The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

the class envy operators want the rich to be taxed on increases in wealth that is not realized. example. You buy a million dollar home. twenty years later it's worth 5 million dollars. the wealth parasite movement think you should be income taxes on the four million dollar increase even though you haven't sold the property

 

Wealth is not taxed by the federal government. It's the INCOME tax Biden says is not fair at these rates.

Try again dealing with the taxsystem we do have and the rates that would make it fair.

 

that is the way the right always is.... more tax cuts for the super rich, so what they already make so much money and pay less tax per dollar earned then the middle class... right?

 

there have been no "tax cuts for millionaires" that did also cut taxes for anyone that actually pay taxes.

 

Wealth includes money. Earning wealth by just sitting on it, while it accrues in value, is a tax avoiding technique. It's legal, but this is why there are proposals to tax wealth, for this very reason. The dynasties of America accrue wealth at the expense of the poor, whose savings lose value due to inflation, enriching the rich even more.

Poverty is it's own tax. This idea that the wealth pay the most tax, given the above, is misleading, they really pay very little, if you factor in wealth accrual via dynasty-ism. Looking it in terms of 'income' doesn't see the forest. This is the flaw in the flat tax, or conservative/libertarianism/neoliberalism, and why a progressive taxation system including wealth taxation is the only way (I can think of) to attempt to close the inequality gap and curtail runaway dynasty-ism and thwart the tendency for capitalism to cause power and wealth to coagulate in fewer and fewer hands.

In my view, for individuals to have as much wealth and power as some nations, that should be illegal for any individual to have that much power. That it is allowed is INSANE, and it is due to the neoliberal/conservative/libertarian policies of the right that it is allowed. This policy will, if left unchecked, lead to revolution, because it results in a country that exploits the poor, and when you exploit the poor, hard enough, long enough, it always results in the rise of demagogues and then pitch forks.

 

Wealth includes money. Earning wealth by just sitting on it, while it accrues in value, is a tax avoiding technique. It's legal, but this is why there are proposals to tax wealth, for this very reason. The dynasties of America accrue wealth at the expense of the poor, whose savings lose value due to inflation, enriching the rich even more.

Poverty is it's own tax. This idea that the wealth pay the most tax, given the above, is misleading, they really pay very little, if you factor in wealth accrual via dynasty-ism. Looking it in terms of 'income' doesn't see the forest. This is the flaw in the flat tax, or conservative/libertarianism/neoliberalism, and why a progressive taxation system including wealth taxation is the only way (I can think of) to attempt to close the inequality gap and curtail runaway dynasty-ism and thwart the tendency for capitalism to cause power and wealth to coagulate in fewer and fewer hands.

In my view, for individuals to have as much wealth and power as some nations, that should be illegal for any individual to have that much power. That it is allowed is INSANE, and it is due to the neoliberal/conservative/libertarian policies of the right that it is allowed. This policy will, if left unchecked, lead to revolution, because it results in a country that exploits the poor, and when you exploit the poor, hard enough, long enough, it always results in the rise of demagogues and then pitch forks.

 

temporary carrot for the middle class, permanent tax cut for the mega corps

 

Yeah they had to do that to get through reconciliation process. The plan has been to make them permanent; wanna bet Dems will block?

 

want to bet repubs ask for more tax cuts for the rich to renew them

 

Naw, there would be picking on our Trumpsycosis

 

If Joe Rich Guy pays taxes of $20000 and then gets a government contract where his profit is $25000 has he paid taxes? Government spends the taxes collected and it ain't all, or ever a majority, its in fact a small amount is spent on the poor. The rest goes back to the very rich. Shoot, when we give Ukraine $10 billion almost all of that is spent in the US, again at companies owned by very rich people.
Shoot, speaking of Social Security, except for a brief blip during Clinton, the excess collected was used to pay for programs that benefited the hyper rich. Now that the hyper rich has to loan money, not even pay taxes for, to pay back Social Security they want it cut.

Nope, get taxes back on the hyper rich and eliminate the deficit.

 

Agree!

My 2023’s effective tax rate, Federal Income tax only; 15%

Net Federal Income tax paid; $30,000

————

Joe Blow annual income; $30,000…..”same amount I paid in income tax”

His effective tax rate; More than likely, a NEGATIVE rate.

 

He has paid $20,000 in taxes as you said (presumably on a previous years work). He will once again pay taxes on the $25,000 in profit on this new contract. You're neglecting to consider he must provide product (or services) to the government in excess of the amount of the contract. For instance if the contract is for $250,000 he provides the government with $250,000 worth of product (which the government must have deemed to its benefit and of more value than 250,000). His $25,000 in profit is his earnings (apparently $225,000 was his production cost) leaving him $25,000 in profit. He will pay tax on that too. You fail to take into account, the government doesn't just give him $25,000 for nothing. He had to give them an amount of product or labor in excess of the amount of the contract.

This is no different than a civil servant who works at the IRS or the Social Security administration. Lets say they make $75,000. The government doesn't just give them $75,000 in wages. They have to work for their wages and presumably their work is valued by the government at an amount at or greater than $75,000. In both cases all parties concerned benefit, otherwise no agreement would have been reached. The government is little different from any other company which pays wages, and enters into contracts for products they need.

I don't understand (actually I do) all the class warfare stuff. The rich are already taxed at a very very high rate. A rate so high, further increases in their tax rate will not allow you to steal a larger amount of their money. Further increases in the rate will actually decrease the taxes received by the government precisely because your stealing their wealth leaves them no incentive to produce your loot in the first place. You start with the premise the rich got rich by nefarious means. No such thing is the case. There are your occasional Sam Bankman-Fried character who steal their wealth. The vast percentage of Americans get their wealth by working for it, not theft. We have laws against theft. You seem to presume them somehow guilty of theft, without evidence, solely on the basis they worked to earn more money than you. Hardly the American way. You have no right to require the government steal the wealth of others because you are greedy and lazy. Americans have the Right to Property.

 

So, you want to change the tax code to tax an increase in investments; money that you are just sitting on.
Here's how that would work:
Some guy buys 100 shares of stock for $100/share. The stock goes to $200/share. When he does his taxes, he pays tax on $10,000. The next year, that same stock that he didn't sell, drops to $80/share. Now he gets to write off a loss of $12,000 even though he still don't sell. The next year, the stock increases to $110 and he finally sells. He gets to pay tax on $1000. Because you wanted to tax his wealth, you have now caused a ton more paperwork that will cost the IRS, and tax payers billions of dollars to keep track of. And, in the end, you'll get the same money that you would have gotten anyway.

 

What was wrong with Clinton’s top two tax rates, 36% and 39.6%, which have remained on the books throughout his presidency?

 

It caused people to move their money, and investments, overseas. Do you think they will just sit there an do nothing when you make them pay a stupid amount of taxes?

 

Furthermore, not only are the taxes on the rich to high, resulting in adverse effects on the standard of living of all Americans, excess taxation on the poor are likewise detrimental. You need to understand, the wealth confiscated through the tax tables (tax code) is a small fraction of the taxes paid. It only accounts for 1/3 of the total taxation on your average American. It is well hidden and that is how they have duped you. As an example:

US government spends $10T
US government receives $2.5T through the tax code in direct taxes on Americans income
US government receives $1T through other taxation
Shortfall in the US Treasury account at the federal reserve would therefore be 2.5 + 1 - 10 = $6.5 Trillion

The US government like all corporations must balance their budget or risk bouncing checks. There is one difference though. The US government has a means of printing money. To balance the ledger the US government prints $6.5T in IOU's (Treasury bonds) and gives them to the Federal Reserve in exchange for $6.5T and places that amount in the US Treasuries account. This is why your tax refund checks don't bounce. The US government must pay off these IOU's at a later date. This is where the national debt comes from. It closely represents the total amount of money in circulation. You see these dollars as money. What they really are is IOU's from the US government owed to whoever owns the Federal Reserve.

It might seem like free money but it isn't. First, it must be paid back to the FR over time at interest. This means it will either come out of future tax revenues or more borrowing must be done by the US government for future budget shortfalls. But what it means to you and me is INFLATION. As an example:

Debt is 20T
US gov borrows $10
Debt is now 30T (50% more) Inflation will be 50%.
The aggregate price of all goods will rise by $10T meaning every American will have to pay $10T more for goods and services. This is essentially a tax on EVERY American.

They do this every year. Instead of raising taxes to cover the spending they just print the shortfall. They do this because the voters don't like them raising taxes. They also do this because it doesn't require them to even vote on this particular form of taxation. The US government will always automatically print enough money to balance their accounts at the Federal Reserve.

What is worse, this INFLATION TAX (which amounts to about 70% of the total taxation used to cover the spending) is paid for at a much higher rate by the poor. In fact, the less you earn the higher the rate you pay for the inflation tax. The wealthy actually make money off of inflation in many cases. The US government ALWAYS makes money off the inflation tax because they spend the money BEFORE prices rise. Do you get it? Do you see what they are really doing? You feel something isn't right and you can't seem to get ahead. But they have hidden 70% of the taxes we pay. They have you running around spouting out class warfare propaganda.

 

Bottom line is it never get easier for the poor and working class.. The wage to living is a balance act, wages go up, price of existence follow. Fact is, the rich are not productive, the poor slobs in the trenches are, someone has to do hard things so that the wealthier folks can enjoy what is produced by the under paid struggling economic slave class..

 

That's why you have to not remain in the trenches. It's BS that the rich are not productive. The rich, for the most part, work longer hours and more days than the working class. When they go home, they still think about it, still take calls, etc. Meanwhile, the working class goes home and their day is over.

But, the working class gets to look forward to retirement. Unfortunately, the SS system has been bastardized by the government. I, and my employers, have paid enough over my career that had I invested at 5%, I would have over $4 million. When I retire, I can look forward to a whopping $38k/yr. I can't even try to help my situation because if I make over $23k or so, I get hit with a 50% tax on my SS that I worked so hard for all those years.

Because of that, I've saved a lot. To be rewarded for saving, the greedy want to tax that to death also. Am I jaded? Yes I am.

 

\

Point addressed in #57

 

ROUND ONE

Thus, according to your rationale, Clinton’s top two tax rates, 36% and 39.6% caused the rich to move their money and investment overseas.

AND the opposite of your rationale occurred after Bush lowered Clinton’s top two tax rates, correct?

Stay tuned for ROUND TWO.

 

My goodness the BS is getting pretty thick here don't you think?

In other words, don't believe our lying eyes when looking at treasury numbers, we instead need to factor in wealth accrual and dynastyism.

You do know that wealth is not taxed right? Just because some leftist politician suggests it despite its utter impracticality both in enforcement or even in getting it passed, you go forward as if that is what we are supposed to be paying attention to and to not pay any attention to the actual law and subsequent tax collections in place currently.

No, wealth should NOT be taxed. The rich already pay far in excess of their share of income and what you suggest would skew that even further. Perhaps more importantly, such a proposal would never pass, and if it did, the enforcement of such would require that every citizen hire an accountant fo create an official verifiable balance sheet annually, which is an amount being spent on accountants nationwide that would far exceed what this wealth tax would even collect. The irony here is that by soaking the rich, this accountant fee would serve as a de facto tax on everyone. On top of that, it would be a nightmare to tax unrealized gains only to have the government have to pay that money back in situations when that unrealized gain loses value from one year to the next which is not all that unusual of a circumstance.

This feels oddly like you and other leftists arguing about the mythical popular vote results. It seems that you spend a lot of your time arguing fantasy as if it is reality. You are NEVER going to see a popular vote or wealth tax anywhere near your lifetime, so you may as well stop playing pretend. It gets tiresome arguing against constant leftist mythology.

 

Temporary tax cuts don't ever have the impact that they should. Bush's temporary tax cuts also increased the estate tax. I'm not sure how you think you know that they didn't work since the excessive war and social spending obliterated any benefits for the first few years. It did start to increase though and really did take off after Obama made them permanent.

 

Wages for the poor don't go up for at least 2 years AFTER inflation, NOT BEFORE. And the only way to keep the poor from getting screwed is to have the government STOP SPENDING more than they take in taxes. Yet it is exactly these same people who are clamoring for increased spending. They end up paying an inflation tax which is MORE than they receive in benefit (very regressive tax) and the government decides what they can have and how much. Most of the spending is consumed by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy too clamors for more spending because that is what they do for a living. The poor would be far and away better off to keep their own money and decide what they want to do with it, rather than giving it to the government in the form of an inflation tax.

Now if you did actually convince the government to spend what they take in through direct taxes only (no printing dollars), THEN the rich would indeed pay at a much much higher rate. No serious and veracious examination of the tax code can come to the conclusion the rich don't pay far more at a far higher rate in regards to the tax code. Not even close. So if you truly want the rich to pay more in taxes, STOP SPENDING.

Funny thing is, we all want the same thing. We want America and Americans to prosper and we want to make sure the poor have an opportunity to get their piece of the pie if they are willing to contribute value. Our goals are the same and no one is evil. Some believe in a different means of accomplishing these same goals.

 

Money is wealth, and wealth is wealth, and all of it should be taxed, not at the same rates, but it should be taxed.

Unless you can come up with a solution that shrinks the tendency of capitalism to result in power and wealth aggregating to fewer and fewer people, as a percentage of the population, and shrinks the ever widening wealth gap. I'm open to any ideas, but all I'm getting from repubs is that the status quo is okay.

well, it isn't.