The rule is apparently not to raise taxes, and the plan is to raise taxes on billionaires.
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
89 points (86.8% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2710 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tax the Rich Is Actually a Popular Bipartisan Stance, Poll Shows
Typically when the masses agree on something it does not happen unless it also benefits the rich
See paid family leave, universal background checks on gun purchases, hell, women’s right to bodily autonomy?!
If politicians represented the masses it would always have been done. But legal bribery means that they represent their donors instead.
Thanks for saving me the time reading this.
I hate click bait titles
This is why I have a modicum of respect for Bush Sr. He promised no more taxes on the campaign trail and then when he was in office he realized that in order to balance the budget taxes needed raised. He did this knowing he wouldn't win a second term.
Look into his life before running for President; you'll lose the respect right quick. Also his father financed the literal Nazis (though in his defense pretty much every American with money was supporting the Nazi party pre-1940).
2 things.
- I've been paying attention to some of this since I was young so I do know quite a bit about his history.
2). Did MODICUM go the way of literally?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Much more likely explanation: He was lying when he made the 'pledge'.
Do you not know about the republicans and tax cuts? They do their damndest to lower taxes for their corporate overlords at the expense of programs that not only act as a safety net but also tend to have a positive ripple effect on the overall economy.
Nope. Dude didn't lie about not increasing taxes, he was one of the last guard of old-school repubs who actually did what was best for everyone, especially when he took the big seat.
I mean it's a pretty simple logic. The economy is strong but people don't feel like it's strong because it's only strong for those of the top. It's that way because we spent the last 40 years cutting taxes for the rich, destroying regulations and economic safeguards, getting rid of safety nets, and allowing for the wealthiest to abuse the system. Why wouldn't saying we want to fix that problem be the right course? Uprooting ancien regimes is the one thing liberals and leftists tradionally agree on.
Repeal the Trump tax on the lower and middle class, tax the rich even more.
And say that. Campaign on repealing the Trump Tax. Do both, you jackasses.
They don’t want to do that though because it personally benefits them.
They also don’t really care about winning this election, just ensuring to deliver on Biden’s big donor promise: nothing will fundamentally change. Dumbasses that they are, the Dems are once again severely underestimating Trump and his capacity to win, and capacity for mayhem. They probably think the “worst” he’ll do with another term is more tax cuts which benefit them.
I see a lot of ‘tax the rich’ pushes, but I’m curious on how. It’s not like billionaires get a normal salary, so I wonder what it actually is - is it taxing assets over a certain value or something?
I worked for a family office in Switzerland and the “salary” from the company to our owner was an entry level salary for compliance/presence purposes. He couldn’t care less about that being taxed.
Yes, a wealth tax over a billion dollars is a proposal now. Biden's not doing it though, but 1% to 2% could raise a lot of money. Although it would require legitimate property valuations. That's hard if people just lie about their real estate like Trump was convicted of.
Also taxing capital gains over a certain amount at higher rates would help billionaires have a fair tax burden. It makes no sense to tax you a greater percentage than the owner you worked for. Above a million in capital gains should be taxed as income.
No I'm not afraid of money leaving the country. If they want to leave the most productive and profitable country on earth, that's more money for us.
That’s hard if people just lie about their real estate like Trump was convicted of.
If they lie and inflate their property values, they get taxed more. Sounds like a win to me!
He was sued for underpaying taxes by undervaluing his property. The lies for overvaluing them on bank documents haven't been charged yet. That's a federal crime.
The Swiss actually has wealth tax, depending on canton. I believe though a lot of it is negotiable- if you’re super wealthy, I think you can agree a fixed amount per year with your canton (state).
In my canton you’re exempt from it if you have less than $250-300k in assets or something like this. And it ranges from something like 0.20-1% I believe.
At least tax loans that use stock and other "untaxes assets" as collateral as realizes gains.
Also it is kinda weird that normal people pay taxes on properties but assets like stock portfolios are not taxed.
Remove the cap on social security taxes (160k), and the program will be fully funded in perpetuity.
Implement a wealth tax on those with, say, over 10 million in assets.
Increase the corporate tax rate to 50%, and remove all loopholes allowing them to offshore earnings.
Remove the cap on inheritance tax, as this is one of the primary drivers of wealth inequality today.
These would be a good start.
Make every post office a bank. The bank then gives out loans to local co-ops.
Federate the co-ops with an organizatio like Mondragon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Stop coddling these faceless mega corporations. Since they are SO efficient, they wont need any breaks from the government. Invest in the people, not a 1%ers off shore bank account
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Such staggering accumulations of wealth are made possible in large part by the fact that America’s federal tax burden is so comparatively light.
Now President Biden, behind in many polls and with an economy that is objectively strong but politically unpopular, is hoping to boost his re-election bid with a policy idea that would once have been almost unthinkable: For this portion of the population, at least, he is vowing — almost gleefully — to raise taxes.
For a Democrat with low job approval ratings and precarious poll numbers on his handling of the economy, it’s a shocking rebuke to conventional wisdom — and practically an invitation to critics to call him a tax-and-spend liberal.
Howard Jarvis and his followers, mostly older white property owners, pushed for the ballot initiative known as Proposition 13 because they were, in their words, mad as hell that their rising taxes would help educate immigrant families.
In the 1960s, George Romney, Mitt’s father, regularly turned down his bonuses from his auto executive job, perhaps in part because his marginal tax rate would have been about 90 percent.
“You could be talking about the Mets versus the Dodgers,” the former U.S. Representative Steve Israel of New York recalled, “and good Republican operatives would be able to weave in tax-and-spend.”
The original article contains 1,229 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
In the 1960s, George Romney, Mitt’s father, regularly turned down his bonuses from his auto executive job, perhaps in part because his marginal tax rate would have been about 90 percent
If this is true he's a fucking idiot. 10% of $x is better than $0. More likely the reason was that the bonuses pushed him over some threshold so he lost some other benefit, making it a net loss, or he negotiated some alternative compensation mechanism that had reduced or deferrable tax liability.
Presidential candidates hate this one trick
view more: next ›