We agree on that question and I have raised it myself. They need to tone down that message it will turn off a lot of voters IMO.
And how do you propose this is done? So you propose cutting off someone who pays taxes and has a right to that stuff just because they have a lot of money. How do you think the consumers will be effected by this. This really shows a lot of ignorance.
Yes, they should be “allowed” to exist. They should also be heavily taxed. They were, to a large degree, prior to President Reagan’s massive tax cuts. Tax them heavily again.
but they will just leave and take their $ with them (just look at france after their 75% tax rate) and on the flipside you will have trouble attracting capital into the country
Structure the tax code in such a way that if they do “leave,” yet are making their money in this country, they will still pay.
when the $400M guy and the $1B guy have a meeting, the $400M guy has to travel to visit the $1B guy's house out of deference
they will leave. and if you try to confiscate their assets in a "Hotel California" type scenario, it will dissolve confidence in the US. US dollar strength is predicated on confidence in the US govt -- the only major govt worldwide that still has not demonitized to date, they will honor even the oldest dollars and coins as legal tender or trade-in for legal tender. US financial markets trading at obscene multiples are a magnet for capital flows from europe/japan/china right now b/c of confidence in US govt and its stability, including its tax laws. mess with that and the ponzi probably collapses
I’m not for “confiscating” their wealth, just taxing the hell out of them, like the IRS did before Reagan. They were still rolling in it. I would close the loopholes that existed before Ronnie, however. Loopholes are the work of the Devil ;-)
the top tax rate was much higher before gipper true, but as you mention the loopholes made the effective tax rate not much more than what it is today. but this is only one side of the situation. the US govt can collect 100% tax on top 1% earners and it's still going to make little difference to the national debt picture (or the much much larger unfunded liabilities like SS/medicare). govt spending on things like corruption, military, prisons, etc needs to be drastically reduced. collecting more tax revenue is just going to end up w/ the opposite of the intended effect by stifling growth
The problem, which I alluded to earlier, is the gap between their ability to escape and the legislation being passed. Let's say Bernie wins in November and somehow all the sociailist candidates win and they control the house and a super majority in the senate. The election is November 3rd... Bernie doesn't go into office until January 20th. You can obtain another passport within that time and rennounce your citizenship. Yes, you have to pay the exit tax, but that is just the current capital gains rate calculated as if you sold all your assets and paid capital gains on any outstanding profits. So if you have 4 billion in stock with a 1 billion dollar gain you pay 200 million and you are free and clear with your 3.8 billion and you don't even have to actually sell the stock. They just pretend you do and pay taxes based on the gain on the day you rennounce. Also, the time it actually takes to pass bills in this country and how we handle our tax system is a problem. Whenever they implement a change in the tax code it always starts the following year. That gives a wealthy person plenty of time to get their ducks in a row. The other big problem is 1/3 the stock market and even more in the bond market is foreign owned. They can yank that money out in a matter of hours. No need to rennounce citizenship or whatever... call their broker or log into their account and boom... money is gone and all they owe is capital gains.
regarding your last paragraph, already based off of bernie's strong showing this weekend, financial markets are poised to crater the next few days (they would have likely gone down to the same levels anyways, but bernie is the catalyst excuse to move now). point is, capital moves in an instant to wherever it feels safest. this has been the case going back millennia
Who are all these “socialists” of whom you speak? I only know of Bernie and a handful of others, who are in the House. I couldn’t name any who look like they will be running for Congress in 2020, having won their primaries, and I’m a Democrat. With all due respect, this sounds like paranoia from the trump camp that they want you to believe. There is quite a difference between a progressive/liberal Democrat, and moderate Democrats, who outnumber the other two. There are even some conservative Democrats, believe it or not. There is a bizarre idea going around as to what exactly a Democrat is. Heck, these days, you are lucky to find self-identified Democrats in D&D. I’m one of the few that I’m aware of. I’m sure there are more, but they don’t usually say so. Democrats, more than the GOP used to be decades ago, even back in the 50’s and 60’s, are made up of a wide spectrum of political inclinations. Many couldn’t tell you just what they consider themselves to be in the way of being a Democrat. Any serious attempt to lump us altogether is, with all due respect, ludicrous. It’s one of the advantages the GOP, a minority party, have over Democrats. We spend as much time fighting each other as we do “fighting” with Republicans. I wish I was kidding.
I dunno, one of the problems more recently is that many of the billionaires themselves have become anti capitalism, eschewing it in practice, whilst promoting it in rhetoric. They want the government to act as their parachute on the downside whilst protecting their market for them.
Loopholes like where Trump’s family’s wealth and inheritance came from. Trump’s dad was notorious for taking advantage of the tax system
National sales tax or VAT. Let the 1% incorporate in Turks and Caicos or wherever the **** they want. Could/would that be revenue neutral? I have no idea, way above my pay grade.
Probably needs a VAT, simply because of how easy it is to dodge it when it isn't. Though i'm sure the billionaires will get their left wing activists on payroll to argue that "it's a tax on the poor", what seems to happen is people buy all their household goods (tvs etc) in the months before the tax is implemented, they jump their price, they sell nothing, then prices come slinking down to what they were and they begrudgingly eat most of it (Europe is good for watching this, because their countries are constantly upping VAT). Putting a tax on something doesn't get people to pay more than what they could before, and they'd charge you more now if they thought you'd pay for it, the exception to it seems to be food (or really anything you can't delay/put off), but most places with VATs have lower or no VAT on fresh food.
