Jump to content

Democratic Nomination for 2020 - UPDATED to include those who have officially announced


Legaltitan

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tgo said:

How is that a misinterpretation? 

 

And yeah, AOC called for a 70% upper tax rate (not a presidential candidate I know, but a leader among the leftist faction), and Warren called for a tax of 2-3% of total

assets per year for millionaires/billionaires. Which seems minimal, but as you know, that’s very different than a person’s annual earnings, etc. and would get pretty crazy. 

 

I think a better way would be to double the 15% capital gains tax, which is how most rich people make money and wouldn’t have much effect on the poor. 

A 70% tax rate on people earning 10 mill per year or more is what she called for That's going to affect almost no one. We've had people pay a 90% tax. You understand we have a progressive tax system and only the income over 10 mill would be at a 70% rate right?

 

Warren's idea was a good one. A wealth tax on the wealthy because they don't pay hardly any if any taxes. They tax the shit out of earned income and people who get capital gains, real estate, inheritance.... get over. You're idea would also work but there just ideas to make people pay their fair share. 

 

These aren't extreme ideas. Cutting taxes on the wealthy was extreme

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Amigo, there has to be a transition that isn’t strictly Medicare for All, regardless of how the bill is written. I’ve supported Medicare for All for a long time now. I still support it. When speaking

I know some people don't want to hear it, but it's going to be Bernie and if it is, he's gonna win. 

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, tgo said:

How is that a misinterpretation? 

 

And yeah, AOC called for a 70% upper tax rate (not a presidential candidate I know, but a leader among the leftist faction), and Warren called for a tax of 2-3% of total

assets per year for millionaires/billionaires. Which seems minimal, but as you know, that’s very different than a person’s annual earnings, etc. and would get pretty crazy. 

 

I think a better way would be to double the 15% capital gains tax, which is how most rich people make money and wouldn’t have much effect on the poor. 

The 70% rate doesn't affect the poor.  They never get to that marginal rate.  Not even close.

 

Nor does Warren's proposed tax on assets.  It takes something like 5M net worth (or something really high)  before it kicks in.

 

The tax on investment income would affect the ordinary guy who has a few bucks stuck back in a mutual fund outside of his 401K.

 

Furthermore, AOC isn't a candidate.  What she says doesn't matter.

Edited by ctm
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

A 70% tax rate on people earning 10 mill per year or more is what she called for That's going to affect almost no one. We've had people pay a 90% tax. You understand we have a progressive tax system and only the income over 10 mill would be at a 70% rate right?

 

Warren's idea was a good one. A wealth tax on the wealthy because they don't pay hardly any if any taxes. They tax the shit out of earned income and people who get capital gains, real estate, inheritance.... get over. You're idea would also work but there just ideas to make people pay their fair share. 

 

These aren't extreme ideas. Cutting taxes on the wealthy was extreme

Yes, I understand all that and I think a 70% tax rate is tyrannical and unethical and basically un American, despite the tax rates that were enacted fir a lot of the 20th century. I don’t want to harp on this point though. 

 

moreover it just sounds extreme and independents hate the idea and it’s a bad idea politically. 

 

I think there are better ways to raise the revenue from the wealthy and better ways to message taxes on the wealthy. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

A 70% tax rate on people earning 10 mill per year or more is what she called for That's going to affect almost no one. We've had people pay a 90% tax. You understand we have a progressive tax system and only the income over 10 mill would be at a 70% rate right?

 

Warren's idea was a good one. A wealth tax on the wealthy because they don't pay hardly any if any taxes. They tax the shit out of earned income and people who get capital gains, real estate, inheritance.... get over. You're idea would also work but there just ideas to make people pay their fair share. 

 

These aren't extreme ideas. Cutting taxes on the wealthy was extreme

I heard her explain it perfectly the other night.  To paraphrase:

 

We already have a wealth tax where we tax assets.   It's called the property tax.  I just want to add the diamonds, yachts and art work to the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ctm said:

The 70% rate doesn't affect the poor.  They never get to that marginal rate.  Not even close.

 

Nor does Warren's proposed tax on assets.  It takes something like 5M net worth (or something really high)  before it kicks in.

 

The tax on investment income would affect the ordinary guy who has a few bucks stuck back in a mutual fund outside of his 401K.

 

Furthermore, AOC isn't a candidate.  What she says doesn't matter.

Not many ordinary people have investment income outside of their 401ks and even if so, a 30% tax is not unreasonable even for the ordinary guy on income that is basically “extra.” 

Edited by tgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ctm said:

I heard her explain it perfectly the other night.  To paraphrase:

 

We already have a wealth tax where we tax assets.   It's called the property tax.  I just want to add the diamonds, yachts and art work to the list.

Kind of ridiculous to say that propery taxes  are a “wealth” tax, but I understand the point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tgo said:

Yes, I understand all that and I think a 70% tax rate is tyrannical and unethical and basically un American, despite the tax rates that were enacted fir a lot of the 20th century. I don’t want to harp on this point though. 

 

moreover it just sounds extreme and independents hate the idea and it’s a bad idea politically. 

 

I think there are better ways to raise the revenue from the wealthy and better ways to message taxes on the wealthy. 

 

 

The country had a 90% tax rate during the Eisenhower administration.  It's how the country afforded the interstate highway system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tgo said:

Yes, I understand all that and I think a 70% tax rate is tyrannical and unethical and basically un American, despite the tax rates that were enacted fir a lot of the 20th century. I don’t want to harp on this point though. 

Exxon, Amazon etc... have recently gotten refunds/rebates!

 

One of these things is tyrannical and unethical and unamerican and it's not the 70% tax rate

 

And I get investment income outside of my 401k, why should I pay the same tax rate as some rich asshole who doesn't have earned income?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tgo said:

Kind of ridiculous to say that propery taxes  are a “wealth” tax, but I understand the point. 

That's exactly what it is, the tax is based on the estimated worth of your house

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a new tax that everyone could get behind is removing the regressive cap on FICA. Why are FICA taxes capped at 132k in annual income beyond protecting the rich from paying their share? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ctm said:

The country had a 90% tax rate during the Eisenhower administration.  It's how the country afforded the interstate highway system.

I understand, and as a history enthusiast who believes in the principles that the country was founded on, I just think it’s economic tyranny from a moral perspective for a government to take 70 to 90 percent of someone’s earnings. And it’s also de incentivizing to the economy at large. 

Edited by tgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tgo said:

I think a new tax that everyone could get behind is removing the regressive cap on FICA. Why are FICA taxes capped at 132k in annual income beyond protecting the rich from paying their share? 

That's how to fix the demographic problem with social security.  But the money goes into the social security trust fund, not the general treasury.

Edited by ctm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, tgo said:

I understand, and as a history enthusiast who believes in the principles that the country was founded on, I just think it’s economic tyranny to take 70 to 90 percent of someone’s earnings. And it’s also de incentivizing to the economy at large. 

People who make tens of millions who are the only ones affected aren't going to be de incentivized.  You think Buffet and Bezos are going to stop making every dollar they can just because the rate goes up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Exxon, Amazon etc... have recently gotten refunds/rebates!

 

One of these things is tyrannical and unethical and unamerican and it's not the 70% tax rate

 

And I get investment income outside of my 401k, why should I pay the same tax rate as some rich asshole who doesn't have earned income?

Here's something that you might want to be aware of.  I just went thru it.

 

If you have a fund outside of a 401K and are automatically reinvesting interest, dividends and capital gains then you need to keep very good records and preserve your investment reports.  Those automatic reinvestments add to your basis for tax purposes.  I just sold a small mutual fund and had to go thru 10 years of records to figure out how much had been automatically re-invested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Exxon, Amazon etc... have recently gotten refunds/rebates!

 

One of these things is tyrannical and unethical and unamerican and it's not the 70% tax rate

 

And I get investment income outside of my 401k, why should I pay the same tax rate as some rich asshole who doesn't have earned income?

Fine, make it tiered then. Fair point. 

 

And yes, wholly agree on your point re the large companies. Disgraceful that they actually get money back while the middle class is paying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...