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

Thank you Senator Manchin for being a reasonable and informed Senator.

First it would take a constitutional amendment just as a national income tax required.
Second we have a record of "wealth taxes" in Europe and they don't work. The Dems want to be able to get a cut when your wealth increases even though you don't realize it but what about when that wealth falls in value do you give you some back for their loss?

It would be an accounting nightmare. It would drive capital out of equities and bonds and into real estate and art and other collectables. And then the liquidity having to liquidate your holdings to pay a tax on them. The small business this could impact and having to sell off interest to pay a tax on unrealized gains.


"Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said Tuesday he would not support President Joe Biden’s proposed “minimum tax on billionaires,” which would impose a 20% minimum tax on households worth over $100 million and would target unrealized gains, the second time in five months Manchin has opposed the administration’s efforts to realize a dramatic targeted tax increase on the richest Americans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachar...-has-to-pay-their-fair-share/?sh=1dc3843f789a

It was political theater anyway, Biden knows it won't pass but he will run see what I tried and I was stopped, saying vote for me even though I fail at everything.

 

How much money does the government need? To quote Obama, how much is enough?

 

Largest tax increase in US history, pushed as a way to 'get our financial house in order', yet comes with MASSIVE ****ING MASSIVE multi-trillion dollar spending increases.

 

If you have money in your pocket then government isn't doing its job.

 

To balance our budget we will have to have tax increases as well as reductions in spending. Just doing one isn’t going to be enough without having very damaging ripple effects throughout the economy.

Consolidate many federal programs, eliminate most deductions for high income earners, implement a minimum tax above a certain threshold, move cap gains taxes to match regular income tax rates, move some federal programs back to the individual states pause new military increases and get healthcare costs under control.

 

The 20% tax on billionaires is smoke and mirrors. Billionaires own Washington DC.

 

Yah they own the ones voting no

 

This is a savvy crowd here. Here’s the truth …

Democrats will never, ever, propose a big tax increase on the super rich, except when they know in advance that it cannot pass.

If the Democrats had solid control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, this topic would not be on the agenda.

But they don’t have solid control of both houses of Congress, so for the Democrats, this is a safe topic because they don’t really want it to pass, but they want to pretend they do in an election year.

What the Republicans ought to do is to not get played, and instead promise to pass it, or propose legislation that taxes the super rich even more than Biden’s proposal, and watch Nancy Pelosi refuse to give it a vote in the House.

 

NO!
The Proposed "Billionaire's Tax" Would NOT "take a constitutional amendment".

So?
Why would anybody post such utterly misinformed BS?:smh:

 

I disagree with the idea of any wealth tax. I have no problem with the concept of income tax.

I think there is one easy and fundamental change that should be made - it should not be possible to transfer assets to another person tax-free upon death. When someone dies, there should be a deemed disposition of their property, with the estate paying any capital gains tax that might be due. Then the beneficiaries acquire the property at current fair market value.

 

Yes, I don't see how a tax on unrealized gains would ever pass the Congress.

Probably. Politicians routinely create proposals which are designed to fail, like GOP creating countless initiatives to repeal ACA full well knowing they had no chance of passing unless they had full control of Congress and WH (it didn't pass even when did have full control).

Even more? The GOP would own it. You think that's going to happen?

 

Maybe we should test your theory by having a GOP vote yes to off-set Manchin and then see if Kackles casts the tie breaker?

 

Anybody dumb enough to think the uber-wealthy are going to sit still and let the Democrats pick their pockets is in for a rude awakening.

Wealth is portable.

'nuff said.

 

They want it all.

 

If a alternative minimum tax was passed in the next budget, there is no need for a constitutional admendment because it is already part of the 16th admendment, and Article 1 of the Constitution on Congressional Powers to tax. Other than that, Munchin is using the no vote on billionaires tax to get something in return that he wants. It is negotiations.

 

Congress isn't going to pass a law taxing millionaires, because THEY would get taxed, too. This is just political theater.

 

The dissonance here is astounding. First, democrats seem determined to become China. At the same time, they also seem willing to pretend that they're for the average Joe. The conflict then that this creates comes into focus in issues like this where out of touch democrats believe that the average joe are jealous and vindictive and want to punish the rich because they "feel entitled" to some of that wealth for themselves. I can't think of a single person who actually believes that, but democrats believe in artificial friction to mask their real intent which is to devalue the actual financial well being of the average joe while pretending to care about them. It is pretty obvious at this point that democrats don't care a whit about anyone but the accumulation of their own power over every form of financial transaction in the nation.

My first thought is that if I can be taxed against unrealized gains, I can also get a tax break for unrealized losses. More, if we're talking total potential why not demand that I get tax breaks for unrealized dependents? Imaginary dependents...

 

Or an alternative Republican bill that targets Nancy Pelosi’s wealth and which takes more from the super rich than the Democrats’ bill. Two can play this game.

What the Democrats want is a bill that gets killed by Republicans in an election year. They don’t really want it passed; they want it killed, but by Republicans. Republicans ought to ram it right back down their hypocritical throats and tell them they won’t be played like that. Fight fire with fire.

It would be a politically safe position for Republicans to take. There is not a great deal of sympathy in the electorate for people who make tens of millions or hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

But, predictably, they won’t do it. It would be fun to watch if they did, but they won’t.

 

No. I think they ought to do that, but I don’t think they will do that.

 

China does not have an Alt Min Tax in the tax code that I know of. Thus, the comparison between China and the Democrats is ludicrous at best. Second, The proposal in Biden's budget of that wealth tax will not affect the average joe. Remember, the JCTA eliminate itemized deductions at the 2% level for employee business expenses, which affected a lot more middle class taxpayers than the Biden's Wealth 'Tax as an Alt Min Tax. Personally, I think conservatives are listening to people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and trying to throw as much dung to the wall to see how much will stick.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...e Services Group/at-china-highlights-2020.pdf

 

His budget proposes a 38% increase in spending over FY2019, the last before COVID. Please explain why we need to be spending THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT more than in 2019. We are having RECORD revenues pouring into the treasury, why do we need higher taxes which will only hurt economic growth?

We collect DOUBLE the capgains tax revenue AFTER Bush43 and the Republican Congress cut capgains rates to 15% over the Clinton 29% rate. What is your goal, more revenues and punitive tax rates to make it "fair"? Which is more important, the revenues or satisfy the envy?

 

If it applies to unrealized gains also unconstitutional.

 

Yes it would as it is a direct tax on wealth. The only way we got a tax on income was through the 16th Amendment. 11 European countries tried wealth taxes all but 9 repealed and one of those cut it way back. Doesn't pull in the revenues dreamed, is almost impossible to compile, almost impossible to comply with, too much harm to the economies.

 

Why? Isn't the American dream to be able to pass your accumulated wealth to your family? LOTS of those gains you are talking about are in family businesses which would have to be sold in part or in total to pay the tax bills, land sold, homes sold. It's not just sitting around in some cash account. You are taxing dead people now.

 

lmao.......that didn't take long, damn the torpedos, full steam ahead!