And how many trillions of debt have they paid off by talking about it?
The ones who want it, can't get it passed. That's why I tell you, look at what they do and not what they say.
Ditching the income tax completely and going with a consumption tax is the way to go.
The secret is the politicians are all filthy rich and don't want to raise the taxes on themselves. They always find time to raise their salaries though. Weird...
And how many trillions of debt have they paid off by talking about it?
The ones who want it, can't get it passed. That's why I tell you, look at what they do and not what they say.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The ones who want it, can't get it passed. That's why I tell you, look at what they do and not what they say.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
Well the low information voters who just hate rich people are very serious about them. The Democrats are about division. Division by race, by class, by gender, by sexual orientation. The sad reality is when the stupidity of leftist intersectionality plays itself out we will be left with individualism which is where the sane people have been all along.
The ones who want it, can't get it passed. That's why I tell you, look at what they do and not what they say.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
If only they didn't mail that $361 billion to Ukraine already...
Not to mention the other TRILLIONS the country has flushed down the toilet overseas.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Everyone knows it's not going to happen, it's probably not constitutional, it would only pay for (if your number is accurate) 2.9% of the projected deficit over that same timeframe, that's exactly the type of un-serious thing I'm talking about.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
All of these billionaires virtue signal about this subject all the time yet they never mail in a check. There's no reason they can't just mail in more taxes than they owe. Yet they all take every deduction that they can find. Wonder why....
The ones who want it, can't get it passed. That's why I tell you, look at what they do and not what they say.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
Stick a fork in it, Manchin is not voting for this idiotic "billionaire's tax."
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Tuesday shot down President Biden’s new plan to raise $360 billion in revenue by imposing a 20 percent minimum tax on billionaires, a proposal the president f…
At this points the dems are purposely trying to lose the upcoming elections. They have completely gone batsh!t crazy. How the LR libidiots can support this lunacy boggles the mind.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Do you really have any idea how idiotic this "billionaires tax" would be? How can you tax unearned income? Do you have any idea the number of problems there would be with this type of tax? Please offer up and I will shoot holes in your response. This is so stupid.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Everyone knows it's not going to happen, it's probably not constitutional, it would only pay for (if your number is accurate) 2.9% of the projected deficit over that same timeframe, that's exactly the type of un-serious thing I'm talking about.
Constitutionality is not a problem.
But you are right that it's all part of the games both parties play.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Do you really have any idea how idiotic this "billionaires tax" would be? How can you tax unearned income? Do you have any idea the number of problems there would be with this type of tax? Please offer up and I will shoot holes in your response. This is so stupid.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Please show where you got that only 700 people would be subject to the tax. I am seeing 20,000.
The $100 million wealth threshold means the richest 0.01% of Americans — roughly 20,000 households — would owe this tax
You really don't understand the proposal if you think it would work just fine. It would be a logistical nightmare. Other countries have tried wealth taxes and always a fiasco. How can tax unrealized income? If Elon Musk's Telsa holdings go up $50 billion in one year, what happens in years 2, 3 and 4 when the Tesla stock takes a big nosedive? The government is going to be refunding that amount? Will they put it into fund where you can get it 20 years down the road? This is insane. You CAN NOT tax unearned income.
Do you really have any idea how idiotic this "billionaires tax" would be? How can you tax unearned income? Do you have any idea the number of problems there would be with this type of tax? Please offer up and I will shoot holes in your response. This is so stupid.
Look at the proposal. It would work just fine.
Saying "it would work just fine" isn't defending the proposal...
"Trust me I'm with the government" is only convincing if you're an imbecile.
The 20% minimum is more than reasonable. The unrealized gains and unearned income stuff is overreach.
These "tax the super-rich" schemes aren't serious, wouldn't actually raise much money relative to what's spent, are often unconstitutional, and are always dropped at the first sign of pushback. Progressives were happy to sign BBB with no tax hikes (and one major tax cut).
If you want to raise serious revenue to pay for the stuff they want, you have to raise taxes on the middle class. They know that's too unpopular to do. I don't give Democrats credit for being fiscally responsible because a few of them came up with a fake proposal to tax the super-rich that everybody knows will never happen.
The recently proposed "billionaires tax" would raise $361 billion over 10 years. That's not going to wipe out the debt or anything, but it's a large chunk of change for a tax that only affects 700 people.
And it's definitely constitutional. Even conservatives on the supreme court are very deferential to the government's power to levy taxes.
Please explain where you got the $361 billion over 10 years. That is a laughable claim. 98% of the tax revenue would come from capital appreciation from stocks/mutual funds/bonds and there is no way to predict how the market will do. Elon Musk would have paid $20 billion just himself in some years.
Saying "it would work just fine" isn't defending the proposal...
"Trust me I'm with the government" is only convincing if you're an imbecile.
The 20% minimum is more than reasonable. The unrealized gains and unearned income stuff is overreach.
This tax would be insanely crazy. You have Elon M. who owns $200 billion of Stock X. Over 5 years the stock appreciates $50 billion each year and he dutifully pays $10 billion each year in taxes. Stock Y (another Electric car company) comes in and has a battery that lasts 10 times as long as Stock X's. Elon's value of Stock X drops to $100. Is the government going to refund the $50 billion (did they keep it in a lockbox) he has paid out in taxes AND pay him negative taxes all the way down to the $100? We have another Great Depression, is the government going to pay EVERYONE whose capital assets depreciated? Will it be a one-way street where the government only taxes capital appreciation but never refunds when your assets lose value? This is beyond crazy.
