Biden Eyes New Taxes: $400K+ earners, corporate, estate, capital gains for $1M+

[rambot]

If he earned the money he can spend/waste it however he see fit.....
Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds for himself, but brought a portion and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land? 4Did it not belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!” 5On hearing these words, Ananias fell down and died. And great fear came over all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men stepped forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 7About three hours later his wife also came in, unaware of what had happened. 8“Tell me,” said Peter, “is this the price you and your husband got for the land?”

“Yes,” she answered, “that is the price.” 9“How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?” Peter replied. “Look, the feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10At that instant she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11And great fear came over the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Whose saying he can't?
The point, civilwarbuff is that he is wasting it while people REALLY REALLY need it.
So guess what happens then. If there are governments IN TUNE to the needs of their people, they will try to do things that will help those people in need. Like create wealth taxes.
If the wealthy were already sacrificing the way the middle and lower classes did, America would be a different place.

Sidebar: It seems super weird to you'd quote that story in this particular context as if to prove this tiny sliver.

 

[rambot]

I included them all.....sorry you think this is simply an R thing......

No no. I don't care which politician. I think the whole premise of the complaint is funny.

 

[Ringo84]

Great! I heartily approve. It's past time that billionaires paid what they owe in taxes.
Ringo

 

[SimplyMe]

Good ideas except for the first one. Here's why:

Currently, if a business is considering where to open it's next plant or center, it must consider that in the U.S. it will pay a high tax rate on the business itself (unless it corrupts Congress with bribes to get tax loopholes) and then employees and stock holders will then pay tax again on their earnings.

But, imports from overseas [usually] get a tax-free ride [or from most nations], coming into the American market without federal taxes.

Foreign goods come tax free into America, while we heavily tax American production.

What do you think that does to the playing field?

You're right. It's very harmful to us.

Other nations are far smarter on taxing structure: they tax all goods sold in the nation -- foreign import and domestic alike -- with a national sales tax.

Therefore, American goods we export to other nations end up paying those foreign sales taxes when competing in those other nations' markets.

That means the tax penalty of making things in America is very high. Since it is often a close call whether to expand or build in America, this difference often is the deciding factor (when the sum of other factors, like transportation, skills, etc. are close).

Our tax structure is a strong, direct incentive to ship American jobs overseas!

The net result is a tax penalty on American-made goods and services of about 15%-20% versus foreign competition.

The ideal solution: cut American business taxes to 0% and replace them with a national sales tax on all goods except a certain list of basic goods such as food and clothing. That way foreign imports would pay the same tax as American production!

I have two issues -- first is the "hidden tax" called health insurance. As long as there is no health care for all, US companies that are "forced" (having competitive benefits with other companies) to pay for employee's health care. That is a huge "tax" on American industry that companies making products in other countries do not pay.

Next, a big issue with a national sales tax is that it is regressive -- it hits the poor the hardest. There are various ways around this -- and I actually do like the idea of a national sales tax -- but there are real issues in getting it implemented in a way that will not devastate the poor, and even the middle class. Last, and why it likely will never happen, it likely will result in a recession, particularly if done poorly. Prices will almost immediately -- the price of the sales tax -- likely without wages increasing (short of the new law requiring wages to be increased by the same percentage the company is saving in taxes). With prices higher, people will be likely to save money and their money will have less "buying power."

Last, there is the point that US corporations do not pay 21%, in fact, historically companies have often paid nothing, or almost nothing due to the various loopholes built into corporate tax law. In many cases, the "disadvantage" is far less than you are claiming -- the big issues with manufacturing in the US are the cost of the workers, particularly in combination with the cost of providing those workers health care.

 

[Halbhh]

Next, a big issue with a national sales tax is that it is regressive -- it hits the poor the hardest.

Hi there SM. Good to see you. I first got interested in this about 10 years ago, and because most of the rich, industrialized nations of the world have been using a VAT (or national sales tax).

Of course, it won't be a surprise to hear the poor in those nations -- almost every nation in the world that is industrialized -- aren't doing so bad as one might fear naively without learning more. But in that post you responded to I did touch very briefly on one basic thing already used across the U.S. -- across our nation already in current sales taxes typically food and clothing are excluded.

But that's only a start of detail. There's more. I didn't want to write a lengthy post. I'm a bit busy at the moment, and will try to return to it later.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I have two issues -- first is the "hidden tax" called health insurance. As long as there is no health care for all, US companies that are "forced" (having competitive benefits with other companies) to pay for employee's health care. That is a huge "tax" on American industry that companies making products in other countries do not pay.

I'm always amazed that people in the US who are against universal government-provided health care don't understand this point. Universal HC not only helps people, it helps business as well.

Next, a big issue with a national sales tax is that it is regressive -- it hits the poor the hardest. There are various ways around this -- and I actually do like the idea of a national sales tax -- but there are real issues in getting it implemented in a way that will not devastate the poor, and even the middle class.

What you really need is not a national sales tax but a national consumption tax. Broadening the tax base counteracts the need for higher tax rates, so generally (certainly in Australia) the GST ends up being far lower than the old sales tax rates were. It is also fairer, since it taxes services that previously escaped sales taxes. To offset the potential hit on the poor, certain essentials such as food, education and medications are tax-free. Overall it's been a resounding success here. You also get rid of the ridiculous situation that often occurs in the US where you have no idea of the price of an item until you buy it - firstly because the tax rate is always 10%, and secondly because it is illegal to quote prices without the tax added.

 

[mark46]

This seems like a bill to please the left. It has little chance of getting any Republican votes, and (as the $15 minimum wage) seems unlikely to have the support of all the Democrats.

There will be several of these bills.

The plan is to hope that consistent Republican obstructionism (with zero votes) will help Schumer pressure the Democrats to cave on the filibuster.

The filibuster rule change so as to not include voting rights and civil rights legislation. But this won't cover taxes, infrastructure, immigration, minimum wage, DC statehood and lots of other items of the agenda. Criminal justice reform legislation might also be removed from the filibuster. I can't see Manchin going further than these two types of legislation.

To be clear, these two pieces of legislation are critical and should be passed. The result could be increased Democratic Senate and House votes. Even 3 or 4 in the Senate might be enough to overturn the filibuster and lead to DC statehood, citizenship for DACA folks and the undocumented, and perhaps even statehood for Puerto Rico.

 

[Fantine]

Many of those proposed taxes are just reversing Trump's 2017 tax cuts.

That seems more than fair, considering that the 2017 tax cuts for the 99% will start disappearing, beginning with this year.
Taxes Going up in 2021 Due to GOP-Passed Bill
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Why Taxes For Many Are Going to Go Up Immediately in 2021

President Trump and his congressional allies hoodwinked us. The law they passed initially lowered taxes for most Americans, but it built in automatic, stepped tax increases every two years that begin in 2021 and that by 2027 would affect nearlyr everyone but people at the top of the economic hierarchy. - Stiglitz, NY Times

I double-linked it because I know this may be a hard truth for many to believe, and that some people may feel betrayed that their tax cuts were temporary while the much larger cuts for the 1% are protected.

Unless Biden's reversal of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are enacted. Not only will they be sharing our pain--and our burden--but they will help us rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, creating tens of thousands of good jobs, and helping individual and commercial drivers, bus riders, and straphangers alike.

 

[Nithavela]

I double-linked it because I know this may be a hard truth for many to believe, and that some people may feel betrayed that their tax cuts were temporary while the much larger cuts for the 1% are protected.

They'll blame their rising taxes on Biden.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The point, civilwarbuff is that he is wasting it while people REALLY REALLY need it.

It is his money to waste.....not mine.....not yours......and certainly not the governments simply because they can.

 

[civilwarbuff]

They'll blame their rising taxes on Biden.

Hey, if he is in office it is within his power to push otherwise......so yes, he owns it.

 

[rambot]

It is his money to waste.....not mine.....not yours......and certainly not the governments simply because they can.

Would it still be considered a waste if he chose, instead, to provide health care to his workers?

Why not waste it that way?

 

[Nithavela]

Hey, if he is in office it is within his power to push otherwise......so yes, he owns it.

Even if he tries to change it but the republicans stall his efforts?

 

[mark46]

I agree that this would be a good bill to pass.

However, this is all for show, for the 2022 campaign, and to help convince the Democratic moderates to vote to end the filibuster.

I guess that this could be included in the infrastructure bill in order to pay for part of it. Maybe they think that they'll get Machin to support the bill that way.

Many of those proposed taxes are just reversing Trump's 2017 tax cuts.

That seems more than fair, considering that the 2017 tax cuts for the 99% will start disappearing, beginning with this year.
Taxes Going up in 2021 Due to GOP-Passed Bill
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Why Taxes For Many Are Going to Go Up Immediately in 2021



I double-linked it because I know this may be a hard truth for many to believe, and that some people may feel betrayed that their tax cuts were temporary while the much larger cuts for the 1% are protected.

Unless Biden's reversal of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are enacted. Not only will they be sharing our pain--and our burden--but they will help us rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, creating tens of thousands of good jobs, and helping individual and commercial drivers, bus riders, and straphangers alike.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Would it still be considered a waste if he chose, instead, to provide health care to his workers?

Why not waste it that way?

It is his money his choice. Would you want someone forcing you to spend your money in a way they want?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Even if he tries to change it but the republicans stall his efforts?

I don't think the R's will stall anything if he simply reverts to the way it was before he took office.

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think the R's will stall anything if he simply reverts to the way it was before he took office.

What exactly do you mean with "the way it was before he took office"? The rising of the taxes of the lower classes was built in by Trump.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What exactly do you mean with "the way it was before he took office"? The rising of the taxes of the lower classes was built in by Trump.

Sorry, I forgot I was in this thread instead of a different one.....I need caffeine.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Even if he tries to change it but the republicans stall his efforts?

Guess it would depend on the types of changes he wants to make. I believe the R's did it that way to garner some support from D's at the passing believing they would still be in power before the changes began to take effect and they could make the decreases 'permanent'. Biden could still do that and maybe make himself look like a hero in the process......but I don't believe his handlers would stand for that.......

 

[Fantine]

Apparently Republicans made the 99%'s tax cuts "temporary" because the law was passed under reconciliation (i.e. a 51 vote threshold).

And apparently a bill passed under reconciliation has limits on how much money can be expended (or given back to millionaire individuals and corporations).

There were $60 billion worth of obscure tax increases in the recent stimulus bill--to put it under the expense threshold.

Obviously in 2017 Republicans also spent too much money and had to reduce the cost. But remember: did they reduce the cost of the tax cuts by shaving a few years off the benefits to the people who needed it the least? No!

They decided to shave a few years off the benefits of the people who needed it the most.