FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Another way to tax the rich

Another way to tax the rich

(3:45) The problem with income tax is two people with similar incomes may be in very different financial situations, yet they are taxed the same. Elizabeth Warren has proposed another way to tax the rich - a wealth tax. Vox YT channel

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (19 days ago)

“Wealth includes cars, houses, yachts, jewelry, and even cold hard cash.”  You forgot to mention the most valuable asset that rich people own — stocks.  That’s a problem because they would be forced to sell their stocks to pay for the taxes.  Jeff Bezos’ net worth is $137 billion so he would need to come up with 4 billion in cash each year to pay for his net worth.  I doubt he keeps 4 billion in cash so he will have to sell stocks.

Of course the dollar amount of 3% each year will be decreasing each year unless his wealth increases but if it were to remain the same, the government would have taken 80 billion worth of taxes from him in 30 years leaving him only 56 billion.  They would take over half of his net worth.  I suppose to protect yourself from this, you could convert it all to cash because it wouldn’t be possible for the government to know exactly how much cash you have.   He could just sell all his stocks and put the proceeds in a foreign account where the USA doesn’t have access.  

This sort of taxing behavior will have a dramatic consequence on the stock market.  Your stocks increase in value by 3%, the government takes your increases.  Who will want to remain invested in the market if the government will take it away.

Original comment

“Wealth includes cars, houses, yachts, jewelry, and even cold hard cash.”  You forgot to mention the most valuable asset that rich people own — stocks.  That’s a problem because they would be forced to sell their stocks to pay for the taxes.  Jeff Bezos’ net worth is $137 billion so he would need to come up with 4 billion in cash each year to pay for his net worth.  I doubt he keeps 4 billion in cash so he will have to sell stocks.

Of course the dollar amount of 3% each year will be decreasing each year unless his wealth increases but if it were to remain the same, the government would have taken 80 billion worth of taxes from him in 30 years leaving him only 56 billion.  They would take over half of his net worth.  I suppose to protect yourself from this, you could convert it all to cash because it wouldn’t be possible for the government to know exactly how much cash you have.   He could just sell all his stocks and put the proceeds in a foreign account where the USA doesn’t have access.  

This sort of taxing behavior will have a dramatic consequence on the stock market.  Your stocks increase in value by 3%, the government takes your increases.  Who will want to remain invested in the market if the government will take it away.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: bad speach (19 days ago)

Fear the well spoken trolls. 

Original comment

Fear the well spoken trolls. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Boreme Troll (19 days ago)

Strange that you think giving facts or opinions on this site is considered trolling.

Imagine you start a business and purchase a 50 million dollar building and are somewhat successful.  You pay thousands of employees and pay for your 30 year mortgage or business loan and end up with an annual income of $200,000 each year after all your expenses.  Not bad.

Now after 30 years of paying a total of 268 million for the property with all that interest, the value of that property has gone up and you now have something worth about 100 million.  Not unreasonable when I consider I’ve doubled my property values in less than 30 years.  That 2% you will need to pay on the increased value of your property is 1 million dollars each year.  You were making $200,000 each year of profit but now have to pay the “rich tax”.  You’re now losing $800,000 each year.  Why nobody else can see a problem with this is amazing.  This doesn’t even take into account once you own over 50 million in property value and the property tax you will need to pay yearly to the town to cover the free 13 years of education we give to our children plus the fire department and police department.  

This proposed tax plan of Pocahontas punishes people who are successful in business.  I suspect Warren is jealous she isn’t as rich and the reason she hates people who are.  Did she invest in Amazon in the 90’s? probably not.  She could have and would be filthy rich today.  But that was a risky investment that paid off for those who invested and stayed with it.  Why punish people who took a risk and made money at it. 

Original comment

Strange that you think giving facts or opinions on this site is considered trolling.

Imagine you start a business and purchase a 50 million dollar building and are somewhat successful.  You pay thousands of employees and pay for your 30 year mortgage or business loan and end up with an annual income of $200,000 each year after all your expenses.  Not bad.

Now after 30 years of paying a total of 268 million for the property with all that interest, the value of that property has gone up and you now have something worth about 100 million.  Not unreasonable when I consider I’ve doubled my property values in less than 30 years.  That 2% you will need to pay on the increased value of your property is 1 million dollars each year.  You were making $200,000 each year of profit but now have to pay the “rich tax”.  You’re now losing $800,000 each year.  Why nobody else can see a problem with this is amazing.  This doesn’t even take into account once you own over 50 million in property value and the property tax you will need to pay yearly to the town to cover the free 13 years of education we give to our children plus the fire department and police department.  

This proposed tax plan of Pocahontas punishes people who are successful in business.  I suspect Warren is jealous she isn’t as rich and the reason she hates people who are.  Did she invest in Amazon in the 90’s? probably not.  She could have and would be filthy rich today.  But that was a risky investment that paid off for those who invested and stayed with it.  Why punish people who took a risk and made money at it. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (17 days ago)

"Pocahontas"? Do you hold a position in your local Klan branch?

Original comment

"Pocahontas"? Do you hold a position in your local Klan branch?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

Pocahontas is the nickname of Senator Warren becasue she lied on her university entrance form by stating she was a Native American.  She also falsely claimed to be American Indian on her bar registration.  The only reason someone would do this is to get higher priority due to the USA's reverse discrimination against white people called Affirmative Action.

Original comment

Pocahontas is the nickname of Senator Warren becasue she lied on her university entrance form by stating she was a Native American.  She also falsely claimed to be American Indian on her bar registration.  The only reason someone would do this is to get higher priority due to the USA's reverse discrimination against white people called Affirmative Action.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

Ignoring your irrelevant ad hominem attacks, Pocahontas is a bigotted nickname that Trump himself came up with.  

Oh yes, poor white people.  I forgot how difficult it is to be a privileged white male in the USA with all that reverse discriminaton.  When, oh when, will they be free again?

Just as well you're from an ethnic background yourself, huh?

Original comment

Ignoring your irrelevant ad hominem attacks, Pocahontas is a bigotted nickname that Trump himself came up with.  

Oh yes, poor white people.  I forgot how difficult it is to be a privileged white male in the USA with all that reverse discriminaton.  When, oh when, will they be free again?

Just as well you're from an ethnic background yourself, huh?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

Morally bankrupt.  A poor poor capitalist with a $50 million building losing $800K?  My heart bleeds.  I bet you're the same guy who was triggered by a video about raising the minimum wage.  I can see in a second the privilege that you've lived with.

Original comment

Morally bankrupt.  A poor poor capitalist with a $50 million building losing $800K?  My heart bleeds.  I bet you're the same guy who was triggered by a video about raising the minimum wage.  I can see in a second the privilege that you've lived with.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

You just don't get it.  Now the owner of this company has to go bankrupt and terminate thousands of people who used to have great jobs.  All because the "rich" person's equity is in real estate instead of cash.

Original comment

You just don't get it.  Now the owner of this company has to go bankrupt and terminate thousands of people who used to have great jobs.  All because the "rich" person's equity is in real estate instead of cash.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

No, you don't get it.  At no point would anyone go bankrupt, because under $50million does not get taxed.  Did you even watch the video?

If the super-rich need to sell stocks and shares so be it.  That will open up the market and give a chance for new investors to get on board.  

The USA has the highest wealth inequality of any developed nation and once again you show you're powerless to change it.

Don't worry yourself.  This scheme does have flaws, and ultimately it will never get through purely because big business runs politics in the USA.  Your inheritance is safe - you won't be made to do any real work.  Panic over.

Original comment

No, you don't get it.  At no point would anyone go bankrupt, because under $50million does not get taxed.  Did you even watch the video?

If the super-rich need to sell stocks and shares so be it.  That will open up the market and give a chance for new investors to get on board.  

The USA has the highest wealth inequality of any developed nation and once again you show you're powerless to change it.

Don't worry yourself.  This scheme does have flaws, and ultimately it will never get through purely because big business runs politics in the USA.  Your inheritance is safe - you won't be made to do any real work.  Panic over.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

"because under $50million does not get taxed" And this is precisely why I don't like continued conversations with you.  Classic example of you not reading my comment above on how the original 50 million increases in value to 100 million in 30 years. You will be taxed on the 50 million that is over the initial 50.  You will need to sell your assets to pay for it which happens to be the property.

If you're not smart enough to follow the conversation or don't give enough time to read the whole conversation, then discussion is over.

Original comment

"because under $50million does not get taxed" And this is precisely why I don't like continued conversations with you.  Classic example of you not reading my comment above on how the original 50 million increases in value to 100 million in 30 years. You will be taxed on the 50 million that is over the initial 50.  You will need to sell your assets to pay for it which happens to be the property.

If you're not smart enough to follow the conversation or don't give enough time to read the whole conversation, then discussion is over.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)
Latest comment:

Here we go again, lashing out when you have failed to comprehend the absolute basics.  In a minute, you'll pretend you're way too busy to reply again.  That's your new go-to excuse for being out of your depth.

"You will be taxed on the 50 million that is over the initial 50.  You will need to sell your assets to pay for it."  So as I said, your initial 50 is still not covered by wealth tax.  Can you even get your head around that first 50 million dollars worth of property or stocks?  Whether that increases to 100 million or 4 billion, under these proposals the wealth tax will only ever kick in AFTER the first 50 so by any yardstick, you'll be doing just fine.

Of course, if you still have a minimum of 50m in assets and you refuse to sell them to fulfil your legal tax obligations, then just like anyone else you deserve to go bankrupt so society can get its due.  If you're a conscientious and law-abiding citizen and you do sell some of your assets in order to comply, great - as I've already said (if you had learned how to read) this would open up the market to new investors.

Seriously, this isn't complicated to understand and the fact you're baffled is kind of awkward.  I don't think I can dumb it down any further.  To be honest, I don't know why you're so triggered by this anyway.  Even with your daddy's money you're nowhere near the threshold and never will be, plus you have the safety net of being in a political system where the money involved with ensure something as radical and progressive as this can never happen.

Original comment
Latest comment:

Here we go again, lashing out when you have failed to comprehend the absolute basics.  In a minute, you'll pretend you're way too busy to reply again.  That's your new go-to excuse for being out of your depth.

"You will be taxed on the 50 million that is over the initial 50.  You will need to sell your assets to pay for it."  So as I said, your initial 50 is still not covered by wealth tax.  Can you even get your head around that first 50 million dollars worth of property or stocks?  Whether that increases to 100 million or 4 billion, under these proposals the wealth tax will only ever kick in AFTER the first 50 so by any yardstick, you'll be doing just fine.

Of course, if you still have a minimum of 50m in assets and you refuse to sell them to fulfil your legal tax obligations, then just like anyone else you deserve to go bankrupt so society can get its due.  If you're a conscientious and law-abiding citizen and you do sell some of your assets in order to comply, great - as I've already said (if you had learned how to read) this would open up the market to new investors.

Seriously, this isn't complicated to understand and the fact you're baffled is kind of awkward.  I don't think I can dumb it down any further.  To be honest, I don't know why you're so triggered by this anyway.  Even with your daddy's money you're nowhere near the threshold and never will be, plus you have the safety net of being in a political system where the money involved with ensure something as radical and progressive as this can never happen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

"Pocahontas".  Yeah I disagree with her radical and progressive ideas because I'm a privileged white male.  

And to think this troll once pretended to be frrom an ethnic minority.  What an appalling human being.

ReplyVote up (6)down (6)
Original comment

"Pocahontas".  Yeah I disagree with her radical and progressive ideas because I'm a privileged white male.  

And to think this troll once pretended to be frrom an ethnic minority.  What an appalling human being.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (19 days ago)

He said 'well spoken' so I'm not totally convinced he means you.  However, trolling for example might include loitering on a British site when you have no working knowledge of UK affairs (and an apparent grudge), starting debates by voicing unfounded opinions, refusing to back them up with reasoned discussion and third-party sources, getting rude when someone highlights your errors, trying some Whataboutery, then disappearing, only to re-emerge a week later to repeat exactly as before.  And then the rest.

Original comment

He said 'well spoken' so I'm not totally convinced he means you.  However, trolling for example might include loitering on a British site when you have no working knowledge of UK affairs (and an apparent grudge), starting debates by voicing unfounded opinions, refusing to back them up with reasoned discussion and third-party sources, getting rude when someone highlights your errors, trying some Whataboutery, then disappearing, only to re-emerge a week later to repeat exactly as before.  And then the rest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Another way to tax the rich
Another way to tax the rich
What happened with BA flight approaching Gibraltar?
What happened with BA flight approaching Gibraltar?
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
How homeless people survive the polar vortex
How homeless people survive the polar vortex
The Mercedes-Benz Stadium, chosen venue for the 2019 Superbowl
The Mercedes-Benz Stadium, chosen venue for the 2019 Superbowl