- 20 Mar 2021 06:37
#15162069
This woman was almost US President - she was second in line behind Joe Biden for Democratic nominee.
Senator Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax on rich people.
That's right, she wants to tax actual wealth they have, not just their income.
That means after they earn money and pay taxes on that earned money, and then move that money into their savings, they would still have to pay taxes on it every year.
This month Elizabeth Warren proposed the "Ultra Millionaire Tax Act", which would apply a 2% annual levy on households and trusts valued at between $50 million and $1 billion. All net worth over $1 billion would be taxed at 3%.
So what, you might ask. These are rich people. Well, if they can do it to them, you know it won't be too far down the line when they'll start eyeing the bank accounts of people with less money.
This type of idea is not completely unprecedented. In Australia there have been serious proposals for negative interest rates. That's where you have to pay money to keep your money in the bank. Who would keep their money in the bank with this sort of thing going on? Well the country has begun subtly making moves towards the direction of a cashless society. The Australian government recently passed a law making it illegal to make large purchases in cash (including gold/silver and foreign currencies). It has to be done through a bank or credit card or other financial institution. This caused an uproar among conservatives because many suspected it was the first step towards being able to implement the idea of negative interest rates. If you can't use cash, or the cash doesn't exist in physical form, you would be forced to keep it in the bank.
Apparently there are some economists who are frustrated that government can't push interest rates below zero, and think negative interest rates would force people to spend money and stimulate the economy. (or at least that's the excuse)
Elizabeth Warren's idea apparently was too extreme even for Bill Gates, who remarked in a recent interview about higher taxes that there were "some proposals that seem to go too far".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/b ... d=msedgntp
And let's not forget that Elizabeth Warren was considered one of the more "moderate" candidates for Democratic nominee, compared to most of the others. (The only one more moderate than her was Biden)
Let's do a little math. With a 2% wealth tax, if had $100, half it would be gone in 35 years.
Or suppose banks were paying a 2% interest rate. Well then, if you put $100 in the bank, that money would not grow. It would be lent out to someone else to make a profit, but you would not get that profit.
At a 3% wealth tax rate, half your money would be gone after 23 years.
Oh and by the way, even this wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren is proposing, on households with wealth of over $50 million, would still only add $78 million to the government revenues - that's really a tiny drop in the bucket. You know they're going to start looking at households with lower amounts of wealth - say $10 million or $2 million. That's really where most of the money is. (There's just not actually that many super-rich people)
You people don't know progressives. If they see wealth, they want to grab it and immediately spend it.
Look, I have no problem with higher taxes on the rich, but I've gotten to know some of these people in discussions on this (and other) forums, and if they were able to get their way, the country would end up bankrupt like Greece. Not just the country but they would bankrupt the entire economy. Margaret Thatcher's quote may sound like an implausibly absurd caricature of the Left, and simplistically cliche, but sadly it probably does capture an element of truth; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." They just can't help themselves, it's in their nature.
Senator Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax on rich people.
That's right, she wants to tax actual wealth they have, not just their income.
That means after they earn money and pay taxes on that earned money, and then move that money into their savings, they would still have to pay taxes on it every year.
This month Elizabeth Warren proposed the "Ultra Millionaire Tax Act", which would apply a 2% annual levy on households and trusts valued at between $50 million and $1 billion. All net worth over $1 billion would be taxed at 3%.
So what, you might ask. These are rich people. Well, if they can do it to them, you know it won't be too far down the line when they'll start eyeing the bank accounts of people with less money.
This type of idea is not completely unprecedented. In Australia there have been serious proposals for negative interest rates. That's where you have to pay money to keep your money in the bank. Who would keep their money in the bank with this sort of thing going on? Well the country has begun subtly making moves towards the direction of a cashless society. The Australian government recently passed a law making it illegal to make large purchases in cash (including gold/silver and foreign currencies). It has to be done through a bank or credit card or other financial institution. This caused an uproar among conservatives because many suspected it was the first step towards being able to implement the idea of negative interest rates. If you can't use cash, or the cash doesn't exist in physical form, you would be forced to keep it in the bank.
Apparently there are some economists who are frustrated that government can't push interest rates below zero, and think negative interest rates would force people to spend money and stimulate the economy. (or at least that's the excuse)
Elizabeth Warren's idea apparently was too extreme even for Bill Gates, who remarked in a recent interview about higher taxes that there were "some proposals that seem to go too far".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/b ... d=msedgntp
And let's not forget that Elizabeth Warren was considered one of the more "moderate" candidates for Democratic nominee, compared to most of the others. (The only one more moderate than her was Biden)
Let's do a little math. With a 2% wealth tax, if had $100, half it would be gone in 35 years.
Or suppose banks were paying a 2% interest rate. Well then, if you put $100 in the bank, that money would not grow. It would be lent out to someone else to make a profit, but you would not get that profit.
At a 3% wealth tax rate, half your money would be gone after 23 years.
Oh and by the way, even this wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren is proposing, on households with wealth of over $50 million, would still only add $78 million to the government revenues - that's really a tiny drop in the bucket. You know they're going to start looking at households with lower amounts of wealth - say $10 million or $2 million. That's really where most of the money is. (There's just not actually that many super-rich people)
You people don't know progressives. If they see wealth, they want to grab it and immediately spend it.
Look, I have no problem with higher taxes on the rich, but I've gotten to know some of these people in discussions on this (and other) forums, and if they were able to get their way, the country would end up bankrupt like Greece. Not just the country but they would bankrupt the entire economy. Margaret Thatcher's quote may sound like an implausibly absurd caricature of the Left, and simplistically cliche, but sadly it probably does capture an element of truth; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." They just can't help themselves, it's in their nature.
- By annatar1914
- By Tainari88