WTF does the fact that the 8.8 million dollars used to buy the Yankees was with after tax money have anything to do with it? And what makes you think that the current owners would ever sell the yankees and pay taxes on the over 1 billion dollars in gains? I don’t know the details but THEIR kids might get stepped up basis.
Just pay a fucking dividend and you have converted capital gains to dividends (at least for closely held corporations). If you get your money out through capital gains are you taxed any less?
Right so can we stop throwing around the word socialism like its an insult.
Congress’ power tot ax is not plenary. Direct taxes require apportionment and unless you can call it an excise tax (and at this point most tax law scholars think you can cram just about anything into the definition of an excise tax), you have a constitutional issue.
I might define things differently.
I’d probably go from the 99th percentile to the 99.999 percentile. I was talking about taht portion of the wealthy who can lead extravagent lifestyles on dividends and capital gains.
This was the argument put forth by both the Democratic and republican parties when they created the income tax system. there was a recosgnition back then that the wealthy could not have gotten that wealth without the benefits of a stable government and society.
The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs. - George Carlin
Actually I was somewhat intentionally building on your original response to the OP (#4), which I though was such a good & succinct explanation of the basic liberal perspective, I mailed it off to several friends. What country are you from? (Sweden or Norway I am guessing)
You claim it hasn’t been taxed before. Please try to follow the subject of your own assertions.
Yes, that was my point, in the first place. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I’m not sure you do, either. If a corporation sells off part of itself, it gets taxed at the regular rate and the stockholders get taxed again at the capital gains rate when the dividends are disbursed. If a stockholder sells his shares, he gets taxed once, at the capital gains rate. You haven’t answered the question.
I didn’t. Maybe you can stop assuming it’s an insult, now that you know better?
You claimed the “upper middle class” paid the highest tax rates. Now that you know the truth, you claim that the “upper middle class” is the top 1%?
But I do love the fact that you embrace the idea that a we should craft an aspect of public policy which effects everyone without being troubled by the little teensy weensy issue of fairness. :rolleyes:
I notice that you’ve provided zero examples of “fairness” in the thread. How about
[ul][li] It is unfair if people with their own private security must pay taxes for police.[/li][li] It is unfair if parents with children in private schools must pay taxes for public schools. [/li][/ul]
or, from the other end of the spectrum
[ul][li] It is unfair to pay payroll taxes when one’s children have to go to bed hungry, especially if the net tax rate is higher than that of people who can feed their pets caviar.[/li][/ul]
Oh yeah. Trying to “reach some consensus regarding fairness” is real likely! :smack:
How about paying better attention to the exchange? I was commenting on the notion that fairness should be taken into consideration, not be ignored. But I’ll play your little game:
Fair for rich people to pay for police.
Fair for rich people to pay for public schools. (Though I do think that the elderly should pay a much smaller amount.)
Fair for people to pay the payroll tax. Everyone needs to contribute to the common pool. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.
So do YOU think it’s fair that poor people have kids and then the rest of us are left to clothed and feed them?
I’m the one who doesn’t think “fairness” should enter into the discussion, remember?
To address your question without any foolish notion of fairness, I’ll say: I don’t have a simple answer to the question of tax reductions for dependents. Children are a precious asset of our society and we don’t want them to suffer financially. On the other hand, tax policies that might encourage poor people to have children they can’t afford do seem wrong. Direct subsidies might be best, e.g. better free food in schools.
I guess I don’t have a simplistic answer to your question about children, even after removing the confusing judgment word (“fair”). Does that make me wrong?
The New York Yankees was purchased with $8.8 million dollars. Who knows if that money has ever been taxed or at what rate.
When George Steinbrenner died, the New york Yankees was worth over a billion dollars. That passed to his heirs tax free, the difference between the purchase price and the value at George Steinbrenner’s death was not taxed.
You asked me to exaplin how easy it is.
As to why anyone would ever do that, I thought you were proposing tax free distribution of dividends.
The company doesn’t have to sell off a part of itself to pay out dividends.
The hell it isn’t, people use it as an insult or an indictment. This includes you. You seem to assume that attaching the word socialism to something is going to make it look bad.
If you want to stretch it down to the top 10%, I’d be OK with that.
So we good on the whole “constitutionlaity of a wealth tax” issue?
Fairness is the entire reason that our tax system is structured in ways that you don’t like.
Yeah, we should limit the right to reproduce to those who can afford it. Well, we shold let everyone have one child and then let them have more kids if they make a lot of money. Of course if they lose that money, we take their kids away from them.
Well, you’ve done a good job of defining one end of the pendulum swing, how about the other: should someone have 15 kids they can’t support and have strangers pay for them?
Why? and if that circa,stance comes to pass, do we not have the right to ask the parents to contribute to society in some other way? Help paint the school, clean up the side of the highway, etc.?
Because there is a real catch 22 for some poor folks. If they get pregnant, conservatives don’t want them to get an abortion. But if they have the kid, conservatives don’t want to pay to feed that kid. Its either abortions or welfare for kids. I prefer welfare for kids. I support free school lunches, free school breakfasts, and free school dinner if it comes to that. I support free food, education and medical care for kids generally. I also support free or near free child care for working parents.
Nobody lives high on the hog by having a lot of kids. I grew up in welfare neighborhoods where people were third generation welfare recipients and they all planned on breaking out of that cycle when they were younger but then they got pregnant and they filed for benefits and their parents told them how to get the most out of the system and they never got out.
You ever see spellbound. Its a documentary about the national spelling bee. See what happened to Ashley White. That sort of shit happens in poor neighhoods across the country to kids who would be self sufficient middle class taxpayers if their life hadn’t gotten derailed.
Well, I’m pro-choice. Not that it matters. We both believe there should be a safety net. But I just don’t understand the position that there should be the expectation that people can have as many kids as they want and not be responsible for clothing and feeding them. I’m well aware of what happens to kids who have nothing and have done work for one of the charities that helps them.
But you’re ignoring my question: what should we do about the people who simply have kids with no forethought, or care, of who is going to pay for them? I suggested one thing. You?
