Chart of the wealth tax for specific Billionaires

[Value Buy]

I f the wealth tax had already been in effect for specific billionaires under either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren's specific plan. Sanders' seems to be harsher.

www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/us-billionaires-could-lose-tens-of-billions-under-democratic-tax-plans.html 

[Value Buy]

Quite honestly, since it goes back years, it is hard to say whether the tax number they would pay would carry over into future tax years, because as they get hit with the tax, their wealth falls in future years, and how the billionaires react to the taxation (stop investing, selling out, drop from active mgmt of their companies, etc).......could lower their actual tax.
When you see what they have left, it is not the end of the world for them.....
But if either candidate thinks this will pay for medicare for all, free education, the new green deal, etc, it will not. Pick one item........then who do you tax to do the next thing on the list?

[thyme4change]

Tragic. How could Bezos possibly survive with a mere $52 BILLION?

[dondub]

Let’s be clear. The 3 tax cuts for those that don’t need them, first Reagan’s, then W, and now Trump, have created a very serious problem. We have a huge deficit exacerbated by them. We are creating a two tiered society now bordering on plutocracy.

Unfortunately, the Repo-Cons who performed this swindle on the commons, have subsequently been purchased lock, stock and barrel by all of the largesse they handed over. The cycle is now complete and self perpetuating after Trump threw in the corporate cut too. And, as predicted, that windfall went to stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

Unless something is done about this we will become like a Guatemala where a small percentage of the citizens control most of the wealth and children go to bed hungry. Oh wait...

[Artemis Windsong]

Those billionaires will destroy this country when they leave with their bags full of money.

[dondub]

Nov 14, 2019 22:04:22 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

Those billionaires will destroy this country when they leave with their bags full of money.

. They aren’t going anywhere. Their bags of money are doing fine right here.

[Value Buy]

Nov 14, 2019 22:04:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

Let’s be clear. The 3 tax cuts for those that don’t need them, first Reagan’s, then W, and now Trump, have created a very serious problem. We have a huge deficit exacerbated by them. We are creating a two tiered society now bordering on plutocracy.

Unfortunately, the Repo-Cons who performed this swindle on the commons, have subsequently been purchased lock, stock and barrel by all of the largesse they handed over. The cycle is now complete and self perpetuating after Trump threw in the corporate cut too. And, as predicted, that windfall went to stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

Unless something is done about this we will become like a Guatemala where a small percentage of the citizens control most of the wealth and children go to bed hungry. Oh wait...

Then tell the illegal Guatemalans to stop coming here! They are wasting their time

Seriously, I agree billionaires as well as millionaires pulling down over ten million a year can and should pay a higher rate.
I also believe billionaires should never be taxed over 50% rate, but I also believe the ridiculous tax deduction in place to reduce/hide their income has to be removed. Keep in mind they are also paying real estate and income taxes to the various states....
Right now a wealth tax is so wrong. Does anyone think the IRS will be able to know what the actual price of a Rembrandt hanging in the library room is truly worth? Or the Picasso? Send them into the wine cellar and Cigar room! 

[dondub]

Nov 15, 2019 10:39:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:04:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

Let’s be clear. The 3 tax cuts for those that don’t need them, first Reagan’s, then W, and now Trump, have created a very serious problem. We have a huge deficit exacerbated by them. We are creating a two tiered society now bordering on plutocracy.

Unfortunately, the Repo-Cons who performed this swindle on the commons, have subsequently been purchased lock, stock and barrel by all of the largesse they handed over. The cycle is now complete and self perpetuating after Trump threw in the corporate cut too. And, as predicted, that windfall went to stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

Unless something is done about this we will become like a Guatemala where a small percentage of the citizens control most of the wealth and children go to bed hungry. Oh wait...

Then tell the illegal Guatemalans to stop coming here! They are wasting their time

Seriously, I agree billionaires as well as millionaires pulling down over ten million a year can and should pay a higher rate.
I also believe billionaires should never be taxed over 50% rate, but I also believe the ridiculous tax deduction in place to reduce/hide their income has to be removed. Keep in mind they are also paying real estate and income taxes to the various states....
Right now a wealth tax is so wrong. Does anyone think the IRS will be able to know what the actual price of a Rembrandt hanging in the library room is truly worth? Or the Picasso? Send them into the wine cellar and Cigar room! 

I’ll go the wine cellar!🍷

[Deleted]

Just for general information regarding the lack of transaction in her tax proposal. 

She and her platform advisors are either exceedingly ignorant, or just flat out lying. 



Quote;  The Constitution prohibits federal direct taxes that are not apportioned by population, except for the income tax which is specifically permitted by the Sixteenth Amendment. I think every expert would agree on those points.

So the question is, what is and is not a direct tax? In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Hylton case of 1796, they observed that a capitation, or head tax (flat rate on each person), would be a direct tax and thus unconstitutional if not apportioned. In the Pollock case of 1895, they came to a similar conclusion. That’s why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, to allow income taxes to be constitutional. An attempt to tax unrealized capital gains was struck down in the Macomber case of 1920.

Every other tax that has been challenged on these grounds has been upheld. Inheritance and estate taxes were upheld in the Knowlton case of 1900 not as direct taxes on wealth, but as indirect taxes on the transfer of wealth. Corporate income taxes were upheld in the Flint case of 1911 not as taxes on the value of shares or income, but as excise taxes on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. However, those taxes in some way involve a transaction, while the Warren wealth tax does not.


taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/

[NastyWoman]

Nov 15, 2019 14:13:20 GMT -5 @x said:

Just for general information regarding the lack of transaction in her tax proposal. 

She and her platform advisors are either exceedingly ignorant, or just flat out lying. 



Quote;  The Constitution prohibits federal direct taxes that are not apportioned by population, except for the income tax which is specifically permitted by the Sixteenth Amendment. I think every expert would agree on those points.

So the question is, what is and is not a direct tax? In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Hylton case of 1796, they observed that a capitation, or head tax (flat rate on each person), would be a direct tax and thus unconstitutional if not apportioned. In the Pollock case of 1895, they came to a similar conclusion. That’s why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, to allow income taxes to be constitutional. An attempt to tax unrealized capital gains was struck down in the Macomber case of 1920.

Every other tax that has been challenged on these grounds has been upheld. Inheritance and estate taxes were upheld in the Knowlton case of 1900 not as direct taxes on wealth, but as indirect taxes on the transfer of wealth. Corporate income taxes were upheld in the Flint case of 1911 not as taxes on the value of shares or income, but as excise taxes on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. However, those taxes in some way involve a transaction, while the Warren wealth tax does not.


taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/

Interesting when I see someone going back to say "this is what the law says" so we can't change it. Yet when we are talking about limiting access to certain assault weapons they are not at all concerned with what the word "militia" means.

For those having problems with understanding my statement: it is called selective application of what can and can not be changed. AKA: cherry picking

[Value Buy]

Nov 15, 2019 17:48:58 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Nov 15, 2019 14:13:20 GMT -5 @x said:

Just for general information regarding the lack of transaction in her tax proposal. 

She and her platform advisors are either exceedingly ignorant, or just flat out lying. 



Quote;  The Constitution prohibits federal direct taxes that are not apportioned by population, except for the income tax which is specifically permitted by the Sixteenth Amendment. I think every expert would agree on those points.

So the question is, what is and is not a direct tax? In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Hylton case of 1796, they observed that a capitation, or head tax (flat rate on each person), would be a direct tax and thus unconstitutional if not apportioned. In the Pollock case of 1895, they came to a similar conclusion. That’s why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, to allow income taxes to be constitutional. An attempt to tax unrealized capital gains was struck down in the Macomber case of 1920.

Every other tax that has been challenged on these grounds has been upheld. Inheritance and estate taxes were upheld in the Knowlton case of 1900 not as direct taxes on wealth, but as indirect taxes on the transfer of wealth. Corporate income taxes were upheld in the Flint case of 1911 not as taxes on the value of shares or income, but as excise taxes on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. However, those taxes in some way involve a transaction, while the Warren wealth tax does not.


taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/

Interesting when I see someone going back to say "this is what the law says" so we can't change it. Yet when we are talking about limiting access to certain assault weapons they are not at all concerned with what the word "militia" means.

For those having problems with understanding my statement: it is called selective application of what can and can not be changed. AKA: cherry picking

So why not do it correctly and change the Constitutional law on taxation of the people before implementing laws that will be found Unconxtitutional?
If Trump did something like this you woulkd be here condemning the plan.

[Value Buy]

Here is the latest version of Warren's tax plan.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/warren-tax-plan-would-bring-rates-over-100percent-for-some/ar-BBWOv9e?li=BBnb7Kz

Now she wants to tax nonexistent realized capital gains on stock investment increases of the dollar amount of your accounts even if you do not sell anything........
Does this mean in a down market when your portfolio drops about ten percent, does her plan give you a deduction covering the lost gains you had to pay the year before?

[OldCoyote]

Nov 16, 2019 9:11:50 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Here is the latest version of Warren's tax plan.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/warren-tax-plan-would-bring-rates-over-100percent-for-some/ar-BBWOv9e?li=BBnb7Kz

Now she wants to tax nonexistent realized capital gains on stock investment increases of the dollar amount of your accounts even if you do not sell anything........
Does this mean in a down market when your portfolio drops about ten percent, does her plan give you a deduction covering the lost gains you had to pay the year before?

The Left is all for this, If it does not come out of their pockets!

[bean29]

Nov 16, 2019 10:15:25 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Nov 16, 2019 9:11:50 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Here is the latest version of Warren's tax plan.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/warren-tax-plan-would-bring-rates-over-100percent-for-some/ar-BBWOv9e?li=BBnb7Kz

Now she wants to tax nonexistent realized capital gains on stock investment increases of the dollar amount of your accounts even if you do not sell anything........
Does this mean in a down market when your portfolio drops about ten percent, does her plan give you a deduction covering the lost gains you had to pay the year before?

The Left is all for this, If it does not come out of their pockets!

I don’t agree-I doubt the left will go for that. I prefer Biden and Buttigeig. I don’t see how they could tax unrealized capital gains. If it is in a 401K it is still untaxable right?

[OldCoyote]

Hmmm, Who would you vote for??

1. Biden's going to cure cancer.

2. Kamals's handing out reparation money to blacks.

3. Bernies's gonna forgive all student loans.

4. Warren's gonna send reparation checks to homosexuals.

5.Beto's gonna eliminate our Nation's borders.

6.Klobuchar's gonna make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states.

7. Booker 's gonna increase welfare programs.

8. Swallwell's gonna vacate the 2nd Amendment.

9.Buttigieg's gonna eliminate the Electoral College.

10. Trump is gonna secure our borders, build our economy, strengthen our military, ensure America never becomes a socialist nation, protect Israel, reduce taxes, protect the unborn, follow the Constitution, eliminate unfair trade, clean up Government corruption, and insure Iran doesn't use the billion of dollars and nuclear technology Obama gave it to build bombs...

Hmmm, just can't make up my mind....

[dondub]

In other words you’d like to retain the criminal cabal. No surprise there with your history of befriending tax cheats, hiring illegals, and trolling.

[oped]

Nov 16, 2019 19:14:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Hmmm, Who would you vote for??

1. Biden's going to cure cancer.

2. Kamals's handing out reparation money to blacks.

3. Bernies's gonna forgive all student loans.

4. Warren's gonna send reparation checks to homosexuals.

5.Beto's gonna eliminate our Nation's borders.

6.Klobuchar's gonna make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states.

7. Booker 's gonna increase welfare programs.

8. Swallwell's gonna vacate the 2nd Amendment.

9.Buttigieg's gonna eliminate the Electoral College.

10. Trump is gonna secure our borders, build our economy, strengthen our military, ensure America never becomes a socialist nation, protect Israel, reduce taxes, protect the unborn, follow the Constitution, eliminate unfair trade, clean up Government corruption, and insure Iran doesn't use the billion of dollars and nuclear technology Obama gave it to build bombs...

Hmmm, just can't make up my mind....

Thanks! Teaching Strawman this week... you made example search easy...

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2019 17:48:58 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Nov 15, 2019 14:13:20 GMT -5 @x said:

Just for general information regarding the lack of transaction in her tax proposal. 

She and her platform advisors are either exceedingly ignorant, or just flat out lying. 



Quote;  The Constitution prohibits federal direct taxes that are not apportioned by population, except for the income tax which is specifically permitted by the Sixteenth Amendment. I think every expert would agree on those points.

So the question is, what is and is not a direct tax? In one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Hylton case of 1796, they observed that a capitation, or head tax (flat rate on each person), would be a direct tax and thus unconstitutional if not apportioned. In the Pollock case of 1895, they came to a similar conclusion. That’s why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, to allow income taxes to be constitutional. An attempt to tax unrealized capital gains was struck down in the Macomber case of 1920.

Every other tax that has been challenged on these grounds has been upheld. Inheritance and estate taxes were upheld in the Knowlton case of 1900 not as direct taxes on wealth, but as indirect taxes on the transfer of wealth. Corporate income taxes were upheld in the Flint case of 1911 not as taxes on the value of shares or income, but as excise taxes on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. However, those taxes in some way involve a transaction, while the Warren wealth tax does not.


taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/

Interesting when I see someone going back to say "this is what the law says" so we can't change it. Yet when we are talking about limiting access to certain assault weapons they are not at all concerned with what the word "militia" means.

For those having problems with understanding my statement: it is called selective application of what can and can not be changed. AKA: cherry picking

The militia argument is over, with the Supreme Court ruling affirming the individual right. 

That's why there is no concern.

I've posted it many times.

Not cherry picking, it's the judicial interpretation. 

It's not a selective application, it's the only application.

[OldCoyote]

Nov 16, 2019 19:42:50 GMT -5 oped said:

Nov 16, 2019 19:14:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Hmmm, Who would you vote for??

1. Biden's going to cure cancer.

2. Kamals's handing out reparation money to blacks.

3. Bernies's gonna forgive all student loans.

4. Warren's gonna send reparation checks to homosexuals.

5.Beto's gonna eliminate our Nation's borders.

6.Klobuchar's gonna make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states.

7. Booker 's gonna increase welfare programs.

8. Swallwell's gonna vacate the 2nd Amendment.

9.Buttigieg's gonna eliminate the Electoral College.

10. Trump is gonna secure our borders, build our economy, strengthen our military, ensure America never becomes a socialist nation, protect Israel, reduce taxes, protect the unborn, follow the Constitution, eliminate unfair trade, clean up Government corruption, and insure Iran doesn't use the billion of dollars and nuclear technology Obama gave it to build bombs...

Hmmm, just can't make up my mind....

Thanks! Teaching Strawman this week... you made example search easy...

Hmmm, wonder who O.C. is going to vote for?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2019 19:14:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Hmmm, Who would you vote for??

1. Biden's going to cure cancer.

2. Kamals's handing out reparation money to blacks.

3. Bernies's gonna forgive all student loans.

4. Warren's gonna send reparation checks to homosexuals.

5.Beto's gonna eliminate our Nation's borders.

6.Klobuchar's gonna make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states.

7. Booker 's gonna increase welfare programs.

8. Swallwell's gonna vacate the 2nd Amendment.

9.Buttigieg's gonna eliminate the Electoral College.

10. Trump is gonna secure our borders, build our economy, strengthen our military, ensure America never becomes a socialist nation, protect Israel, reduce taxes, protect the unborn, follow the Constitution, eliminate unfair trade, clean up Government corruption, and insure Iran doesn't use the billion of dollars and nuclear technology Obama gave it to build bombs...

Hmmm, just can't make up my mind....

me neither.  I would rather see a cure for cancer than anything on your Trump list.

but I take exception with the following the constitution remark.  he hasn't done that on several occasions.

I also take exception with your unfair trade comment.  the US also engages in unfair trade.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 16, 2019 19:14:44 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Hmmm, Who would you vote for??

1. Biden's going to cure cancer.

2. Kamals's handing out reparation money to blacks.

3. Bernies's gonna forgive all student loans.

4. Warren's gonna send reparation checks to homosexuals.

5.Beto's gonna eliminate our Nation's borders.

6.Klobuchar's gonna make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states.

7. Booker 's gonna increase welfare programs.

8. Swallwell's gonna vacate the 2nd Amendment.

9.Buttigieg's gonna eliminate the Electoral College.

10. Trump is gonna secure our borders, build our economy, strengthen our military, ensure America never becomes a socialist nation, protect Israel, reduce taxes, protect the unborn, follow the Constitution, eliminate unfair trade, clean up Government corruption, and insure Iran doesn't use the billion of dollars and nuclear technology Obama gave it to build bombs...

Hmmm, just can't make up my mind....

Ha ha ha ha!!     

Trump himself doesn't follow the Constitution, and he's the most corrupt one in the government.

I see you're back to Obama GIVING Iran billions of dollars. Nothing sinks in, does it?

[dondub]

And how about a legitimate source for the ‘Obama gave the Iranians nuclear technology’ statement.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 14, 2019 13:13:25 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I f the wealth tax had already been in effect for specific billionaires under either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren's specific plan. Sanders' seems to be harsher.

www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/us-billionaires-could-lose-tens-of-billions-under-democratic-tax-plans.html 

We’re sorry, the page you were looking for cannot be found.

Here are some trending stories that might interest you.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 14, 2019 22:04:22 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

Those billionaires will destroy this country when they leave with their bags full of money.

how so?

first of all, I doubt those assets are liquid, so they are likely not going anywhere.

second, there are EXIT taxes. you know that, right?

and finally, no matter where you are on God's Green Earth, if you are a US citizen, Uncle Sam taxes you.

the ONLY way to stop it is to renounce your citizenship.

people seriously misunderstand how difficult it is to disrupt the IRS.