Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’

Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’

 
Old 01-28-2019, 03:26 PM
  #41  
Jupiterjj
Junior Member
 
Member Since: May 2017
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Anybody remember the 95% marginal rates that existed in the UK in the early sixties? The Beatles sang about it in their song "Taxman". Soon, there were no Beatles, or any other rock stars, living in England. They all moved to the US to avoid the onerous British taxes. The same thing would happen here. Tax the wealth of millionaires and billionaires, and soon they will all live in Monaco or Singapore. If you tax something, you get less of it.
Jupiterjj is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:37 PM
  #42  
Mr turbo rotary
CF Senior Member
 
Mr turbo rotary's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Va. Beach Va.
Posts: 45,942
Received 19 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SlothX311 View Post
Why is it okay for Jeff Bezos to acquire an insane amount of wealth while paying his employees an immoral wage?
Last I checked no one made those employees take those jobs for those wages and compensation? So they gave the permission to be paid those wages by taking those jobs. If they believe the wages and the compensation is too low then they can go elsewhere and get the compensation they believe they are worth. Who are you to decide what wage is immoral?

Mr turbo rotary is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:52 PM
  #43  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,153
Received 366 Likes on 242 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 69L46 View Post
And when implemented, and the promised revenue windfalls fail to appear, what happens to that $50M threshold?
What would make it not generate something near the prediction? How can they avoid it? (Hint: it includes assets overseas)
pdiddy972 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:57 PM
  #44  
larrysb
CF Senior Member
 
larrysb's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2002
Location: $ilicon Vall€y CA
Posts: 8,614
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by SlothX311 View Post
Wasn't the GOP up in arms when the government (Obama) was bailing out big banks and American car brands deemed "too big to fail" yet paying their CEOs bonuses? Why is it okay for Jeff Bezos to acquire an insane amount of wealth while paying his employees an immoral wage?

Evidence of "insane" and "immoral".

I'd have to say, wages are moral between a willing worker and a willing employer operating in a free market.
larrysb is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:01 PM
  #45  
OnPoint
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
OnPoint's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2015 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 18,428
Received 1,976 Likes on 1,119 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pdiddy972 View Post


What would make it not generate something near the prediction? How can they avoid it? (Hint: it includes assets overseas)
Trusts.
OnPoint is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:10 PM
  #46  
Red99SS
CF Senior Member
 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Posts: 64,093
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

Fourth Amendment violation. The government can't simply take your money because they want it. Two percent of 50 million bucks is a solid million dollars per year, you don't owe the government seven figures a year simply for existing and being super wealthy. If they do get this installed though, you can BET YOUR *** the taxable amount will continually fall and the taxable rate will continually rise.

Last edited by Red99SS; 01-28-2019 at 05:13 PM.
Red99SS is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:21 PM
  #47  
VITE1
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VITE1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Port St Lucie FL Life is hard, Then you die, FL USA
Posts: 65,837
Received 44 Likes on 22 Posts
Cruise-In X Veteran
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Default

Originally Posted by SlothX311 View Post
Top 3 wealthiest individuals in the country own more accumulated wealth than the bottom 50%. How much revenue is enough?
The bottom 50% are net takers from the government so why would they accumulate wealth and screw up their lifestyle?
VITE1 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:30 PM
  #48  
bgad
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,984
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pdiddy972 View Post


What would make it not generate something near the prediction? How can they avoid it? (Hint: it includes assets overseas)
He didn’t actually mean “when the windfalls fail to show up”, what he meant to say was, “when it isn’t enough of OPM”.
bgad is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:38 PM
  #49  
a striper
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,146
Received 113 Likes on 98 Posts
Default

It's a decade too early for this. It will be fun to watch the wealthy progressives begin to support the GOP as the DEMS try to grab at their accumulated wealth. An exodus of the rich (especially celebrities) would be very bad for the left.
a striper is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:41 PM
  #50  
caskiguy
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
caskiguy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2016
Location: Sherman Oaks California
Posts: 2,633
Received 335 Likes on 309 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Grumpy View Post

Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’ would be the rape of the Constitution

By William Sullivan


Elizabeth Warren has unleashed her bold new presidential campaign promise, which she cleverly calls “The Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” After all, none of us are “ultra-millionaires,” so why should we care? This new tax won’t hurt you, it would just impose a 2% annual tax on all household net worth over $50M, with an additional 1% surtax kicking in for assets held over $1B. In her plan, wealth is defined as “all household assets… including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trusts, retirement assets, assets held by minor children and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more.”

“I’m in,” she says, “on the notion that we have to rewrite the tax code.” And a policy like the one she proposes, say two UC Berkeley economists, “would shrink the wealth of the superrich by $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period, while only affecting around 75,000 U.S. households.”

“Ultra-millionaire.” “Superrich.” As you can see, this is all very scientific and measured stuff.

In truth, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed 70% tax on the “tippy tops” of income earners looks downright sober and rational compared to Warren’s proposed policy. And for all Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance about how government works (the three branches of government are not, in fact, “the presidency, the Senate, and the House,” as she recently proclaimed), at least her proposed tax plan appears constitutional. Yet Warren, a Harvard law professor, has proposed a tax plan which is, not potentially, but certainly unconstitutional.

This can be proven quite simply to anyone who cares to learn.

The Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 gave the federal government an additional right to tax income, and only income. Most federal revenue currently derives from this method of taxation. Individual income tax, business income tax (corporate tax), payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare -- all are collected as a percentage of income earned, and the government is deemed within its right to collect these revenues only because the Sixteenth Amendment exists.

Now, you don’t have to be an economist or a Harvard law professor to know that “net worth” is not “income,” and that the Sixteenth Amendment could not uphold the constitutionality of Warren’s proposal.

So, what are the other means of taxation allowed by the Constitution?

Article I, Section 8 declares that “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises…”

Throughout our history, we’ve seen a bevy of “duties, imposts, and excises,” but we did not see much in the way of “direct taxes” until 1913.

That is because the Constitution includes caveats as to how direct taxes can be applied, most notably in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which reads, “No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.”

According to Roy Ulrich of UC Berkeley, this is the specific clause which any new “net worth tax” would unequivocally violate. Warren’s would most certainly qualify as having violated this clause, as it’s a direct tax which is uniform based upon a taxpayer’s asset value, and without apportionment in relation to “Census or Enumeration” among the individual states.

There can be no argument that this clause was the reason for the necessity of the Sixteenth Amendment, and that it remains troublesome to progressives today.

“A direct tax,” Ulrich writes, “is a tax on real or personal property imposed solely by reason of its being owned by the taxpayer. In contrast, indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event, such as the transmission of property. Thus defined, the income tax is plainly a direct tax. So, for that matter, is a tax on any asset.”

It’s really quite simple. Income tax is a direct tax, but taxation of income is specifically protected by a constitutional amendment. A direct tax on assets held without any “transmission” of property having taken place is the arbitrary confiscation of property by a federal government which clearly has no right enumerated in the Constitution to do so.

I personally do not think Elizabeth Warren has a shot at the presidency. But as the current crop of Democrats seem to be doing perpetual end-arounds to continually stay to the left of one another, I don’t think the fact that this policy proposal is insanely unconstitutional means that it has any less value in terms of its rhetorical legs.

And I personally do not think that Warren is so stupid as to not know that her proposal is clearly unconstitutional. There’s an endgame here, and it’s a page torn right out of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s playbook.

Let’s break it down

First, it’s popular with the Democrat base, who see the Constitution as an obstruction to progress, and not the safeguard against tyranny that it’s designed to be. In short, the contention is, as it was with FDR, that we need to be experimenting with new ideas to have progress, and if giving the federal government more power than the constitutional tether allows in order to facilitate these experiments, then so be it.

Second, let’s say that Democrats are able to secure both chambers of Congress and the presidency in 2020. They would then have a choice. They could push for a constitutional amendment allowing for some sort of direct tax on net worth because, as that gaggle of lawyers in D.C. should damn well know, nothing in the Constitution currently allows it.

But setting the precedent, and enshrining in stone, that the federal government has a right to go diving into Americans retirement accounts like Scrooge McDuck in his money bin, or requisitioning their securities, their real estate, or hell, even their collectible antique cars, is not something that will sit well with Americans. Such an amendment would be dead-on-arrival. Rather, they’ll take the more sinister path of least resistance.

They’ll just try to jam through a bill to “rewrite the tax code,” as Warren says. And let’s say they are able to pass something to this effect, God forbid. It should go without saying that if all members of the Court cared about the nature of the individual’s rights in relation to the government as defined by the Constitution, it would be crushed unanimously. But while it may not be shot down with extreme prejudice, it will be shot down by this Supreme Court.

Then, a constitutional crisis will be declared, just as FDR did when the Supreme Court began laying waste to his reckless New Deal experiments. And you should know what comes next. The left will cry that the Supreme Court is at odds with the people’s desires, and will call to pack the Court with new leftist justices. They’ve already begun calling for this. Knowing that they can’t change the Constitution to allow what they desire to do, this is the only viable means to destroy the Constitution’s safeguards which prohibit their radical and redistributive policy prescriptions.

It is the Democrats who are advocating this rape of the Constitution’s protections, and not one single Republican is. You should remember that the next time you hear a conservative sanctimoniously suggests that the moral thing to do to protect our country’s integrity is to sit out on the coming election because he doesn’t like the personal demeanor of the Republican candidate
She's an idiot. The kitchen beer roundtable was a perfect example of her stupidity.
caskiguy is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:41 PM
  #51  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 28,072
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Originally Posted by pdiddy972 View Post


What would make it not generate something near the prediction? How can they avoid it? (Hint: it includes assets overseas)
Hint: People playing at the level are doing so for a reason.

Unless, of course, you'll think they'll be shamed into 'paying their fair share'.

69L46 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:47 PM
  #52  
jcsperson
CF Senior Member
 
jcsperson's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2010
Location: Hillsborough NC
Posts: 11,875
Received 397 Likes on 248 Posts
NC Events Coordinator
Default

Atlas Shrugged
jcsperson is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:14 PM
  #53  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,153
Received 366 Likes on 242 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
Fourth Amendment violation. The government can't simply take your money because they want it. Two percent of 50 million bucks is a solid million dollars per year, you don't owe the government seven figures a year simply for existing and being super wealthy. If they do get this installed though, you can BET YOUR *** the taxable amount will continually fall and the taxable rate will continually rise.
Cops are doing on the roadside every day. Stealing money and other possessions without charges, a trial or a conviction,
pdiddy972 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:15 PM
  #54  
Red99SS
CF Senior Member
 
Red99SS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Monmouth County NJ
Posts: 64,093
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

You're correct. A better phrasing would have been "the government isn't allowed to simply take your money because they want it." Yes it's a Fourth Amendment violation, but Democrats openly state that they don't think the Constitution should be a thing.

Last edited by Red99SS; 01-28-2019 at 06:16 PM.
Red99SS is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:19 PM
  #55  
NBM LS1 M6
CF Senior Member
 
NBM LS1 M6's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2002
Location: I helped our former POSOTUS return the wealth of America to its rightful owners one parcel of real e
Posts: 126,239
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19

Default

Originally Posted by GARYFINN View Post
The left is very very dangerous I dont see all this turmoil ending peacefully.Keep your powder dry people the worst is yet to come.

NBM LS1 M6 is offline  
Old 01-29-2019, 08:46 AM
  #56  
Krystal
CF Senior Member
 
Krystal's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,017
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SlothX311 View Post
Top 3 wealthiest individuals in the country own more accumulated wealth than the bottom 50%. How much revenue is enough?
You write that as if wealth accumulation is a "zero sum" game.

Put simply?

It isn't and the truth is ........ it's NEVER ENOUGH for anyone. Everyone should be able to shoot for the goal of as much wealth accumulated as they desire. Those top 3 highest wealth holding individuals aren't holding money that could have gone to other people. THE ECONOMY GROWS........it isn't stuck in a place where there is a "set amount" of money that can't be grown. It's not as if these 3 people holding so much wealth means there is less available to other people.

BTW......your use of the word "revenue" in this discussion suggests you don't have even the most basic understanding of how money/capital works and moves in the world at the either the Marco or micro economic level.

Elizabeth Warren's proposal has NOTHING to do with Revenue at all.

It's a Wealth Tax.......it proposes to take, each year, 2% of wealth above a certain level and it will keep doing so until you either die or you fall bellow the level where the wealth tax starts.

Put most simply, so easy for EVEN YOU to understand.

The Government would basically be saying, "You have too much! We're taking what is yours and giving it to "the people"!

That is the basic idea behind the political ideology of "COMMUNISM". You don't own what you hold or control. It's always up for redistribution to the people. In short there is no solid ownership rights in a society that would allow a "wealth tax".

.....and don't you believe for a moment that once "in place"........this relatively small group of the very wealthy will be the only people "hit".

That number will move down to capture more money from many more people to re-distribute over time

Doubt that last though? Again you might want to take a peak at the history of Communism in the 20th century.

Warren isn't talking about taxing revenue,

Last edited by Krystal; 01-29-2019 at 08:50 AM.
Krystal is offline  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:06 AM
  #57  
Krystal
CF Senior Member
 
Krystal's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,017
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 69L46 View Post
And when implemented, and the promised revenue windfalls fail to appear, what happens to that $50M threshold?
That's seems pretty obvious...... $40 million will be followed by $10 million and then just $1 million .......all of which will be a fantasy figure anyway.

Despite populist attempts throughout the West to REMOVE Globalization.......that genie is already out of the bottle pretty completely.

WEALTH........REAL WEALTH held by those people who hold the BIG AMOUNTS that Warren and DUMB TO LIFE morons like her would attempt to tax in this very foolish way.......the wealth they want confiscate......would LEAVE!!

Wealth always moves to where it is treated best.

If this tax proposal became law the wealthiest of Americans would simply LEAVE .......the USA is not the only place in the world to live. It's just that today it's one of, if not THE BEST PLACE for wealth to be because we DO protect private property rights.

This tax proposal would change that in an instant. It also wouldn't be long before some politician or politicians some-where else in the world would recognize their opportunity BORN OF OUR STUPIDITY!! They'd realize how much wealth they could attract to their country with an attractive new tax policy designed to drain our country of it's wealthiest people.
For how this might work....take a peak at how much Corporate money tiny Ireland has attracted over the past couple of decades.

Last edited by Krystal; 01-29-2019 at 09:08 AM.
Krystal is offline  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:41 AM
  #58  
Optimus_C5
CF Senior Member
 
Optimus_C5's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. South West Florida / Livin' The Dream
Posts: 7,748
Received 18 Likes on 6 Posts
St. Jude Donor '12
Default

How about an 80% tax on all proceeds when nationally elected officials leave office and write books, give speeches, and / or become lobbyists. That's a tax I could get behind.

Also I may be able to get behind a VAT on any single, personal, purchase, excluding your principal residence over 5 million dollars. Want to buy a 10 million dollar vacation home pay a 50% VAT on the purchase price, Also want to buy a 20 million dollar yacht, pay a 60% VAT.

After watching a show about mega yachts it became obvious some people have insane amounts of money. Rick Hendricks, who is a billionaire, has a 160 ft + yacht worth tens of millions of dollars, and when it goes out to sea he has his multi million dollar sport fishing vessel follow so he can fish from it. Reportedly he also owns at least 1 more yacht other than the 2.

Don't tax their income, Tax their outlandish spending?

https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht-wheels.html

I have no problem with Hendrix and the empire he built. He is a charitable person. It's just the insanity of one person owning 3 yachts.

Last edited by Optimus_C5; 01-29-2019 at 09:46 AM.
Optimus_C5 is offline  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:44 AM
  #59  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 28,072
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Originally Posted by Krystal View Post
That's seems pretty obvious...... $40 million will be followed by $10 million and then just $1 million .......all of which will be a fantasy figure anyway.

Despite populist attempts throughout the West to REMOVE Globalization.......that genie is already out of the bottle pretty completely.

WEALTH........REAL WEALTH held by those people who hold the BIG AMOUNTS that Warren and DUMB TO LIFE morons like her would attempt to tax in this very foolish way.......the wealth they want confiscate......would LEAVE!!

Wealth always moves to where it is treated best.

If this tax proposal became law the wealthiest of Americans would simply LEAVE .......the USA is not the only place in the world to live. It's just that today it's one of, if not THE BEST PLACE for wealth to be because we DO protect private property rights.

This tax proposal would change that in an instant. It also wouldn't be long before some politician or politicians some-where else in the world would recognize their opportunity BORN OF OUR STUPIDITY!! They'd realize how much wealth they could attract to their country with an attractive new tax policy designed to drain our country of it's wealthiest people.
For how this might work....take a peak at how much Corporate money tiny Ireland has attracted over the past couple of decades.

It's a simple, time proven concept, and one only need to look to the ever increasing exodus from high tax states to see it being applied.

It will be no different at the federal level.

69L46 is offline  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:14 PM
  #60  
1998prince
CF Senior Member
 
1998prince's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 1,040
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 69L46 View Post
It's a simple, time proven concept, and one only need to look to the ever increasing exodus from high tax states to see it being applied.

It will be no different at the federal level.

Correct. The ultra rich will move and renounce their citizenship in order to protect their assets. Our govt will then lower the threshold. Then those ultra rich will leave. Rinse and repeat until we get the the middle class.

Then what will you do?
1998prince is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Elizabeth Warren’s proposed ‘ultra-millionaire tax’


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: