Bernie 100% Tax Rate

[lawgator1]

I refuse to take anyone seriously who wants to talk about more taxes. It's not a revenue problem.

It is, in part.

But let's assume you are right. Where would you cut spending? Exactly where.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Comrade Sanders strikes again. The guy literally took his wife to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon, Strait up commie, legit.

I wonder if the ate borscht.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

It is, in part.

But let's assume you are right. Where would you cut spending? Exactly where.

No more money for Ukraine.

 

[volinbham]

It is, in part.

But let's assume you are right. Where would you cut spending? Exactly where.

i want to know about my government check for my unrealized losses

 

[volfanhill]

It is, in part.

But let's assume you are right. Where would you cut spending? Exactly where.

25% across the board cut including defense
Raise SS and Medicare eligibility by 3 years. Not to impact anyone over 45. No longer allow the government to borrow, it was actually steal, those funds.

Then we can have a talk about raising taxes.
In order to intentionally run a deficit it should take the same threshold to pass a constitutional amendment.

 

[Majors]

Apparently he’s been throwing this out for more than a year now, but I’m not sure if we’ve ever addressed how insane this is.

I have a lot of questions/comments. The first being his insane reasons. “You may disagree with me, but I think people can make it on 999 million”….is this his idea of how taxes should work? Should the goal of taxes be to only leave people with enough “to make it”.

Secondly I have the question of who specifically does this apply to? Is Bernie confusing income and wealth or do we have numerous people who earn 1 billion or more? I highly doubt anyone has a 1 billion income.

MSN

https://www.allsides.com/news/2023-05-02-1541/taxes-bernie-sanders-calls-income-over-1-billion-be-taxed-100-people-can-make

How’d his $15 minimum wage work? Less staff and higher prices.

 

[85SugarVol]

I believe my comment was directed at the issue of taxing unrealized gains, specifically.

Yes, I remember your multiple posts about unrealized gains.

I also remember when others raised issue with the Wealth Tax you saying they had nothing to worry about due to the $100M threshold.

 

[Vol8188]

obviously there are lots of things wrong with this, but for the people who think its a good idea here are a few things:

1. This is a wealth tax, not an income tax. NO ONE makes a billion dollars A YEAR. even if you counted every form of income. as a wealth tax it would only work once. because once you have done it they no longer have more than a billion dollars worth of stuff and this tax would hit noone. you might get the rich SOB every once and a while if there is some new merger, or something new pops up and get a first timer.
2. pretty much all of that wealth is tied up in non-tangible assets. Elon Musk doesn't have eleventy billion dollars worth of stuff. he more or less has eleventy billion dollars of credit. There is no way for the government to even seize any of that.
3. There are 802 billionaires, worth 6.22 trillion. assuming each got to keep a billion dollars the government steals less than 5.5 trillion. that's not even enough to run our country for a year. so I am not sure what this accomplishes besides just being spiteful. assuming it actually worked with some type of mass asset seizure for the total amount
4. as soon as this tax was announced all of that "credit" would disappear. and you would have the IRS trying to pin people down for money they never actually had. Kinda like Trump being a billionaire, look at the financials and he "only" has a couple hundred million. pretty much every single one of them are the same. its money/value/wealth on paper only, or now digital. yeah the super super super rich will have a billion dollars of something, but it won't be anywhere close to the 802 you are hoping to hit.
5. what assets they do have worth anywhere close to that amount would be their businesses. Bezos with Amazon, Musk with Tesla/SpaceX, Waltons with Walmart, so on and so forth. Issue here is multiple: a) they aren't sole owners, so if the government wanted to seize the company they would be hitting far more than the top guys. b) they would be seizing a company, which would immediately lose most of its projected value once it was in the hands of the government, c) it would be nationalizing businesses which leads to the last point
6. the rich would likely just shut down most of whatever is creating that value. the government seizing or nationalizing a business is a sure way to run it into the ground and ruin the value of these mega corps, which would hit the average american super fast. Imagine no-Amazon, no Walmart. that is really what this tax would do, the rich would go on living life just as they are, but we are left suffering, or worse off, with nothing to show for it.

lawyers and CPAs would be the only people to benefit from this.

Bernie has proposed the idea numerous times and has referred to income not wealth each time.

I agree that I don’t believe anyone earns 1 billion annually (not anyone with a competent CPA).

Which raises the questions of “does Bernie not know the difference between income and wealth?” or “is this simply a virtue signal that even if enacted would result in a net of zero additional tax dollars?

 

[85SugarVol]

It is, in part.

But let's assume you are right. Where would you cut spending? Exactly where.

The federal government takes in $5T in total tax receipts.

You think we need, more?

 

[Vol8188]

This proposal is a tax on “earnings”, not wealth tax.

He has different proposals for a “wealth” tax.

What’re your thoughts on my two questions above? You seem to suggest he does understand the difference between income and wealth given he has two separate policies.

But do you think this would actually apply to anyone or is it just virtue signaling

 

[Vol8188]

This net worth estimate of $2.5M is from 2019 and does not include the federal 401k he no doubt has.

His total net worth today is probably well north of $3.5M.

Monsters. They want to confiscate wealth at death. $3.5M estates is upper middle class families that worked hard, invested wisely, and accumulated assets

In January, he proposed new taxes on “the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans,” including a 45% tax on estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million. Given his recent success, that tax might soon apply to his own fortune.

Wonder what he thinks the Death Tax rates should be for estates over $10M?
60%? 70%? Higher?

Lmfao the law would include the investments of other people, but not Bernie! That’s amazing.

 

[Vol8188]

@lawgator1 you seem to have avoided providing your thoughts on this topic. Is it insane? Is it reasonable? Do you support it (100 tax on income over 1 billion?) Do you think it would even apply to anyone?

 

[85SugarVol]

What’re your thoughts on my two questions above? You seem to suggest he does understand the difference between income and wealth given he has two separate policies.

But do you think this would actually apply to anyone or is it just virtue signaling

No, I do not believe in “to each according to his need”.

Would only impact Titans in rare events when they received singular multi-billion dollar packages - or there wives when they receive their multi-billion dollar divorce settlements

 

[LouderVol]

Bernie has proposed the idea numerous times and has referred to income not wealth each time.

I agree that I don’t believe anyone earns 1 billion annually (not anyone with a competent CPA).

Which raises the questions of “does Bernie not know the difference between income and wealth?” or “is this simply a virtue signal that even if enacted would result in a net of zero additional tax dollars?

its the second. his whole shtick has been eat the rich, but ignore how rich I am.

 

[Vol8188]

its the second. his whole shtick has been eat the rich, but ignore how rich I am.

Hard not to agree given he doesn’t want to count 401ks (an investment he has that many don’t), but does want to include all other investments when calculating wealth

 

[LouderVol]

25% across the board cut including defense
Raise SS and Medicare eligibility by 3 years. Not to impact anyone over 45. No longer allow the government to borrow, it was actually steal, those funds.

Then we can have a talk about raising taxes.
In order to intentionally run a deficit it should take the same threshold to pass a constitutional amendment.

Cut out all the money for weapons, armor, training etc for the non-law enforcement agencies.
Cut out all of the funding for projects, offices, jobs that aren't directly related to the mission of the agency.
Completely refocus the agencies, no more seeing how cocaine impacts the migratiation of the African Swallow holding a coconut. No more of the military investing in seed planting bullets. No more of the FBI investigating/studying global warming.
Absolutely no foreign aid until we have paid off the debt, and even then it should be extremely relegated first thing on the chopping block.
Cut the benefits for the elected politicians. Tie their pay, health insurance, retirement and so forth, to the state/district they represent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Penalizing success and stealing in order to the further empower the Federal Government is what socialist do.

He’s a lunatic.

"They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."
--An old USSR proverb.


"Who is John Galt?"
--An old American Proverb.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, I remember your multiple posts about unrealized gains.

I also remember when others raised issue with the Wealth Tax you saying they had nothing to worry about due to the $100M threshold.

That's how our grandparents were fooled into accepting the income tax.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bernie has proposed the idea numerous times and has referred to income not wealth each time.

I agree that I don’t believe anyone earns 1 billion annually (not anyone with a competent CPA).

Which raises the questions of “does Bernie not know the difference between income and wealth?” or “is this simply a virtue signal that even if enacted would result in a net of zero additional tax dollars?

1. Offer a tax "just for the mega-rich" that will theoretically almost never apply.
2. American gullibility falls for it.
3. Change the threshold so that the tax affects the middle class instead.
3b. WTH?!
4. It's normalized for the next generation, when a new socialist proposed a new tax that's "just for the mega-rich" and that will theoretically almost never apply.


(See my previous post.)

 

[Firebirdparts]

It's been proposed before, notably by Huey P. Long. I'm pretty ignorant, there may have been somebody long before him. maybe in the Roman empire for all I know. Just cap personal fortunes and if somebody gets more than $X just take it all. it's hard to do in practice, really. You need to figure out what a fortune is and how to take it. The well-known billionaires are billionaires in company stock. I don't know how typical that is.

The old top income tax bracket was 90%, but really, that didn't have much of an effect as far as I know. What really worked, really really well, was inheritance taxes. This really did harm the "old money" people, and it was probably pretty useful in maintaining America without an entitled aristocracy.

Being an American, I truly thought that the Republicans would face a lot of failures due to getting rid of inheritance taxes. I was wrong. It doesn't seem like anybody cares. I mean, honestly, even the democrats don't care. they never say "hey we'll bring these back and it'll do this or that."

It seems like all candidates will float a stupid idea based on just getting attention, I guess. Like Mike Huckabee was just such a lovable candidate, for instance, and he came out in favor of flat tax. Why? Dull candidates would have a real shot. We're swimming in an ocean of dumbasses here. when you look out the window, it's pretty obvious that times are GREAT. People are RICH and FAT. We are SAFE. For pete's sake, talk the tiny real problems that we have, and the one big problem, the national debt.

I keep thinking that whichever party starts talking like adults to adults will win 99% of every seat in congress. Just a matter of time until somebody tries it.

 

[hog88]

Agreed, anyone advocating for an inheritance tax is a dumbass.

 

[Sea Ray]

I refuse to take anyone seriously who wants to talk about more taxes. It's not a revenue problem.

It wasn't a revenue problem 20 years ago but now with having to pay interest on the debt, it is a revenue problem. We owe a trillion every year and growing. We need revenue to cover that trillion

 

[hog88]

It wasn't a revenue problem 20 years ago but now with having to pay interest on the debt, it is a revenue problem. We owe a trillion every year and growing. We need revenue to cover that trillion

It's always been a spending problem, never been a revenue problem.

 

[Sea Ray]

It's always been a spending problem, never been a revenue problem.

It's now both. We haven't always had a trillion dollar interest payment due every year

 

[85SugarVol]

It's been proposed before, notably by Huey P. Long. I'm pretty ignorant, there may have been somebody long before him. maybe in the Roman empire for all I know. Just cap personal fortunes and if somebody gets more than $X just take it all. it's hard to do in practice, really. You need to figure out what a fortune is and how to take it. The well-known billionaires are billionaires in company stock. I don't know how typical that is.
View attachment 702958
The old top income tax bracket was 90%, but really, that didn't have much of an effect as far as I know. What really worked, really really well, was inheritance taxes. This really did harm the "old money" people, and it was probably pretty useful in maintaining America without an entitled aristocracy.

Being an American, I truly thought that the Republicans would face a lot of failures due to getting rid of inheritance taxes. I was wrong. It doesn't seem like anybody cares. I mean, honestly, even the democrats don't care. they never say "hey we'll bring these back and it'll do this or that."

It seems like all candidates will float a stupid idea based on just getting attention, I guess. Like Mike Huckabee was just such a lovable candidate, for instance, and he came out in favor of flat tax. Why? Dull candidates would have a real shot. We're swimming in an ocean of dumbasses here. when you look out the window, it's pretty obvious that times are GREAT. People are RICH and FAT. We are SAFE. For pete's sake, talk the tiny real problems that we have, and the one big problem, the national debt.

I keep thinking that whichever party starts talking like adults to adults will win 99% of every seat in congress. Just a matter of time until somebody tries it.

91% confiscation rate on anything over $400k

LG would cream his jeans.