Why the morbidly rich need to be seriously taxed

[SkyDekker 1,127]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am aware. I sold one of my rentals to cover the conversion and to fund the kids 529. 

And you are sure your tax burden today is lower than in retirement? Sounds unlikely.

 

Never mind that you triggered two tax events to shield money from future taxes, when your tax burden is highly likely to be less than what it is today. And then called that zero taxes.

Edited April 8 by SkyDekker

[SkyDekker 1,127]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

But isn’t a trans woman a woman and not a man?

Just a woman with a history of using performance enhancing hormones 

No, I am pretty sure your argument is that if it was born with a penis it will always be a man. You should be happy these men are finally putting women in their place!

[brenthutch 384]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No, I am pretty sure your argument is that if it was born with a penis it will always be a man. You should be happy these men are finally putting women in their place!

I just gave you my argument 

“Just a woman with a history of using performance enhancing hormones to get an unfair advantage in sports.”

[SkyDekker 1,127]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I just gave you my argument 

“Just a woman with a history of using performance enhancing hormones to get an unfair advantage in sports.”

For clarity sake, you are stating that trans-women are women?

[jakee 1,257]

52 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I guess my point is, if Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos were excessively taxed earlier, we would not have the Tesla, SpaceX, and Amazon that we have today.

So let’s tax them fairly instead, and raise an enormous amount of money - some of which will recoup the subsidies that allow Bezos and others to so dramatically underpay the employees whose effort generated their wealth.

55 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They earned it, they followed the rules of the game I don’t begrudge their success. 

Why are you fixated on the idea that begrudging has anything to do with it? It seems pretty clear that if you were in charge you would like to build a system that taxes only the people you feel are unworthy, but in the real world that’s not how it works. 
 

Society has to be paid for, hence we need a system of taxation that works. 

[brenthutch 384]

12 minutes ago, jakee said:

So let’s tax them fairly instead, and raise an enormous amount of money - some of which will recoup the subsidies that allow Bezos and others to so dramatically underpay the employees whose effort generated their wealth.

Why are you fixated on the idea that begrudging has anything to do with it? It seems pretty clear that if you were in charge you would like to build a system that taxes only the people you feel are unworthy, but in the real world that’s not how it works. 
 

 

According to you the “real world” isn’t working either 

[jakee 1,257]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

According to you the “real world” isn’t working either 

I'm curious - what exactly did you think this thread was about up to this point?

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

I'm curious - what exactly did you think this thread was about up to this point?

Complaining about the “morbidity wealthy”, no solution just jealous bitching.

[JoeWeber 2,304]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Complaining about the “morbidity wealthy”, no solution just jealous bitching.

I'm the OP and I am neither jealous or bitching. Silly me but I think the worldwide historical data that shows somewhat higher tax rates on the morbidly rich won't cause them all to flee to low tax Yemen in response. Hundreds of millions is a crap load of money, plenty really. Billions to hundreds of billions of dollars is a ridiculous amount to let go without a morbidly rich tax. 

[wmw999 2,123]

I believe the solution of returning to a more progressive tax code was suggested.

Kind of like we had in those wonderful 50’s

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,304]

23 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I believe the solution of returning to a more progressive tax code was suggested.

Kind of like we had in those wonderful 50’s

Wendy P. 

Maybe what I dislike the most is how these nouveau princelings have the money, and the capacity for mischief to play kingmaker at home and develop their own foreign policies as is they were private governments. The impact of their wealth to affect domestic policy is manifest.

Edited April 8 by JoeWeber

[jakee 1,257]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Complaining about the “morbidity wealthy”, no solution just jealous bitching.

No solution to what?

[billvon 2,402]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

I'm curious - what exactly did you think this thread was about up to this point?

Ways for Brent to piss people off, of course.  Has nothing to do with facts.

[billvon 2,402]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm the OP and I am neither jealous or bitching. Silly me but I think the worldwide historical data that shows somewhat higher tax rates on the morbidly rich won't cause them all to flee to low tax Yemen in response. Hundreds of millions is a crap load of money, plenty really. Billions to hundreds of billions of dollars is a ridiculous amount to let go without a morbidly rich tax. 

And the rich of a century ago would agree with you.  Read Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.  He writes about the best way for the rich to give away all their money before they die.  How very progressive taxes are needed.  How most of the money made by the rich should be spent enriching the community, while the rich person himself should live modestly.  And indeed that giving all that money away was a duty the rich have to humanity,

"The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
"By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction."

We no longer have leaders like Carnegie.  Nowadays people who pay a lot in taxes are considered idiots, and people who want infrastructure put in place to make OTHER people rich are considered socialists.  We need to replace Bezos values with Carnegie values.  

[ryoder 1,390]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

And the rich of a century ago would agree with you.  Read Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.  He writes about the best way for the rich to give away all their money before they die.  How very progressive taxes are needed.  How most of the money made by the rich should be spent enriching the community, while the rich person himself should live modestly.  And indeed that giving all that money away was a duty the rich have to humanity,

"The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
"By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction."

We no longer have leaders like Carnegie.  Nowadays people who pay a lot in taxes are considered idiots, and people who want infrastructure put in place to make OTHER people rich are considered socialists.  We need to replace Bezos values with Carnegie values.  

Omigawd! Carnegie was a Commie!!!

[olofscience 422]

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe what I dislike the most is how these nouveau princelings have the money, and the capacity for mischief to play kingmaker at home and develop their own foreign policies as is they were private governments. The impact of their wealth to affect domestic policy is manifest.

This is one of my arguments for a Universal Basic Income.

Companies and CEOs currently hold and decide the means of living for millions of people. They're not afraid to use them as HOSTAGES to get what they want from governments, and they do. All the time.

Government policy should only be dictated by the citizens, not by companies using their employees as hostages in their negotiations.

[brenthutch 384]

17 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

And you are sure your tax burden today is lower than in retirement? Sounds unlikely.

 

Never mind that you triggered two tax events to shield money from future taxes, when your tax burden is highly likely to be less than what it is today. And then called that zero taxes.

Uh, I’m pretty sure that the capital gains tax is much lower than the income tax, not to mention the uncertain tax environment if the Ds ever get control of both chambers and the White House again.

[Phil1111 911]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

...Companies and CEOs currently hold and decide the means of living for millions of people. They're not afraid to use them as HOSTAGES to get what they want from governments, and they do. All the time....

Companies with good governance do not.

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

....Government policy should only be dictated by the citizens, not by companies using their employees as hostages in their negotiations.

Corporations can and should have a say because some far right liberals treat corporate profits as a public pecuniary interest. But if your point is that corporations use their financial powers to buy politicians to tilt what should be a level field. I'd agree.

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

This is one of my arguments for a Universal Basic Income.....

  This conclusion of yours is not supported by your two premises. It could support major changes to tax laws to keep corporations from shielding excessive profits from taxation.

[jakee 1,257]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

But if your point is that corporations use their financial powers to buy politicians to tilt what should be a level field. I'd agree.

No, I think his point is that corporations go to the government and say ‘give us what we want or we’ll sack X hundred/thousand people’.

[Phil1111 911]

16 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm the OP and I am neither jealous or bitching. Silly me but I think the worldwide historical data that shows somewhat higher tax rates on the morbidly rich won't cause them all to flee to low tax Yemen in response. Hundreds of millions is a crap load of money, plenty really. Billions to hundreds of billions of dollars is a ridiculous amount to let go without a morbidly rich tax. 

As does study after study show the rich don't relocate to low tax jurisdictions. Unfortunately the rich can use offshore corporations and trump type tax avoidance. To live where and how they like.

That argument is merely a false flag to mislead the poorly educated. To persuade them to vote for tax laws to allow them to get richer while the less well off pay a higher tax burden.

[Phil1111 911]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

No, I think his point is that corporations go to the government and say ‘give us what we want or we’ll sack X hundred/thousand people’.

If its a lie to force concessions then the government needs to go full Regan. If the corporation is poorly governed then the government needs to let it fail. If the corporation is a good citizen and reasonably run. Then perhaps government concessions should be offered.

If thats his point then its up to the government to be an in your face tough negotiator as well. Otherwise the state is subsidizing shareholders and company executives unjustly.

 

[JoeWeber 2,304]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, I’m pretty sure that the capital gains tax is much lower than the income tax, not to mention the uncertain tax environment if the Ds ever get control of both chambers and the White House again.

Played properly the capital gains tax is less than zero. Simply pledge a billion of your stock gains as collateral for a $500 million business loan and party on. More neato is you get to write off all fees and interest on your return. 

Please tell us what tax horrors the "D's" are likely to visit on suburban house dads? Or is your fear the fear of uncertainty alone? That can be scary.

Edited April 9 by JoeWeber

[olofscience 422]

41 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Corporations can and should have a say because some far right liberals treat corporate profits as a public pecuniary interest. But if your point is that corporations use their financial powers to buy politicians to tilt what should be a level field. I'd agree.

Governments' reason for existence is to protect the welfare of their citizens. Corporations are not citizens.

Corporations employ citizens, so they do have a say on how the country is run, just through their employees and not the company itself.

 

35 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

If its a lie to force concessions then the government needs to go full Regan.

Even if it isn't lying, it's still not a level playing field - because the consequences are still imbalanced. It's like a rich man making a $1000 bet with a poor man - both risk the same amount of money, but the consequences for the poor man is much bigger than for the rich man.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Governments' reason for existence is to protect the welfare of their citizens. Corporations are not citizens.

True but every western government allows the creation of corporate identities. Which doesn't give them the right to vote.

 

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

...Corporations employ citizens, so they do have a say on how the country is run, just through their employees and not the company itself...

Not quite. The executives of the corporation spend the corporations assets to buy political influence. Through cash donations. Through the decision making in where and how corporate assets, i.e. manufacturing assets are distributed. In order to gain political influence and enjoy tax advantages. IMO this is where most people start to criticize the bad conduct of corporations. i.e. when they employ that decision making to take advantage of the power of politicians. Over the power of citizens and the rights of citizens.

 

[SkyDekker 1,127]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, I’m pretty sure that the capital gains tax is much lower than the income tax, not to mention the uncertain tax environment if the Ds ever get control of both chambers and the White House again.

You can borrow tax free against capital gains and use the interest expense to lower income tax burden.

 

Thank you for paying more taxes than you need to out of fear for what might happen.