Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support the 'wealth tax' proposal?
liberal: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 13 13.83%
liberal: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 1 1.06%
liberal: no, dump this idea. 5 5.32%
conservative: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 5 5.32%
conservative: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 0 0%
conservative: no, dump this idea. 28 29.79%
independent: yes, pass it, and then fight it out in court. 9 9.57%
independent: no, I might support it, but it is unconstitutional. 1 1.06%
independent: no, dump this idea. 29 30.85%
other (please explain below) 3 3.19%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2019, 03:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
I am surprised at the number who voted for 'pass it and fight it out in court,' (18 of 55 voters). This approach essentially tosses rule of law in the garbage bin. It means that if you can stack the judiciary, you can get whatever result you wish. If it's a result that you like, be careful what you wish for. The other side can come back and use the same process to get a result that you don't like.

Since there no option to simply pick "pass it" those who made the first choice doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort.

It could have simply been the closest choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:05 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,566 posts, read 17,241,593 times
Reputation: 17614
her proposed tax is, among other descriptions, moronic. forget unconstitutional.


So the wealthy pay about 80%-90% of the tax buden and about 50% of people pay no tax at all. time for the 50% ers to contribute something!


She was rabting on about big business and lobbyists wrting the tax code.


My hair starts on fire when I here some democrat misleading prospective voters with that line.


The only people who can write the tax loopholes are the legislators. Legislators are chosen for reasons other than their ethics and so are influenced by money and lucrative promises for cooperation.


The problem is the legislator who tells you the problem is BB and lobbyists!!!!


IF EW would stand up and say she was going to cleanup government waste to reduce tax burden, I might listen.


Any pol who promises to provide free anything, must take the money from someone else to spread it around. If any pol needs money so bad for whatever purpose, they need to take it from the colossal waste, fraud, inefficiency and incompetence that cheats deserving people of funds intended to help them.


No tax should ever be levied unless it has a hard expiration date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,013,281 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Since there no option to simply pick "pass it" those who made the first choice doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort.

It could have simply been the closest choice.
Agreed, this is a fair point. There probably should have been one more option in the poll. But then that's why I include 'other.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:19 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Agreed, this is a fair point. There probably should have been one more option in the poll. But then that's why I include 'other.'
Just pass it. Shouldn't be "other".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,013,281 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Just pass it. Shouldn't be "other".
So make your own poll and show everyone what an idiot I am, and what a genius you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:22 PM
 
4,195 posts, read 1,602,221 times
Reputation: 2183
i would say the people afraid that their 50 million dollars will be taxed at 2 percent are the real dreamers lol



and if you have such a house with no other assets that's proof you cam be stupid and have dollars
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Houston
5,998 posts, read 3,736,669 times
Reputation: 4163
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Stupid. The money will leave the US instead.
Where are they going to go? Any Western country that's worth living in has substantially higher taxes than we do. I believe the term you conservatives use to describe these countries is "socialist". Of course they can always choose one of those s***hole third world countries if they want low taxes. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year. They can always go there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,177,123 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
The 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913 because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have power to impose an income tax. Ergo, it is pretty obvious that yet another amendment would be required for a wealth tax.
That's exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post
I strongly doubt it's unconstitutional.
That's because you're ill-informed and don't understand the Constitution.

The Constitution does not permit a tax on Wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
What's unconstitutional about it? Congress has the power to tax and spend. Period. That's in the Constitution - Article I, Section 8.
You failed to read the Constitution, specifically Article I Section 9:

No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

That was invalidated through an 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.

The operand is "incomes."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G View Post
What were the rest of the rates in the 1950’s? Asking because I didn’t see a comparison to rates.
Rate comparisons are invalid, immaterial and disingenuous.

Yes, it's true that at one time the highest tax bracket was 92%, and for quite a few years it was 91%, but no one in person in the US ever paid 92% or 91%.

They never even paid 70%. And, when the highest tax bracket was lowered to 70% in 1964, not one person in the US ever paid 70%.

In fact, throughout that entire time, only handful of people paid 50%.

The vast majority of the wealthy, about 99% paid only 32% to 45% in taxes.

Why?

You have to look at the underlying IRS Tax Code in effect during that period.

The original 1913 IRS Tax Code underwent minor changes in I believe 1939, then again in 1954, and then underwent a complete transformation in 1986.

Before the 1986 IRS Tax Code eliminated them, there were thousands and thousands of income deductions and hundreds and hundreds of tax credits.

Keep the receipts from gassing up your car, because the federal excise tax on gasoline was deductible. So was the State tax on gasoline. And federal and State taxes on oil and lubricants, so every time you bought a quart of oil for your car, it was tax deductible.


Buy a set of tires for your car? The federal excise tax on rubber (in effect for many, many decades) was deductible.

All taxes were deductible.

State income tax, county and municipal income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes at the State, county and municipal levels. You kept receipts for everything you bought, because the sales taxes were deductible.

All interest paid was deductible. Interest on your mortgage, your car loan, your credit cards, your charge cards (different than a credit card), your personal loans, all other loans, revolving credit accounts and interest paid to your local furniture, appliance or flooring stores.

All fees paid to any government were deductible. That includes professional licensing fees, the fees you paid for the sticker to go to a State or county park, the inspection fees for your car, because cities liked for people to pay to have their cars inspected and issued a sticker giving you permission to park within city limits.

All insurance premiums paid, whether for life insurance, car insurance, health insurance, home-owner's insurance and such.

Loads of depreciation schedules. Buy a car, depreciate the value and deduct it. Buy furniture or a washer or dryer, depreciate the value and deduct it. Buy a TV, depreciate the value and deduct it.

All clothing for work, regardless of your occupation was deductible. Your mileage to and from work regardless of your occupation was deductible.

So, by the time the wealthy took all of their legal deductions, their tax bracket dropped from 91% to less than 70%.

Then, by the time they took all of their legal tax credits, they ended up paying 35%-40%.

The 1986 IRS Tax Code overhaul eliminated 90% of those deductions and credits, and greatly simplified the tax code, and it also eliminated a few thousand IRS workers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
The Sixteenth Amendment states that:
"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."
Yet the citation of the amendment in the original post ends at the first comma. Now why is that?
Because it's not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Bottom line - anyone claiming that a federal tax upon wealth is unconstitutional, is either a liar or "uninformed".
Like you.

Explain what income is derived from vacant property.

I had an old girl-friend who inherited a 100 acre farm from her grandfather. At the time, the early 1990s, it was valued at $200/acre.

Today, other people say it's valued at $28,600/acre.

So, you're insanely jealous because her net worth -- at least related to the property -- has increased from $20,000 to $2.86 Million in 25 years, because other people say the property is worth more, and you want to tax her.

She doesn't derive any income from that property. It's just sitting there. A couple of developers have approached her over the years, but she doesn't want to part with it until she retires (which is a good retirement strategy for her).

When she does sell it, she'll pay Capital Gains taxes on it, so it's not like she's getting away Scott free.

Even if it would be developed, and she derived rents from it, she would pays taxes on the rent income derived from it, so again, it's not like she'd be getting away Scott free.

People like Bill Gates who own several $Billion in stocks, because other people say the stocks are worth that much, only derive income when he sells the stocks, and then he pays Capital Gains taxes on the sale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 06:21 PM
 
4,445 posts, read 1,451,436 times
Reputation: 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Stupid. The money will leave the US instead.
Absolutely true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2019, 06:23 PM
 
45,237 posts, read 26,464,208 times
Reputation: 24996
Krugman likes it, thats about all anyone needs to know
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top