this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
-28 points (13.2% liked)

Conservative

391 readers
90 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-28
The Billionaires Tax Is Back (newrepublic.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

These are the stupid ideas the Democrats come up with. There are three billionaires in Oregon. Three. If this passes I suspect they will just move.

At the federal level, this would be unconstitutional.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's an excellent idea.

Wyden believes that the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be generated from this tax could be used to shore up funding for Social Security and Medicare, both of which are facing impending shortfalls, or address childcare needs.

A billionaire's tax could increase tax revenues, contributing to a lower budget deficit. In fact, that's how I know conservative politicians aren't serious about the budget deficit: they quite literally never propose to increase tax revenue, only decrease social spending. Like this next budget showdown coming up at the beginning of the year will feature another crappy Republican budget that seeks to cut everything and leave Mike Johnson with an even worse career as Speaker than McCarthy.

While it might make for a good conversation-starter, recent history proves that such a proposal would be unlikely to make it through Congress, even if Democrats controlled both chambers once more.

Yeah, basically all wealth redistribution policies are dead on arrival regardless of the party holding Congress. Blatant wealth redistribution to regular people through taxation is somehow a taboo policy....but let a fossil fuel lobbyist ask for tax cuts, and suddenly the entire business class gets a permanent one.

[–] PizzaMan 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fuck em. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. There is no way to get that type of money without fucking other people over.

This should be done as a land tax IMO, but whatever.

[–] aelwero -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The ruling entity, whatever it whoever it is, will never give the proceeds back.

The courts just ordered guiliani to cough up the lifetime earnings of 100 average Americans... he's a career politician, a consummate professional among the american ruling class. This is who you're suggesting gets to put their hands in those pockets.

What's the point? The point is that they've already got their hands in YOUR pockets, they're already accustomed to spending twice as much as they get out of your pockets, and giving them a windfall like that is just gonna raise the bar on how much they're able to spend, and when the billionaires get bled dry, they're gonna eventually look deeper into everyone else's pockets...

It's a fucking bad idea... We the people are not going to inherit the means of production, the spendy ass ruling class professional politicians will, and you're out of your fucking mind if you think they're gonna give it back. Giving them permission to raid pockets with abandon is invariably going to put your own pocket in those crosshairs. It's already in those crosshairs...

[–] PizzaMan 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I am not suggesting that a land tax is the only part of fixing the billionare problem.

I'm 50/50 on whether it will ever be possible for the U.S. to fix the problem of money being a part of politics without a straight up 2nd revolution.

As for your "hands in pockets" thing, we are running a deficit every fucking time. That needs fixed. We can't just not solve it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How is taxing billionaires unconstitutional?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Where in the constitution does it allow taxation of wealth? It doesn’t.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is it prohibited?

If not, where in the constitution does it say that eating ice cream is legal?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes it’s prohibited. We had to add an amendment to allow taxation and wealth was not included.

Have you ever read the amendment ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, I haven't read the USA constitution.

Odd that the constitution prohibit taxation based on income levels

Don't you have tax brackets or anything in the USA? What about taxes on stocks and stuff like that?

I guess another amendment should be in order.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes, we have tax brackets and taxes on sold stocks. That is income which is allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Now a state could potentially do a wealth tax but the federal government cannot. I am not a fan when senators push unconstitutional ideas for brownie points. It would need an amendment to do it and it would never pass.

Democrats keep trying to push unrealized gains taxes which is a horrible idea.

Let's say you own a stock and it goes up in value and now you are a billionaire. When that stock is sold, you pay taxes on the gain. That is fair.

What the Democrats are proposing is you pay taxes on the stock even though it could drop to 0 tomorrow. That is unfair. That would cause the stock market to collapse which would destroy retirement accounts and pensions. Democrats don't get stocks are what drive pensions and 401k. They influence the stock market more than billionaires.

Normally the stock sales would be a capital gain. That has a lower tax rate. They should allow something like 300K in capital gains per year then the rest would be ordinary income tax with social security, etc taken out.

ETA: This is just a politician pandering for attention. It is look at the 'evil' billionaires. I could give two shits about them. They do not impact my life.

What I do care about is the politicians who don't do shit and want to point the finger at other people.

Elon was attacked by Warran and Bernie that he didn't pay enough in taxes. The two idiots didn't realize his income was 1 dollar. How much taxes should he pay on 1 dollar? That in my opinion is a loophole we need to fix but that is another story. They always want to point the finger but can't be bothered to realize they look silly.

In most years we all make more than Elon.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Stupid democrat idea: tax people that won't even feel it, vs. stupid republican idea:

https://taxjustice.net/faq/does-cutting-taxes-boost-the-economy/ "Does cutting taxes boost the economy and lead to more taxes? Cutting taxes does not boost economic growth nor lead to more taxes being collected. The notion that it does, known as the Laffer Curve hypothesis, has been widely discredited. Late President George H.W. Bush described the hypothesis as “voodoo economics”.

The Laffer Curve – named after economist Arthur Laffer who drew his theory in the form of a graph on the back of a napkin for Dick Cheney, who would later become U.S. Vice-President and popularise the hypothesis – predicts that cutting taxes ultimately increases tax revenues by creating an explosion of economic dynamism and reduces tax avoidance."

It's been tried for years and it hasn't worked. It doesn't work. The only people who benefit from lower taxes are the crooks who keep calling for more tax cuts.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

After every tax cut we see an increase in revenue.

So yes, it does work.

Can you show the math where it doesn’t ?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

The article is misstating the Laffer curve but considering it is coming for a left site I am not surprised. The Laffer curve isn't as simple as cut taxes and revenue will increase.

It is about finding the right place for taxes to increase the revenue.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Maybe instead of citing a lefty site, you should actually read what it is.

It suggests that taxes could be too low or too high to produce maximum revenue and both a 0% income tax rate and a 100% income tax rate generate $0 in receipts.

It's why it's a curve and not a line.