By today's standards would J.F.K. be considered a moderate Republican?

One million net assets puts you at the very bottom of the top 10%.

Yes, it's a screwly kind of logic to have your taxes doubled but if you own stocks that can be broken up you don't pay that tax but if you own land valued at the same amount your taxes now double.

Plus, there is no logic for why one's taxes should double other than...it doesn't apply to most people.

Let's pass a law that is abusive to the poor, hey, most people aren't poor so no problem, right?

The goal is to improve oneself and get to the top 10%. Why make that harder? The bottom 50% don't have anything. That's not the goal for anyone. The fact of the matter is that the upper 20% and 30% could be doing much better if they focused more on their finances.

Instead of making that easier...make it harder? That makes no sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep. But the tax isn't on ASSETS of one million. The tax is on SALES (realized gains) of one million. That puts you into 1% category.

Absolutely, if you are regularly selling million dollar houses that you own outright, or transferring million (or multi million) dollar tax portfolios, this will hit you. Then again, if you are regularly making a million dollars a year, losing 20% more of that isn't going to put you in the poorhouse or deprive your kids of a college education.

If the tax affects you, there is no way you will ever see any logic in it. No one wants to be taxed. Absolutely no one.

The logic is that people who are making a million dollars a year (making, not having) are in a position where they can afford to lose more of that money to taxation than someone who is making $40,000 a year.

The difference there is if you are poor, and you lose 20% of your income, your kids go hungry and/or you can't send them to college. If you are making a million dollars a year, you might not be able to afford the airplane you want, and might have to buy a cheaper one. Very different outcomes, don't you think?

No one is. It's the top 1% - not the top 10%.

If your goal is to get to that top 1%, and make a million dollars a year, good for you. You'll be paying 39% on your income. (This is true right now and it will be true if this new taxation law passes.) You will now ALSO be paying 39% on your capital gains instead of just 20%.

But if you are going to cry because you are now going to lose (say) 100K a year to this new tax, and you end up with 610K instead of 710K after taxes, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from anyone.

I have some relatives who are bottom 50%. Probably bottom 40%. They have a huge family - six kids - all living on a restaurant manager's salary. One kid is doing very well as an actor. Another is in community college studying engineering. They might not have the newest cars, or even a house that fits them all, but they are a very happy and successful family. They've met their goals.

For you to claim they "don't have anything" because they don't make a lot of money is - well, I'm sorry you are that kind of person.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the top 10% in the U.S., the minimum is $1,182,390.36 and for the 0.10% the minimum is $43,090,281. I'm talking assets. If you sell all your assets in that one year it becomes income.

You don't need to be "regularly" selling one million dollar houses. You only need to do it once.

I'm not claiming the bottom 50% have "nothing" as in no fulfillment in life. They have nothing in terms of financial wealth, which is what we were talking about. The rest is just your bias showing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. That would be a silly thing to do, would it not? Unless, again, you are regularly selling millions of dollars of assets a year to make tens of millions. In those cases, losing an additional 20% is not going to harm you personally.

Then you get taxed more - once. Not for the rest of your life. And it's not a million dollar house - it's a million dollar house that you own outright. Most people in the US do not live in a million dollar home, most people in the US do not own their home outright. For the tiny fraction of Americans remaining, they will see an additional 20% tax (once) - IF they try to sell their house outright, which most people don't do.

So owning a home (small though it is) cars (cruddy though they are) and being able to send your kids to college (even if it's a community college) is "nothing in terms of financial wealth?" Spoken like a rich person.

 

My house is 1,200 sq ft built in the 40's.
You are the one who said they had nothing regarding wealth but everything regarding the quality of life. You just want to find a way to insult me regardless of which angle you have to take.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since when did the standard for taxation become "not most people"?
Most everyone who lives in Seattle in a house has a million dollar house and most people do sell their house one day to downsize or to move to a cheaper place to live.

 

What logical case would you make for doubling anyone's taxes?

 

1) I am not making a case for doubling anyone's taxes. No one's taxes will be doubled.
2) The logical case for INCREASING taxes is to come closer to balancing the budget. Contrary to what many politicians believe, you cannot increase spending and decrease taxes (or even keep them the same) and have it all work out in the end.
3) In general, richer people are more able to afford increased taxation without hardship.

 

The problem is the increasing spending part. Sure, you can make small changes in anyone's/everyone's taxes but the real problem is the spending. There is never any penalty faced by a politician for another spending problem.

Paid maternity care is nice, more money to families is nice but just as in our personal lives it might be nice to vacation in Europe this year but if we are grossly in debt, we don't embark on another spending program.

People can pay for their own kids. The government can't really pay for it because it is already paying for very little and hence the large public debt.

 

The only problem with spending (for a good cause) is that you have to pay it back. So if the cause is worthwhile (moon mission, a world war, Medicare) then the issue is paying for it via taxation/duties/sales of government assets etc.

Needless to say, people never agree on what's worthwhile.

Yeah, but see, having maternity leave isn't like taking a vacation. One is a fun optional thing to do. The other is important for raising kids.

Paid maternity leave isn't "the government paying for your kids."

 

Can't argue wit dat.

 

Yes, it isn't like a vacation. It's like "it would be nice to have a bigger house since we have more kids but we can't afford it now so we make do".

Otherwise it's like "We can't afford a bigger house but we have more kids and they deserve a bigger house." Or "We can't afford a bigger house and would have to make do but since your Uncle is offering to pay for a big house, why not?" "I hope he can afford to do this but it's not our problem, right?"

"It sure is nice to have someone that can take care of us, without him I don't know what we'd do".

 

Nope.

Not having a bigger house isn't bad for kids. Having to be in daycare rather than with their parents is bad for kids. Again, one is a fun optional thing to do. The other is important for raising kids.

 

Yep. Therefore one decides to stay home and one works. Maternity leave doesn't result in an action that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

Your argument is that one can't raise kids and take care of themselves unless the government does it for them even though the government can't afford it either.

You will argue, I assume, that some can afford this but not everyone. So let's tax those than can afford this...until the point where they can't afford it either and everyone ends up worse off.

How did the 60's "War on Poverty" work out? It made people more dependent of the government than ever before and poverty is still with us.

 

At least 90% of the population (if wealth is reliably inherited much more than 90) will fail to achieve that goal. That huge majority will establish the norms of that society.
And it's not an attractive goal for most. Very few people improve themselves in the course of single-mindedly accumulating (or keeping) vastly more wealth than their fellow citizens. Those are quite often incompatible goals.

Instead of that, let's tax them until we get to the level where almost everyone ends up better off.

Most people are better off when inequality of wealth and income is much less than in the US currently - including most of the wealthy. The wealthy in First World countries live better than their peers in Third World countries.

When the entire economy stagnates, as economies burdened by excessive inequality do, so do the marginal benefits of wealth. It's a lose/lose.

Initially and almost immediately successful, with benefits that lasted for many years despite its brief and absurdly partial implementation, it was fouled by racism - the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party under Nixon included sabotaging all government action that disproportionately benefitted black people. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/war-poverty/

 

Doesn't work for women. There are real advantages for having mothers physically with the child, nursing them and providing skin to skin contact. Most important for the first six months or so.

Nope. Not even close. You're having an argument against a strawman in your head, not with me.

Some can afford to have the mother stay home? Yes, that's correct.

Nope. Don't tax anyone. Require paid leave. Period.

The US poverty rate fell from 22% in 1960 to 12% in 1980, so I'd say it worked.

Nowadays it's back up to about 15% as the class divide in society grows.

 

I understand the advantage of a woman staying home so for one to work and one to stay home...does work for women.

If the government provides the paid leave it does involve taxes. If the employer is mandated then it reduces profit (since there is no free lunch). Reduce profit enough and the number of jobs go down. It is a competitive economy after all.

You can mandate anything. You can mandate that all wages be doubled but there is always the undesired consequences to deal with.

The war of poverty didn't work because it just made an underclass permanent.

 

It did not do that.
And it did work - to the extent that it was enacted and pursued.

The cost to the economy of over-working adults at the expense of raising children well is much higher than the cost of curbing work hours enough to allow a decent family life.

 

Looks like you don't understand what competition means, then.

Exactly. What are the undesired societal consequences of parents not being given time to bond with their infants right after they are born? Do you think there are none? Or is it just one of those "doesn't affect me so I don't give a sh!t" things?

 

There are a lot of things that are nice. The government doesn't have to pay for all of them however. People have bonded with their newborns since the beginning of time. It's nice if parents can attend all sporting events involving their kids. Should the government pay for it?

 

I agree! Just the important ones for the welfare of society. (That Constitutional imperative applies here.)

Well, not quite. MOTHERS have bonded with their newborns for centuries. The phenomenon of women working is fairly new, and thus changes things a bit. Also, society in general is starting to realize that fathers are important, too.