Joe Biden's Tax Plan

[s0me0nesmind1]

The US already enforces substantial regulations beyond its borders by limiting access to our financial system for those who don't play ball. That's what US sanctions are all about. So sure, people could escape with their billions to a country that doesn't abide by those laws but most of those are places most people don't want to live.

There will always be some evasion of these taxes, that much is a given. It would be a very large net positive for society though if we can make it that people of enormous power and influence actually had to work to get it.

So what stops someone from... say... living in the UK - but having their assets in a Cayman Islands account?

Is the UK going to kick them out for not paying their US taxes?

 

[fskimospy]

So what stops someone from... say... living in the UK - but having their assets in a Cayman Islands account?

Is the UK going to kick them out for not paying their US taxes?

I'm confused as to what you're asking - are you saying US sanctions are ineffective? Forget countries, the US could say that any financial institution that does business with US entities must comply with this law. Few banks would risk their US operations to shelter funds from people trying to avoid estate taxes.

Yes, people could try and shelter funds with assets, etc., but again the whole point isn't 100% compliance, it's to strike a blow against the class of useless people who are only influential because of who their parents were. The president, for example, haha.

 

[blackangst1]

I wouldn't call it radical, but it isn't insignificant either. The changes in capital gains tax are the most substantial changes in the package. Not only is it taxing capital gains at the income rate, but eliminating the step up in basis means getting rid of this weird rule where little to no capital gains taxes are ever paid on real property which is sold out of an estate.

The "donut hole" is not really a problem as I see it. Everyone contributes up to a certain income. To cover the shortfall, however, they tap only the very high wage earners. If it didn't have that donut hole, people making 150K a year would justifiably squawk at the tax increase as that is barely above middle class these days.

Overall it looks like a decent set of proposals, but I would have gone farther because I think we need to raise more revenue.

I diagree. I think we need to reduce federal spending as we did in FY2011. Start with the military.

 

[dank69]

I diagree. I think we need to reduce federal spending as we did in FY2011. Start with the military.

Okay, let's assume we cut the military to 0. Still not enough. What do you cut next?

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, let's assume we cut the military to 0. Still not enough. What do you cut next?

Interesting to see conservatives already pricing in a potential loss and returning to 'we must cut spending' after four years of not giving a shit if Republicans cut spending or not. (or at least continuing to vote for them regardless)

 

[soundforbjt]

Interesting to see conservatives already pricing in a potential loss and returning to 'we must cut spending' after four years of not giving a shit if Republicans cut spending or not. (or at least continuing to vote for them regardless)

Funny how that happens...

 

[Jhhnn]

I diagree. I think we need to reduce federal spending as we did in FY2011. Start with the military.

Why? So the Rentier class can keep more of their income & take ownership of more of everything?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Interesting to see conservatives already pricing in a potential loss and returning to 'we must cut spending' after four years of not giving a shit if Republicans cut spending or not. (or at least continuing to vote for them regardless)

Where did we not give a shit about government spending? Go on, do tell.

Not that I voted for Trump in the first place - but to be honest - the only candidate I can even remember that talked about tapering down spending was Tulsi Gabbard. I would have gladly voted for her. But the fact is no one has the balls to reduce spending.

 

[blackangst1]

Why? So the Rentier class can keep more of their income & take ownership of more of everything?

I dont know what a "Rentier class" is.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting to see conservatives already pricing in a potential loss and returning to 'we must cut spending' after four years of not giving a shit if Republicans cut spending or not. (or at least continuing to vote for them regardless)

There is a group of Americans who DO believe in cutting spending. However, neither party supports this so we're on our own.

 

[blackangst1]

Okay, let's assume we cut the military to 0. Still not enough. What do you cut next?

I dunno. Since we're talking about unicorns now, lets say we tax all income above 10M at 100% and its not enough. What do you tax next?

 

[fskimospy]

There is a group of Americans who DO believe in cutting spending. However, neither party supports this so we're on our own.

I see little evidence of this.

 

[Jhhnn]

I dont know what a "Rentier class" is.

So coy. The investor class. The ownership class. The financial elite. They've been undertaxed for 40 years, and it shows. The ultra wealthy don't pay shit for taxes-

Top 400 taxpayers' average income jumps to $336 million

Not only did the top 400 taxpayers make far more in 2012 than in the prior two years, they ended up paying a lower percentage of it to Uncle Sam.

money.cnn.com

Capitalism is just a lot more efficient in concentrating wealth & income than it once was. It's a function of technological progress in a Capitalist economy. More efficient. More automated. Since 1980, the bottom 50% lost a third of their share of national income. People in the 50-75% range lost 20%. People in the top 1% doubled their share to 20%. We should have been raising taxes at the top all along as a form of economic self defense.

 

[SmCaudata]

I dunno. Since we're talking about unicorns now, lets say we tax all income above 10M at 100% and its not enough. What do you tax next?

All income above $5 million? All inheritance above $5 million?

Capital gains as ordinary income, because it is...

Eliminate pass through loopholes on s corps?


I think there are a lot of reasonable taxes that can be implemented that would have largely zero negative impact on the country.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[blackangst1]

So coy. The investor class. The ownership class. The financial elite. They've been undertaxed for 40 years, and it shows. The ultra wealthy don't pay shit for taxes-

Top 400 taxpayers' average income jumps to $336 million

Not only did the top 400 taxpayers make far more in 2012 than in the prior two years, they ended up paying a lower percentage of it to Uncle Sam.

money.cnn.com

Capitalism is just a lot more efficient in concentrating wealth & income than it once was. It's a function of technological progress in a Capitalist economy. More efficient. More automated. Since 1980, the bottom 50% lost a third of their share of national income. People in the 50-75% range lost 20%. People in the top 1% doubled their share to 20%. We should have been raising taxes at the top all along as a form of economic self defense.

So? You talk like wealth is static. Same shit you always spew.

 

[blackangst1]

All income above $5 million? All inheritance above $5 million?

Capital gains as ordinary income, because it is...

Eliminate pass through loopholes on s corps?


I think there are a lot of reasonable taxes that can be implemented that would have largely zero negative impact on the country.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Too bad neither part supports this.

 

[fskimospy]

Too bad neither part supports this.

One party supports most of that, the other party supports making those problems worse.

 

[blackangst1]

One party supports most of that, the other party supports making those problems worse.

So what are the bills put out for vote for this?

 

[Atreus21]

Overall it looks like a decent set of proposals, but I would have gone farther because I think we need to raise more revenue.

In a world where national debt doesn't seem to matter, I'd like to know a good reason for increasing revenue.

 

[fskimospy]

So what are the bills put out for vote for this?

Just look at the party platforms and the legislation that’s been introduced. It’s not like it’s a grey area.

 

[fskimospy]

In a world where national debt doesn't seem to matter, I'd like to know a good reason for increasing revenue.

Don’t you oppose government deficits and debt though?

Regardless, I generally agree that we can run a much higher debt than we currently have but we can also redistribute wealth, which is a positive in its own right.

 

[Atreus21]

Don’t you oppose government deficits and debt though?

Regardless, I generally agree that we can run a much higher debt than we currently have but we can also redistribute wealth, which is a positive in its own right.

So then what do we need higher tax revenue for? Can't we just run up the debt more or less indefinitely?

 

[fskimospy]

So then what do we need higher tax revenue for? Can't we just run up the debt more or less indefinitely?

We can run it up a lot more, yes, but presumably not indefinitely. Regardless, if we are going to run up the debt why not still tax the rich so we can do even more for the same amount of debt?

 

[Atreus21]

We can run it up a lot more, yes, but presumably not indefinitely. Regardless, if we are going to run up the debt why not still tax the rich so we can do even more for the same amount of debt?

Is there any level at which you think it's good to pay down the debt?

 

[fskimospy]

Is there any level at which you think it's good to pay down the debt?

Sure, when interest rates rise.

Do you consider the debt a problem? If so, how do you feel about the fact that Republicans increase the debt more than Democrats?