Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduces "ultra-millionaire" wealth tax bill

Flat tax would solve it!

 

I'm all for a flat tax

 

A flat tax will never happen just as the Fair Tax will never happen. Politicians will never remove a wedge issue. That's why they haven't made any abortion laws, why they won't touch marijuana laws, why they keep screwing with taxes, guns, etc.
They could easily fix 90% of the issues but won't because they wouldn't have anything to campaign on next time.

 

What you pointed out is false. Putting the governments thumb on the scale is not the same thing as free market. We already have examples of the top 1% paying 50% of the income taxes. Are results important?

 

Taxes are NOT punishment. Taxes are an absolute requirement of ALL civilizations now and throughout history. Calling that punishment is just plain silly. OR, it is a statement that you are an anarchist.

Taxes are determined by our elected representatives. Your "someone" thing is just plain false.

We almost had a balanced budget by the end of the Clinton years.

Now, we see it as starndard operating procedure to cut taxes for the wealthy and simply add it to our debt for our children to pay.

That has to stop. We have to start paying for what we buy. And, that means more taxes, because there really is no way to cut enough stuff to solve the prolblem.

 

Taxes can certainly be used as a punishment, even if thats not what they inherently are.

 

Both those tax ideas shift the load away from the wealthy and toward the middle class and below.

 

Actually, no. The FairTax is much more progressive than what we have now
You could argue that the flat tax is regressive if you ignore the loopholes that the ultra rich use. Can you provide any data as to why you think the FairTax is regressive?

 

It is a very small percentage.

 

Our healthcare system is DESIGNED to deny equal healthcare to our population.

It's based on the premise that only those with money "deserve" access to healthcare. From there, we patch in some fixes that are totally inadequate.

I do not see ANYTHING acceptable about that. It's a moral travesty.

As for public transit and other such features, we all need those features even if we don't use them. If our cities require everyone to drive, it adds a huge requirement for roads, parking, etc. The benefits of public transit are NOT limited to those using the feature.

In Seattle, we're finding that the number of cars per population is decreasing. That has allowed for changes in regulations concerning parking - for apartments, stores, office buildings, etc.

Having rail based transportation is something that supports investment, because it is a commitment unlike some change in bus routes.

One can not design a city by waiting for people to start paying for stuff that doesn't exist.

 

this IS NOT Income tax

it's taxing assets and wealth

Maybe your car is nicer than mine so you should pay some more taxes on it

Why should you have a better car than me?

Why should your house have 4 bedrooms when I only have 3? Maybe we need to add a federal tax on all families with 4-bedroom homes

this is exactly what you, a Democrat voter, are supporting. Why not call it what is...........an envy tax

 

Our healthcare system is DESIGNED to deny equal healthcare to our population.

It's based on the premise that only those with money "deserve" access to healthcare. From there, we patch in some fixes that are totally inadequate.

I do not see ANYTHING acceptable about that. It's a moral travesty.

As for public transit and other such features, we all need those features even if we don't use them. If our cities require everyone to drive, it adds a huge requirement for roads, parking, etc. The benefits of public transit are NOT limited to those using the feature.

In Seattle, we're finding that the number of cars per population is decreasing. That has allowed for changes in regulations concerning parking - for apartments, stores, office buildings, etc.

Having rail based transportation is something that supports investment, because it is a commitment unlike some change in bus routes. it affects propertt

One can not design a city by waiting for people to start paying for stuff that doesn't exist.

 

We have a number of taxes that are not income taxes.

I don't see that you have a legitimate argument here.

 

That's true for gas tax, too.

I think taxation systems have to be evaluated based on their total effect.

 

Economists do not agree on that. And, the assumptions used to claim Fair Tax is progressive are nutty.

For example, they claim the benefit of eliminating payroll tax. But, we could eliminate payroll tax with our current system. In fact, we could make more minor changes and reduce or eliminate the regressive nature of this tax. It doesn't take Flat Tax to do that.

Beyonod that, those with low to middle income today spend all or almost all their income. One can see this in data regarding our savings rates. On the other end, those with high income live comfortabley without spending their income - in fact, living comfortably on investment income. Only a fraction of their income would be taxed by FT.

There are numerous other side affects as well. There WILL be loopholes. Loopholes are an important tool used by legislatures to cause desired changes in behavior without actually creating law or regulation. Removing tax benefits for charitable donations would be a huge impact. Adding 30% taxes to apartment rentals would be a gigantic hit for those who aren't wealthy enough to own. etc., etc.

Adding 30% to the cost of new products such as cars would surely encourage people to be far more oriented to NOT buying new products!!

 

If they can find it but lots will be investing in collectables and tangibles that hold value. Now is the IRS going to be going to their homes with search warrants to do inventories of everything inside?

 

The gas tax is an excise tax, you are paying for something when you pay an excise tax in this case road use and road construction. A lower income persons car does as much wear and tear as a high income persons we all should pay the same don't you think?

 

When my son and his fiancé, both Marines, were married she did not reup so they could stay together and start a family. Both outstanding Marines BTW. So being a vet she looked to the government and got a job at the Social Security Admin. After a year she could not take it anymore. As you said the level of apathy and bureaucracy was mind blowing. She handled income claims and she told me of just one occurrence where the grandmother was wanting to claim the grandchildren as dependents so they could draw or she could draw more even though she knew the mother lived in the house along with the boyfriend. So she took it to her supervisor to have it investigated and confirmed and the supervisor told her not to question the applicants just take what they say and pass the paper work. There was NO looking out for taxpayer money the goal was to hand out as much as possible. And they spent half the time planning the next birthday or wedding or baby party of the next motivational speaker coming and just BS. As I said coming from the Marines she couldn't handle it.

And this tax is just more money that justifies their positions to dole it out while they all live the life of the government elite.

 

You're assuming that this low income person WANTS perfect roads - and more of them.

If we all wanted the same product, you might be right. But, we don't.

 

They are paying that effective rate ON THEIR INCOME, it is what percent of their income they pay and it is HUGELY more than what the lower income groups pay.

The tax code works for me.

No middle or lower income group pays 35%, you have to be a shmuck in the top 1% to be paying those rates on income. And should the capital gains rate be set by some "let's make it fair" undefinable standard or at what rate we collect the most revenue and do the least harm to the economy. Should it be some social tool or what it is designed to do, raise revenue for the federal treasury?

 

They use them just like everyone else and their use requires the same maintenance and construction as everyone else.

 

If you want to lobby for spending more money on verification, you can do that.

That's certaily NOT legislative direction given to the IRS.

 

Assets don't always earn interest, a wealth tax is not just about currency the person has on hand you know, it's EVERYTHING they own. If fact some assets depreciated over time, can lose value especially if it is something that has to be maintained and then you put a government 2% grab and you will have to sell something to have the cash to pay it, I doubt you can wrap up a piece of art and send it to them say here's my tax for this year. And the $50M is just to get it past, remember what they said about the income tax when it was passed.

 

There really isn't any chance that the proposed tax on those with wealth would change our economy in any way. People in that bracket don't have spending habits that are affected by the amount of the proposed tax.

However, if that money is used for improving infrastructure in the USA, it could have a significang positive impact in terms of jobs and in terms of heading off the costly disasters of failing infrastructure.

 

Me>> Do you believe rich, wealthy, high earners, successful whatever you want to call them people want everyone else to be poor and believe the more poor the better for them and their businesses and the country in which they live?

Really? And why is it an advantage for them that everyone else be poor, how is that in their own self interest? How is it better for them?