the economy usually performed better when the tax system was more progressive?

Also, what about the national debt? Republicans used to worry about that, and call for balanced budgets.

1945 was the last year of the Second World War. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%. By the last full of the Carter administration in 1980 this had declined to 32%. It declined during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. During this time the top tax rate was as high as 94%, and never got below 70%.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28%. When he left office in 1988 the top tax rate was 28%. The national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 50%.

Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31.0 % to 39.6%. During his administration the national debt as a percentage of GDP declined from 63% to 55%.

Bush II and Trump cut taxes for the rich. When Trump left office the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 129%.

World economies are more competitive today. If you raise the corporate tax to 28 % companies will go where the tax rate is more palatable. States with high state tax rates are losing companies and revenue to states that have lower or no taxes.

Trump's first year was blackmailed by Schumer and the democrats. Obama let our military readiness devolve into a substandard posture, Trump wanted to rebuild the military but could only get the funding if he agreed to an additional 80 to 120 billion dollars added to the budget by Schumer and Pelosi.

We can't tax out way out of debt, spending cuts along with consolidating redundant programs has to be in the equation. Biden's bill is 2 trillion over budget, that's lunacy!!! If you increase taxes... revenue will shrink, the economy will slow. Only an idiot with no experience in how an economy works would push for large tax increases while suffering from off the scale inflation. Biden wants too many socialist programs, too much free stuff at our expense and an unrealistic conversion to green energy. Biden is an incompetent fool.

 

[icanhelp1]

It's a monopoly money joke at this point.

Better to STFU and make sure the equity fools who can't figure out how to do it themselves are left holding that bag.... it's theirs.



Trump cut taxes for everyone.

The debt/deficit is a congressional issue, which is broken because of a stark divide on core values.

Whenever there's a tax cut these loons always equate it to a cut for the rich, and they whine in lockstep. I've never seen a poor man give a poor man a job?

 

[Gorgoroth]

Whenever there's a tax cut these loons always equate it to a cut for the rich, and they whine in lockstep. I've never seen a poor man give a poor man a job?

They don't understand how money works in a free and voluntary market, so they are enthusiastic to vote for politicians promising to punish anyone with more.... and they actually buy into it LOL.

Never doubt the power of stupid people in large numbers.

I say give them all the rope they want.