Elizabeth Warren billionaire tax calculator broken?

[Zorba]

Of course it's fucking broken. When's the last time a politician said something would cost a certain amount and it didn't cost three times as much or more? I mean seriously can anyone give me an example in the last decade were this actually didn't happened?
When's the last time a government controlled agency actually came in on budget or god forbid UNDER budget. It ain't rocket science guys. She's full of shit.

I'm pretty sure ACA came in under budget.

 

[rommelrommel]

I'm not addressing that, I'm addressing your assertion that there is no imaginable tax rate that would cause capital flight.

Where would it go? To literally any more tax friendly jurisdiction of which there are many of similar prosperity and stability that don't have wealth tax.

You seem to perceive any caution on the subject of massive tax increases to be rejection of tax increases in general which is not my opinion.

I think a 3% tax on wealth over 1 billion is a reasonable start... 6% would be too much off the bat IMO especially with her increases in capital gains and income.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not addressing that, I'm addressing your assertion that there is no imaginable tax rate that would cause capital flight.

Where would it go? To literally any more tax friendly jurisdiction of which there are many of similar prosperity and stability that don't have wealth tax.

You seem to perceive any caution on the subject of massive tax increases to be rejection of tax increases in general which is not my opinion.

I think a 3% tax on wealth over 1 billion is a reasonable start... 6% would be too much off the bat IMO especially with her increases in capital gains and income.

Then you are addressing a straw man. We aren’t talking about some ridiculous tax rate we are talking about a 6 percent increase and that’s only on money after a certain amount.

If you are concerned about 6% being too high, then why can’t you show some data that backs up your concern? Does it seem rational to be concerned about something for which we have no data for and for a tax rate this country has had at much higher levels (even if you use the effective tax rates)?

 

[zinfamous]

I get a little concerned when someone can't distinguish wealth from income, just like debt and deficit.

There's obviously a point where capital will leave, I think in general we're not taxing it enough but to raise income taxes, capital gains taxes, and institute a 6% per year wealth tax is way too much, IMO.

I might be more supportive of a one time wealth tax over 1 billion or whatever as a corrective measure but even that will probably expose how much "wealth" is really just overvalued stocks and assets.

I'm also not sure if you are just confusing salary for "all income"

 

[thilanliyan]

I'm not addressing that, I'm addressing your assertion that there is no imaginable tax rate that would cause capital flight.

Where would it go? To literally any more tax friendly jurisdiction of which there are many of similar prosperity and stability that don't have wealth tax.

Tax rates have been way higher than what has been proposed in other time periods and everyone didn't flee the country. The US and the US dollar is stable and generally predictable, while other areas with lower taxes may not be.

People with millions/billions are most likely already hiding their money in tax havens anyway lol.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Tax rates have been way higher than what has been proposed in other time periods and everyone didn't flee the country. The US and the US dollar is stable and generally predictable, while other areas with lower taxes may not be.

People with millions/billions are most likely already hiding their money in tax havens anyway lol.

You can make the tax rate 99.999999999%. That doesn't mean someone paid it when the law book is measured in books instead of pages.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

taxfoundation.org

 

[rommelrommel]

I'm also not sure if you are just confusing salary for "all income"

I literally didn’t use the quoted phrase “all income.” I also didn’t use the term salary.

Further, I’m quite comfortable with the difference between a salary and income, thanks.

 

[rommelrommel]

Then you are addressing a straw man. We aren’t talking about some ridiculous tax rate we are talking about a 6 percent increase and that’s only on money after a certain amount.

If you are concerned about 6% being too high, then why can’t you show some data that backs up your concern? Does it seem rational to be concerned about something for which we have no data for and for a tax rate this country has had at much higher levels (even if you use the effective tax rates)?

Yeah, it does seem rational. The economy is kind of a big deal.

As this is additional tax revenue of which currently zero is being collected why not try modest increases and see what the effects are?

A 6% per year wealth tax is a pretty drastic change.

It’s pretty hard to “show data” for something that’s never been tried under comparable circumstances.

However, in Europe wealth taxes have been tried in most countries and been removed for various reasons in most of the countries that tried them. I am reluctant to use EU countries as their residents have a lot more flexibility in leaving to avoid taxation.

 

[crashtech]

What's missing is the the fact that billionaires aren't ostracized in pop culture. Trying to tax inequality away using gov power ignores a fundamental problem with our culture. Not that I have an answer to the problem, but I am among those who fear punitive taxation may easily result in capital flight. Does anyone think that the solution lies more in changing attitudes before drastically changing laws?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What's missing is the the fact that billionaires aren't ostracized in pop culture. Trying to tax inequality away using gov power ignores a fundamental problem with our culture. Not that I have an answer to the problem, but I am among those who fear punitive taxation may easily result in capital flight. Does anyone think that the solution lies more in changing attitudes before drastically changing laws?

Naw dude.

Tax can't possibly have negative connotations from an economical perspective. That hasn't been tried and tested many times in the past, so don't go googling anything.

Just set the tax rate to 90% for anyone making over $1m and were good! Set the middle class speed to cruise control. We gud yo!

 

[crashtech]

Naw dude.

Tax can't possibly have negative connotations from an economical perspective. That hasn't been tried and tested many times in the past, so don't go googling anything.

Just set the tax rate to 90% for anyone making over $1m and were good! Set the middle class speed to cruise control. We gud yo!

Is this kind of glib reply really helpful? The numbers are clear, in that we have an unprecedented accumulation of wealth at the top while the middle class has been essentially on life support. Options on how to do better have been lacking from #bothsides, even while billionaires have expressed a willingness to pay more. I see a hard problem and no workable solutions in sight, especially given the fact that nobody with varying opinions can even have rational discussions with each other at this point.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Is this kind of glib reply really helpful? The numbers are clear, in that we have an unprecedented accumulation of wealth at the top while the middle class has been essentially on life support. Options on how to do better have been lacking from #bothsides, even while billionaires have expressed a willingness to pay more. I see a hard problem and no workable solutions in sight, especially given the fact that nobody with varying opinions can even have rational discussions with each other at this point.

Absolutely.

The main emphasis of "Make THEM pay more" isn't something that works. It just isn't. If you think the rich are people that just grin and bear it then you're sadly mistaken.

It's an American thing. It's a WE thing. Not a THEY thing. Until we can learn to sew division by not putting people into groups and buckets the sooner we can start to heal.

But as long as you keep playing stupid games like "It's US vs. the 1%!" you will forever continue to play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Take your pick though.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No kitty, that's my pot pie!

Mom! Kitty's being a dildo!

 

[ivwshane]

Absolutely.

The main emphasis of "Make THEM pay more" isn't something that works. It just isn't. If you think the rich are people that just grin and bear it then you're sadly mistaken.

It's an American thing. It's a WE thing. Not a THEY thing. Until we can learn to sew division by not putting people into groups and buckets the sooner we can start to heal.

But as long as you keep playing stupid games like "It's US vs. the 1%!" you will forever continue to play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Take your pick though.

It “just doesn’t work”, I’m sure you’ll be along any minute now to back that up with real data.

 

[thilanliyan]

You can make the tax rate 99.999999999%. That doesn't mean someone paid it when the law book is measured in books instead of pages.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

taxfoundation.org

I agree with you....loopholes should be closed. However, the tax rates should also be higher for high earners. As Warren Buffett put it, he's paying less than his secretary, and that isn't right.

As I said before though, lots of those people (and companies too actually) are probably using offshore tax havens already to hide income...so that also needs to be looked at.

 

[blackangst1]

Why would we attempt a tax strategy that has been tried and failed so many times? I guess the US is exempt from past failures.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why would we attempt a tax strategy that has been tried and failed so many times? I guess the US is exempt from past failures.

Let me understand, a wealth tax will fail because it failed in Europe but single payer healthcare will also fail because it works in Europe?

Did I get that righ?

 

[blackangst1]

Let me understand, a wealth tax will fail because it failed in Europe but single payer healthcare will also fail because it works in Europe?

Did I get that righ?

uh, no. You blew it. Nice duhversion attempt though.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

uh, no. You blew it. Nice duhversion attempt though.

Okay so single payer would work.

Thanks!

 

[blackangst1]

Okay so single payer would work.

Thanks!

Super. Now do you have an answer for my question or are you just diverting? single payer is not the topic of the thread.

 

[thilanliyan]

Super. Now do you have an answer for my question or are you just diverting? single payer is not the topic of the thread.

Says right in the article you linked:

ROSALSKY: Warren argues her proposal learns from the failures in Europe. She told us in an email, quote, "I specifically designed this proposal to account for lessons learned from wealth taxes in other countries," unquote. Unlike in the European Union, it's hard for Americans to freely move to another country or state and escape national taxes. On top of that, the Warren plan imposes an exit tax, which would confiscate 40 percent of a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship. But the plan's key difference, Zucman says...
ZUCMAN: It's only for people who have more than $50 million in wealth - ultra-wealthy individuals.
ROSALSKY: In Europe, the tax affected a much bigger percentage of the population. Zucman believes that helped the rich lobby for all sorts of exemptions on business assets and pensions and artwork. It made for a leaky bucket.
ZUCMAN: That's what killed, basically, the European wealth taxes - these exemptions.
ROSALSKY: But Warren says that her proposal, which has no exemptions, will play out differently in the United States. Greg Rosalsky, NPR News.

So it's not like they haven't looked at what has/has not worked in Europe. I'm not saying it will definitely work in the US, but the plan was not decided on in a bubble at least.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Says right in the article you linked:

ROSALSKY: Warren argues her proposal learns from the failures in Europe. She told us in an email, quote, "I specifically designed this proposal to account for lessons learned from wealth taxes in other countries," unquote. Unlike in the European Union, it's hard for Americans to freely move to another country or state and escape national taxes. On top of that, the Warren plan imposes an exit tax, which would confiscate 40 percent of a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship. But the plan's key difference, Zucman says...
ZUCMAN: It's only for people who have more than $50 million in wealth - ultra-wealthy individuals.
ROSALSKY: In Europe, the tax affected a much bigger percentage of the population. Zucman believes that helped the rich lobby for all sorts of exemptions on business assets and pensions and artwork. It made for a leaky bucket.
ZUCMAN: That's what killed, basically, the European wealth taxes - these exemptions.
ROSALSKY: But Warren says that her proposal, which has no exemptions, will play out differently in the United States. Greg Rosalsky, NPR News.

So it's not like they haven't looked at what has/has not worked in Europe. I'm not saying it will definitely work in the US, but the plan was not decided on in a bubble at least.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Moving from the US to Canada won’t work, moving to Mexico may work but then you are in Mexico.
In either case you end up sort of far away from friends & family not quite the same for a person moving from France to Germany.
Also wealthy people want to live in NYC or Miami or Hollywood. You just won’t find those places outside of the US unless we count France or Italy then you are back to the big taxes. Maybe Singapore or Taiwan but you plan on moving to a Communist Country as a wealthy person? Sounds sort of risky to me.
Smart move Warren has regarding renouncing your Citizenship. Per our current Congress foreigners have minimal constitutional protections.

 

[blackangst1]

Says right in the article you linked:

ROSALSKY: Warren argues her proposal learns from the failures in Europe. She told us in an email, quote, "I specifically designed this proposal to account for lessons learned from wealth taxes in other countries," unquote. Unlike in the European Union, it's hard for Americans to freely move to another country or state and escape national taxes. On top of that, the Warren plan imposes an exit tax, which would confiscate 40 percent of a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship. But the plan's key difference, Zucman says...
ZUCMAN: It's only for people who have more than $50 million in wealth - ultra-wealthy individuals.
ROSALSKY: In Europe, the tax affected a much bigger percentage of the population. Zucman believes that helped the rich lobby for all sorts of exemptions on business assets and pensions and artwork. It made for a leaky bucket.
ZUCMAN: That's what killed, basically, the European wealth taxes - these exemptions.
ROSALSKY: But Warren says that her proposal, which has no exemptions, will play out differently in the United States. Greg Rosalsky, NPR News.

So it's not like they haven't looked at what has/has not worked in Europe. I'm not saying it will definitely work in the US, but the plan was not decided on in a bubble at least.

So I guess the answer is it wont affect as many people as the failed plans in EU. Well, ok.

And the "exit tax"? LOL Absolutely unenforceable. Sounds good on paper though.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So I guess the answer is it wont affect as many people as the failed plans in EU. Well, ok.

And the "exit tax"? LOL Absolutely unenforceable. Sounds good on paper though.

Why is it unenforceable?
I totally understand assets in Uganda or China would likely never be released but wealthy people are used to a soft life. They are not moving to Uganda to avoid a 1-6% tax and moving to China puts all their assets at risk.

I’ll admit there will be someone who liquidates all their assets and move to Switzerland to avoid the tax but again liquidating everything you have at presumably a loss to do it quickly just doesn’t make sense to avoid a 1-6% tax.
Again I’m sure some maniac will do it to prove a point but that point is retarded.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So I guess the answer is it wont affect as many people as the failed plans in EU. Well, ok.

And the "exit tax"? LOL Absolutely unenforceable. Sounds good on paper though.

My thoughts exactly. I laughed my ass off at the exit tax as well.

Lol, you realize... they already left right? It's not like they are at customs at the airport and they say "Okay, sir just wire us 40% of your wealth over $1M and you can proceed".