Would you support a WEALTH TAX on Americans with more than $50M in assets?
 

Would you support a TAX ON WEALTH... not income?

This is not an income tax that varies based on how much you earn but a wealth tax you pay EVERY YEAR your assets exceed a certain value

Elizabeth Warren is proposing a 2% tax on Americans with $50M in ASSETS and 3% for those who have more than $1BILLION

SOURCE: https://theweek.com/speedreads/81968...act-wealth-tax

Robbery?

Disincentive for job creators?

Or.... FAIR IS FAIR???

I suspect this will crater some real estate markets.....

And that's just the beginning....

But we all have to sacrifice for the GREATER GOOD, right?

those fortunes will only grow...at some point we will ask ourselves why we idolize people who hoard money...what good do we have from abramovichis 200m$ yacht?...what when bezos is worth 1trillion but 200.000 retail jobs just went to shit in the UK because of amazon?...

why do we pick up the tab for the rich who get money from the banks undemocratically allocated to their real estate speculations?...I say cap everything over 10million except money that goes directly in to creating new jobs...a healthy capitalist market has high equality and a strong middle class...in such a scenario spending power is optimal...only fucking communists would disagree...

jeff bezos can not buy 100.000 shirts...he does not buy 100.000 pants...etc...but soon he will be able to lobby with his $$$ anything you can think of...he can influence elections with his money...

dont be a bunch of suckers...it is OUR money...when the banks print it we just get to pick up the inflation tax...we should be the ones deciding how it is allocated and stupid money hoarding should be taxed as fuck...booo fucking hooo if you can not buy your 5th yacht...fuck you :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So you think a system that creates and perpetuates extreme surplus 'hoarding' (aka BILLIONAIRES) is somehow IMMORAL?

there is no possible gain for mankind from it...

You want to cap everything at 10 mill? So what if you started a business and work for years and years then it finally takes off and you start making 30 - 40 - 60 mill .

So what you're saying is if you make 40 million, that first 10 is going to taxed at the state and fed level which will leave you with about 5 mill out of that first 10, then the rest (30M) gets taxed at what, 90%? So out of 40 mill you're left with about 8 mill total?

You do know people making 7 figs are taxed at like 50% as it is. What you're proposing is an close to an 80% tax rate.

Can you imagine making 40 mill only to have to give the government 32 mill of it?

For what? all the illegals and lazy gibemedats? fuck that.

That sounds fair?

What are the tax rates in serbia? Have you ever had a seven figure earning year in your life? My guess is No fucking way. You would never advocate for this shit.


You know the saying "the only good commie is a dead one," comes to mind here.

No, I would not support it.
I think that all tax rates should be the same for everyone.

Want to help the poor without discriminating on anyone ?
Make the 1st $15k tax free for everyone + $4k more for each dependent.

Then everyone is treated the same and nobody enjoys a tax break not eligible to everyone.

Biz taxes are yet a different story and the problem here is many expense personal stuff through the biz.
There is a lot to fix in the biz tax code, but there is no reason for all the discrimination in individual taxes.

Well said and I love people who will never ever make 50 million are against it. Lol

The wealthy actually use more resources,

this is not good, its not like i dont like free money, but if people have worked their asses off to make that kind of cash then they deserve it., income tax is alright/. but this is too much.

It would just cause money to leave the country, money goes where it's well treated.

Mind listing these countries?

So taking 50% of their money isn't enough, huh? :helpme

my dads last state bank that he ran made billions over the years...it gave away 100-s of apartments to its workers and financed gaps in state pension insurance and it sponsored humanitarian events and sports teams and financed the building of schools and roads and donated millions in medical equipment...the last person to get an apartment was my dad...

my best firends dad gave 100-s of apartments to his workers in his plastic factory because evil commie law allows you to use it as a tax write off...he was happy to do this because he understands that he does not need 100 cars or 100 yachts but needs buyers for his business to prosper and also needs happy workers who have purchasing power and loyalty to his company...


are these 2 men evil commies?...


pray tell, what is the advantage to humanity of your money hoarding system? do you buy 1000-s of shirts? do you buy 1000s of cars? do you buy 1000s of vacations? do you buy 1000s of iphones?...

I can not wait for you to explain the obvious benefits...you must have some great arguments! :thumbsup

The rich create jobs, pay way more in taxes and contribute a lot more than the poor to a country. Penalising them for being successful doesn't work.

amazon has 600K employees globally but just in the UK 200K retail jobs have been slashed because of amazon...its share prices have risen due to heavy investments in robots that make 20% of the current workforce and its rising...

also you are a dumb fuck who does not understand that bezos does not buy 1000 shirts...he does not buy 1000 shoes...he does not go on 1000 vacations...he just hoards money and looks to fuck over people as much as possible...poor people like you should understand this...

If they only tax everyone that has 10 euro more than me it is a good idea.
Let those rich people pay, as long as I don't have to pay.

I mean, how is it possible that people have more than 1000 euro on the bank while people in other countries die of hunger.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/need-bill...100007745.html

Do we need billionaires? Ocasio-Cortez forces a conversation on the place of the superrich

Shortly after being sworn in earlier this month, the congresswoman who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx suggested a 70 percent top marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans. Many mainstream pundits scoffed at the idea, but it has proven popular, winning support from economists writing in the New York Times and a 59 percent approval from respondents in one survey.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staffers are weighing in. Dan Riffle, her policy director, wrote on Twitter earlier this week, “My goal for this year is to get a moderator to ask ‘Is it morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?’ at one of the Dem primary debates.” (Riffle has changed his Twitter display name to “Every Billionaire Is a Policy Failure.”) Ocasio-Cortez was asked that question on Monday at an event honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and responded that she thought it was immoral that billionaires could co-exist in a country where poor children are still being infected by hookworm.

“At what level are we really just living in excess?” said Ocasio-Cortez. “And what kind of society do we want to live in? And do we want to live in a city where billionaires have their own personal Uber helipads when people are working 80-hour weeks and can’t feed their kids?”

the rich are automating your jobs but you will not put a cap on the control they have over your life? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

in the USA 2 brothers koch can influence a local election easily...even a presidential election considerably...

if bezos went in to politics, and he really really wanted his candidate to win, the chances are very very high that he would succeed...is this democracy?...

a system where money is concentrated to a few is communism...money is the means of production in a modern economy...there is little difference between tsar and billionaire....

You should NEVER feel guilty for being wealthy.

Again, you show your ignorance about America :1orglaugh

Why you see the world as only the rich & poor, and nothing in between?

just take them all, lol

this is not how it works.
both parts depend on each other.

and no work can be done without workers and 99% of all existing products would not be bought without them.

don´t get me wrong - i am not a communist or have such ideas in my mind. but look around how the economy works and with WHOM.

since the last crash economy is pumped up with loans to normal and poor people. THEY have been the ones that made the economy hype with the money they have to pay back within the next years.

what happens if they decide now to pay back first and keep the consumption low?

it is not indecent to be rich but it is indecent to enrich oneself with the FUTURE labour of people without returning this money to the cycle and thus creating prosperity.

the initial question is therefore not very easy to answer, especially as a company can generally use the better depreciation possibilities and tax tricks anyway. and thus the rich person pays much less of his income than the average citizen does.

if one would ask me so i would not tax the income but the part of the income that is not spent or borrowed against interest.

interest is pretty much the worst thing people have come up with. so lending money for interest was also frowned upon for many centuries in EVERY society.

through interest not only the exchange medium becomes the commodity but a quantity of money is created which simply does not exist and inevitably leads to inflation.

imagine the following case:

you have apples and i have pears and a third one has potatoes.
I want your apples but you don't want pears but potatoes but the one who has the potatoes wants pears.

for this money was created and the sum of this money represents the value of the potatoes, the pears and the apples. let's say we spend 100 mussels for which we can now exchange everything for each other.

now we lend each other the mussels for an interest rate of 10% - consequently 110 mussels should be there after one year. but these 110 mussels are still the equivalent to our pears, carrots and apples and their quantity has not grown.

interest rates thus FORCE an economy to constantly increase production - no matter if demand or not - otherwise we get into an inflation vortex.

this is also the reason why poor people contribute much more to maintaining the economy because they have so little money that they have to return it completely to the cycle.

i think that this contribution to the maintenance of the system from which the rich profit in the end has a much higher value.

this value will also become apparent as soon as most of the production is automated.
because if you think the thought to the end this would mean that the consumers are without work and earn no money with which they can buy the automatically manufactured products.

the only way out of this dilemma is to tax these robots and give the money to those who should consume with them.

this means that in the end ONLY the rich pay taxes and their business works the better the more taxes they pay.

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said... "Eventually you run out of other people's money"