Warren Tax Plan: Net Worth in Focus

Malee · February 18, 2019, 7:48am

This is a really interesting thread. I am not sure I agree that “high income and high wealth are highly correlated.” The ability of wealthy people to shelter income from taxes is a leading cause of inequality. Consider the role of real estate investments. I like the idea of wealth taxes because of their flat structure. Similarly, income taxes that are flat, with few or no deductions, a broad definition of income, and everyone pays…is appealing to me. At the end of the day though, revenue alone won’t solve it, we have to cut spending and live within our mean.

Malee · February 18, 2019, 8:27am

hpracing007:

Schopenhauer:

hpracing007:

I disagree, I paid taxes on it already, they got theirs, why should it be taken from my estate just because I didn’t want to spend it?

Right? Just because I want to buy a pack of gum, there’s this bullshit sales tax. The state just taxes me because I want to freshen my breath? I already paid taxes on it when I earned it, why am I taxed when I spend it!

I get taxed when I spend money… and I should get taxes when I don’t spend money too? And that money will go to the govt and people who don’t work as hard as I do… people who can’t allocate their own capital properly.

That’s not what made America great. Why change the formula? Imagine if all these rules were in place when the country was founded, no way would it be the best and wealthiest nation in the world.

I love making and keeping money, and in theory I think what you say makes sense, except when I look at how it is working out in practice it doesn’t look so good. Everywhere you look plutocrats and their entitled children are amassing ever larger fortunes, and essentially ruining everything. I suspect these are the same “global elites” that you rail against so often on this board.

Greenman72 · February 19, 2019, 1:03pm

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

anon47629474 · February 19, 2019, 2:09pm

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

the obvious solution here is for you to try and impregnate one of them. all those hours in the gym 'bout to pay off.

Schopenhauer · February 19, 2019, 2:54pm

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

Weird flex, but ok.

frisian · February 19, 2019, 3:48pm

Why?

Also, how would a wealth tax affect you personally? I assume it wouldn’t affect you directly, but there might be a variety of indirect drawbacks and benefits that can be interesting to think about.

Schopenhauer · February 19, 2019, 5:48pm

Can you explain this? I’m curious how impacting a billionaires’ paper wealth destroys utiliity.

The company that exists isn’t really impacted and the multiplier effect dictates that gov’t spending leads to more GDP growth.

Black_Swan · February 19, 2019, 5:56pm

Yes, this. The company still is unaffected (shares are still out there), but you’re doing things like patching the massive Trump deficit, funding infrastructure (major positive utility) and creating better opportunities for disadvantaged workforce. There is this cover your ears and scream “lalalala” capitalism argument going on right now that ignores that our economic structure has grown eerily similar to the 1920’s one of unconstrained capitalism and inequality on many metrics that birthed the great depression. From there we had crazy high marginal tax rates and anti-trust corporate busting that ushered in a new era of growth for the US (that coincided with the time when America was great) and middle class expansion, but then in the last 30 years you have these mid-lower class rubes that basically lobby for 1% rights under the lie that it’s their income at stake and lack any accurate historical perspective of growth, economic structure and tax rates.

GorillaNerd · February 19, 2019, 6:13pm

taxes are arbitrary. everything is made up.

worst case you make it up.

best case you let them do it conservatively.

anyways taxes are a good thing for 95% of the population. the fact that shit cant get passed is because most people are idiots and dont know better.

the idea that poor people even pay taxes is retarded. the majority of what they pay is nothing. i think people just put it there so that every poor idiot thinks that taxes are bad.

Sweep_the_Leg · February 19, 2019, 6:21pm

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

Weird flex, but ok.

I don’t see how this is flexing. You think Greenie is showing off by stating he does the taxes for a company/estate that generates $15mm a year in revenue? That would indeed be a weird flex if he was trying to impress us with that comment, but I don’t think that was his intent.

brain_wash_your_face · February 19, 2019, 6:45pm

Sweep_the_Leg:

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

Weird flex, but ok.

I don’t see how this is flexing. You think Greenie is showing off by stating he does the taxes for a company/estate that generates $15mm a year in revenue? That would indeed be a weird flex if he was trying to impress us with that comment, but I don’t think that was his intent.

Indeed, this meme was shoehorned here.

Sweep_the_Leg · February 19, 2019, 6:51pm

Only in academic theory. In reality, taxes collected are diminished by inefficiencies (e.g. the IRS provide negative utility) and deadweight loss. You’re lucky if 0.70 cents on the dollar actually makes it through the system. You may be fine with that loss, “70% of a wealthy guy’s money going to someone who will spend it is better than it sitting on his balance sheet forever!” But that’s ignores several possible negative impacts, including - most dangerously - inflation. It’s a pretty easy picture to paint. Take from the rich and give to the poor and lower middle class. This shifts the demand curve and prices go up as a result. Has wealth actually been created? Likely not, and you’ve disincentivized becoming wealthy in the process.

Redistribution of wealth is about the worst way to close the wealth gap. It would be wiser to consider why the middle class is struggling and tackle those issues. Why are they burdened with so much debt? How do we lower the cost of healthcare? Can we fix the entitlement programs to lower the national debt burden thereby allowing us to lower taxes for everyone? Those are just a few examples to help people keep the money they earn. We still need to address the fact that America’s middle class has steadily declined as we shifted away from a country that manufactures goods to a service-based economy. What are the “assembly line” jobs of the future? Is America positioned to foster these jobs and is our population educated and trained properly to seize the opportunity?

None of these are easy questions to answer which is why it’s much more popular to say “tax the rich and give to the poor.” Unfortunately that doesn’t fix the root cause of the problem and leads to a whole different set of unintended consequences we’d leave behind for our grandkids to fix.

Schopenhauer · February 19, 2019, 6:57pm

Sweep_the_Leg:

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

Weird flex, but ok.

I don’t see how this is flexing. You think Greenie is showing off by stating he does the taxes for a company/estate that generates $15mm a year in revenue? That would indeed be a weird flex if he was trying to impress us with that comment, but I don’t think that was his intent.

What do you think the take-away from his post should be?

S2000magician · February 19, 2019, 6:59pm

Schopenhauer:

Sweep_the_Leg:

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

So…I just got finished doing a tax return for the “John Doe Estate Partnership”. Mr. Doe (a Yankee) came to Midland in 1942, bought some land (complete with mineral interests) and now, some 75 years later, that land is still producing oil. In fact, it produced $15m worth of oil in 2018.

Of course, Mr. Doe has long since passed away, but his kids, kids’ kids, and kids’ kids’ kids still get to cash checks every year of $210k to $1.4m. They do absolutely nothing to earn that money. They get paid merely because they exist.

Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not supporting the Warren Tax Plan or AOConomics. I understand get where they’re coming from. But having Mr. Doe’s entitled great-great-grandchild cash a $300k check for doing absolutely nothing is still better than trickle-up socialism.

Weird flex, but ok.

I don’t see how this is flexing. You think Greenie is showing off by stating he does the taxes for a company/estate that generates $15mm a year in revenue? That would indeed be a weird flex if he was trying to impress us with that comment, but I don’t think that was his intent.

What do you think the take-away from his post should be?

Eminent domain.

Black_Swan · February 19, 2019, 7:15pm

Sweep_the_Leg:

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

How do you collect the tax? If I’m worth $10b, then my 3% tax is $300m. I would imagine that most of the super-wealthy don’t have that kind of cash available–not even for a one-time tax. And that’s going to be an ongoing requirement. I’ve got to come up with $300m every single year–assuming my wealth stays the same. The only way to come up with the cash to pay the tax is to start selling assets–which will be costly and ultimately destructive in nature.

Can you explain this? I’m curious how impacting a billionaires’ paper wealth destroys utiliity.

The company that exists isn’t really impacted and the multiplier effect dictates that gov’t spending leads to more GDP growth.

Only in academic theory. In reality, taxes collected are diminished by inefficiencies (e.g. the IRS provide negative utility) and deadweight loss. You’re lucky if 0.70 cents on the dollar actually makes it through the system. You may be fine with that loss, “70% of a wealthy guy’s money going to someone who will spend it is better than it sitting on his balance sheet forever!” But that’s ignores several possible negative impacts, including - most dangerously - inflation. It’s a pretty easy picture to paint. Take from the rich and give to the poor and lower middle class. This shifts the demand curve and prices go up as a result. Has wealth actually been created? Likely not, and you’ve disincentivized becoming wealthy in the process.

Redistribution of wealth is about the worst way to close the wealth gap. It would be wiser to consider why the middle class is struggling and tackle those issues. Why are they burdened with so much debt? How do we lower the cost of healthcare? Can we fix the entitlement programs to lower the national debt burden thereby allowing us to lower taxes for everyone? Those are just a few examples to help people keep the money they earn. We still need to address the fact that America’s middle class has steadily declined as we shifted away from a country that manufactures goods to a service-based economy. What are the “assembly line” jobs of the future? Is America positioned to foster these jobs and is our population educated and trained properly to seize the opportunity?

None of these are easy questions to answer which is why it’s much more popular to say “tax the rich and give to the poor.” Unfortunately that doesn’t fix the root cause of the problem and leads to a whole different set of unintended consequences we’d leave behind for our grandkids to fix.

I outlined clearly how redistribution via high taxes and antitrust fixes those underlying issues above. It’s actually not the worst method and fixing infrastructure / stimulus (which there is no private sector equivalent for) has major positive externalities and multiplier effects (that compensate for any govt loss). People have routinely ignored those points because frankly they have no response.
The “but inflation” boogieman in a world with slowing population growth and in some aspects facing decline is largely a red herring. Inflation is and has been structurally declining for some time. We also have a thing to manage it and inflation / stimulus from wealth distribution increasing demand and velocity and thus paving the way for a path for more fed hikes is hardly a negative.
Ultimately I was actually laughing out loud for the the last part it was so bad about lowering tax burden for the lower income category (they are net tax takers) by reducing govt debt burden on the govt by cutting the entitlements that specifically benefit the lowest brackets. That literally does nothing to improve the structural issues in labor and if anything exacerbates it.

Image result for us inflation by year

Black_Swan · February 19, 2019, 7:13pm

Funny how everyone keeps continually ignoring the parallels of the 1910-1950 economic cycle (wealth dispersion and accumulation at the top under industrial revolution, slow growth, great depression, leap in taxes on wealthy to 95% of income, growth surge, middle class boom) and what followed for decades. Or the points about economic structure and tax structure.

Schopenhauer · February 19, 2019, 7:14pm

Sweep_the_Leg:

Schopenhauer:

Greenman72:

How do you collect the tax? If I’m worth $10b, then my 3% tax is $300m. I would imagine that most of the super-wealthy don’t have that kind of cash available–not even for a one-time tax. And that’s going to be an ongoing requirement. I’ve got to come up with $300m every single year–assuming my wealth stays the same. The only way to come up with the cash to pay the tax is to start selling assets–which will be costly and ultimately destructive in nature.

Can you explain this? I’m curious how impacting a billionaires’ paper wealth destroys utiliity.

The company that exists isn’t really impacted and the multiplier effect dictates that gov’t spending leads to more GDP growth.

Only in academic theory. In reality, taxes collected are diminished by inefficiencies (e.g. the IRS provide negative utility) and deadweight loss. You’re lucky if 0.70 cents on the dollar actually makes it through the system. You may be fine with that loss, “70% of a wealthy guy’s money going to someone who will spend it is better than it sitting on his balance sheet forever!” But that’s ignores several possible negative impacts, including - most dangerously - inflation. It’s a pretty easy picture to paint. Take from the rich and give to the poor and lower middle class. This shifts the demand curve and prices go up as a result. Has wealth actually been created? Likely not, and you’ve disincentivized becoming wealthy in the process.

Redistribution of wealth is about the worst way to close the wealth gap. It would be wiser to consider why the middle class is struggling and tackle those issues. Why are they burdened with so much debt? How do we lower the cost of healthcare? Can we fix the entitlement programs to lower the national debt burden thereby allowing us to lower taxes for everyone? Those are just a few examples to help people keep the money they earn. We still need to address the fact that America’s middle class has steadily declined as we shifted away from a country that manufactures goods to a service-based economy. What are the “assembly line” jobs of the future? Is America positioned to foster these jobs and is our population educated and trained properly to seize the opportunity?

None of these are easy questions to answer which is why it’s much more popular to say “tax the rich and give to the poor.” Unfortunately that doesn’t fix the root cause of the problem and leads to a whole different set of unintended consequences we’d leave behind for our grandkids to fix.

I realize that none of these questions are easy to answer, but as of now there’s only 1 real outstanding answer in this thread. We need to have things to increase productivity among the working class. Things like better public education, universal healthcare, and universal childcare. However, these things cost money and unless you believe in MMT (lol) then taxes have to be increased. A wealth tax is a theoretical solution to this problem.

How do you propose that we are able to solve the issues you describe? Saying that they are complicated isn’t an answer – they need to be addressed now, and changed in the future when more research on the actions are done.

GorillaNerd · February 19, 2019, 7:37pm

here are the numbers:

20 trillion debt

4 trillion budget cost

3 trillion tax revenue

1 trillion deficit

950b spent on ss

600b spent on medicare

375b spent on medicaid

263b on interest (a 1% increase in rates will increase cost by 165b)

about 50% of our budget is on ss/medi. we are taking from the rich so that sick and old people can live. so when we think of entitlements, this is the majority of it.

solutions:

tax the current rich. (operation robin hood)

2.make the young more productive, so we can tax them more later. (operation avocado toast)

kill the poor. (operation duterte)
bring heathcare costs down (operation dr dre)

orlando bloom once said, “what man is a man that does not make the world better”

under the repubs it is apparenly a dead man! where mr = mc!

https://youtu.be/jFwOqkYWM_g?t=71

gates opinion below!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-17/gates-says-capital-gain-taxes-best-way-to-tap-big-fortunes

Schopenhauer · February 19, 2019, 7:30pm

A+ names for the operations.

Sweep_the_Leg · February 19, 2019, 7:53pm

That’s because we skip over your posts most of the time. Like the one above this one. I know it was directed at me and I still couldn’t get through it.