- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- oregon@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- oregon@lemmy.ml
These are the stupid ideas the Democrats come up with. There are three billionaires in Oregon. Three. If this passes I suspect they will just move.
At the federal level, this would be unconstitutional.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s an excellent idea.
Wyden believes that the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be generated from this tax could be used to shore up funding for Social Security and Medicare, both of which are facing impending shortfalls, or address childcare needs.
A billionaire’s tax could increase tax revenues, contributing to a lower budget deficit. In fact, that’s how I know conservative politicians aren’t serious about the budget deficit: they quite literally never propose to increase tax revenue, only decrease social spending. Like this next budget showdown coming up at the beginning of the year will feature another crappy Republican budget that seeks to cut everything and leave Mike Johnson with an even worse career as Speaker than McCarthy.
While it might make for a good conversation-starter, recent history proves that such a proposal would be unlikely to make it through Congress, even if Democrats controlled both chambers once more.
Yeah, basically all wealth redistribution policies are dead on arrival regardless of the party holding Congress. Blatant wealth redistribution to regular people through taxation is somehow a taboo policy…but let a fossil fuel lobbyist ask for tax cuts, and suddenly the entire business class gets a permanent one.
In fact, that’s how I know conservative politicians aren’t serious about the budget deficit: they quite literally never propose to increase tax revenue, only decrease social spending
Why is it bad that conservatives only propose desirable solutions and not ones that just “fix” one problem by creating another?
Because decreasing social spending creates not just one more problem, but multiple. Just look to Texas and the border crisis as a prime example. If there was more federal money for it, we could both secure the future of Medicare and Social Security and secure the border while providing a better immigration system.
But the false dichotomy of decreased social spending for a more secure border is all Republican politicians are ever interested in. It’s a solution insofar as it generates political support for their short-term, misanthropic policies. In any other way, it’s only ever a problem.
Why the fuck would I support paying more taxes to secure the future of programs that I want thrown in the bin?
Because throwing them in the bin will create even more problems.
Hardly. He government should have no place redistributing wealth by force.
Those two sentences aren’t related.
Social security and medicare both were policies designed to fix social problems in their time. That those problems are either mitigated or nonexistent is a testament to their effectiveness.
As for redistribution, I agree! End fossil fuel and other corporate subsidies posthaste! Wtf does Tesla, Amazon, Alphabet, J.P. Morgan or any other large conglomeration need a tax break for?
The great depression did not end because of any of the social security programs. It ended because of ww2 (most of those programs were suspended or eliminated to support ww2).
You realize ending fossil fuel subsidizes will impact the poor the most?
Subsidies =/= tax breaks. Surely you understand how giving money and not stealing are different. If not, I hope you enjoy my Christmas present of not robbing you blind.
I don’t mind paying taxes for things like roads, water, etc. Those are things we all need.
I am against wealth distrubution. I don’t even mind social safety nets but we allow people to abuse them.
The government shouldn’t be taking my money and sending it to someone else who didn’t earn it. That doesn’t create success.
If welfare was successful then why haven’t we seen poverty eliminated? All it does is keep people on welfare and not being productive members of society.
It can’t. Social security is done by the Feds.
It’s against the constitution to tax wealth. The second someone tried to pass that, it would be struck down by scotus.
At most a state could do it and they’d lose the billionaires.
To do this they’d have a pass an amendment and there is zero chance they’ll happen.
And when have democrats radically raised taxes? Trump was the last one to screw with high income tax earners with the salt limit
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional
Trump was the last one to screw with high income tax earners with the salt limit
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
“The overhaul was forecast to raise the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars—the Congressional Budget Office estimating $1.9 trillion—over the coming decade.”
“For the wealthy, banks, and other corporations, the tax reform package was considered a lopsided victory given its significant and permanent tax cuts to corporate profits, investment income, estate tax, and more. Financial services companies stood to see huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.3 Some banks said their effective tax rate would drop under 21%.”
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/
Maybe you don’t understand what salt is.
ALso look at revenues. They went up after the cuts.
The issue isn’t revenue. It’s spending. We spend too much money.
Fuck em. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. There is no way to get that type of money without fucking other people over.
This should be done as a land tax IMO, but whatever.
The ruling entity, whatever it whoever it is, will never give the proceeds back.
The courts just ordered guiliani to cough up the lifetime earnings of 100 average Americans… he’s a career politician, a consummate professional among the american ruling class. This is who you’re suggesting gets to put their hands in those pockets.
What’s the point? The point is that they’ve already got their hands in YOUR pockets, they’re already accustomed to spending twice as much as they get out of your pockets, and giving them a windfall like that is just gonna raise the bar on how much they’re able to spend, and when the billionaires get bled dry, they’re gonna eventually look deeper into everyone else’s pockets…
It’s a fucking bad idea… We the people are not going to inherit the means of production, the spendy ass ruling class professional politicians will, and you’re out of your fucking mind if you think they’re gonna give it back. Giving them permission to raid pockets with abandon is invariably going to put your own pocket in those crosshairs. It’s already in those crosshairs…
I am not suggesting that a land tax is the only part of fixing the billionare problem.
I’m 50/50 on whether it will ever be possible for the U.S. to fix the problem of money being a part of politics without a straight up 2nd revolution.
As for your “hands in pockets” thing, we are running a deficit every fucking time. That needs fixed. We can’t just not solve it.
There isn’t a problem with billionaires, other than the liberal tears over them.
How is taxing billionaires unconstitutional?
Where in the constitution does it allow taxation of wealth? It doesn’t.
Is it prohibited?
If not, where in the constitution does it say that eating ice cream is legal?
Yes it’s prohibited. We had to add an amendment to allow taxation and wealth was not included.
Have you ever read the amendment ?
No, I haven’t read the USA constitution.
Odd that the constitution prohibit taxation based on income levels
Don’t you have tax brackets or anything in the USA? What about taxes on stocks and stuff like that?
I guess another amendment should be in order.
Yes, we have tax brackets and taxes on sold stocks. That is income which is allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Now a state could potentially do a wealth tax but the federal government cannot. I am not a fan when senators push unconstitutional ideas for brownie points. It would need an amendment to do it and it would never pass.
Democrats keep trying to push unrealized gains taxes which is a horrible idea.
Let’s say you own a stock and it goes up in value and now you are a billionaire. When that stock is sold, you pay taxes on the gain. That is fair.
What the Democrats are proposing is you pay taxes on the stock even though it could drop to 0 tomorrow. That is unfair. That would cause the stock market to collapse which would destroy retirement accounts and pensions. Democrats don’t get stocks are what drive pensions and 401k. They influence the stock market more than billionaires.
Normally the stock sales would be a capital gain. That has a lower tax rate. They should allow something like 300K in capital gains per year then the rest would be ordinary income tax with social security, etc taken out.
ETA: This is just a politician pandering for attention. It is look at the ‘evil’ billionaires. I could give two shits about them. They do not impact my life.
What I do care about is the politicians who don’t do shit and want to point the finger at other people.
Elon was attacked by Warran and Bernie that he didn’t pay enough in taxes. The two idiots didn’t realize his income was 1 dollar. How much taxes should he pay on 1 dollar? That in my opinion is a loophole we need to fix but that is another story. They always want to point the finger but can’t be bothered to realize they look silly.
In most years we all make more than Elon.
Stupid democrat idea: tax people that won’t even feel it, vs. stupid republican idea:
https://taxjustice.net/faq/does-cutting-taxes-boost-the-economy/ "Does cutting taxes boost the economy and lead to more taxes? Cutting taxes does not boost economic growth nor lead to more taxes being collected. The notion that it does, known as the Laffer Curve hypothesis, has been widely discredited. Late President George H.W. Bush described the hypothesis as “voodoo economics”.
The Laffer Curve – named after economist Arthur Laffer who drew his theory in the form of a graph on the back of a napkin for Dick Cheney, who would later become U.S. Vice-President and popularise the hypothesis – predicts that cutting taxes ultimately increases tax revenues by creating an explosion of economic dynamism and reduces tax avoidance."
It’s been tried for years and it hasn’t worked. It doesn’t work. The only people who benefit from lower taxes are the crooks who keep calling for more tax cuts.
After every tax cut we see an increase in revenue.
So yes, it does work.
Can you show the math where it doesn’t ?
The article is misstating the Laffer curve but considering it is coming for a left site I am not surprised. The Laffer curve isn’t as simple as cut taxes and revenue will increase.
It is about finding the right place for taxes to increase the revenue.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
Maybe instead of citing a lefty site, you should actually read what it is.
It suggests that taxes could be too low or too high to produce maximum revenue and both a 0% income tax rate and a 100% income tax rate generate $0 in receipts.
It’s why it’s a curve and not a line.