The wealthy and corporations will pay their "fair share", if Biden is elected

It's $8,000 more for likely 3 times the work. Then in order to get that big a jump in pay you will need to work in a fairly large city. There is the time and cost of commuting. In order to get the better pay you will have needed to get more education.....read that student loans. So how much ahead are you really?

 

It's not unconstitutional to tax assets.

 

No just stupid.

 

Sorry, there is this minor problem with your comment:
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Federal Government cannot confiscate property without just compensation, explaining why the Progressive Fascists gave us this:
16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

8,000

 

Taxation is the price which we pay for civilization, for our social, civil and political institutions, for the security of life and property, and without which, we must resort to the law of force.

 

,,, and the 16th Amendment gives us the income tax to "pay for civilization". In fact, we are one of two nations that taxes citizenship, Eritrea being the other. Income earned by an American citizen is taxable by the IRS regardless of where it is earned. That's why you might have heard several years back that a Zuckerburg partner renounced his US citizenship before Facebook went public.

I have no problem with taxation of income. I have a problem with a segment of our political class that uses deception to enrage their constituents for their selfish political gain ,,, and to the detriment of the country. For example ,,, a few years back Exxon was in the focus of the deceivers because of their allegedly low tax rate. The deceivers quoted their US tax liability against their global profits. At the time, Exxon produced 75% of their oil and paid taxes on that production where the profits were earned. The deceivers never mentioned that Exxon's US based HQ generated a massive amount of salary income and FICA and payroll taxes along with the taxes on income Exxon earned in the US.

Deceivers also bemoan income inequality to enrage their constituents, quoting high earner numbers that reflect the sale of a small business at the end of a 35 year career. That's an American building a business for 35 years, taking little out of it for decades to build its size and value, and selling the business to retire. To match the maximum Social Security payout of around $3000 at full retirement age, I'm thinking a retiring business owner would have to buy an immediate life annuity with the proceeds of the sale of the business before taxes of perhaps $750,000.

Anyway, the IRS SOI website has a table for those who thrive on envy, about the highest 400 earners ,,, or something like that. Most are only among the highest earners for 1 or 2 years because the source is capital gains from the sale of a business over however long it takes to liquidate. See if you can find it.

 

The wealthy and corporations will pay their "fair share", if Biden is elected
Actually f Biden is elected the wealthy and corporations will pay my fair share.

 

"...to get more than others, they should be able to take it..."

Do you know what a pronoun referent is?

 

I know I don't see the word EVERYTHING.

 

Do you see the words, "more than others"?

 

Not for $100,000 a year Union dog catchers it's not

 

Wrong.

Ahh, but 'taxation' does not equal 'taken for public use'.

We know this is true because of the estate tax, and the property taxes.

See, the taxes on property are monetary assessments of private property, and it is money that is taxed and taken, NOT 'private property'. Private property is not confiscated. It is, however, confiscated if an individual or corporation is taxed and does not pay the tax, then a lien is placed on the property, and the property is liquidated to satisfy the debt. Both individuals, via laws of torts, and the government, can do this.

SATISFY DEBT. DEBT, capiche?

The individua has already been compensated, i.e, BENEFITED from being IN SOCIETY, which granted him or her the ability to earn and/or gain in the first place, that benefit is 'just compensation' for which a DEBT has been legitimately claimed on a portion thereof of the gain accrued by the individual, a fact which would not have occurred had society, and it's entire infrastructure, did not exist.

Moreover,

Money is NOT 'private property' Money is THE PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It SAYS SO RIGHT ON THE PAPER DOLLARS. "Federal Reserve Note".

IANAL, but, I think I'm right.

It's all about justice, justice is the law, above all else, in my humble opinion.
That is why they called judges 'justices'.

 

The 15 minute limited prevented me from editing my previous reply, so I will resubmit it, with an edit

Any time I see someone cavalierly and arrogantly toss around loaded phrases like 'progressive fascists' I know I'm dealing with someone who is driven, not by reason and logic, but by emotion, and the odds are that that person's argument is weak, if not outright erroneous, altogether. Let me see if I'm right..........

Wrong. Note the wording "from whatever source derived". You purchase property, and it's value increases, NOT because you 'worked' but because society, and it's infrastructure, was the ULTIMATE fact in the chain of events that caused the accrual, and, alas, it is 'another source derived...". See, that law is derived to prevent kings (or their modern equivalent) from marching in and grabbing your stuff without just cause --that would be tyranny, noting that taxes are levied to satisfy a 'debt'. Moreover......

Ahh, but 'taxation' does not equal 'taken for public use'.

We know this is true because of the estate tax, and the property taxes, which have been around for a long time, which did not violate the 5th amendment. I mean, had property taxes violated the 5th amendment, I should think SCOTUS would have ruled in your favor. Have they? I haven't done a search, but I haven't heard about it.

See, the taxes on property are monetary assessments of private property, and it is money that is taxed and taken, NOT 'private property'. Private property is not confiscated. It is, however, confiscated if an individual or corporation is taxed and does not pay the tax, then a lien is placed on the property, and the property is liquidated to satisfy the debt. Both individuals, via laws of torts, and the government, can do this.

SATISFY DEBT. DEBT, capiche?

The individua has already been compensated, i.e, BENEFITED from being IN SOCIETY, which granted him or her the ability to earn and/or gain in the first place, that benefit is 'just compensation' for which a DEBT has been legitimately claimed on a portion thereof of the gain accrued by the individual, a fact which would not have occurred had society, and it's entire infrastructure, did not exist.

Moreover,

Money is NOT 'private property' Money is THE PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It SAYS SO RIGHT ON THE PAPER DOLLARS. "Federal Reserve Note".

IANAL, but, I think I'm right.

 

There is no specific number, it's whatever congress decides.

Society, collectively, agrees to it by electing their representatives who make these decisions.

Republicans and democrats disagree, of course, as to what 'fair share' means.

Democrats believe that thoses who benefit from society, owing to an infrastructure ( called 'society' ) that is the ultimate reason for their gain, (and this is not disregarding that part of the gain equation owing to talent and effort) that whose who benefit the most shoulder the greater share of the burden, which is why progressives believe that the just tax is a progressive tax. Biden has established that as individuals earning in excess of $400k per year. Democrats rightfully believe that a flat tax is not a fair tax at all, but one that raises the tax on lower incomes ( even though it might not tax those below poverty ) and lowers the tax on upper incomes. For example, a flat tax for anyone abut 40k per year, say, 15% would be far more painful, in terms of burden, for a person that earned $40k while someone earning over $10 million per year would barely feel it. Our premise is equal share of burden, because focusing on the numerical value ignores this important distinction.

 

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government does not levy property taxes. That power is reserved to the states ,,, delegated to the localities and school districts. The Federal government can collect excise and income taxes.

Estate taxes are controversial because they can be considered income from deceased parents to their heirs by one mode or another. The passage of an estate from the parents is income to the heirs. That presents issues of all sorts when the estate includes a business since if a business in an estate is taxed as ordinary income, the business may have to close and terminate employees and default on commitments.

Progressive Fascist is a misnomer. US Progressives are analogous to European Fascists. Both were into control by an all powerful central government. Today's Progressives share more in common with Islamic terrorists than European Fascists. Our Progressives are intolerant of people who hold viewpoints they don't share. ANTIFA and the Marxist BLM cult are examples of Progressive groups who don't think it's sufficient to dislike ideas. They hate the people who hold those ideas to the point of violence.

 

I'm not making a distinction between 'state' , 'federal' I'm arguing the principle. You stated it was 'unconstitutional to tax assets', and I refuted that argument in my previous reply, which you have not actually offered a compelling counter argument, thus far.

Rebuttals of this type deserve only a boiler plated response, highlighted items pertaining to your comment.

 

I feel for your sentiment, but a million bucks ain't' what it used to be. Some relatively small houses in San Diego are that much.

I'd put the heavier taxes on incomes higher than this, say above $10 million.

 

If I earned $100,000,000 per year, I would not object to a 50% tax. I'm sure i could live very nicely on $50 mil.

Though I share the same philosophy, basically, as the poster to whom you rebutted, we disagree on where the steeper tax should go and how much.

 

The left believes the state has the power to tell you what you need, and thus, take what you do not.
The left also knows we won't tolerate this.
Thus, its desire to limit the right to keep and bear arms as much as possible.

 

I suspect most republicans would not like a 50% tax on the superrich.

So, what else is new.? Thing is, society costs money, and getting it from the poor makes no sense, that leaves only the rich to get it from. Per federal reports, the top 1% have $34 Trillion in assets (40%) , and the bottom half has only $2 trillion. (2.35%) and the upper half below the 1% have $49 trillion (57.65%)

So, in order to for the cost of society, currently it is being paid for via deficit spending, this is inflationary.

Inflation is a de facto tax on anyone who cannot hedge ( the lowest sector on the economic ladder ) because the rich can hedge and the poor cannot. so inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the beneficiaries of inflation, the rich and the government.

The only way to correct this is to stop deficit spending, and to increase taxes on the rich. This will also shrink the inequality gap. Note, the goal isn't to make everyone earn the same, the goal is to shrink the gap.

As a liberal, my progressive MMT brethren will disagree, but I'm not a lib on fiscal economic theory, I"m actually more of a libertarian insofar as how to look at what causes inflation, I think the Austrian and Chicago schools have it right. but I disagree with libertarians and conservatives (those schools on which neoliberalism is based) on tax policy and it's goals.

 

Limited Socialism can work in any culture. It needs more time, but it can work.