Good catch. I missed that.
Different topic but still worthy of debate.
“Different topic”….no shit, Sherlock.
But also connected. Leverage and grow your wealth to win favorable tax code at the expense of infrastructure and/or future debt, and/or the unwashed masses.
Taxing wealth is a melting ice cube.
Kind of like dishonest Congress Critters who demonize millionaires until they cash in on their notoriety to write a book that makes millions. Then they up their target from millionaires to billionaires - it's not me, I'm not an evil capitalist, I earned this money.
Good idea.UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:09 pmKind of like dishonest Congress Critters who demonize millionaires until they cash in on their notoriety to write a book that makes millions. Then they up their target from millionaires to billionaires - it's not me, I'm not an evil capitalist, I earned this money.
Maybe a fair tax is a 100% tax on Congress Critters' outside income while they are in office.
That seems unfair and perhaps there should be exceptions but reducing spending is not the ONLY solution.AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:07 pmTaxing wealth is a melting ice cube.
Perfect example: My sister and her husband are co-owners of a ranch in the Bitterroot valued at approximately $15-$18 million. It’s been in the family four generations, and has grown from 120 acres to over 2,000, running 800 head of cattle. They clear something in the neighborhood of $150,000/yr, so they’re not going to get rich. But if they are to be taxed on their WEALTH, they are going to have to start selling pieces of the ranch to pay the taxes, because there’s not enough $$ made to pay the kind of taxes we’re talking about here….and it WILL eventually get to the millionaires, believe you me. And eventually, you run out of land to sell, or cattle to sell, or fixtures and equipment to sell….it just isn’t a sustainable solution.
The ONLY sustainable solution is to reduce government spending to a level that IS sustainable with a reasonable tax code.
Gabby Johnson is right!AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:07 pmTaxing wealth is a melting ice cube.
Perfect example: My sister and her husband are co-owners of a ranch in the Bitterroot valued at approximately $15-$18 million. It’s been in the family four generations, and has grown from 120 acres to over 2,000, running 800 head of cattle. They clear something in the neighborhood of $150,000/yr, so they’re not going to get rich. But if they are to be taxed on their WEALTH, they are going to have to start selling pieces of the ranch to pay the taxes, because there’s not enough $$ made to pay the kind of taxes we’re talking about here….and it WILL eventually get to the millionaires, believe you me. And eventually, you run out of land to sell, or cattle to sell, or fixtures and equipment to sell….it just isn’t a sustainable solution.
The ONLY sustainable solution is to reduce government spending to a level that IS sustainable with a reasonable tax code.
Reducing spending is the first step. In 2020 the government collected $3.4T but spend $6.55T. I know 2020 was an atypical year but it's not the odd year.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:26 amThat seems unfair and perhaps there should be exceptions but reducing spending is not the ONLY solution.AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:07 pm
Taxing wealth is a melting ice cube.
Perfect example: My sister and her husband are co-owners of a ranch in the Bitterroot valued at approximately $15-$18 million. It’s been in the family four generations, and has grown from 120 acres to over 2,000, running 800 head of cattle. They clear something in the neighborhood of $150,000/yr, so they’re not going to get rich. But if they are to be taxed on their WEALTH, they are going to have to start selling pieces of the ranch to pay the taxes, because there’s not enough $$ made to pay the kind of taxes we’re talking about here….and it WILL eventually get to the millionaires, believe you me. And eventually, you run out of land to sell, or cattle to sell, or fixtures and equipment to sell….it just isn’t a sustainable solution.
The ONLY sustainable solution is to reduce government spending to a level that IS sustainable with a reasonable tax code.
Well, it may not be the only solution, but lets be real: It's not even on the table for discussion at this point. The government's version of "cutting spending" is to reduce the planned increase.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:26 amThat seems unfair and perhaps there should be exceptions but reducing spending is not the ONLY solution.AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:07 pm
Taxing wealth is a melting ice cube.
Perfect example: My sister and her husband are co-owners of a ranch in the Bitterroot valued at approximately $15-$18 million. It’s been in the family four generations, and has grown from 120 acres to over 2,000, running 800 head of cattle. They clear something in the neighborhood of $150,000/yr, so they’re not going to get rich. But if they are to be taxed on their WEALTH, they are going to have to start selling pieces of the ranch to pay the taxes, because there’s not enough $$ made to pay the kind of taxes we’re talking about here….and it WILL eventually get to the millionaires, believe you me. And eventually, you run out of land to sell, or cattle to sell, or fixtures and equipment to sell….it just isn’t a sustainable solution.
The ONLY sustainable solution is to reduce government spending to a level that IS sustainable with a reasonable tax code.
That’s why the “negotiation” about the Infrastructure Bill has been so entertaining. The GOP proposes to spend relatively less in absolute terms, and relatively less inefficiently. A boondoggle is a boondoggle,
What a bad idea.Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said that he’s exploring the idea of a one-time tax on the wealth of the richest Americans as Democrats seek to increase taxes on the rich in order to pay for spending priorities.
In an interview with The Hill on Friday, Suozzi said he’s in the early stages of looking at what he called a “patriot tax.” This would be a one-time surcharge of 2.5 percent on wealth between $50 million and $100 million and a 5 percent tax on wealth above $100 million. Wealthy people would be able to pay the tax over five years.
I am sure politicians are exempt......Ibanez wrote:Sometimes the Democrats are the party of No Ideas and the GOP are the party of Bad Ideas.
Sometimes they flip. This is one of those times...
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5582 ... res-wealth
What a bad idea.Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said that he’s exploring the idea of a one-time tax on the wealth of the richest Americans as Democrats seek to increase taxes on the rich in order to pay for spending priorities.
In an interview with The Hill on Friday, Suozzi said he’s in the early stages of looking at what he called a “patriot tax.” This would be a one-time surcharge of 2.5 percent on wealth between $50 million and $100 million and a 5 percent tax on wealth above $100 million. Wealthy people would be able to pay the tax over five years.
Of course. They're altruistic like that.Winterborn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:59 amI am sure politicians are exempt......Ibanez wrote:Sometimes the Democrats are the party of No Ideas and the GOP are the party of Bad Ideas.
Sometimes they flip. This is one of those times...
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5582 ... res-wealth
What a bad idea.
“One time”. If that isn’t the biggest con job EVER. NO tax the government imposes is EVER a “one time” tax.Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:35 am Sometimes the Democrats are the party of No Ideas and the GOP are the party of Bad Ideas.
Sometimes they flip. This is one of those times...
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5582 ... res-wealth
What a bad idea.Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said that he’s exploring the idea of a one-time tax on the wealth of the richest Americans as Democrats seek to increase taxes on the rich in order to pay for spending priorities.
In an interview with The Hill on Friday, Suozzi said he’s in the early stages of looking at what he called a “patriot tax.” This would be a one-time surcharge of 2.5 percent on wealth between $50 million and $100 million and a 5 percent tax on wealth above $100 million. Wealthy people would be able to pay the tax over five years.