Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
This plan is so very soft on the billionaires and yet we are going to see it being resisted violently and with extreme prejudice.
By temporarily embarrassed millionaires, no less.
Even most of the extremely rich aren't effected by this, if you calculate it out you need over 31,000,000 dollars before the lowest bracket kicks in.
Pretty sure thats the point.
Showing that the billionaires will react to practically nothing like it will destroy them. And hopefully maybe a few more people will realize they're full of shit
Keep in mind it's a wealth tax, not an income tax, so these numbers hit way harder than the income tax ones you're used to.
It hits the same as property tax hits, because property tax is also a form of wealth tax.
Yes, percent should be about 10x what has been recommended.
For everyone saying this is not harsh enough, it is a WEALTH tax. Not income, wealth. All owned assets. Meaning any of these people who don't increase their net worth by at least the amount of the tax each year will lose more and more of their total wealth year over year.
It isn't intended to strip all mega rich people of all their stuff immediately - that obviously could never pass - but still is intended to open the door to wealth taxes and redistributive policies more broadly.
It's a great move. If we can get anything like this passed, it is a significant victory.
Just getting something like this out of committee and on the floor for debate would be huge. Unfortunately it stands no chance with the current congress
In other news, renting a house has never been more popular! On secondary news, rent has raised across america by 8% unilaterally
Are you describing right now or making a prediction I can't tell
I think it is more the state of American media. Similarly to before 08 housing crash, many home builders got stuck with over valued houses no one would buy. So they rented them out so that it would generate income and not have to take a write down. If you watch CNBC it tells you how the housing market is somehow doing amazing if you look at perfectly curated numbers that do not add up. One of the common media pieces at the moment is how popular this new rental home trend is and how its so helpful and gracious to those who can’t afford homes. Example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/homes/build-for-rent-homes/index.html
I really love the floating design of the tax pegged to household income, but I'd probably oppose it due to exactly what you say: it opens the door to wealth taxes, which are by and large a bad idea.
We've proven time and time again that congress can't properly tax the wealthy, and will always eventually default to squeezing revenue out of the middle class. 50 million as a minimum sounds nice and high until they add a bracket at 25 million, then 10, then before you know it there's a non-inflation adjusted tax at 1 million or 500k. All that serves to do is hurt savers and the elderly (who will naturally have higher nest eggs being closer to retirement). This will 100% eventually come to pass, because taxing wealth is a further nudge towards a consumption (and therefore growth) based economy that publicly traded companies need to continue extracting wealth from consumers, so it will be lobbied for by all monied interests, both the rich and industry.
There are tons of other issues with a wealth tax like creating a new bureaucracy to measure wealth (not impossible, as some people say, just expensive), the fact that people are taxed for gains they may not have realized or just for leaving money in the bank or stock market, something that is actually good for the economy, and other complaints. It's also just inferior to a better income tax, and expanding income taxes to eliminate the loopholes the megarich use, chief among them borrowing against collateralized debt. If someone gets a loan but puts up stock or properties as collateral, that loan should count as income. There are tons of other loopholes, and the fact that we're ignoring low-hanging fruit and talking about wealth taxes shows me this is about scoring political points, not actually trying to reform how our government gets money.
It's got a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere, but it's nigh time a wealth tax entered the realm of possibility
Yeah, we have a better chance of pigs flying, getting struck by lightning, and winning the lottery all at the same time on the same day simultaneously than this has of actually passing both chambers and getting signed into an actual law. This type of thing will never pass when the very oligarchs it seeks to tax own the very government responsible for making it a law.
Eight whole percent. I can hear their boots shaking now /s
Go with the Bernie plan. Anything over $1B is taxed at 100%. Shit, I think even that is too soft. Nobody needs even a fraction of that to for themselves and their children's children's children's ... to live like kings their entire lives.
Also, it's always hilarious how American politicians are so obsessed with overly on-the-nose acronyms for legislation.
What a travesty. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of the brows of everyone he's screwed over to amass his fortune? Sure, I might not have two cents to rub together between paychecks but I'd better oppose this just in case I get rich some day.
Isn't the issue that they are currently hiding and obfuscating their income? Increasing the percentage is a great idea and all but 1% or 8% of zero is still zero.
It literally says "all wealth" and doesn't talk about income at all.
This is exactly the kind of tax we need. I think its a very interesting idea to tie it to median wealth, though using household as opposed to individual wealth I'm not sold on.
The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax, according to the summary.
Wealth taxes are super easy to avoid, so I'd much rather see something like cap gains+"luxury" sales/income taxes and such, but it's a step in the right direction
Now raise taxes on everyone making over 100k and we're really cooking with gas
$100k aint that much and those people already have a heafty tax burden. Plus luxury taxes are easily avoided when yachts and planes are purchased in the Bahamas. What we need are 50% taxes on the money they borrow against their assets. Want to buy another mansion? Cool 50% tax on the money Goldman Sachs lends you against your Amazon stock. If I have to pay a tax to borrow against my 401k so should these assholes.
But income tax on paper is already higher for the $100k tax bracket than what the ultra rich pay. The ultra rich do everything in their power to not have an "income". Hence why there's this effort of taxing wealth instead.
The Supreme Court would veto it as unconstitutional even if passed. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/12/17/787476334/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional
"Veto" isn't the correct term, but you are otherwise entirely correct.
Good thing the people who have to vote on it aren't impacted by these brackets at all!
My understanding is that this would be x% of your total wealth, which is much more reasonable.
So you would pay an extra 2% of your total worth every year. So at a billion that's 20 million, at 980 million 19 million and change, etc.
The numbers could be much higher, but this is a lot of funds. It also would take several generations for the inheritance to drop below "you'll never spend this" to just "you can live on the interest". Even with zero interest on their investments (which is absurd - so really this would more be a source of funds than anything). At least it would be a starting point
Can someone ELI5 with examples? Is this based on income?
Based on wealth. Like the tax we pay on houses but on total wealth. Stocks etc too.
But only for very wealthy people. It starts at 1000 times median wealth. So people 1,000 times richer than the median household.
