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

DUH. What's your point. A wealth wealth is not an income tax.

The taxes the Constitution authorizes include and specifically excludes direct taxes which is why the specific tax on earned income required an amendment.

And Lincoln did several unconstitonal acts during the war this tax being one of them. And it WAS challenged and I gave you the results and the court ruling that it is not a tax but an assessment, a duty in that strained interpretation.

 

The more we spend, the more we are going to need, and both parties now seem hell-bent on spending like drunk sailors on leave.

 

No as ruled by the court which I cited.

Assuming that that threshold will fall as it did with the income tax the value of that is not a snapshot, that not only changes year to year but month to month, week to week, hour to hour. What if there is a huge fall in the market April 15th and then a huge increase April 16th?

Oh and how do you do that and isn't that what you want to avoid?

Apples and oranges that is EARNED INCOME you have it in hand nd the fixed amour you earned over that time.

Your assets go up and down in value and you are being tax on that value. If I lose money on an investment I can at least write off that loss. Why does the government only get to share in gain and not suffer the loss if they are going to be your partner in those gains.

But there are write offs for losses. And BTW

About Schedule J (Form 1040), Income Averaging for Farmers and Fishermen
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-schedule-j-form-1040

 

The idea that Constitutionalists should go to bat for $Billionaires who use slave labor to complete with American Workers is laughable. They are no friends of ours, and they seem to try to "out woke" each other to impress their new Leftwing friends. Well, enjoy your new friends and ask them to protect you from confiscatory levels of taxation. They probably will in exchange for generous "donations".

Global companies (including GM) utilizing Chinese slave labor:

Billionaires using slavers to cut out the American Worker.

And then these woke billionaire bastards are so eager virtue signal to the Left about what they claim is "injustice" in America? When they are benefiting from 21st century slavery? And when the Left comes with confiscatory taxing, and these woke bastards sound the bugle, Constitutionalists are supposed to muster for a fight?

Not a chance Sappy!

Tax the living hell out of them.

 

The point I was making is that the culture is different, not better or worse. Yes, being required to live on the business property is more common in the countries I mentioned, not because of the tax code, but it is part of the ordinary custom. Even here in the United States, there are fringe benefits that is designed for thise type of situations, usually motel managers, or small apartment managers/staff, and even ranch hands like at the YO ranch, just to name a few. Furthermore, not is not about how is "left" or "right" in this situaiton.

GM cars are very popular in China. Believe it or not, it is actually a "status" symbol to most Chinese to own one. And GM makes very good cars in China, and they don't ship those cars from China to the US because the differences in vehicle requirements between the United States and China. MNC, like Volkswagon, BMW, Ford, GM, Microsoft, IBM, and a whole host of others will adapt to the local customs, generally, to help with employee moral.

We need to be careful how we define "slave labor." What you can get in China, depending on which city or provence you visit, will definitly be a lesser charge than your home country. For me, it was a engagement party with my wife's family and a few of her friends. 30 people in total. We had chicken, shrimp, "beef," vegetables, rice galore, alcohol, and tea. In total, for me it cost $800. In the United States, it would have been for more expenses. The reason, it is more expensive to live here than there, that's why.

As for the Ughurs, it is more complex than you think. There is a terrorist group called the East Turkistan Independence Movement. They are funded nowaday by Russian Oligarchs loyal to Putin. The 80,000 who have been sent, my guess, were sympathetic to their cause, were tried, and then sentenced to these facilities. These facilities is their form of prision with the goal of "rehabilitating" to the conform of society. In a way, we do the same thing here to with our prisioners and have been for over 7 decades now. If you are ever unfornate enougn to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to prision, other than life or DP, and you will be out in a determined amount of time, the prison system puts great emphasis and effort into your rehabillitation through a variety of methods. Those methods include education training, job training, etc. But it is different customs for different people. Neither is better nor worse, and that is what we have to be careful of.

 

And yet, you are claiming that it needs to be a consitutional admendment for such a tax to be legal. :confused

I think what Lincoln did was extraordinary. What happened, after his death, was that they kept the tax. Had Lincoln not been assassinated, I think the inocme tax would have stopped per Lincoln and he would have found another way. Lincoln, in his notes, always mainted that the income tax was a "war" tax and only to be used as such. When the Government started to make the income tax more permenant, then I think it crossed the threshold into unconstitutionality in 1873, the case you cited by the way.

 

Yes and no. You are lacking context here. The case you cited WAS before the 16th admendment was ratified. Once that admendment was ratified, the court case you cited became null and void.

April 15th is generally the due date of the return for a calendar year tax payer. For most individuals, the tax year is from January 1 to December 31 of that year. So, it is logical to think that would be the date to use for evaluation for the wealth tax, assuming it passes Congress.

This is called tax planning and it is a part of what Billionaires do, or at least their team of accountants and tax attorneys. It is also, in my professional opinion, exactly what they would do to minimize tax. For instance, if you knew you would have a huge capital gain on a sale of stock, I would also sell stock that I know would have a loss. I can do this in a variety of ways. Sale the stock with a huge loss the year before and carry forward the loss carryover or sell the stock with the loss in the year I sell the stock with the high gain. Or I could make itemized charitable deductions to offset my taxable income, like a charitable land trust for instance. And there are other ways I will not go into.

As I said, the IRS will select a date, probably end of year. This is similar to the date used for the estate tax, which is the date of the death. There is also an alternative valuation date that can be chosen and I would reasonably guess that would be also available if the wealth tax alternative minimum tax is passed into law.

Writeoffs and refunds are not the same Blues.

Income averaging for farmers or fisherman is rarely used and I have not seent that in over 10 years. Income averaging for retirees and regular taxpayers went out the window in TRA 86. So, unless you are a farmer and meet the qualifications, it will not apply to you in most cases.

 

The 16th has NOTHING to do with a tax on wealth PERIOD, it is specific to a tax on INCOME. The inheritence tax is NOT based on the 16th Amendment and is not considered a direct tax as the court ruled.

Sure and what if I file my taxes on February 1st and then the market falls? And the economy doesn't turn off and on and reset on January 1. And what if the evaluation of all my wealth has not been completed, who does that assessment? Who determines how much my vintage guitars are worth?

T

You don't minimize your tax? And they want to eliminate the loss carryovers and tax capital gains as ordinary income remember? This tax on wealth will complicate matters and people trying to file their taxes exponentially let alone the IRS trying to audit everyones wealth which will then be challenged in court which could take YEARS to resolve.

Well the date of your death ends you as a person and a taxpayer so you are no longer making decisions about your estate as it is being disposed of. What if the market has a HUGE increase the weeks before your date and then the market turns into a bear market for the next year, not only have you lost principle to the market you had to give the government some of your wealth. And as you said you don't get that back, the government does share in the lost only the gain.

You said income averaging for farmers no longer exist, yes it does. Farmers have have mostly stable incomes these past years so they haven't needed it. What's your point?

 

To have a tax on income required an amendment as it is a direct tax. The 16th didn't say any conceived direct tax is now constitutional. The wealth tax would be a direct tax, it would need it's only amendment to be constitutional.

It may have been extraordinary but many historians claim unconstitutional but the courts gave him great leeway due to the Civil War. We are not in civil war. And I posted the court ruling on the inheritance tax which said it is not a direct tax and why it is constitutional.

 

As you pointed out, a wealth tax is not income, and it never was or is. However, a wealth tax can be used either at the date of death or during a person's lifetime. Either way, it is constitutional no matter what.

How many is many here? Only Trump loyalists? I know only certain Libertarians have claimed that. In fact, Libertarians are the only ones who claim Abraham Lincoln was a bad president. Most ofther historians do not say that at all.

 

Remember these are the people who said that build back better was already paid for. There is no such thing as a tax on the rich only. In one form or another we will end up paying that.

 

Problem is, raising tax rates tends to lower tax revenues.

High income earner pay the lion's share of taxes now. Lower capital gains encourages investment; we need that.

 

and yet you keep harping on the fact that it must have an admendment. As I said, the AMT, no matter how derived, is Constitutional whether it is based on income or wealth. Period.

Feburary 1st of the following year is in the next calendar year. Furthermore, filing February 1st before the due date of the return is considered filed on the date of the return. Again, if the Wealth Tax AMT is passed, they will probably use the December 31st date, the last day of the calendar year, as the date to calculate the wealth tax. The IRS may provide regulations on an alternative valuation date as well, like 9 months after the date. Furthermore, IRS has very specific valuations on assets ranging from antiques to stocks to property etc. So, it would be based on "FMV" of said property based on similar assets outside your ownership. However, you are not going to fit into this category Blues, so you don't need to worry about it anyway. Your income and assets fall well below the threshhold.

Everybody minimizes their tax by using tax avoidance schemes. IRA's is a tax avoidance scheme. Certain trusts, like a Primary Residence Trust, is a tax avoidance scheme. And the list goes on. Others would have doubled their property tax payments in one year and taken the standard deduction in another year when property taxes were deductible on the Schedule A.

The point was to explain how the date is used for valuation on an estate return after your rediculuous attempt in suggesting that it cannot possibly work.

No I said income averaging does not exist. But in my experience, I have not seen a Schedule J in over ten years in my professional career. And there are plenty of farms and ranches around where I live and in East Texas. You probably did a Google Search on "income averaging" and the first thing that popped up was the Schedule J. And that is specific for farmers and fistermen if they meet the requirements and make the election. But prior to 1986 TRA Act, income averaging for retirees and for employees were more common in the upper income echelons of the taxpayers, ie upper middle class and upwards.

 

And not too long ago, your kind, like Larry Kudlow, was saying that deficits don't matter.

 

Oh sure, you can spin anything.

China sends government agents into the homes of the Uighur Muslim men they imprison, and those agents share the bed with the prisoner's wife.

https://news.yahoo.com/china-reportedly-sending-men-sleep-180155988.html

China assigns Chinese men "to monitor the homes of Uighur women whose husbands are in prison camps and they frequently sleep in the same bed with the women."

 

Not everyone. Only those whose income AND assets are above the threshhold.

Furthermore, trying to compare the US Tax System to that of China is ludicrous. For starters, most people do not even file because the tax is already taken at souce. There are no standard deductions, no filing status, no credits, no additional taxes, etc. If you have a business, rental property, etc, then that is a seperate tax bill you have to estimate every month, and then do a reconciliation at the end of the year. China's tax system is totally different than ours. In additinoal, China uses a regional system of tax whereas the United States, now as individually, uses a citizenship requirement no matter where the source is derived.

 

I get it..this is the way things show be

it is just fine for the middle class to average paying 20% of their income to taxes and uncle sam

but the wealthy should only pay about 10% because their 10% is more than most people's 20%

if I was living on a houseboat on the Potomac and driving a Ferrari and wearing $5000 dollar suits

I would not want to pay 20% either

but I live on a small farm and semi retired...

and I have averaged paying between 30% and 38% for over 20 years

someone answer me this

if Manchin and the other million millionaires claim a 20% tax rate is too high

why am I and many millions of others paying over 30%??

 

what is wrong with the tax rates for the rich being what they were under Reagan, let's go back to that

 

I have read those reports, however, it may or may not be possible until independent evidence is in. Furthermore, this is China, not the United States. Rules are different there. In Asia, it is all about the community, not the individual. I don't blame them or praise them, but being an outsider and looking in, we have to be careful not to judge too quickly until ALL the facts are in.

Second, we, the law enforcement, have done this type of thing too. It's called no knock warrants at a person's home early in the morning taking them from their bed, either naked or in their undergarments, etc. We have even done this to people coming home from work, in front of their family, etc. So, yes, that sort of thing happens here too.

 

I believe you are speaking of the Laffer curve. It does have applications but is far from universally accurate.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-laffer-curve-explanation-3305566

Of course higher earners pay the lion’s share, they have it all


Capital gains need to be taxed at the same percentage as regular income or we need tho change how the super wealthy skirt income taxes.

 

Not really. The Laeffer Curve suggests that there is an optimal point of tax rates when will maximize tax revenues. The problem is that optimal point changes constantly. Sometimes it goes up, and sometimes it goes down. And usually, when GOP offers broad based tax cuts, it is going down below the optimal point that was there.

 

Fake News. In America we don't imprison men for their religious beliefs and then quarter government agents in their homes to systematically rape their wives and daughters.

But, as I said, you can spin anything.

Back to topic: "IRS TARGETS POOREST TAXPAYERS FOR AUDITS: Data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows the federal tax agency is five times more likely to audit the lowest income bracket earners ($25K or less) than those in any of the other brackets. The IRS ignored my request for comment (surprise, surprise)."

"The guy ultimately in charge of the IRS often complains about billionaires who pay no taxes. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case if Biden told the auditors to pay attention to somebody other than the poorest filers."

https://instapundit.com/512845/

 

in part, yes.

but they pay a far higher share of total tax than their percent of income. That's the point.

Nonsense. Capital items are bought with after tax money.

 

My kind? How desperate are you? If you think a policy proposal is stupid or wrong have the guts to say so. I think we should have a balanced budget.

 

LOL, blaming it on the Republicans again?