Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 14, 2019

Picketty: Between 1930 and 1980, the rate applied on the highest incomes was on average 81 percent, and the rate applied to the highest inherited estates was 74 percent. Clearly this did not destroy American capitalism. Far from it. It made it more egalitarian and more productive, at a time when the United States had not forgotten that educational advancement and investment in training and skills -- not the religion of property and inequality -- were the backbone of prosperity.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Carefully calculated by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the Warren proposal sets a rate of 2 percent on fortunes valued between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent above $1 billion. The proposal also provides for an exit tax equal to 40 percent of total wealth for those who relinquish their American citizenship. The tax would apply to all assets, with no exemptions, with dissuasive sanctions for people and governments that do not transmit appropriate information on assets held abroad.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That's small taters. I want Fat Andy Mattress' Daddy taxed so much he has to sell his mansion and Andy gets kicked out of Daddy's basement and has to relocate to a large cardboard refrigerator box.

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-13 03:03 PM | Reply

One teensy problem: As presently formulated, this proposal may be unconstitutional as a direct tax on assets and not covered under the Sixteenth Amendment. A long series of cases succinctly holds that for a tax to not be considered a direct tax, there has to be a "transaction" that is itself taxable.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-13 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am no tax professional, but all I've read in the past couple of days indicate that taxes levied on non-transactional occurrences are apportioned to the state in accordance with their population. It was one of the reason for the census. Each state will be responsible for their share of the population portion of whatever tax amount the federal gov't declares. California as a whole would be responsible for about 12% of the bill and Wyoming about .17%.

Anyone more knowledge is invited to correct my understanding.

#3 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-13 03:30 PM | Reply

Michael Hiltzik made the same point in the LA Times last week, but noted that the tax would be levied disproportionately between wealth and poorer states because the apportionment would be by population:

"That means a direct tax can raise the same amount from Connecticut as from Mississippi because they have roughly the same population (3 million), even though the first is the richest state in the union (with per capita income of more than $36,000) and the second is the poorest ($20,000),"

Changing the allocations to reflect income would then cause an equal protection problem that either Miss or CT would have a problem with. That would waterfall to other states, since if the tax is reduced for Connecticut to match revenue levels from Mississippi then States like California would want their rate reduced.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-13 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It appears to be a race to the left as fast as possible.

anybody who believes this has any chance is just begging to be lied to.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It appears to be a race to the left as fast as possible

An attempt, anyway.

Also. Republicans don't support this because they're either as stupid as I've been lead to believe. Or. They're all millionaires and billionaires and are acting in their own self interest.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-13 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Well, I think it has no chance for many reasons.

1. there is no way to truly measure "wealth".
2. it's going to generate a constitutionality battle
3. we really only tax "transactions" as pointed out by ROC.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 16th amendment names income as taxable without making any claim that wealth is not taxable. Funny how property tax on Real Estate, automobiles, boats and planes persists.

#8 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-13 10:21 PM | Reply

This is attempted theft by the state. Nothing more.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:19 AM | Reply

"California as a whole would be responsible for about 12% of the bill and Wyoming about .17%."

And their representation in Congress should be similar.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 10:48 AM | Reply

"This is attempted theft by the state. Nothing more."

Middle class people who concern themselves with the welfare of billionaires don't even realize how stupid that is. The billionaires sip champagne and laugh their asses off.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 10:49 AM | Reply

It should be of interest that one Donald J. Trump advocated such a wealth-tax several years ago, long before he decided to run for president:

www.usatoday.com

OCU

#12 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-02-14 10:51 AM | Reply

Danni,

I'm all in favor of a progressive tax code.

I think inheritance should be treated as income and taxed accordingly.

A wealth tax is simply theft and likely unconstitutional.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 11:03 AM | Reply

"A wealth tax is simply theft and likely unconstitutional."

Oh well. Trust me, if we do a wealth tax I'll sleep fine and never concern myself for the fate of the poor billionaires. They've been sliding by since the 1980s paying far less than they should have been, it'll be a way for them to pay back a little for the taxes theyve avoided for decades.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 11:28 AM | Reply

"Danni,
I'm all in favor of a progressive tax code."

We don't have a progressive tax code, we haven't since capital became taxable at lower rates than earned income.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 11:29 AM | Reply

there is no way to truly measure "wealth"

Why not? Tally up your assets, accounts, etc and contrast them with your liabilities. The difference is your wealth. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 11:43 AM | Reply

A wealth tax is simply theft and likely unconstitutional.
#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

its confiscation ... not theft ...

Oh well. Trust me, if we do a wealth tax I'll sleep fine and never concern myself for the fate of the poor billionaires.

First they came for the Billionaires, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Billinaire.

Then they came for the Millionaires, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Millionaire.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Its a slippery slope Danni, just like income tax used to be only for the rich.

Governments, politicians and its recipients have an insatiable appetite for other peoples money, its all good until its you .....

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-14 11:44 AM | Reply

Hey, I'm just here to watch the trailer-park apologists come to the defense of the one percenters they will never be part of.

#18 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2019-02-14 11:46 AM | Reply

This is attempted theft by the state. Nothing more.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Taxation isn't theft. Thieves dont give you health care and public safety.

Taxation is the dues you pay to live in a society. Go live on a desert island and see how you thrive.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-02-14 11:44 AM | FLAG: I agree slippery slope as just look back at the original targets of the AMT which over time has crept ever downward.

#20 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-14 12:06 PM | Reply

Speaks,

This type of a tax is theft.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 12:19 PM | Reply

Well, I think it has no chance for many reasons.
1. there is no way to truly measure "wealth".
2. it's going to generate a constitutionality battle
3. we really only tax "transactions" as pointed out by ROC.

#7 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I hope you have more reasons than those you suggested.

1. there is no way to truly measure "wealth".*** Real Estate taxes are an example of measuring wealth for the purpose of taxation, are they not?

2. it's going to generate a constitutionality battle.*** So? We have battles all the time. Bring it.

3. we really only tax "transactions" as pointed out by ROC*** Nuh huh. Again, Real Estate Taxes.

#22 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-02-14 12:24 PM | Reply

#21 What differentiates this type of tax from, say, an income tax? In either case the government is taking money that rightfully belongs to someone else.

You might have an argument as to a Constitutional difference between the two, but I'm curious how anyone could claim that one is theft and one is not.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 12:24 PM | Reply

A wealth tax is simply theft and likely unconstitutional.

#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not taxing wealth is theft. Would you expect a bank to lend money with no interest? Would you expect a business to rent you equipment at no cost?

Then why should people expect to use societal vehicles, paid for by the collective people, to profit without paying their dues?

Do you think Bezos could have started Amazon without the a government? How could he start that without the internet? Without cash as a medium of exchange? Without roads to deliver product? Without the societal protection from war, famine, disease, indentured servitude, etc?

Why should we allow such freeloaders, Jeff?

#24 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-14 12:42 PM | Reply

Speaks,

This type of a tax is theft.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ a

No theft is the rich bribing the gov to lower their taxes so you and your kids have to make up the difference. You've got stockholm syndrome.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 12:57 PM | Reply

The reason a wealth tax is not theft is that most of that money dodged taxes in the first place through illegal or immoral tax evasion schemes designed to hide from the IRS.

#26 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-14 12:58 PM | Reply

#17 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS - That is some mighty fine hyperbole. What you are not saying is that they are already coming for the small guys (as evidenced by who actually received tax breaks vs. who has been lied to and screwed). I'd say it's about time that they "came for the billionaires" and then "come for the millionaires". We don't have to worry about WHEN they are going to come for us, they already are. Why should the poor people be the only ones they come for?

#27 | Posted by Sezu at 2019-02-14 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Reality may dawn to some, but I doubt it. The reality is money moves, more easily than air. Threaten the riche's money,it can move off shore. Far from the clutches of our government. Ask yourself why corporations moved several hundred billion back into this country after the corporate tax was lowered? Simply because the profit potential was higher. There is no such thing as corporate tax, that is tax you pay when you use those goods and services. We need tax reform, taxes that reforms the notion there is money made in public that is not individual income at some point.

#28 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-02-14 01:12 PM | Reply

#28

So much rwing myth, so little time.

Crony capitalism always flows money upwards, hence progressive taxation to level the playing field.

Regulations have and can again be used to control what the wealthy do with money and taxing estates is on what can't.

And in business there are such things as price points... increased taxes ALWAYS being passed on to consumers is just more myth.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-14 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- just like income tax used to be only for the rich.... Queen Mattress Antionette

And that worked out quite well until the rich started purchasing politicians to write laws for them.

"Key Facts

The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.
30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends."

more

americansfortaxfairness.org

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-14 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The reason a wealth tax is not theft is that most of that money dodged taxes in the first place through illegal or immoral tax evasion schemes designed to hide from the IRS.

Andrea
Any claim that the government has an insatiable appetite for collecting taxes is rendered moot by the past fifty year history of taxation which has shifted the tax burden off the Wealthy onto the middle class while running up the national debt. It has been rendered incapable of taxing the rich because they they fund the truley insatiable broadcast corporations appetite for money unnecessarily from a broken political process.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-14 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The right has abandoned this thread.

#32 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-14 03:11 PM | Reply

"Why not? Tally up your assets, accounts, etc and contrast them with your liabilities. The difference is your wealth. Doesn't seem that difficult to me"

LOL.

You'd give up the first time you had to determine the "wealth" of anybody with real wealth.

You'd be lost in a matter of minutes trying to determine ones wealth.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 03:27 PM | Reply

"Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years."

IMO, this is where Warren or any other pol truly interested in addressing this challenge needs to focus.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#33 I've seen financials on plenty of wealthy people. It's complicated, but it can be done. And when done under penalty of perjury to the IRS, i suspect we'd get at least something out of it.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#33

Agreed, it would be a legal/accountants nightmare to figure out some of the truly wealthy's byzantine wealth protection schemes.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 03:45 PM | Reply

Agreed, it would be a legal/accountants nightmare to figure out some of the truly wealthy's byzantine wealth protection schemes.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter

Things that are hard aren't worth doing.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 04:09 PM | Reply

it would be a legal/accountants nightmare to figure out some of the truly wealthy's byzantine wealth protection schemes.

The IRS already does this routinely, for the sole purpose of determining whether people are violating the tax code. If it meant hundreds of billions more in the door via the wealth tax, they could presumably devote even more resources to doing it.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 04:19 PM | Reply

36

Massive numbers of LLCs, LP, and other entities that own pieces of companies. Privately held companies who own more layers of LLCs, etc.

Today, the estate tax is basically a voluntary tax. It's almost completely avoidable. The wealthiest won't pay any.

Good Planning avoids it. An annual recurring wealth tax will get avoided just like the estate tax.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The IRS already does this routinely, for the sole purpose of determining whether people are violating the tax code. "

The IRS looks for transactions to go after

The IRS does NOT do this routinely.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am sure this would face a true battle and probably lose. But the clause on direct taxation is not 100% clear either.

Frankly it took the 16th amendment to overturn the fact that income tax was considered a direct tax by the SCOTUS even though widely felt NOT to be. That said there are all sorts of other taxes that can be applied that would not be "direct" taxes and some quite frankly that feel like a direct tax and are on the books. An Inheritance tax for instance or even a Capital Gains tax. That said, clearly a Direct tax CAN be applied it just has to be based on population of a state and proportional...

I have to question how states are allowed to asses direct taxes if it is not in the power of the Federal Government to do so. I know States rights and all that...

#41 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-02-14 04:44 PM | Reply

#40 | Posted by eberly

I would disagree with you on that. Certainly they look at transactions as a part of the process. The IRS looks for Red Flags on determining if someone is audit worthy. When they are auditing someone they ARE digging into wealth and wealth protection schemes.

#42 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-02-14 04:47 PM | Reply

Look at all these broke ass losers arguing the wealthy shouldnt pay more taxes as if they're going to be let into the country club. Nope. Your gullible ass is the one who pays what the wealthy avoid paying.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 05:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"When they are auditing someone they ARE digging into wealth and wealth protection schemes."

But it's the transactions they focus on. It's the exchange of money/assets that generate tax events. Not just holding assets.

If my Amazon stock portfolio goes up 100% and I don't sell any shares....what's my tax? zero. Just on the dividends paid...but that's a transaction and it's many many times easier to track transactions...not just the value of assets.

There will be so many schemes to both legally diminish the value of assets and legally enhance the amount of debt so that wealth is framed much lower than it really is.

Ted Kennedy is a great example. Wildly considered one the most wealthy senators of all time. Guess what......he legally had very little wealth.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 05:05 PM | Reply

I would argue that putting real tax rates on dividends and capital gains that at least equal the real taxes on labor is a realistic way to shift the tax burden where it needs to go.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 05:09 PM | Reply

That said there are all sorts of other taxes that can be applied that would not be "direct" taxes and some quite frankly that feel like a direct tax and are on the books. An Inheritance tax for instance or even a Capital Gains tax.

Both of which are subject to SCOTUS decisions which recognized that both "inheritance" and capital gains involve a transaction, i.e. a transfer of money from one entity to another.

Counting someone's wealth is not a transaction, and as I point out earlier, there are all sorts of direct tax and equal protection issues surrounding any attempt to tax it.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 05:13 PM | Reply

#45

I have been saying that constantly: Get rid of carried interest and capital gains on private equity/hedge fund types of investments and tax them as ordinary income (which they are) and that would raised tens of billions of dollars every year.

That is how you tax the wealthy, not by some pie in the sky wealth tax that would be easily avoidable by the tax attorneys (and unconstitutional).

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 05:16 PM | Reply

raised => raise

#48 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 05:16 PM | Reply

The IRS looks for transactions to go after
The IRS does NOT do this routinely.

Looking for transactions to go after is routine. And a skilled IRS agent can untangle just about any wealth protection scheme.

But let's pretend you're right (you aren't). If the wealthy were required to state their assets under penalty of perjury for purposes of a wealth tax, do you not believe the IRS would get some money out of this?

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 05:49 PM | Reply

49

Let's pretend you're being realistic (you're not). What do you mean by "assets". It's a tax on wealth, not merely assets, which means a disclosure of liabilities.

What do you think you mean when you say "their"? they own a minority interest in an LLC. Not controlling interest so the LLC's balance sheet is carried someplace else. And the assets and liabilities of the LLC are someone else's determination. To take it further, let's assume the LLC is a holding company for other LLCs.

you make it sound like someone just writes down the value of their stock portfolio, cash in the bank, and personally held real estate holdings, and then list the liabilities associated with it. Like it's the same as disclosing a personal financial statement.

perjury? LOL

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 06:02 PM | Reply

and, what will a hefty Tax on the Rich do?

pay down the debt? no it won't

help feed more people? no it won't

help house more of the homeless? no it won't

punish the evil Rich? no it won't, because they have the resources to leave. they are leaving NY and CA as I type

Help the Lower and middle class Liberals feel better? yes

Reality is the Dem Leadership talk the talk to keep the minions in line, the party of the RICH are the Democrats

#51 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-02-14 06:16 PM | Reply

#51 | Posted by Maverick

Look at this chump arguing that the rich shouldnt pay more taxes so that he has to pay more taxes.

Better to let the rich rip you off than agree with dirty libs.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#50 I noticed you never answered the question.

"If the wealthy were required to state their assets under penalty of perjury for purposes of a wealth tax, do you not believe the IRS would get some money out of this?"

It's a simple yes or no. And there's an answer for the scenario you described; interests in LLCs are appraised all the time. That isn't even that difficult of an example.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 06:50 PM | Reply

53

Every tax return filed comes with the expectation of truth. The wealthy are going to bend the law as far as they can. No, they don't want to be busted for lying.

"Interests in LLCs are appraised all the time"

Citation? How many get appraised? How frequently?

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 06:56 PM | Reply

I've personally procured appraisals of them for litigation purposes, and i know that happens all the time. It wasn't hard to find an accountant to do the work and i know that isn't the only situation in which they are appraised.

Every tax return filed comes with the expectation of truth.

That doesn't answer the question. Even if people underrported their wealth under penalty of perjury, would the IRS get more money than it currently does if a wealth tax were implemented? Yes or no?

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 07:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

55

So, you have zero citation. Instead, just anecdotal evidence.

And you're playing "yes or no" with me? LOL

I'll play....yes, more money. Many many many tax plans could raise more tax revenue. You could list tons of them.

Again, this is a 100% unrealistic idea. It's designed get you all wet in your undies so as to deliver a primary victory.

But......that's as far as this will go.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 07:26 PM | Reply

You need a citation that something which occurs every day, in fact, occurs?

Do you need a citation that the sun rises too?

"A Limited Liability Company Appraisal or Valuation is often required when computing a pension, profit sharing, or 401k plan participant distribution. It is also often required for Estate and Divorce Valuation purposes."
www.equityvaluationappraisals.com

You think companies, and interests in them, aren't bought and sold all the time, with the need for independent valuation? You think they aren't appraised daily for bankruptcy and divorce and collections purposes? Get real.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 07:47 PM | Reply

Again, this is a 100% unrealistic idea. It's designed get you all wet in your undies so as to deliver a primary victory.

But......that's as far as this will go.

#56 | Posted by eberly

Your are brainwashed by the rich to call taxing the rich unrealistic.

The gov needs more money. The rich have taken all the economic growth for decades.

Where do you think the additional revenue should come from? The college grads with 100k in student loans?

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 07:49 PM | Reply

The stupid in this thread is not worth my time.

Joe is unrealistic at best.....trying not to look bad at worst. Can't get out of the corner he's in.

Speakstupid is just earning his name like always. Assigning false positions to troll like snoofy.

Any more of it and I'll send him to the broom closet with snoofy.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 07:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

BTW, I support Warren without any of this nonsense.

But it tells you she's working for support from a bunch of idiots with equal IQs of most Trump supporters.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 07:56 PM | Reply

Wow dude. Denying something occurs just because you're too stupid to know about it, then proclaiming to be better than everyone? How embarrassing. Seek help.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 08:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-How embarrassing

It's ok, lil joe. Nobody comes to this site anyway anymore.

I've barely been here at all for a long time.

It's full of jackasses on both sides who can't stand a moderate not taking a political side on an issue.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If anybody thinks this a great and realistic idea....fine. Keep waving the Pom poms for it.

But I predict the left will kill this long before the right has a chance to

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 08:06 PM | Reply

Your are brainwashed by the rich to call taxing the rich unrealistic.

The gov needs more money. The rich have taken all the economic growth for decades.

Where do you think the additional revenue should come from? The college grads with 100k in student loans?

#58 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You act like this is the only way to tax the rich.

There are far better ways of doing so that are much, much simpler and aren't of dubious constitutionality.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 08:10 PM | Reply

Any more of it and I'll send him to the broom closet with snoofy.

#59 | Posted by eberly

Yikes. I always get really scared when tough guys threaten me over the internet.

Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your unpaid plutocratic bootlicking.

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 08:20 PM | Reply

than agree with dirty libs.

I hear that the proper terms were "dirty americans" or just "hippies."

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 08:21 PM | Reply

You act like this is the only way to tax the rich.

There are far better ways of doing so that are much, much simpler and aren't of dubious constitutionality.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ

No matter what way you offer, the rich will deploy their talking heads to distribute propaganda to the morons about how it won't work/it's illegal/it's immoral/ whatever, and the morons will post it all over the internet in threads like this.

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 08:22 PM | Reply

-No matter what way you offer, the rich will deploy their talking heads to distribute propaganda to the morons about how it won't work/it's illegal/it's immoral/ whatever

Yes they will. You got something right. Celebrate.

But Jeff and I will support many realistic tax plans.

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-14 08:25 PM | Reply

There are far better ways of doing so that are much, much simpler and aren't of dubious constitutionality.

As I set forth in my #47, " Get rid of carried interest and capital gains on private equity/hedge fund types of investments and tax them as ordinary income (which they are) and that would raised tens of billions of dollars every year."

But do you listen?

Noooooooooo.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 08:26 PM | Reply

Yikes. I always get really scared when tough guys threaten me over the internet.

#65 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You liken a threaten to plonk with a threat of going all Frank Cotton on your ass?

Don't be such a puss. Callous up.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Taxing investment income the same as earned income would be a good start.

A sales tax on financial products would be another.

A tax on stock trades is another.

A wealth tax doesn't have to be a net wealth tax. Little people pay property tax on gross property value.

Intellectual property could also be taxed.

Untaxed property should not be protected by the legal system.

#71 | Posted by bored at 2019-02-15 03:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh, how terrible the Liberals have become. During those same times, the tax rate for the middle class was 50% and higher!!!!!!!

web.stanford.edu

Yes, you have to understand that $30k back then was a lot less than it is today but if you apply inflation you still get middle class values paying 40-50%.

If you want to increase taxes to eras that had much prosperity, why don't you stop playing ignorant partisan politics and actually treat it as a 1 for 1 comparison. Only then does your solution make any relatable sense to the problem.

In fact, one could fairly say that Reagan was wrong and that tax rates should not have been decreased significantly, and that our country truly started its decline only when the rates were lowered. And that ALL tax rates should increase significantly to bring us back to where we were. But if one wanted to be a bigot and discriminatory, they can say that we should treat people different from each other because one person has something the other doesn't...but that's just stupid and goes against everything this country was founded on.

#72 | Posted by humtake at 2019-02-15 12:15 PM | Reply

Figuring out wealth is done everyday by divorce lawyers... im sure the IRS could just penalize those who hide assets.. say 30% of its worth.
See how many hide things when the price of getting caught will hurt

#73 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-02-15 08:30 PM | Reply

Its important to remember, State and local Governments, taxes are needed to operate the Federal Government. But taxes on the rich is a very important part of a health economy because they reduce hoarding. Hoarding takes too much money out of circulation which reduces spending in generates a downward economic spiral.

#74 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-15 09:21 PM | Reply

Jesus my cursor jumps all over and demolishes words as I type. ,"unlike" State and local Governments,...

#75 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-15 10:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort