Holy crap: Trump might be a republican I would vote for (INCOME INEQUALITY)

[IHateMyJob2004]

If Trump proposes a wealth tax that everyone having over 5 million dollars in total wealth will be taxed at 10% per year over 5 million in wealth, then he might have a good income equality plan. Otherwise it's a farce.

The problem with that is how do you quantify net wealth? What about people that have structured their personal properties as a business for protections? I know of a guy who owns a large construction company. His summer place is probably worth $50 million. But his company owns it, not him.

Rich people have wealth in places that are not necessarily their personal accounts. Even landscapers that buy trucks under a business use those trucks for personal use. It's usually their primary vehicle.

You'd pretty much have to tax income, not net wealth. And that is fine. The ultra wealthy make millions in dividends for doing nothing. Tax those dividends more once you earn over $250K in dividends or some other made up number that is beyond "middle class income".

 

[Attic]

If Trump proposes a wealth tax that everyone having over 5 million dollars in total wealth will be taxed at 10% per year over 5 million in wealth, then he might have a good income equality plan. Otherwise it's a farce.

Tax changes won't do it. Look who controls tax laws.

Give every adult a campaign contribution coupon. For elections. Fund this from the general fund. Everyone gets an equal amount of leverage on their contributions to the political process. They can decide to not use the coupon, but they can not sell it.


Then print money in an amount agreeable, and based upon the extent of wealth inequality in the USA, to give to the lower and middle class in order to effectively limit the inequality and eviscerate the value of the dollar.

Eventually print less if the balance is restored.


Not 100% serious, but we need new thinking on wealth inequality in the USA. Taxes won't do it, and the main problem starts with campaign contributions and lobbyists.

 

[senseamp]

Wall Street Journal Republicans are freaking out about Trump talking about inequality and unfair tax code.

 

[Attic]

Wall Street Journal Republicans are freaking out about Trump talking about inequality and unfair tax code.

Yes. But Trump has always had 0% chance.


The powers that be are pining for a Bush vs Clinton election, that way nothing changes.

 

[sm625]

Most people dont know what causes income inequality. I doubt Trump knows it any better than the people willing to vote for him.

 

[Genx87]

If Trump proposes a wealth tax that everyone having over 5 million dollars in total wealth will be taxed at 10% per year over 5 million in wealth, then he might have a good income equality plan. Otherwise it's a farce.

If he had a plan like that it would destroy the investment markets. He would also come off as the worlds biggest moron.

 

[glenn1]

Not 100% serious, but we need new thinking on wealth inequality in the USA. Taxes won't do it, and the main problem starts with campaign contributions and lobbyists.

Wealth inequality has as much to do with how people spend their money as how much they make. That's why you see professional athletes who are broke a couple years after leaving the sport, or some guy who was a $10/hour security guard who dies and leaves his $6MM account to charity. The wealthy tend to have those good habits and the poor don't, just as those who are obese tend to not have good exercise and diet habits. Would it somehow make things better if we were to have the government "tax" the better foods of thin people to give it to the obese?

 

[Attic]

Wealth inequality has as much to do with how people spend their money as how much they make. That's why you see professional athletes who are broke a couple years after leaving the sport, or some guy who was a $10/hour security guard who dies and leaves his $6MM account to charity. The wealthy tend to have those good habits and the poor don't, just as those who are obese tend to not have good exercise and diet habits. Would it somehow make things better if we were to have the government "tax" the better foods of thin people to give it to the obese?

Absolutely true regarding spending habits and wealth accumulation.

But with median family incomes down since 2007 there are other factors in play here as well. A number of things, but ultimately we have to find a way to stop the Wall Street skim from taking productivity rewards of the many and handing it to the few.


In the undertow is a Wall Street Cartel that controls DC through contributions and lobbying.

 

[Subyman]

Stop believing the agitprop. Nobody has figured out how to eliminate tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

If anybody should be pissed at the 1%, it's the next 9%. Not the middle class. The middle class pays hardly anything in taxes.

This is true. The tax liability for people around the median tax range is not that much after deductions. The middle class is not being destroyed by an unfair tax system. An progressive tax system based on taxing the hyper wealthy is appropriate while keeping everything else nearly the same. I used to like the idea of a flat tax, but now I know it is one of the worst for income inequality.

 

[Subyman]

Also, did anyone find it entertaining that republicans cringe and yell about socialism, but then half of them up there wanted to remove the ability for wealthy people to receive their social security benefits? That is the epitome of socialism.

 

[glenn1]

Also, did anyone find it entertaining that republicans cringe and yell about socialism, but then half of them up there wanted to remove the ability for wealthy people to receive their social security benefits? That is the epitome of socialism.

How is it "socialism"? If you conceive of SS as a benefit program rather than a straight universal subsidy (albeit self-funded and delayed for payment as an annuity) it makes sense. Making it needs-tested would lead to less people receiving it, and thus reducing the amount of taxes needed to pay it. Make it the fallback for people too poor or stupid to do their own financial planning and let everyone else keep more of their own money to fund their personally-owned retirement accounts.

 

[fskimospy]

This is true. The tax liability for people around the median tax range is not that much after deductions. The middle class is not being destroyed by an unfair tax system. An progressive tax system based on taxing the hyper wealthy is appropriate while keeping everything else nearly the same. I used to like the idea of a flat tax, but now I know it is one of the worst for income inequality.

This is actually surprisingly untrue. The US FEDERAL tax system is fairly progressive, but the US tax system as a whole (state, local, fees, etc) is only mildly progressive at best.

 

[mxnerd]

Jeb Bush claimed Donal Trump wanted to open a casino in Florida. Trump denied it. Saying he would have got it.

Guess who is lying here?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-gambling-casinos-florida/

Trump should shut his casino down to prove that he wants to resolve income equality one bit.

 

[werepossum]

While I'd be all for vastly reducing our military operations, why should the military be the only thing singled out? If we're willing to commit troops to battle why should we need to "pass the hat" for them but all the social programs roll merrily on without a care? Social welfare and entitlement programs should have "skin in the game" in the exact same way and it should be a global reconsideration of every priority the government spends money on.

The military wouldn't be singled out, only wars. Otherwise the military would function like every other department or program. We all already have skin in the game for normal budget items, but Congress and/or POTUS are able to add military adventures without adding to that cost. I think that if you are going to drop bombs on people or send tanks to blow them up, you should be able to convince the American public that it is good and necessary.

That's my feeling as well. Nothing he says about his position on issues has any value at this stage. He is playing a reality TV show contestant and is saying what he needs to say to make it past the next round of cast-offs.

Which is exactly as true for every other candidate, even <gasp> Bernie Sanders.

The problem with that is how do you quantify net wealth? What about people that have structured their personal properties as a business for protections? I know of a guy who owns a large construction company. His summer place is probably worth $50 million. But his company owns it, not him.

Rich people have wealth in places that are not necessarily their personal accounts. Even landscapers that buy trucks under a business use those trucks for personal use. It's usually their primary vehicle.

You'd pretty much have to tax income, not net wealth. And that is fine. The ultra wealthy make millions in dividends for doing nothing. Tax those dividends more once you earn over $250K in dividends or some other made up number that is beyond "middle class income".

This is something that really needs to be addressed. If a company makes something like that available to every employee, fine. If it is only available to (or only used by) a subset of employees, then it should be a taxable benefit to those employees.

 

[werepossum]

If he had a plan like that it would destroy the investment markets. He would also come off as the worlds biggest moron.

And assuming it remained in place, the USA would be a poor third world nation within ten years.

Hint for proggies: Rich people tend to not be stupid people. If you want to rob them - and you know you do - best do it all at once, 'cause when you come back next year they'll be gone.

 

[Mai72]

Are you willing to double your taxes.

Have you sent the difference in to charity to assist some others?

Soaking the 1% is not going to solve the problem.

As long as those that do not have everything that some else has; there will be cries of inequity.

You want more; earn it.

I couldn't agree more. The immigrants who are legally migrating into America could give a rats ass when it comes to inequality. They are only concerned with making bank. Working 12-16 hours a day. The rest of us are worried about getting frekin weekends off. "Oh, but I can't work more than 40 hours. I'll miss The Walking Dead."

Maybe it's because I've had the chance to travel and actually live in other parts of the world. I've come to really appreciate my country. America is still an amazing place to live in. There are more millionaires made here than any other country.

I've talked with immigrants who have opened their own businees. Many are very successful. Why can someone who can barely speak English do so well in America, while many native born Americans are having such a difficult time. It's because they hustle. They will do what it takes to be successful. They aren't wasting energy on trivial matters like income inequality, and they aren't spending their hours watching Netflix and playing games on their PS4. We should all take a page from their work ethic.

 

[Mai72]

And assuming it remained in place, the USA would be a poor third world nation within ten years.

Hint for proggies: Rich people tend to not be stupid people. If you want to rob them - and you know you do - best do it all at once, 'cause when you come back next year they'll be gone.

Yep. The rich will just take their assets and move. That's the power of money. You get to have choices that many of us don't have in life.

You people are nuts if you think Trump is going to do something for the middle class. The middle class is shrinking faster than the Titanic.

 

[blake0812]

My main problem with the tax code is it was written for a different time. People with huge assets have figured out a way to almost eliminate their tax burden, its irritating that money made from labor is taxed differently than profits on investments, its irritating that enormous companies can manipulate the code to not only pay zero taxes but get refunds.
I'd like a complete overhaul and this time build in an expiration date so it forces legislatures to address it again at a later date.

That's actually a really good idea.

 

[Regs]

That's actually a really good idea.

Rewriting tax code or voting out lazy ass legislators that no one knew about until the day before an election?

 

[fskimospy]

That's actually a really good idea.

Businesses would mutiny over that and it would cause extremely damaging instability.

Trying to run a company where you have absolutely no idea what your tax situation will be next year would be a nightmare.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Businesses would mutiny over that and it would cause extremely damaging instability.

Trying to run a company where you have absolutely no idea what your tax situation will be next year would be a nightmare.

I was talking like a decade out or 15 years out not yearly.

 

[fskimospy]

I was talking like a decade out or 15 years out not yearly.

Even so though, what happens if Congress doesn't pass a new tax bill until year 14.9? (and you know they would pull this whole brinksmanship crap)

Also, 15 year investments aren't that long. Sure the tax code can always change now too, but having the certainty that it will change a lot a few years in the future would do a lot to discourage investment I think.

 

[sm625]

The wealthy tend to have those good habits and the poor don't, just as those who are obese tend to not have good exercise and diet habits.

Yes that's right. People who are poor are poor because they are LAZY and stupid. It's not because the Federal Reserve prints $4 trillion and gives it to the rich.

 

[chowderhead]

Wall Street Journal Republicans are freaking out about Trump talking about inequality and unfair tax code.

for years, the Republicans have built part of their base on lower/middle working class whites in the South and Midwest who feel they are being left behind in this economy and that "others" are taking from them while they and their families are falling further behind. That is one prong of the Republican base (the other two being religious/social conservatives and establishment country club/wall street types). Santorum and others such as Huckabee have tried to rally this part of the Republican base by running on a more populist theme but they can never get traction because the establishment/Wall Street Journal types where the bulk of the campaign money comes from would never fund them. Trump can run on a populist message and upend the establishment because he will not need their money to fund a campaign. We will see if that is enough as the media is itching to write the downfall of Trump. They have repeatedly proclaimed his demise and have so far been wrong each time.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Even so though, what happens if Congress doesn't pass a new tax bill until year 14.9? (and you know they would pull this whole brinksmanship crap)

Also, 15 year investments aren't that long. Sure the tax code can always change now too, but having the certainty that it will change a lot a few years in the future would do a lot to discourage investment I think.

Just figure out a fair time frame. Brinksmanship is fairly new good chance it wouldn't happen and if it does get close they'll be pressured to do something if voters and businesses are impacted.
My overall point is its not reasonable to think a tax code will stimulate what needs to be done and keep it for all eternity. You adjust your life as times change, businesses adjust their goals, products and budgets as thing change.