Manchin Rejects 20% Tax For Billionaires: ‘Everybody Has To Pay Their Fair Share’

Or the States which would have to approve the amendment to institute one.

To Seth>>

As do every presidents budget, he's trying to score political points for the midterms with the false narrative about "fair share" creating jealousy and envy of one group by another.

To Seth>>

No.

 

Why do you think it would require States to approve it?

 

No it's not, this would be a new tax on wealth not income which required the 16th Amendment. This would require a new amendment as it would be a direct tax not apportioned as to the states.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

It would require the Constitution be amended as was required for the tax on income.

 

um..... Everyone with a 401k, everyone with stock participation, savings, etc will be effected by unrealized gains. There is no magic cutoff dollar amount, is there. So, as you say, why gaslight when you know that the assertion wasn't that China has a minimum tax when it wasn't asserted? Democrats want to be the CCP. They want the power, which you seem to have forgotten to comment on. But who cares, you'll argue a point not made in hopes someone will argue it with you. How disingenuous.. Your personal narrative aside, the folks I see lying to the public are democrats. Are you one of those too?

 

Manchin is one of the most corrupt pols in the country. He should have run as a repub.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...AAVDb6T?cvid=9da21a1f1fb8461db81ea56cb187a8a9

 

You somehow have the strange belief that the citizens of his state voted him into office to end the coal industry in WV?

 

I have a problem with assets being passed on tax-free, and the recipient acquiring them at their present value - not at the value they were really acquired at.
Primary residence should not attract capital gains tax, but beyond that - either deemed disposition at market value at date of death, or the beneficiaries are deemed to acquire the asset at the same value that the deceased acquired it.
And in principle I have no problem with taxing people who have died. Not on their wealth but on their capital gain.

 

Taxes were paid on the incomes that created that wealth. When any of those gains are turned into income the state will get the capgains tax on it.

 

I just think the Republicans should call their bluff. “One up” them with an alternative bill. Let’s see how badly Nancy, the $200 million woman, wants to pay much higher taxes. The Republicans should let her know they will all vote Yes. That way, she gets no political victory. She can’t claim the Republicans only care about the rich. Meanwhile, what she does get is a much higher tax bill for her and her hedge fund manager husband.

10 to 1 she would never let it get a vote in the House.

 

I have never been in the position of having assets turned over to me at someone’s death, so I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that if assets are handed over, the beneficiary acquires them at the actual value at date of death.
So if my father bought shares at $1, then sold them at $100 just before he died, he would pay capital gains tax on the increase. But if he willed them to me, I would acquire them at $100, sell them immediately and pay no capital gains tax.
That seems wrong to me.

As I say, if my understanding is wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.

 

It's called a "step-up in basis" and you could read more about it here: Step-up in Basis | What is Step-up in Basis? | Tax Foundation

Just curious, are you generally supportive of the concept of estate / inheritance taxes? For example, when an old farmer dies and leaves his family farm to his son, are you of the opinion that the son should have to pay an inheritance tax on the farm? If so, can you see any problems / issues that may arise from such a policy?

 

No, I am not in favor of inheritance tax. I do not believe wealth should be taxed. I have no problem with income tax or capital gains tax, and I do not like the idea of avoiding a capital gains tax by leaving an asset to someone in a will.

The example you give is rare, but could have a solution without an immediate tax hit. In some cases, the beneficiary might be given a choice - have the estate pay the capital gain tax immediately, or take over the asset at the value that the original owner paid. So the capital gain tax will be paid on the full capital gain when the property is sold. But at some point, the capital gain on the increase in value from the time of original acquisition to the time of sale (or deemed sale) will be taxed. To me that is much better than a wealth tax.

 

Manchin is a millionaire from legislation he helped pass favoring a dirty coal fired electricity generating company in his state which burns the dirty coal the mine he owns produces. He is a Republican at heart.

 

You must believe the money you earn is really the governments. They just let you keep a portion of it.

 

You forgot the 16th admendment. It says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But we already have an estate tax. It is one of the oldest taxes on the books and came into being in 1863 to help pay for the Civil War. It has been modified and was permenantly added to the United States Code in 1913 after the 16th admendment was ratified.

 

There is a difference between a wealth tax and an income tax. They are two seperate things. If you sell stocks, then, if it is held long term and does not meet any special rules, like qualified small business stock, then the maximum capital gains tax would be dependent on your total taxable income AND how much the capital gains affected your total taxable income. A wealth tax, based on a speicified date, which may be end of year, like December 31, would tax the wealth of you posses as an Alternative Minimum Tax. Wealth and income are mutually exclusive generally, but Biden is attempting to link the two with a high taxable inocme threshhold, assuming it passes.

 

Yes that is when they become THEIR property. YOU would not have had the capital gains yet on what was gifted to you. So if your father had started a business for $1 and it is now worth $100 and he dies, he is dead he doesn't receive any capital gains. The business is worth $100 on it, you don't have to sell part of it or any equipment it might own in order to pay for a gain YOU did not see. Why should the government get part of that?

 

I say tax the piss out of them, though I knew this attempt to tax potential income was a dead letter. But, come up with something else and then tax the crap out of these woke exploitive bastards.

"COLLUSION AND WORKER EXPLOITATION": GM China Has Employees Living Inside Factories.

But I'm supposed to by their china slave produced stuff because it's "American Made"?

 

And the Constitution states what kind of taxes it can and cannot levy on the citizens and a wealth tax is one they cannot.

Because they got a strained court to declare it isn't really a tax but a duty on a transfer of assets so it is not a direct tax like the income tax.

Post-war, an attempt was made to challenge the constitutionality of the Civil War era succession [sic estate] taxes in Scholey v. Rew. 131 The Court ruled the “succession tax” constitutional through a tortured interpretation of the Article I taxing power:

ut it is clear that the tax or duty levied by the act under consideration is not a direct tax within the meaning of either of those provisions. Instead of that it is plainly an excise tax or duty, authorized by section eight of article one,
which vests the power in Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare. Such a tax or duty is neither a tax on land nor a capitation exaction,
as subsequently appears from the language of the section imposing the tax or duty . . . .132​

 

Yes!
One is constitutional one is not.
One is manageable the other is not.

Let me ask you, it you have an asset and it goes up 10% over the year and you have give to 2% of that to the government and then it goes down 10% the next year do you get the tax back? Is Uncle Sam only an investor in the risk when it goes or does he share in the loses?

 

They are both Constitutional because of both the Article 1 AND 16th admendment.

We have a wealth tax, we call it an estate tax. And that has been Constitutional long before the 16th admendment was ratified.

Assuming the Biden's Wealth Alternative Minimum Tax is passed, and assuming you meet the threshold for having to file such a form, the date would be at a specified time, probably end of the year. This means that you have time to manuever your assets to minimize said tax. So, no, there is no refund just as there is no refund if you have a large income in one year and pay a larger tax than the next year your income is significantly lower and pay a less tax. You do not get a refund from the prior year. There is no income or wealth averaging on the books anymore, not even for farm income. And that has been the case since TRA 86.

 

The Constitution not only includes the original document, but all 27 admendments. One of those is the 16th admendment which specically adds that an indirect tax, aka income, tax is now Constitutional.

Indirect taxes include tariffs, wealth, gift, etc. And as I said, in 1789, the first estate tax was passed by Congress to help fund the Navy. It was that way for 6 months until Congress passed another legislation to add certain tarriffs to British goods to help fund the navy in 1789. There was no talk of Constitutionality then by the founding fathers. No challenges to the Supreme Court, no nothing. So, yes, it was Constitutional then as it is today.

 

People living at or near their place of work is common at most Asian countries. Although from the article, it is stereotyping images of poor coal miners living in shacks at or near the mine, in China, it is usually a one or two bedroom condo with toilet, shower, beds, electricity, etc, with rent deducted from your salary. And it is not just factories here, but banks, tree farms, and other very large businesses. Even in Japan up to the 1960s, it was not uncommon for the factory worker to live on the premises if he was unmarried.

 

Aren't the Chinese employees only living temporarily in the factory BECAUSE OF COVID???? They want to avoid the employees having contact with the general public to avoid them getting Covid and then bringing it into the factory floor contaminating others. Makes good sense to me.