623
Billionaires Rage About Biden’s New Tax Proposals
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
623 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2010 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's nuts for them to rail against this because when Biden said 25% minimum, I was like, "that's it‽"
I get taxed at 25% already and I'm making $125k.
25% is nowhere near enough. Anyone making over 400k individually should be taxed closer to 50%.
there should be a 100% tax for anyone who has a billion dollars or more.
That level of wealth is not compatible with existing in a society.
I think the biggest problem isn’t the tax rate, but the fact that the billionaire class can circumvent the tax system entirely.
Own billions of dollars in stock, don’t ever sell any, don’t pay any taxes on that growth. Maybe some dividends get taxed or something.
Need pocket money though. Take out a loan for $100 million using a little bit of your stock as collateral. You don’t get taxed on taking out debt.
People don't realize that billionaires don't have their billions sitting in a bank account somewhere like you or I might have our own life savings tucked away in a savings account. That would be foolish of them, obviously, the FDIC won't insure them past a certain point, so a bank failure could cause them to lose everything.
Every single billionaire is only a billionaire "on paper". It's the sum total of all their assets, both liquid and non-liquid (like stocks, but also properties, etc.). They leverage their assets as collateral for a loan, and then use that loan to buy the stuff they want or just use it to make more investments. They leverage debt in a way that we can't even begin to fathom.
It's mad, but I can see the conundrum. How do you tax assets that aren't worth anything until sold? Can you compel them to sell their assets to settle a tax bill? How do you go after rich folk who use loans to circumvent generating income through the sale of their assets without also harming regular people who need to take out loans to buy things like cars and houses?
Rich people have gotten too good at playing the system and we seriously need to look at how we can fix things before it's too late. Right now, the wealthy have unprecedented control over the government, but it's still not an oligarchy yet. There's still time, though. Someone out there has to have a solution.
I have to pay property taxes on my home and car each year. These are assets that I'm not selling, yet I'm still being taxed on their value. It's amazing that they've figured out a way to do it for the working class but not for the ruling class.
I agree with what you're saying but I'm curious. You have to pay taxes on the value of your car? Do car registration fees scale with car value in your area?
I live in an area with car taxes, and they are separate from vehicle registration fees.
Kinda... it's based on the age of the car and the original MSRP, so it isn't exactly based on the car's actual value, but an estimate of what the value might be.
https://www.in.gov/bmv/fees-taxes/vehicle-registration-fees-and-taxes/excise-tax-information/#Passenger_Vehicle_Excise_Tax_Fees
Easy, tax net worth. Tax the value of all assets owned by an individual, trust, or corporation only in excess of some large number. Perhaps exceeding 5x the median net worth.
And only then might a corporation get tax incentives based on the number of people they employ. Because let's be fair here, office buildings are really expensive and we don't want to disincentivize company growth and job creation.
Just appropriate the assets for the people. Imagine what would happen if all that income came in to your government instead of a single asshole.
What really pisses me off is liberals yelling "TAX THE RICH!!" and when you propose a wealth tax they start screaming about how unsold stocks aren't wealth and isnt money but wait someone who has lots of stock is the richest man in the world....
Here's a radical idea: seize stocks and redistribute them among the citizenry. Eveyone is a stockholder! Now, who are the wealthiest?
Edit: and there it is right below me
That's only possible because they're allowed to buy influence in the system to make it allow for that. In reality, the other threats (they'll take their wealth to other countries and leave us poor) are bluffing; most of their wealth isn't portable. Also in reality, most of the policies they demand (and get) aren't democratically popular, they're only viable because they spend so much collective money on propaganda and think tanks to get people thinking the money will trickle down or that without them as 'job creators' all will be spoiled or lost.
It's bullshit, and it only works because we let it work. Apparently we need to move in hundred-year cycles between letting the titans of industry squeeze everyone dry before we remember to assert public power to prevent that
Taxing the rich is great and all, but it still doesn't solve the issue of gov spending being completely and utterly shit. We spend more on healthcare per individual than any other nation on the planet. We don't even need to tax the rich right now and we could have single payer. The idea that taxing the rich is needed to pay for services and safety nets is silly. We're the wealthiest nation on the planet, we can already afford all of the things our citizens need, we just have a gov who doesn't know how to properly spend the money it already has.
Oh, its you again.
Showing up yet again to reply to imaginary comments instead of the topic at hand.
Way to contribute just like last time...
Such a boomer reply.
Lol yes because someone else has a different take than you on your dumbass comment must be a boomer ok kid
You mean like the price caps on medication so Medicare can save the government money? Or like the increase in IRS funding so they can focus on the previously "too difficult" task of navigating the web of interactions the wealthy use to avoid paying the taxes they already owe?
They're trying that too, but it's not just about taking money from the ultra rich just for our healthcare, it's like others have stated: it's about fairness to all. 25% of a billion doesn't mean the same to them as ~25% of ~60k means to us. Yeah it's a much larger dollar amount, but they aren't nearly as affected as we are from what we currently pay and we still do it and are ok with it.
I'm talking about using the money we already have for medical care, we don't have to increase taxes on anyone, we're already able to provide healthcare for everyone. Trying to tax the rich is a whole other deal.
Raising tax revenue and funding some variation of single payer health care or socialised medicine are not mutually exclusive.
Cool, where did I say they were?
Huh, in Australia you would be taxed 37 percent and anything over $180k is 45%
So I'm sure closer to 50% coulr come down
The US has a similar graduated system (32% for incomes over $192k for single fillers, plus whatever your state income tax is), but billionaires have access to a lot of loopholes that prevent their wealth from being counted that way.
Agreed, but I guess you've got to start somewhere.
Where I'm at it's like anything over 95k is close to 50%. 25? Must be nice.
It is in most places outside the US. But it is still the same problem: regardless how high the official rate is, there are way to many loopholes to avoid paying them. It does not help if the tax rate is 80, 90, or even 99% if they get around paying it altogether.
400k is rich in some areas but certainly not everywhere, that's way too sharp of a curve. Someone making 400k is already taxed at 35% federally plus whatever state and local so probably close to 50. The real issue is that after 500k the rates don't change where it should be increasing logarithmically. But really after a certain point there are way too many things that the rich do to reduce their tax burden that just aren't available to everyone else, that 100k or 400k person is in reality paying a much higher percentage than someone making a million a year much less billionaires.
Why did you copy and paste this exact comment from someone else elsewhere in this thread...?
What? I didn't
Hmm, I don't see it anymore. There was another post from another user that was word for word the same as yours, but slightly newer. My apologies, my client must have bugged out.
Lemmy is a little wonky, no biggie :)