🚫 Random Ban Culprit DiscoveredRead Affidavit

Most millionaires support a tax on wealth above $50 million

Here now: 1 Guest(s)
 
#1
[Image: image%20(3).1560290506529.png]
Quote:A majority of millionaires support Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on large wealth, according to a new survey.

Fully 60% of millionaires support Warren’s plan for taxing the wealth of those who have more than $50 million in assets, according to the CNBC Millionaire survey. The wealth tax is different from an income tax, since it taxes a family’s total holdings every year rather than their income.

Polls show that a majority of Americans also back a wealth tax. But the support from millionaires, some of whom would presumably pay the tax, shows that some millionaires are willing to accept higher taxes amidst growing concern over inequality and soaring fortunes of the rich.

While 88% of Democrats support the wealth tax, 62% of independents support it along with 36% of Republicans. Even the upper tier of millionaires, those worth more than $5 million, support a wealth tax, with two-thirds in favor.

Warren’s proposal calls for a tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion. The presidential candidate estimates it would apply only to 75,000 of the richest families and would raise $275 billion a year.

A larger number of millionaires also support an income tax rate of 70% on those making more than $10 million – a suggestion floated by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And a majority support repealing the 2017 tax cuts on companies.

“Over the years, we have seen that this population is willing to pay more,” said George Walper, president of Spectrem Group, which conducted the study with CNBC. The survey polled 750 people with investible assets of $1 million or more. Of the respondents, 261 were Republicans, 261 were independent and 218 were Democrats.

Millionaires do want to preserve one form of tax savings – deductions. Fully 72% oppose eliminating all deductions, which include the mortgage deduction and charitable deduction. They also strongly oppose taxing unrealized capital gains, a proposal made by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/12/most-mil...urvey.html
Reply
#2
Because most millionaires don't have wealth above $2 million, let alone $50 million. 🤣

But I support this myself, and Elizabeth Warren in general. Not AOC's $10 mill.
1 person likes this: Hill
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#3
(06-18-2019, 01:06 PM)Maiko Wrote: Because most millionaires don't have wealth above $2 million, let alone $50 million. 🤣

But I support this myself, and Elizabeth Warren in general. Not AOC's $10 mill.


Wait omg this whole article’s setup is ad hoc af literally just framing a narrative like it’s a surprise when actually most of those voting apparently wouldn’t be affected either way omg the trickery!
Reply
#4
(06-18-2019, 08:56 PM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote:
(06-18-2019, 01:06 PM)Maiko Wrote: Because most millionaires don't have wealth above $2 million, let alone $50 million. 🤣

But I support this myself, and Elizabeth Warren in general. Not AOC's $10 mill.

Wait omg this whole article’s setup is ad hoc af literally just framing a narrative like it’s a surprise when actually most of those voting apparently wouldn’t be affected either way omg the trickery!


right. yc is too but imma let him b cute
1 person likes this: Hill
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#5
(06-18-2019, 01:06 PM)Maiko Wrote: Because most millionaires don't have wealth above $2 million, let alone $50 million. 🤣

But I support this myself, and Elizabeth Warren in general. Not AOC's $10 mill.


but that’s not an issue. the real issue is *how much* is the tax. if that amount over 50 million is any good, it could really generate a lot of money. if not then, it’s highkey just a stunt and wouldn’t help the economy

In theory though, if they taxed people over 50m like 1%, a billionaire drops 1 million on the spot. that’s not terrible if they allocate it well (they wont).
Reply
#6
(06-19-2019, 11:09 AM)PACMAN Wrote:
(06-18-2019, 01:06 PM)Maiko Wrote: Because most millionaires don't have wealth above $2 million, let alone $50 million. 🤣

But I support this myself, and Elizabeth Warren in general. Not AOC's $10 mill.

but that’s not an issue. the real issue is *how much* is the tax. if that amount over 50 million is any good, it could really generate a lot of money. if not then, it’s highkey just a stunt and wouldn’t help the economy

In theory though, if they taxed people over 50m like 1%, a billionaire drops 1 million on the spot. that’s not terrible if they allocate it well (they wont).


Increasing the taxes on a class that is already paying 40% of their income in taxes is always going to be a problem. They'll have to find craftier ways to evade it.

And that 40% income tax bracket isn't even for HNWI's, let alone UHNWi's.
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#7
(06-19-2019, 09:21 PM)Maiko Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 11:09 AM)PACMAN Wrote: but that’s not an issue. the real issue is *how much* is the tax. if that amount over 50 million is any good, it could really generate a lot of money. if not then, it’s highkey just a stunt and wouldn’t help the economy

In theory though, if they taxed people over 50m like 1%, a billionaire drops 1 million on the spot. that’s not terrible if they allocate it well (they wont).

Increasing the taxes on a class that is already paying 40% of their income in taxes is always going to be a problem. They'll have to find craftier ways to evade it.

And that 40% income tax bracket isn't even for HNWI's, let alone UHNWi's.


The top 1% should have never been able to manipulate the system in such a way that they could ever make enough money to be able to pay 37.32% of the total income tax in the first place.
Reply
#8
(06-23-2019, 07:18 PM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 09:21 PM)Maiko Wrote: Increasing the taxes on a class that is already paying 40% of their income in taxes is always going to be a problem. They'll have to find craftier ways to evade it.

And that 40% income tax bracket isn't even for HNWI's, let alone UHNWi's.

The top 1% should have never been able to manipulate the system in such a way that they could ever make enough money to be able to pay 37.32% of the total income tax in the first place.



how is making money manipulating the system? My taxes are 33%, and I don't manipulate anything. tax brackets are just already high once you start making like $40k
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#9
(06-23-2019, 07:37 PM)Maiko Wrote:
(06-23-2019, 07:18 PM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote: The top 1% should have never been able to manipulate the system in such a way that they could ever make enough money to be able to pay 37.32% of the total income tax in the first place.


how is making money manipulating the system? My taxes are 33%, and I don't manipulate anything. tax brackets are just already high once you start making like $40k


The system and money are both evil by design.
Reply
#10
No amount of work could ever make anyone ever deserve as much money as the top 1% has.
Reply
#11
(06-23-2019, 08:01 PM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote: No amount of work could ever make anyone ever deserve as much money as the top 1% has.


So I create Amazon, something responsible for feeding at least 5 million people and taking care of their families and used by a billion,

And I don't deserve the money I make doing that?

FYI, to be a considered 1%, a family only.needs a household income of $400k.
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#12
(06-23-2019, 11:30 PM)Maiko Wrote:
(06-23-2019, 08:01 PM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote: No amount of work could ever make anyone ever deserve as much money as the top 1% has.

So I create Amazon, something responsible for feeding at least 5 million people and taking care of their families and used by a billion,

And I don't deserve the money I make doing that?

FYI, to be a considered 1%, a family only.needs a household income of $400k.


amazon didn’t feed 5 million people the money they donated from their enormous profits fed those people

end capitalism and we could feed everyone.
Reply
#13
(06-24-2019, 08:17 AM)purple/sky/bubble Wrote:
(06-23-2019, 11:30 PM)Maiko Wrote: So I create Amazon, something responsible for feeding at least 5 million people and taking care of their families and used by a billion,

And I don't deserve the money I make doing that?

FYI, to be a considered 1%, a family only.needs a household income of $400k.

amazon didn’t feed 5 million people the money they donated from their enormous profits fed those people

end capitalism and we could feed everyone.


Baby, Amazon feeds more then 5 million people. Do you not know how many people depend on Amazon to feed their families?

Outside of the about 1 million employees Amazon has. Consider all of the businesses (over one million added EACH YEAR) and all of their employees.

And you're saying I can take loans out, quit my job, and dedicate 30 years to building Amazon with my wife. And we don't deserve to make $210,000 a year each. Because that would make us 1%

Okay.

But let's end capitalism. What do you propose we replace it with.
Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in Architects as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
Reply
#14
I have not drawn out a system to replace capitalism and I would be crazy to assume that I have any idea about the enormous power structures that would have to be in place to replace the current system and that’s because I am an all-but-powerless American kid who simply knows that what we’ve got right now is fucked up and anyone who says otherwise just doesn’t want to believe that there’s a better life out there.
Reply

Forum Jump:



Contact Us Pop Culture With Friends Lite (Archive) Mode Member List RSS Syndication

Which category, bae?

Music Fan Base ClubFN The Kick Back
Music News Albums Singles Tracks Music Videos Live Performances Tours Artist Base Music Discussion Throwbacks Anything Goes Graphic Art Faves of the Week Tournaments Rates The Lounge World News Random Videos Video Games Tech Health & Fitness popfn Events Sports Site Related
Celeb Buzz Movies & TV Charts
Celeb News Celeb Photos Celeb Videos TV Shows Movies Award Shows Charts Stats

POPFN is Good for You, Bae.
Sign up below!