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.
Status:
"Do not pass GO, do not collect $300 (used to be $200)"
(set 9 days ago)
Location: TN
600 posts, read 274,235 times
Reputation: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
These rich billionaires have too much money and power to cause mischief and have created a system to benefit them above the common person.
I've got enough and don't need any of what the billionaires have.
Same; the concentrated power is the problem, and I doubt I can be convinced otherwise.
Although, since the gov't hasn't really been working for the people, it might just be a shift from one bad actor to another.
There's no basis in fact for saying this. If passed, it could be implemented
However, even the Democritters in the house thinks this has a zero percent chance of passage.
Taxes on untaxed income could be construed as a wealth tax of sorts, which many scholars have opined in unconstitutional:
Quote:
The Constitution is Clear: Unapportioned Direct Taxes are Unconstitutional
A wealth tax would be an unapportioned direct tax and therefore unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution allows the Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” with two explicit conditions relevant here. First, all duties, imposts, and excises “shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Second, “Capitation, or other direct, Tax[es] shall be…in Proportion to the Census.” In short, all federal taxes must be geographically uniform but direct taxes must be apportioned.
Apportioned means that a tax is levied in proportion to each state’s population. If California constitutes 12 percent of the U.S. population, then Californians pay 12 percent of an apportioned tax. If Mississippi constitutes one percent of the U.S. population, then Mississippians pay one percent of an apportioned tax.
To be clear, others disagree with this argument. But I'd think that there is a very good chance that the unconstitutional argument would win the day with the current Supreme Court.
Same; the concentrated power is the problem, and I doubt I can be convinced otherwise.
Although, since the gov't hasn't really been working for the people, it might just be a shift from one bad actor to another.
Power is also concentrated in Congress. Give them money and they decide how to spend it.
The latest bill:
$13 billion to Ukraine
$860 billion to the Pentagon
These rich billionaires have too much money and power to cause mischief and have created a system to benefit them above the common person.
I've got enough and don't need any of what the billionaires have.
No that would be corporations that do that. You known...Raytheon, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, JPM.
There's a revolving door among them and our federal government.
But the corporations will not be affected. This is a wealth tax on individuals.
It's much more unhealthy to discourage investment. Do you think the next Amazon or Tesla is going to be started in the US if this nonsense is allowed to pass? This nothing more that a political play to jealousy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
When you discourage anyone from investing in a business because it might put them in a different bracket, it hurts because of the loss of new jobs.
To be clear, others disagree with this argument. But I'd think that there is a very good chance that the unconstitutional argument would win the day with the current Supreme Court.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,860 posts, read 3,299,469 times
Reputation: 9146
This will never pass. Why? Because those type of people with that type of money donate big money to campaigns. I don't have anywhere close to a 100 million dollars. I doubt there is anyone on this forum who does. However if you think that someone that is worth that type of money is going to donate to those who are going to hit them over the head with taxes I have a bridge to sell you. One hand washes the other. Rinse and repeat. This is all talk by the democrats so they can gin up their base!
You think it won't affect you, but rather some faceless enemy called "rich person who isn't me."
Here's the thing - if fed.gov does this, they are dropping an atomic bomb on the US economy in order to punish a few hundred people for the crime of success. When an atomic bomb gets dropped on the US economy, YOU ARE IN THE BLAST RADIUS.
Do you not understand that?
he understands it about as well as Biden & the Progressive Caucus do. Maybe I should say he understands it as well as Biden and the PC have proclaimed it in the media.
The problem (assuming you believe there is one) was created under Clinton. They wanted CEO pay tied to stock performance, so the 50 of 500 at bad companies weren't getting paid salary out the wazoo when they were ****ty CEO's.
And so suddenly, "C-level compensation" became much more stock options/awards at "today's" prices, while they still earned plenty of cash to live very very well. But they got taxed 38% marginal on the wage, and then only 20% max on the gains when they "sold" stocks that had doubled in value.
This happened in the mid-90's, the problem has been obvious ever since, yet in 30 years they've never considered fixing the problem they created.
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.
