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

[rambot]

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

Caveat:
1) If I had BILLIONS, I would not horde it. Why would I want or need all that money?
2) If they FORCED me to spend it on people in need, sure! Besides, he's not being forced to spend "all" his money anyways. It would be like if someone forced me to buy a t-shirt with my paycheque. Let's not pretend this "force" creates a "victim" out of him. That's playing into the sociopathology of wealth.

And herein lies the problem. There is a bit of a psychopathy to becoming THAT rich that is detrimental to society.
Wealthy People Have Harder Time Detecting Others' Emotions: Study

 

[Nithavela]

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.......

It looks to me more like the republicans were holding the lower classes of america hostage. "Vote for us or those beautifull tax reductions will disappear. You don't want that, do you?"

 

[civilwarbuff]

1) If I had BILLIONS, I would not horde it. Why would I want or need all that money?

Good for you. I would like to believe I would feel the same. But the fact remain it is yours and does not belong to any other person so you have the right to decide how to spend it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It looks to me more like the republicans were holding the lower classes of america hostage. "Vote for us or those beautifull tax reductions will disappear. You don't want that, do you?"

That could be.......and look what is going to happen......

 

[rambot]

Good for you. I would like to believe I would feel the same. But the fact remain it is yours and does not belong to any other person so you have the right to decide how to spend it.

But here's hte thing...it only belongs to you if you don't allow people to EARN it by paying them a better salary.

I mean really, the dragon's horde belongs to him but it doesn't do anyone any good sitting up there unused and unhelpful.

 

[civilwarbuff]

But here's hte thing...it only belongs to you if you don't allow people to EARN it by paying them a better salary.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Nithavela]

That could be.......and look what is going to happen......

And you will fault who?

 

[civilwarbuff]

And you will fault who?

The voters made their choice (if they even understood the complexities of that tax bill) and I guess now they will have to live with it. It is up to the dems to change it; they control the reigns of power. Let's see if greed or sympathizing with the masses wins out.

 

[Nithavela]

The voters made their choice (if they even understood the complexities of that tax bill) and I guess now they will have to live with it. It is up to the dems to change it; they control the reigns of power. Let's see if greed or sympathizing with the masses wins out.

As I said, I fully expect the democrats to try and change things and the republicans to obstruct 100%.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though. Or unhappy. Depending.

 

[civilwarbuff]

As I said, I fully expect the democrats to try and change things and the republicans to obstruct 100%.

That would be odd. They could point to the fact that Trumps tax policies were in fact benefiting the 'little guy' and that they, the R's, pushed the D's into continuing them. Couldn't they gloat over that.....If the D's will do it.....What a conundrum for them......

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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

Such an odd statement from someone who wants to force the company the person referenced owns to sell books they don't feel align with their corporate image. So, so weird.

 

[Nithavela]

That would be odd. They could point to the fact that Trumps tax policies were in fact benefiting the 'little guy' and that they, the R's, pushed the D's into continuing them. Couldn't they gloat over that.....If the D's will do it.....What a conundrum for them......

I'm just going by the behaviour of the Republicans during the last 2 months, as well as the last 6 years of Obamas presidency.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Such an odd statement from someone who wants to force the company the person referenced owns to sell books they don't feel align with their corporate image. So, so weird.

Huh?

 

[rambot]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

It speaks to the importance of unions.

While your understanding is completely correct, it is unjust to many because then the people with the power (employers), would be able to charge as LITTLE as they can get away with to their workers. Even to the point where they cannot survive and REQUIRE government support to live.

Unions put some of that power BACK into the worker's hands. This forces employers to pay MORE than "the least they can" and allows the lower classes to be able to have a BIT more funds to survive on.

It's not fair to workers if you say "boo to unions" AND you say their bosses can charge the least amount possible for a wage because "people can just refuse to do that job".

 

[civilwarbuff]

It speaks to the importance of unions.

While your understanding is completely correct, it is unjust to many because then the people with the power (employers), would be able to charge as LITTLE as they can get away with to their workers. Even to the point where they cannot survive and REQUIRE government support to live.

Unions put some of that power BACK into the worker's hands. This forces employers to pay MORE than "the least they can" and allows the lower classes to be able to have a BIT more funds to survive on.

It's not fair to workers if you say "boo to unions" AND you say their bosses can charge the least amount possible for a wage because "people can just refuse to do that job".

I don't know how you got unions into this; it is waaaaay off topic. But please feel free to start a new thread on it and link me to it.....it might be interesting.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The White House is expected to propose a suite of tax increases, mostly mirroring Biden’s 2020 campaign proposals, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

The tax hikes included in any broader infrastructure and jobs package are likely to include repealing portions of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as making other changes to make the tax code more progressive, said the people familiar with the plan.

The following are among proposals currently planned or under consideration, according to the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private:

• Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
• Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships
• Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
• Expanding the estate tax’s reach
• A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would [have been even] higher)

Democrats are also looking to revise tax laws that they say don’t do enough to stop U.S. companies from shifting jobs and profits offshore as another way to raise revenue, one aide said. Republicans could potentially support incentives, though it’s unclear whether they’d back penalties.

As we all knew since the election - those of us with any historical memory at all - you'd better hold on to your wallets.

 

[rambot]

I don't know how you got unions into this; it is waaaaay off topic. But please feel free to start a new thread on it and link me to it.....it might be interesting.

No no. It's VERY much on topic (not to the thread, but specifically to our conversation). As I understand your position you advocate for 0 meaningful power in the hands of workers. Essentially, the worker can either choose to take a job or not; that's it. Well, that's not actually any kind of bargaining power.

That is what keeps their wages DOWN and low. THAT is why we have a greater wealth gap now. Workers are unable to get decent wages because employers HAVE THE ABILITY to focus on NOTHING but profits (and that often means profits for shareholders...[ie....other crazy rich people]) and don't have to worry about the well being of their workers.

 

[civilwarbuff]

As I understand your position you advocate for 0 meaningful power in the hands of workers.

Then you understand nothing......LOL

Essentially, the worker can either choose to take a job or not; that's it. Well, that's not actually any kind of bargaining power.

Actually that's very good bargaining power, unless you are simply unskilled labor. A little story.....in 1983 when I graduated from x-ray school I went to work for the hospital I trained at. However, no one from the next class took a job there (very unusual) because all the other hospitals paid more. The result: In about 2 1/2 years our pay went from $6.23/hr to over $10.00/hr simply because they could not find people to work for them. "Not any kind of bargaining power."?.....not in my book.

That is what keeps their wages DOWN and low.

That is probably true for unskilled labor. Guess what your statement is a good promo for.....yep, that's right.....education.

Workers are unable to get decent wages because employers HAVE THE ABILITY to focus on NOTHING but profits (and that often means profits for shareholders...[ie....other crazy rich people]) and don't have to worry about the well being of their workers.

Which happens to be the purpose of a business......

 

[Vylo]

As we all knew since the election - those of us with any historical memory at all - you'd better hold on to your wallets.

Anyone with historical knowledge knows the economy does better under democratic presidents.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Anyone with historical knowledge knows the economy does better under democratic presidents.

Nope. Clinton attempted to claim that it was Democratic policy that helped the economy. Debunked.

“Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim,” the authors concluded. “If anything, and we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president — even though GDP grows significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by Republicans.

We have no doubt economists from either side of the partisan divide would have differences of opinion about what those policies might be, or whether the gap was entirely due to factors outside a president’s control. That’s a political debate that cannot be settled in a fact-check. Specifically, though, while Clinton recites the economic statistics as a reason for electing a Democratic president, there is no evidence in the Blinder and Watson research to conclude that a Democratic president’s economic policy would necessarily lead to a healthier economy."