Tax the rich

Kenkoko said:
nosuchreality said:
The answer is simple, property tax.  Anything with a title and all financial instruments.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, No

It's mind boggling to me why we don't simply follow what has worked in every other developed country and adopt a VAT. It's proven to work and is an efficient way to tax.

Why keep trying to invent the wheel?
Click to expand...

Wealth taxes have worked since the beginning of civilization.

The Nordic countries had wealth taxes until the 80s and 90s. While the Nordic countries lead in the income equality, they are experiencing rapid increases in inequality since abolishing and lead the OECD countries in this growth on GENI and other inequality measures. 

In other words, the current Nordic model is undoing the equality you seek and creating the inequality you want to mitigate.

The Nordic countries also have another dirty secret that progressives will absolutely hate, every one pays high taxes.  Sweden for example has it's top bracket kick in at kr537K . The average salary in Sweden is kr547K.

The solution that the successful capitalist democracies have is that every one has skin in the taxation game. 


 
Instituting a VAT tax will be spun as a tax on the poor.  The poor will end up paying more total tax with VAT than w/ the current system since they pay no/little federal income tax (most even end up with tax credits).
 
@NSR While I agree with some of your points, I'm not hearing a compelling case of why not. (for VAT)

The wealth tax was ditched because of the mechanism is too easy to game for the wealthy. Like property tax, the taxing mechanism for wealth tax rely on properly assessing "value". It's extremely difficult to do, heavily favors the wealthy, and the tax is costly to administer which all lead to the failure of the wealth tax.

What makes VAT valuable and essential is the mechanism. It takes a toll on all business transactions, regardless of profit. Businesses cannot wiggle out of it by claiming they were not profitable. (what Amazon and every other mega corps claim to reduce tax burdens)

I agree that the secret to success is to make it so everyone has skin in the game.

@woodburyowner

Agree it will be spun as taxing on the poor. Which is why I support a basic income funded by VAT proposed by Andrew Yang.
 
eyephone said:
Just get rid of the ridiculous tax loopholes.
https://youtu.be/bTxzGF44BBI
Click to expand...

Just a guess/assumption. It is not common for a person not to take a salary and take a loan from the stock options value. Then deduct the stock options loan interest.

This is what makes people riled up and angry. (Believe me, it does)

 
eyephone said:
Just get rid of the ridiculous tax loopholes.
https://youtu.be/bTxzGF44BBI
Click to expand...

Couple of points that no one seems to discuss is mentioned in this video.  His income is "lumpy" meaning he DOES pay taxes in some years and other years he doesn't.  It's structured this way obviously for tax purposes.  Would there be such an uproar if say he paid $100M in taxes in each year 2015, 2016 and 2017?  In his case, he might have paid 0 taxes in 2015 and 2016, but paid $300M in taxes 2017.  We need to see all the years before and after the "0" year. 

Also, he is not taking "income".  Federal income tax has the word "income" in it.  Borrowing capital against an asset is not "income".  Why should he be paying income tax on it? 

I think the real discussion should be surrounding the death step up tax basis rule.
 
woodburyowner said:
eyephone said:
Just get rid of the ridiculous tax loopholes.
https://youtu.be/bTxzGF44BBI
Click to expand...


Couple of points that no one seems to discuss is mentioned in this video.  His income is "lumpy" meaning he DOES pay taxes in some years and other years he doesn't.  It's structured this way obviously for tax purposes.  Would there be such an uproar if say he paid $100M in taxes in each year 2015, 2016 and 2017?  In his case, he might have paid 0 taxes in 2015 and 2016, but paid $300M in taxes 2017.  We need to see all the years before and after the "0" year. 

Also, he is not taking "income".  Federal income tax has the word "income" in it.  Borrowing capital against an asset is not "income".  Why should he be paying income tax on it? 

I think the real discussion should be surrounding the death step up tax basis rule.
Click to expand...


Kind of neat the way the tell you $0 in 2018 and point out less than $70K in taxes in 2015 and 2017 while being completely mum on having $1.34B in income in 2016 and paying $424 Million in taxes that year for 31.6% effective tax rate.

For comparison, a married couple with two kids under 18 making $100K a year pay $4500 a year.  That's just straight standard deduction, child tax credit and all W2 income.  Effective rate 4.5%.

 
woodburyowner said:
eyephone said:
Just get rid of the ridiculous tax loopholes.
https://youtu.be/bTxzGF44BBI
Click to expand...

Couple of points that no one seems to discuss is mentioned in this video.  His income is "lumpy" meaning he DOES pay taxes in some years and other years he doesn't.  It's structured this way obviously for tax purposes.  Would there be such an uproar if say he paid $100M in taxes in each year 2015, 2016 and 2017?  In his case, he might have paid 0 taxes in 2015 and 2016, but paid $300M in taxes 2017.  We need to see all the years before and after the "0" year. 

Also, he is not taking "income".  Federal income tax has the word "income" in it.  Borrowing capital against an asset is not "income".  Why should he be paying income tax on it? 

I think the real discussion should be surrounding the death step up tax basis rule.
Click to expand...

He is not getting a salary, but he is taking a loan from the value of his stop options for his expenses, according to the cnbc video mentioned above. Then writing off the interest expense of the loan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top