Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would anyone be against a 2% wealth tax over $50 million?
Because it violates the Constitution.
Do you even understand the Constitution?
Article I Section 9 Clause 4 states:
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Do you understand what that means?
Here's a clue: "[u]nless in proportion to the census...."
Get it?
It's not Quantum String Theory.
I'll show you how it works.
The wealth tax is 2%.
The least populated State is Wyoming, with a population of 563,626 and they pay 2%.
The next most populated State is Vermont at 626,299 people.
629,299 / 563,626 = 1.1 * 2.0% = 2.2% and that's what the people of Vermont pay.
Tennessee has 6,346,105 people, so:
6,346,105 / 563,626 = 11.3 * 2.0% = 22.2% is what people in Tennessee would pay.
California has a population of 37,254,523 people so:
37,254,523 / 563,626 = 66.1 * 2.0% = 132.2% Wealth Tax is what people in California would pay.
That's what the Constitution says.
That's why you have a 16th Amendment:
Amendment XVI
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.
See the key clause? "[w]ithout apportionment among the several states..."
That's what that means.
"[W]ithout apportionment" means the same tax rate can be levied upon everyone regardless of population.
But, notice the 16th Amendment says "income" and not "assets" and not "wealth."
So, you'd need a new Constitutional amendment allowing you to charge a wealth tax.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Do you understand what that means?
Here's a clue: "[u]nless in proportion to the census...."
Get it?
It's not Quantum String Theory.
I'll show you how it works.
The wealth tax is 2%.
The least populated State is Wyoming, with a population of 563,626 and they pay 2%.
The next most populated State is Vermont at 626,299 people.
629,299 / 563,626 = 1.1 * 2.0% = 2.2% and that's what the people of Vermont pay.
Tennessee has 6,346,105 people, so:
6,346,105 / 563,626 = 11.3 * 2.0% = 22.2% is what people in Tennessee would pay.
California has a population of 37,254,523 people so:
37,254,523 / 563,626 = 66.1 * 2.0% = 132.2% Wealth Tax is what people in California would pay.
That's what the Constitution says.
That's why you have a 16th Amendment:
Amendment XVI
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.
See the key clause? "[w]ithout apportionment among the several states..."
That's what that means.
"[W]ithout apportionment" means the same tax rate can be levied upon everyone regardless of population.
But, notice the 16th Amendment says "income" and not "assets" and not "wealth."
So, you'd need a new Constitutional amendment allowing you to charge a wealth tax.
If you want to play that card 90% tax rate over $50 million earned a year.
Lets go back the the era many want back the 1950s with the top rate being 90%.
Including the value of his stock so he can't sit and hide that and not pay taxes.
He makes $40 billion a year he will have to survive on $4 billion.
I won't shed a tear for him.
Last edited by LifeIsGood01; 10-25-2019 at 04:38 PM..
Badly taught? Even after dominating this thread with your posts, your ignorance of economics hasn't improved.
Where did you learn your unfortunate envy of others? Was is an event as a child? We would like to help you.
We all pay taxes as prescribed by law. If you dont like the rates, your representative's contact information is online.
Do you know how the richest man in America makes money? He has a cloud web service and his biggest client is the Federal Government AKA the American Tax Payer, then he makes the bulk from his Prime Subscriptions at Amazon because that's all profit and the shipping is an expense that is a write off. So he makes money from the American public. That's how our economy works.
Wealth tax was used in my old home country couple of decades ago, its results in taxation were very low (>100m in total). Rich were able to change their assets around to skate around the tax. Quite a many also moved to live in more accepting environment, tax likely reduced total tax revenue in practice.
Rich people have options, they can easily spend enough time in some other nice neighborhood not to be facing the tax.
Good example was France experiment with 75% supertax for people earning >1m euros (not a wealth tax, just income)
Most high earners move out to Belgium or elsewhere: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
Consumption tax makes more sense like federal VAT, other good one would be to tax stock trading more especially High-Frequency Trading. Closing carried interest loop hole could be fair as well.
In general, government should spend less rather than trying to tax more.
If you want to play that card 90% tax rate over $50 million earned a year.
Lets go back the the era many want back the 1950s with the top rate being 90%.
Including the value of his stock so he can't sit and hide that and not pay taxes.
He makes $40 billion a year he will have to survive on $4 billion.
I won't shed a tear for him.
That card doesn't play because value of stock is not income it is wealth. It's not even realized wealth until it is actually sold. How did you concoct this $40B/year fantasy?
You were badly taught. the 99% spending most or all of their money to buy goods and services is what makes the economy tick. Plus letting kids put themselves in debt by borrowing from these awful for profit colleges that are a waste of money, and letting credit card debt run amok. That's how they keep the masses down by keeping them desperate and fooling them into thinking that billionaires are better than them and should not pay taxes.
Well, the above can be found in books at Barnes & Noble, but only in the Fiction aisle.
Well.. that's one way of looking at it. Another way of course is the actual reality,
Bernie Sanders said the goal of this tax was to reduce the wealth inequality (and get rid of billionaires), and Julián Castro's term to tax the 1% is with a ‘wealth inequality tax’. Maybe you don't like the reality but if the goal of this is to tax to reduce inequality of wealth, that makes it a "inequality tax".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
