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.
LOL. not too much. Pelosi is estimated to be worth 58-72 million, so it would only touch 8-22 million of her wealth at most. IE she might pay as much as 440,000 in extra taxes. How will she ever survive? Maxine Waters doesn't even get to a million-so im not sure where you get that from. Only 5 Senators would be touched at all, and probably about a dozen House members.
People vastly overestimate how many people this would affect.
Can I ask you an honest question? Does it not bother you that many politicians grow rich while in office? The ones I know about lean left. (Clintons, Obamas, Schumer). I am not sure how Pelosi made her money. I remember something about insider trading being ok for Congresspeople and something about Pelosi and Visa stock. But I am not sure where she made the bulk of her wealth.
Anyone with half a brain knows this proposal is not going anywhere near congress
Let us remember, two very powerful dems, Polosi, and Waters are multi millionaires, and this tax would affect them .
They will never allow it to be brought before the house, let alone be voted on.
LOL. not too much. Pelosi is estimated to be worth 58-72 million, so it would only touch 8-22 million of her wealth at most. IE she might pay as much as 440,000 in extra taxes. How will she ever survive? Maxine Waters doesn't even get to a million-so im not sure where you get that from. Only 5 Senators would be touched at all, and probably about a dozen House members.
People vastly overestimate how many people this would affect.
Oh, I see. So her proposed tax is kind of in a grey area. Well, that should be an interesting story to follow.
I keep hearing this talking point about "effective" tax rates in the 50's/60's. I don't care what economists say. I had a slew of relatives all paying in that 60-70% range, back then. They all complained about it, about how 3 out of 5 days of their work week were for the tax man, but they paid it, and still managed to live well. There were no magical deductions or loopholes. beyond dependents and mortgage, that made enough of a difference to stop the complaining. IDK, maybe the folks at the top, in that 90% range had magic accountants, but would they need them, at that level? Take Bill Gates: $2,600,000,000 annually. Take away 90%, and he'd still get $260,000,000. Not bad. A person could live on that. A whole family could live on that, and still fund a cushy retirement.Not that I'm advocating a return to a 90% tax rate.
But I think the people currently in the bracket that would be affected by Warren's proposed 2% tax wouldn't miss the money. Why wouldn't they want to contribute to the common weal? In fact, in the 90's after the Bush tax cuts, there was a movement among some Republicans, to pay more taxes. They said they didn't need the extra money. Lee Iacocca was one of those. (See his book,"Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" He's a hilarious writer, and cares about his country.) Those people are still around. I'm sure they're happy to hear of Warren's proposal. What's everyone else's problem?
1950 taxes were a lot different. The standard deduction was a flat ten percent. If you made $50,000, you paid taxes on $45,000. If you made $100,000, you paid taxes on $90,000. If you made $100, you paid taxes on $90. Personal exemption didn't exist. It was way less progressive. From $0 to $22,000 you hopped a tax bracket for every $2,000. So someone with a taxable income of $20,500 was paying 56% marginal tax rate, which today is around $190,000. So high income but not 1% wealthy.
On the other hand, it was also the era of the alpaca farm. Everyone who was very high income had some "business" that lost lots of money every year be it alpacas or horses or charter boats/planes. So if you were a successful dentist who liked going out on your yacht, well, you also ran a charter boat business. The yacht slip and payments were tax deductible, and hey maybe twice a year you took someone out on your yacht. If you didn't like that, then you owned a fancy retired race horse. It was just a matter of time until your horse popped out the next Man'O'War or Seabiscuit, but until then the horse, boarding, grooming, training, your horse trailer, saddle, and designer riding boots were business expenses.
On the other hand if you weren't wealthy enough to have an expensive hobby "business" it kind of sucked. Since the brackets started at 20% and stepped up for every additional $2,000 you made and there were no personal exemptions, most people paid much higher effective tax rates than they do now.
The polls are very useful. As someone posted, one rabbit can make a lot of tracks, but with the polls, every poster gets just one vote.
If you want more choices, is someone holding an assault-style weapon to your head, preventing you from posting a poll of your own??? Also if you actually READ the poll, you'll see that there is an 'other' option if the choices I give do not suit you.
Ten choices is already a lot of typing. If you wish to put up a poll with more choices, GO FOR IT, pal. It's going to be a whole lot of typing for you.
Because an assault style weapon to the head is more dangerous than other guns pointed at the head?
How would this be different than the estate tax, why wouldn’t the estate tax be unconstitutional.
That's a good question.
As a said, with some further reading I have seen that there are varying opinions on the constitutionality. The first guy I heard talking about Warren's proposal was Ben Shapiro, perhaps not a constitutional 'scholar' but a Harvard law grad & very sharp on the Constitution. He was adamant that Warren's proposal is unconstitutional.
Like the Alternative Minimum Tax, originally enacted to target roughly 100 super-wealthy taxpayers' "loopholes," and most recently ensnared 5 million taxpayers in one year, many earning as little as $100K?
Give me a break.
You mean the one that isnt pegged to inflation and was enacted long ago? Could be fixed completely by pegging it to inflation, but the government keeps kicking it down the road. And so?
Oh noes. she has 5 million now by their estimate. Others still place her under a million. Know why?
Go look at your source, it lists her mansion at 4.7 million as being the reason she is worth so much. Problem:
Real estate valuations put it at 2.5 million, and arguably it may be more her husbands then hers as he has a NFL pension.
Nevertheless the bottom line remains...she is not at all worried about the 50 million wealth tax proposed. She isnt ever going to be worth that much barring a lottery win.
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.
