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.
So, create a tax incentive to avoid a wealth tax by spending your wealth on creating new jobs. But a company spending its money on buy back its own stock does not create new jobs.
but that's a completely different topic. I happen to philosophically agree with it, but it has nothing at all to do with this topic.
We're so in debt and we keep spending.... the Fed is getting desperate for new revenue.
And the actual taxpayer base (those that pay taxes) is shrinking.
What I found kinda eye popping is the proposal says "billionaire" and yet it starts at $100 million.
There are some true philanthropists out there with Foundations that use their wealth to help others...lots of scholarship foundations, supporting services we all use like libraries and parks, etc.
These people do not deserve a "wealth tax" because our government can't contain their spending.
So if people don't spend their wealth the way you approve it is ok for the government to confiscate it and spend it the way they want?
Will they keep the cap gains tax ? That would be double taxation then wouldn't it ?
There's nothing more permanent than a temporary tax.
That's why my standard answer to any new tax is an unconditional NO. If people want to give their money away to the government for the likes of Biden, Harris, Fauci, Pelosi et al to **** away, I'm sure the IRS is happy to accept donations.
If you want a better understanding, then look at the differences between direct taxes and indirect taxes.
Indirect taxes are permissible because they arise from an event, like death, which is why estate taxes are legal. Capital Gains taxes are legal for the same reason, you have an event, namely the sale/transfer of assets from which a gain is realized.
You can start with New York Trust Company v. Eisner 256 U.S. 345 (1921) and the cases following it.
An estate tax is not a tax on the property, rather it is a tax on the transfer of that property from the person who died to others, so more or less it is like a fancy form of a Capital Gains tax.
Taxing wealth would be a direct tax and you would need to amend the Constitution to permit it, and I just don't see that happening.
Sad thing though is that so many families were left homeless because of the inheritance tax. How many small farms were gobbled up by big corporations because the kids couldn't afford the outrageous taxes to keep the farms? It used to be that parents would work hard for a home, land or business so their kids had a leg up, but then taxes were invented to punish these people. All it does is keep the little guy in the dirt while the old money stays right where it is.
“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and PRIVILEGES which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.”
- - - F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.
‘When a court refers to an income tax being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the PRIVILEGE of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.'
- - - John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, ‘Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax' (C.R.S. Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)).
‘The terms ‘excise tax' and ‘privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.'
- - - American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880
‘Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate PRIVILEGES.’ ‘…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of a PRIVILEGE…’
- - - U.S. Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
- - - Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)
Always ask which revenue taxable privilege is the reason for the imposition of a tax.
You may be surprised at their answer.
How do they calculate the tax on an asset that fluctuates in value daily?
This idea is insane and crafted by over-educated idiots that no conception of reality.
It would be stupid and punitive to force someone to sell an asset to pay the tax on that asset.
Do dems know incoming is not the same as wealth? Most billionaires can have only a couple of millions as income on paper if they want to.
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.
