Trying to enact a wealth tax

You are not factoring in economic growth. The benefits and cost savings of green energy. The boost of the middle class due to education.

7 trillion in ten years is about $750 billion a year. Ill advised 2017 tax cuts have cost us that. You don't give billionaires money you fon't

The wealthy benefit from prosperity. Prosperity comes with a strong consumer base.
Capital gains rates are lower than what middle class pay.

hislegacy said:

Are we talking about the Christian Church or the government on this thread?

Last I looked it has been determined numerous times that the US is NOT a Christian nation. Why try to hold the nation to Christian standards when it is not a Christian nation?

I agree 100% that the Christian church is tasked with loving our neighbors. How do you connect that with moving wealth from one individual to another?

2 Cor 9:7 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.​

Click to expand...

The poster I was responding to was referencing the Bible. Therefore when I decided to make a point in opposition to that poster's POV it was likely to include at least something biblical.

I don't connect loving our neighbor with moving wealth around from one individual to another.

I do find it somewhat strange , ironic and hypocritical that the same Christians that decry other Christians for trying to get the government to impose religious moral values on the entire populace will simultaneously advocate using government to impose their own preferred religious moral values on the entire populace. They seem to think the ends only justify the means when it is their ends that are being used to justify unjust means.

Fantine said:

There are different proposals. This one would raise $777 billion in 10 years:
Congress wants to tax stock trades. Investors shouldn’t fret.

The 1/4 of 1% tax on each stock's value was proposed back in 2009.
Definition of Stock Transaction Tax

Look at it this way--you pay sales taxes on every single thing you buy, and possibly excise taxes for cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, etc. You don't even bat an eye.

And right now, when many brokers don't charge a dime to trade stocks, it would be a perfect time to add a small transaction fee.

There is a transaction fee per share now, so negligible it is almost laughable. It was enacted in 1941.

Click to expand...

We do not pay a federal sales tax on any thing we buy. Sales taxes are not national taxes in the US. I pay both a state and county sales tax on some of the things I buy but not on others. In other parts of the country they pay more or less sales tax than I do and the items taxed differ from place to place. You seem to be assuming that because we are not in open rebellion over one tax that we ought to welcome a new one.

Fantine said:

You are not factoring in economic growth. The benefits and cost savings of green energy. The boost of the middle class due to education.

7 trillion in ten years is about $750 billion a year. Ill advised 2017 tax cuts have cost us that. You don't give billionaires money you fon't

Click to expand...

People often don't factor in fantasies when they are trying to deal with real world problems.

grasping the after wind said:

People often don't factor in fantasies when they are trying to deal with real world problems.

Click to expand...

The fantasy that was inflicted on America by former presidents Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump was that tax cuts for the rich would "trickle down" and bring prosperity to all.
Instead, these three presidents exploded the deficit far more than Presidents Clinton (who had a surplus), Obama, and Biden--and unleashed massive income inequality which is decimating our middle class. While America as a whole suffered economically during the pandemic, the fortunes of the top 1/10th of 1% exploded.

hislegacy said:

No - I am using your assumption based on the volume of the market.

You cite no sources nor links.

Click to expand...

Based on information from nasdaqtrader.com, the Nasdaq have a daily market volume of roughly $244 billion, which I got by taking the average of the last week. I can't find any public source for equivalent data from the NYSE, but knowing it's a bit bigger then Nasdaq, if we doubled the Nasdaq numbers we can get close. That's about $488 billion a day, which is about 3 orders of magnitude larger then the number you used. Using those numbers a 1/4% tax would generate $1.218 billion a day, $6 billion a week and assuming 50 weeks, $304.7 billion a year. Average that to the 10 years that most budget bills use and you get. a little over $3 trillion in the course of 10 years. That's pretty good for something that probably won't effect the stock market that much.

hislegacy said:

Leaving a deficit of 4 trillion.

Click to expand...

Yes, if that was the only new revenue sauce that Biden is considering, but it's not.

Fantine said:

The fantasy that was inflicted on America by former presidents Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump was that tax cuts for the rich would "trickle down" and bring prosperity to all.
Instead, these three presidents exploded the deficit far more than Presidents Clinton (who had a surplus), Obama, and Biden--and unleashed massive income inequality which is decimating our middle class. While America as a whole suffered economically during the pandemic, the fortunes of the top 1/10th of 1% exploded.

Click to expand...

Reagan only had 2 budgets out of his 8 years in office. The rest were Congressional Budgets and then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal promised to reign in spending, if he gave Reagan his tax cut. He lied and social spending continued and brought the deficit further.

During the Clinton years, we ended up with a surplus, but again this wasn't because of the president, but because Congress pulled in spending and chose not to spend beyond our means. Remember the so-called, "Contract With America ?"

Then came George W. Bush and the Cheney led Congress which brought us two unfunded wars which not only wiped out the surplus, but brought us back into deficit spending and we've been there ever since.

JimR-OCDS said:

Reagan only had 2 budgets out of his 8 years in office. The rest were Congressional Budgets and then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal promised to reign in spending, if he gave Reagan his tax cut. He lied and social spending continued and brought the deficit further.

During the Clinton years, we ended up with a surplus, but again this wasn't because of the president, but because Congress pulled in spending and chose not to spend beyond our means. Remember the so-called, "Contract With America ?"

Then came George W. Bush and the Cheney led Congress which brought us two unfunded wars which not only wiped out the surplus, but brought us back into deficit spending and we've been there ever since.

Click to expand...

Those budgets were all signed by the President, so it was his budget as much as it was Congress' budget.

JimR-OCDS said:

Reagan only had 2 budgets out of his 8 years in office. The rest were Congressional Budgets and then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal promised to reign in spending, if he gave Reagan his tax cut. He lied and social spending continued and brought the deficit further.

During the Clinton years, we ended up with a surplus, but again this wasn't because of the president, but because Congress pulled in spending and chose not to spend beyond our means. Remember the so-called, "Contract With America ?"

Then came George W. Bush and the Cheney led Congress which brought us two unfunded wars which not only wiped out the surplus, but brought us back into deficit spending and we've been there ever since.

Click to expand...

WgT you said doesn't make sense. What was in it for O'Neill? His position would have been to support the TaxCut only if our social safety net was protected and innocent people weren't hurt. You are making him complicit.
Clinton raised tax rates on the rich. So did Obama. That's what cut their deficits.
Compared to every other industrialized nation in the world we have grissly inadequate health insurance and few if any worker protections. And yet Germany, Canada, etc. thrive.
I hope you join me in caring about the 99%.

Arcangl86 said:

Those budgets were all signed by the President, so it was his budget as much as it was Congress' budget.

Click to expand...

He had no choice, the budgets weren't veto proof and he refused to shut down the government like some subsequent presidents did.

Fantine said:

WgT you said doesn't make sense. What was in it for O'Neill? His position would have been to support the TaxCut only if our social safety net was protected and innocent people weren't hurt. You are making him complicit.
Clinton raised tax rates on the rich. So did Obama. That's what cut their deficits.
Compared to every other industrialized nation in the world we have grissly inadequate health insurance and few if any worker protections. And yet Germany, Canada, etc. thrive.
I hope you join me in caring about the 99%.

Click to expand...

Clinton had two years with a Democrat controlled Congress and they went on a spending spree which increased the debt and deficit. After two years, the Republicans took control under Newt Gingrich and they cut spending and refused to spend more than the revenues. This ended with a surplus in 2000 when Dubya took control and a new group of Republicans. Gingrich had left before. The GOP controlled Congress when Bush was president went on a spending spree with two unfunded wars.

Even Reagan's advisor Bruce Bartlett wrote a book called "Imposter," criticizing Bush and the Republicans in Congress on how they betrayed conservative values that Reagan had.

We had two wars and nation building which brought us back into a deficit, and they nearly brought is into another Great Depression.

Obama saved us from that and I don't recall his tax cuts, but I remember him going to Nancy Pelosi and telling her to cut spending on things that had nothing to do with fixing the economy. She refused and even included abortion funding in the ACA which Obama removed.

Biden's tax proposal on the rich will merely drive the US Corporations out of the country as it did before.

Why invest here when they can move to China and still deduct from their taxes, the cost for doing so ?

Obama tried to eliminate the tax loophole which corporations used when they moved over seas. Mitch McConnell called it a tax increase and refused to bring his proposal to the floor

JimR-OCDS said:

He had no choice, the budgets weren't veto proof and he refused to shut down the government like some subsequent presidents did.

Click to expand...

A veto could have shut down the government, true. But a threat of a veto is often used to shape legislation,and by signing a bill the President is signaling approval of it. Only way the President deserves none of the credit or blame is if it is passed with a veto proof majority in the first place.

I don't know if "Taxry" gives us the most complete information from the best minds.

Corporations also want good infrastructure, an educated populace, reliable low-cost energy, like renewables, a stable economy, strong patent protection, strong technology.

GM builds cars in Ontario more cheaply because they don't have the burdensome health benefits. I stead, the government has a universal less costly care plan.

Four years of chaos and corruption was not good for business.