Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% for Millionaires(www.bloomberg.com)
9 pointsby xqcgrek219 hours ago3 comments
  • 19 hours ago
    undefined
  • uejfiweun18 hours ago
    The media FUD around top tax brackets continues to astound me. I'm seeing articles saying that taxes will be hiked for "the richest americans." And then you look into it and they're actually talking about the highest earners. Which is COMPLETELY different from the "richest" people. And then there's this, where the headline reads "millionaires" and in reality it's people earning over 1m per year... basically the opposite of the first scenario.

    Are journalists really just this stupid? Do they not understand the difference between wealth and income?

    • almosthere18 hours ago
      You can't really tax wealth, most of it is not liquid. What would it mean to "tax" your ownership of stock in a company, or a property (yes property taxes already exist but don't go to the federal gov - at least I don't think they do).

      How would you "tax" Elon's ownership percentage of SpaceX for example? Would the federal government simply start owning SpaceX shares, some additional percentage each year? And how would this happen, Elon would simply start a new company in Peru, and sell SpaceX entirely to that new entity.

      • clipsy17 hours ago
        Funny how the entire middle class manages to deal with a wealth tax on their largest illiquid investment —- that is, property tax on their home —- and yet far wealthier people cannot be expected to pay a wealth tax on far more easily liquidated assets.
        • 17 hours ago
          undefined
      • thiht11 hours ago
        Sure you can. Rich people take huge loans using their wealth as collateral, just make the loans taxable when they use stocks as a collateral. Or tax loans above, say, $10 millions. Or tax the loans with exemptions, for example when buying a home.
      • yokaze16 hours ago
        It is being done in countries like Switzerland and Norway. Not exactly poor countries.

        As I understand, in both cases, the tax resident has to declare their global (netto) wealth and have to pay a small percentage (close or less than 1%) of that wealth.

        Don't you ever had tax obligations due to shares? Sell-to-cover is one solution. But I suspect at that scale you get enough dividends from these companies to cover.

      • keernan15 hours ago
        I turn 73 this year. The IRS requires me to report to them the value of my stocks and bonds as of 12/31/2024 held in my IRA. And then I am forced to liquidate a percentage of those holdings during 2025 so the IRS can collect a tax on that wealth. A genuine wealth tax.

        Let's talk for a moment about people owning 100 million dollars plus in net assets.

        First, this is the group that pays the millions of dollars needed for their "politician" to run for office. There is only one reason anyone would do such a thing: assuring they own a "member of Congress" who will vote how they say on matters of their personal concern.

        Votes on important subjects - such as who will - and will not- pay the cost of operating the government.

        Someone with 100 million dollars or more of net wealth do not need to work to survive. They are not forced to have an "income" unless they decide to have one. Their only income is 100% voluntary.

        For example, they potentially have "taxable income" if they decide to sell assets - but any such decision is very calculated and designed to transfer certain assets from one investment to another that will perform better and thus increase their wealth beyond whatever "taxable income" may be incurred.

        They do not sell assets to generate cash to purchase things. They borrow to generate cash because doing so avoids "taxable income". And most own a family bank used for just for this purpose - providing them with liquidity - without incurring taxes.

        Is it any wonder that a decision was made to use "income" as the device for deciding who will pay the cost of running the government? Income being the one thing people with 100 million or more in net assets can control and manipulate and only incur when they decide to incur it?

        It is ridiculous to suggest people worth 100 million dollars or more can't find a way to pay a wealth tax. If I can do it (as I will do every year moving forward), then people with 100 million dollars+ (eg billionaires) can certainly do so.

      • redczar18 hours ago
        The tax on capital ought to be less than the tax on labor. Capital gains taxes should be much higher. Losses should not be tax deductible for individuals. Capital should be taxed when moved out of the country.
    • 18 hours ago
      undefined