Finally making an adult living

[beginner2011]

And what, specifically, do you disagree with?

The part I bolded, italicized, and underlined. I disagree with the belief that anyone got where they are by themself. If you want tax money to be spent in a different way, or for the tax system to be altered, then advocate and vote for policy change. If I avoid supporting the systems that have supported me (because I believe I got where I am by myself and don't see how they supported me) and supported those around me then I undermine the integrity and the quality of the society that I'm a part of.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

The part I bolded, italicized, and underlined. I disagree with the belief that anyone got where they are by themself. If you want tax money to be spent in a different way, or for the tax system to be altered, then advocate and vote for policy change. If I avoid supporting the systems that have supported me (because I believe I got where I am by myself and don't see how they supported me) and supported those around me then I undermine the integrity and the quality of the society that I'm a part of.

So some general, anomalous "help?" That clarifies things. And, the taxes I do pay go to whatever teh government wants to use them for, I choose to maximize the amount I have, what I have earned on my own, in the way that I choose above and beyond that.

 

[beginner2011]

So some general, anomalous "help?" That clarifies things.

Not sure what you mean. I've tried to be clear about the claim you're making that I disagree with.

And, the taxes I do pay go to whatever teh government wants to use them for, I choose to maximize the amount I have, what I have earned on my own, in the way that I choose above and beyond that.

In the same way I hope professional psychologists stay involved with the APA (e.g., annual membership fees, contributing to lobbying efforts) because it improves conditions for fellow psychologists, I hope citizens stay involved with their government because it helps their fellow citizens. By analogy, in a similar way to how I think of tax avoidance, I think it would be unwise/unethical for a professional psychologist to pay student dues to APA because they found a loophole.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not sure what you mean. I've tried to be clear about the claim you're making that I disagree with.



In the same way I hope professional psychologists stay involved with the APA (e.g., annual membership fees, contributing to lobbying efforts) because it improves conditions for fellow psychologists, I hope citizens stay involved with their government because it helps their fellow citizens. By analogy, in a similar way to how I think of tax avoidance, I think it would be unwise/unethical for a professional psychologist to pay student dues to APA because they found a loophole.

You simply reemphasized that you disagree, nothing specifically about what help I had financially along the way to get to my current financial situation.

I am very involved with government. At least with state, usually on a weekly basis. I still see no problem adhering to the current tax laws.

 

[beginner2011]

You simply reemphasized that you disagree, nothing specifically about what help I had financially along the way to get to my current financial situation.

My view is that direct financial support is a tiny fraction of the ways in which the society around us has supported and nurtured in us the capacities and skills we have today. I'm not going to go into great detail to outline the specifics of what I believe with regard to this topic (and frankly, I haven't thought very deeply about this topic in years), but you asked so I'll keep it brief. In summary, I believe we owe a non-zero portion of our successes to the systems and people around us. For example, I went to public school as a child, I've used public roads and highways throughout my life, my tuition and stipend was funded by tax dollars, I love hiking and visiting public parks which are managed by people who are paid by tax dollars. Stepping back another level, I benefit from the education and stability of the individuals around me by having people who are safe and healthy that I can provide services to and receive services from, etc., etc. My experience with mindfulness practice/Buddhist philosophy and my understanding of existential philosophy are the basis for the conclusions I've made about what we owe to each other.

I am very involved with government. At least with state, usually on a weekly basis. I still see no problem adhering to the current tax laws.

That's great! You seem to be involved with a lot of different organizations. I'm genuinely impressed by your level of engagement with all kinds of stuff.

 

[WisNeuro]

My view is that direct financial support is a tiny fraction of the ways in which the society around us has supported and nurtured in us the capacities and skills we have today. I'm not going to go into great detail to outline the specifics of what I believe with regard to this topic (and frankly, I haven't thought very deeply about this topic in years), but you asked so I'll keep it brief. In summary, I believe we owe a non-zero portion of our successes to the systems and people around us. For example, I went to public school as a child, I've used public roads and highways throughout my life, my tuition and stipend was funded by tax dollars, I love hiking and visiting public parks which are managed by people who are paid by tax dollars. Stepping back another level, I benefit from the education and stability of the individuals around me by having people who are safe and healthy that I can provide services to and receive services from, etc., etc. My experience with mindfulness practice/Buddhist philosophy and my understanding of existential philosophy are the basis for the conclusions I've made about what we owe to each other.

Sure, and I pay that back in my base taxes. The rest, I get to choose what causes my money goes to. I see nothing more ethical than that. Much better than most of what it goes to when the government uses it. Hint: look at the current defense budget. I would think that as someone with a Buddhist philosophy, you'd want less money going to defense contractors.

 

[PsyDr]

@beginner2011 The options are tools available to anyone. There is nothing wrong with using those options. You are using a hard line approach with your opponent (e.g., this personhood has other obligations, this one doesn't), and then advocating a nuanced approach for yourself. Legally, your position doesn't hold water. And your position is largely not how ethical debate works.

If I am being generous, I think you are trying to hint about how the legal systems are clearly in the pockets of wealthy people and corporations. You'll find no disagreement from me on that point. Congress is able to accept bribes from corporations. Congress is the only entity that is legally allowed to engage in insider trading. Etc. I find all of that repugnant, but I am powerless to change this system or its rules. I don't get to decide how our money is spent once it goes to the feds. I have many many many moral objections to how US dollars are spent.

In the pragmatic sense, there is a system in place. There are clear winners and clear losers. I am choosing to mimic the economic behaviors of the winners because the winners won't change their behavior.



@Spydra FAFSA doesn't require one to report retirement assets.

 

[tr]

Okay, that just means that middle/upper middle class people will become more poor. The majority of individual wealth above $10 million dollars is actually in business equity. The estate tax exemption just means that you would be able to inherit your parents house in the Bay area without owing the government a ton of money in taxes on the 1 million dollar value today and being forced to sell it to some rich person to pay the taxes.

No, this is false. The estate tax applies only to estates worth $5.49 million or more (per inheritor).

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The federal estate tax is a tax on property (cash, real estate, stock, or other assets) transferred from deceased persons to their heirs. Only the wealthiest estates pay the tax because it is...

www.cbpp.org

 

[Sanman]

No, this is false. The estate tax applies only to estates worth $5.49 million or more (per inheritor).

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The federal estate tax is a tax on property (cash, real estate, stock, or other assets) transferred from deceased persons to their heirs. Only the wealthiest estates pay the tax because it is...

www.cbpp.org

What is false? The exemption is up to $5.49 million so people can inherit homes, land, etc tax free up to that number. If it were much lower it could impact things like family homes and farms.

 

[tr]

What is false? The exemption is up to $5.49 million so people can inherit homes, land, etc tax free up to that number. If it were much lower it could impact things like family homes and farms.

Right, so your example of a 1 million dollar home in the Bay Area is not accurate; such a property is not subject to estate tax.

 

[Sanman]

Right, so your example of a 1 million dollar home in the Bay Area is not accurate; such a property is not subject to estate tax.

To clarify, @beginner2011 seems to suggest that the estate tax was a loophole for the wealthy. I said the law is written the way it is so that people inheriting things like a million dollar home (that was not a million dollars 30-40 years ago when purchased) would not lose it to a sale because of taxes due on it.

The point I was making was this. The working person (even a physician) is unlikely to have an estate worth more than $10 million. People with assets greater than that tend to have it in businesses. Thus, the estate tax allows normal people to inherit assets without tax liability while taxing the very wealthy.

That said, I personally am against wealth taxes because it disincentivizes responsibility, IMO. My wife and I live in the small home and drive an old Toyota and a Ford. We work hard and max out our retirement accounts while spending less than many friends with BMWs and larger houses even though we make more. We are looking at buying some investment property in the future to aid in our retirement and pass on to our children. Our friends won't have 5.49 million when they die. We might have it. Why should the government get a second cut of what I spent a lifetime doing for my family? If they will do so, I'll be buying fancy junk instead till they put me in the ground.

Is one more mcmansion and mercedes really what you want to incentivize?

 

[beginner2011]

To clarify, @beginner2011 seems to suggest that the estate tax was a loophole for the wealthy.

I...don't know how that was your take away from what I've been saying. I've been saying that intentionally using loopholes to avoid paying taxes (e.g., I said that paying into an IRA in your child's name and claiming you're paying them for being a "child model" is unethical). I have no problem with the estate tax. I don't see how anyone could consider the estate tax a "loophole". People might use loopholes to avoid paying the estate tax, but the tax itself isn't a loophole. Edit: To be clear, I see that the ethics of tax avoidance, under the current circumstances, are not nearly so straightforward as I did previously.

I think the other concerns regarding the limitations of an estate tax are legitimate. I'm beginning to appreciate more about just how problematic Citizens United is with regard to consolidation of wealth and insulation from tax liability. I think Citizens United creates enormous problem that need to be addressed. I also think a wealth tax could do a great deal of good for our society, a la Elizabeth Warren and others' proposals.

 

[Sanman]

I...don't know how that was your take away from what I've been saying. I've been saying that intentionally using loopholes to avoid paying taxes (e.g., I said that paying into an IRA in your child's name and claiming you're paying them for being a "child model" is unethical). I have no problem with the estate tax. I don't see how anyone could consider the estate tax a "loophole". People might use loopholes to avoid paying the estate tax, but the tax itself isn't a loophole. Edit: To be clear, I see that the ethics of tax avoidance, under the current circumstances, are not nearly so straightforward as I did previously.

I think the other concerns regarding the limitations of an estate tax are legitimate. I'm beginning to appreciate more about just how problematic Citizens United is with regard to consolidation of wealth and insulation from tax liability. I think Citizens United creates enormous problem that need to be addressed. I also think a wealth tax could do a great deal of good for our society, a la Elizabeth Warren and others' proposals.

Citizens United is important, but there are many other unfair issues on a much larger scale than anything the average Joe does. Hell, the U.S. tax system itself is a scheme. Look what happened when CA attempted to introduce an EZ tax system folks could just pay like a bill? Turbo Tax and H&R BLOCK had it buried.

Anyway, enjoy your sunday!

 

[R. Matey]

Just to add a point to the discussion about tax loopholes being unethical. I was a graduate student in 2017 who was very nervous about a certain House Republican tax plan that would've treated my waived tuition via my assistantship as taxable income. This would've put me in a much higher tax bracket (I was out of state) on paper than what I put in my piggy bank every month. The "tax loopholes are bad. Full stop." argument overlooks the people they help including graduate students.

Reference I think most people here will respect: Graduate Students Escaped Tax Increases, but They Still Feel a Target on Their Backs

 

[beginner2011]

Just to add a point to the discussion about tax loopholes being unethical. I was a graduate student in 2017 who was very nervous about a certain House Republican tax plan that would've treated my waived tuition via my assistantship as taxable income. This would've put me in a much higher tax bracket (I was out of state) on paper than what I put in my piggy bank every month. The "tax loopholes are bad. Full stop." argument overlooks the people they help including graduate students.

Reference I think most people here will respect: Graduate Students Escaped Tax Increases, but They Still Feel a Target on Their Backs

Yes, I remember that myself. I was pretty concerned at the time.

I think there's a meaningful difference between the avoidance of the game of claiming to pay your child as a model to pay into an IRA in their name and the avoidance of grad students not having to pay income tax on their tuition waivers.

I'd say that it's possible to have a nuanced attitude toward tax avoidance that doesn't conform to the black and white of "avoid anything you can possibly get away with" or "never consider engaging in avoidance because it's a no-no".

 

[R. Matey]

I think there's a meaningful difference between the avoidance of the game of claiming to pay your child as a model to pay into an IRA in their name and the avoidance of grad students not having to pay income tax on their tuition waivers.

Does your argument change if a lower middle-class family claims their child as a model for say their family business and puts in the minimal contribution per month?

I'd say that it's possible to have a nuanced attitude toward tax avoidance that doesn't conform to the black and white of "avoid anything you can possibly get away with" or "never consider engaging in avoidance because it's a no-no".

Don't disagree there.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

this is awesome! YOU'R MY HERO! You must have had some major financial safety nets to launch into PP so soon after graduating, i imagine startup costs alone cannot be supported by internship/postdoc pay...?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

The tax laws in this country are f’ed up. I’m fully in favor of EZ-type tax payment. At the same time, it would be silly not take advantage of the simple loopholes to reduce ones tax burden.

The issue is education/information so all people can take advantage of these loopholes. However, most are for businesses. There are fewer for the regular working Joe.

 

[borne_before]

Tax thee, not me!

 

[singasongofjoy]

re: no-shows and telehealth, we have actually found an INCREASE in no-shows. But that's primarily for diagnostic assessments for children so there are other interfering factors that hopefully won't last. I am not sure how much of it is because people might take the diagnostic appt less seriously if it feels easy and convenient to schedule but it definitely presents a problem for ensuring privacy and actually having parents able to engage because other kids are home from school etc.

 

[beginner2011]

re: no-shows and telehealth, we have actually found an INCREASE in no-shows. But that's primarily for diagnostic assessments for children so there are other interfering factors that hopefully won't last. I am not sure how much of it is because people might take the diagnostic appt less seriously if it feels easy and convenient to schedule but it definitely presents a problem for ensuring privacy and actually having parents able to engage because other kids are home from school etc.

Out of curiosity, are people maintaining the same no-show cancelation fee policies via tele that they had in person? My understanding pre-COVID was that most clinical practice folks had a policy that 24-hour or less cancelation = full fee.

 

[WisNeuro]

Out of curiosity, are people maintaining the same no-show cancelation fee policies via tele that they had in person? My understanding pre-COVID was that most clinical practice folks had a policy that 24-hour or less cancelation = full fee.

No idea what my hospital system does, and I don't care, I'm salary there. And for IME work, I'm only doing in person, and it's a 48 hour policy.

 

[singasongofjoy]

Out of curiosity, are people maintaining the same no-show cancellation fee policies via tele that they had in person? My understanding pre-COVID was that most clinical practice folks had a policy that 24-hour or less cancellation = full fee.

We actually don't have that policy - pre or post COVID. We offer one reschedule for no-show diagnostic appointments and after 3 no-show or less than 24 hr cancellations for a therapy client we revisit with them whether now's the right time for therapy and if they have another one they're done, though I'm not even sure that is in writing. We typically have a very low no-show rate and our waitlist for either is forever long so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[chicandtoughness]

Out of curiosity, are people maintaining the same no-show cancelation fee policies via tele that they had in person? My understanding pre-COVID was that most clinical practice folks had a policy that 24-hour or less cancelation = full fee.

My agency does a flat fee that I believe is 25% of the full cost billed to insurance (we're CMH serving mid to low SES). We are maintaining the same policy during COVID, barring legit emergencies. For my smattering of pp patients, I usually do full fee within 12 hour cancellation, but I've cut it down to half fee and been lenient with collections given that folks are out of work, etc. If you're quarantining at home all day, there is no excuse to not make it to your appointment on time! =P

 

[futureapppsy2]

Honestly, it bugged me so much that the university where I did my post-doc (a prestigious private with an endowment of $1 billion+) had found some way to classify all postdocs as independent contractors, thus denying us benefits (minus health insurance, but even that needed a lot of finagling and was brand new ) and hitting us hard with double payroll taxes despite the fact that we were in no way independent contractors (regular/set hours, expectations, etc).

 

[conky124]

I really don't understand how one can make the argument that taking full advantage of tax incentives and write-offs for psychologists and small business owners is unethical. I think the way the tax brackets are organized is unethical, especially how people making between 40K and 70K (approximately) are so heavily taxed where the highest earners (like Jeff Bezos) can sometimes pay nothing. For our purposes, tax write-offs and incentives are meant to help small businesses (like private practices) and families stay a float and make money. The more money these folks can keep the more they can spend in the economy (again exception for the billionaires and extremely wealthy). Is it unethical for a married couple to pay one set of taxes?? Is it unethical to claim your children as dependents? To not try to keep the money you make or to move pre-taxed money into a 401K or IRA is really the only way one can retire or create any real safety net for themselves. Keeping your money and creating a safety net for yourself frees up public resources for others who need it more. I'd love for the USA to have socialized medicine and reasonable pensions for all, but this is simply not the case. To say that people making psychologist money are being unethical using tax write offs and incentives is just silly in my book. That being said, the very wealthy absolutely need to pay their fair share in taxes.

 

[WisNeuro]

I really don't understand how one can make the argument that taking full advantage of tax incentives and write-offs for psychologists and small business owners is unethical. I think the way the tax brackets are organized is unethical, especially how people making between 40K and 70K (approximately) are so heavily taxed where the highest earners (like Jeff Bezos) can sometimes pay nothing. For our purposes, tax write-offs and incentives are meant to help small businesses (like private practices) and families stay a float and make money. The more money these folks can keep the more they can spend in the economy (again exception for the billionaires and extremely wealthy). Is it unethical for a married couple to pay one set of taxes?? Is it unethical to claim your children as dependents? To not try to keep the money you make or to move pre-taxed money into a 401K or IRA is really the only way one can retire or create any real safety net for themselves. Keeping your money and creating a safety net for yourself frees up public resources for others who need it more. I'd love for the USA to have socialized medicine and reasonable pensions for all, but this is simply not the case. To say that people making psychologist money are being unethical using tax write offs and incentives is just silly in my book. That being said, the very wealthy absolutely need to pay their fair share in taxes.

Much of the time, high earners actually pay more in taxes married. We call it the marriage penalty.

 

[conky124]

Much of the time, high earners actually pay more in taxes married. We call it the marriage penalty.

What is the range for high earners in this scenario. I'm curious because I didn't know that and its good to know.

 

[WisNeuro]

What is the range for high earners in this scenario. I'm curious because I didn't know that and its good to know.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[conky124]

" pay their fair share in taxes."

A phrase that probably should die.

If you say so

 

[conky124]

Perhaps.

Operationally define fair share.

We have a progressive tax system. Includes many forms of tax, income, property (some forms), federal, state, gas, etc. . . The US gov receives a massive amount of revenue.

Everyone should pay their "fair share" and have some skin in the game. But, this phrase is a class warfare talking point. So yes, in my opinion, that sort of rhetoric should die.

Okey doke, yeah I don't think you and I would have a productive discussion. Respect your position though

 

[WisNeuro]

Operationally defining a fair share is the crux of the issue for most. But, probably a separate thread, mayhaps one that goes in the finance section as it is not related to psych.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Much of the time, high earners actually pay more in taxes married. We call it the marriage penalty.

Fun thing to read as I got married a week ago...

 

[beginner2011]

My agency does a flat fee that I believe is 25% of the full cost billed to insurance (we're CMH serving mid to low SES). We are maintaining the same policy during COVID, barring legit emergencies. For my smattering of pp patients, I usually do full fee within 12 hour cancellation, but I've cut it down to half fee and been lenient with collections given that folks are out of work, etc. If you're quarantining at home all day, there is no excuse to not make it to your appointment on time! =P

You're collecting a flat fee, but you're also billing insurance? I'm confused, I think. (Also, probably just naive.)

Sticking with the Bezos example. Say someone proposed a one time 60 percent wealth tax. Bezos’ and people like him would be forced to sell large components of their company. This may change who controls the company, lower the value of said company, and even could result in the end of a company. People may be wealthy, but they often aren’t liquid. Taking it away has consequences

Warren proposed a 2 percent wealth tax, I think. Of course, these initial proposals only target a very small percentage of the population. Best way to in group/out group. But, gov is hungry. Get the concept through and it will be seen as another revenue generation tool. How long before that hits a more normal retiree level? 2 percent doesn’t sound like much to the average person. But, it’s actually massive. A sustainable withdrawal rate is about 4 percent. A 2 percent yearly wealth tax would make it so many people could not retire (If applied too low) and also would dramatically affect quality of life. As an example, say you’re 65 and you’ve got a million dollars. If the gov applies that wealth tax to you, your sustainable rate just dropped from 40k to 20k. Consider that nursing care often costs upwards of 100k per year.

a wealth tax would complicate our tax code, in my opinion. Usage taxes are easier.

I’d consider that the gov does not have a revenue problem.

I’d also consider that giving the gov more power needs to be considered very carefully. A wealth tax isn’t unprecedented, but it is allowing the federal gov to put their hands more deeply in the pocket of citizens.

i would also consider that wealth inequality, in of itself, is not an evil.

Ummm...

Warren's proposed wealth tax would only be applied to people with <50MM in wealth. The 2% tax would be only on the net worth of a household between 50MM and 1B. Households with <1B in wealth would be taxed an additional 4% on net worth that exceeded 1B.

Are you saying you're concerned that the same tax would soon be applied to a normal retiree level? Unbelievable.

Also, the proposal was specifically made in the context of increasing public access to health care and education, contexts where the government does have a revenue problem.

Also, are you actually suggesting that Bezos and other billionaires shouldn't be taxed because then the value of their businesses might go down? What sort of twisted logic is that?

 

[WisNeuro]

Fun thing to read as I got married a week ago...

It got slightly better about 3 years ago, but some people are still paying a good bit more because of the structure.

 

[beginner2011]

yes. When the income tax was implemented it was 7 percent and only applied to the upper crust. Getting a wealth tax in place gets people used to the concept.

Yes, the income tax was first instituted after the Civil War, then it was repealed 10 years later and re-instituted in 1913. And as we all know the US economy and social services have really taken a dive since then.

bezos pays a ton of taxes and he should. That’s not the point. But, when you have big eyes and see someone else’s money, it’s not always a simple equation. Estate taxes for example routinely causes families to have to sell property to cover it. The same would be true of wealth taxes.

Source? My read is that this is an extremely rare occurrence. Unless the estate is >5.49MM in value per beneficiary it won't be subject to the estate tax. Source

control over companies is important. Diluting that changes things in predictable and unpredictable ways.

Important to whom and for what purpose?

 

[Sanman]

You're collecting a flat fee, but you're also billing insurance? I'm confused, I think. (Also, probably just naive.)



Ummm...

Warren's proposed wealth tax would only be applied to people with <50MM in wealth. The 2% tax would be only on the net worth of a household between 50MM and 1B. Households with <1B in wealth would be taxed an additional 4% on net worth that exceeded 1B.

Are you saying you're concerned that the same tax would soon be applied to a normal retiree level? Unbelievable.

Also, the proposal was specifically made in the context of increasing public access to health care and education, contexts where the government does have a revenue problem.

Also, are you actually suggesting that Bezos and other billionaires shouldn't be taxed because then the value of their businesses might go down? What sort of twisted logic is that?

It is not just the value of the business as much as control of the business he is talking about. If someone worth 50MM has most of their net worth in a business in which they own 51% and is forced to sell shares to pay a large tax, they may end up with less than the majority of shares. Say 48%. This could result in other shareholders voting them out of a position such as CEO. Hence, they lose control over many decisions. The point being that many of these wealthy people may not have the liquid cash to pay such taxes and it could have major consequences to the business and economy.

 

[WisNeuro]

You're collecting a flat fee, but you're also billing insurance? I'm confused, I think. (Also, probably just naive.)

I am not aware of any insurance that pays for no show/late cancellation fees, so you're simply billing patients in these situations. There is no CPT code for no show.

 

[beginner2011]

It is not just the value of the business as much as control of the business he is talking about. If someone worth 50MM has most of their net worth in a business in which they own 51% and is forced to sell shares to pay a large tax, they may end up with less than the majority of shares. Say 48%. This could result in other shareholders voting them out of a position such as CEO. Hence, they lose control over many decisions. The point being that many of these wealthy people may not have the liquid cash to pay such taxes and it could have major consequences to the business and economy.

I'm aware of the abstract concern regarding power and control of large business entities with individual figureheads at the top. I'm implying that this is not a sufficient reason for a wealth tax not to be enacted.

I am not aware of any insurance that pays for no show/late cancellation fees, so you're simply billing patients in these situations. There is no CPT code for no show.

I see, the flat fee is for the no-shows. I was confused by the phrasing I think. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm aware of the abstract concern regarding power and control of large business entities with individual figureheads at the top. I'm implying that this is not a sufficient reason for a wealth tax not to be enacted.

If the wealth tax were of sufficient breadth to include large swaths of non-liquid assets, to the extent that someone could lose controlling interest in their own company, you would likely see a fairly large exodus of companies repatriating to places like Ireland. In the end, this would lead to decreased revenue. I'm all about raising taxes, but you have to find a middle ground, this particular instance would likely be a bad idea in the long term.

 

[beginner2011]

If the wealth tax were of sufficient breadth to include large swaths of non-liquid assets, to the extent that someone could lose controlling interest in their own company, you would likely see a fairly large exodus of companies repatriating to places like Ireland. In the end, this would lead to decreased revenue. I'm all about raising taxes, but you have to find a middle ground, this particular instance would likely be a bad idea in the long term.

From Warren Proposal: A 40% “exit tax” on the net worth above $50 million of any U.S. citizen who renounces their citizenship; and systematic third-party reporting that builds on existing tax information exchange agreements adopted after the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

figureheads? You mean like people who conceived of and started a business successful enough to put them in the bullseye of people like warren?

having to sell of property or control of a business you built to pay taxes And possible jeopardizing its continued success and affecting everyone who works for it seems like it’s sufficient reason to not implement a wealth tax. But, I’d also consider the need for more spending without consideration for spending reform another chit against it. Ie what has the gov done to show they’re responsible enough to have more power?

I can see why @conky124 bailed out of the conversation.

 

[WisNeuro]

From Warren Proposal: A 40% “exit tax” on the net worth above $50 million of any U.S. citizen who renounces their citizenship; and systematic third-party reporting that builds on existing tax information exchange agreements adopted after the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.



I can see why @conky124 bailed out of the conversation.

Sure, you'll get a one-time revenue boost. But what about the companies that will not incorporate in the US in the future after seeing this?

Also, regarding Paired Associate, I assume we're on different sides of the aisle, politically, but he has discussed this issue in good faith thus far.

 

[Sanman]

From Warren Proposal: A 40% “exit tax” on the net worth above $50 million of any U.S. citizen who renounces their citizenship; and systematic third-party reporting that builds on existing tax information exchange agreements adopted after the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.



I can see why @conky124 bailed out of the conversation.

I think the bigger issue faced here is that this will never come to fruition. Piss off a bunch of billionaires and make some serious head way with it and watch a bunch of billionaires find and fund an opponent to defeat you in the next election. They can and will ruin your life. Gawker media thought different.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not as much for the large grabs, or labeling things as a wealth tax. It doesn't play well politically. One reason why the left has always lagged behind the right. The right ala Frank Luntz, knows the power of words and messaging, the left has failed to heed this lesson for a LONG time. As far as taxes, I'd rather see the tax code simplified, and some of the ridiculous tax deductions eliminated for the wealthy and corporations, as well as an increase in capital gains taxes to mirror the income tax and such. There are much more palatable ways to do this, that also garner support, and do not alienate the people actually funding your campaigns to a large extent.

 

[Sanman]

I'm not as much for the large grabs, or labeling things as a wealth tax. It doesn't play well politically. One reason why the left has always lagged behind the right. The right ala Frank Luntz, knows the power of words and messaging, the left has failed to heed this lesson for a LONG time. As far as taxes, I'd rather see the tax code simplified, and some of the ridiculous tax deductions eliminated for the wealthy and corporations, as well as an increase in capital gains taxes to mirror the income tax and such. There are much more palatable ways to do this, that also garner support, and do not alienate the people actually funding your campaigns to a large extent.

I am with you except that I think we need to be careful with capital gains as it will have effects on a lot of retirees.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am with you except that I think we need to be careful with capital gains as it will have effects on a lot of retirees.

What is it, like 15%? Very low, also, IRAs and 401ks and such are not subject to capital gains. I believe the effect on retirees in this instance is overblown.

 

[Sanman]

What is it, like 15%? Very low, also, IRAs and 401ks and such are not subject to capital gains. I believe the effect on retirees in this instance is overblown.

Around 15-20% depending, I believe. I am more concerned with the sales of primary residence than I am IRA or 401k. In addition, there are those that have money saved in non-IRA/401k accounts instead.

 

[WisNeuro]

Around 15-20% depending, I believe. I am more concerned with the sales of primary residence than I am IRA or 401k. In addition, there are those that have money saved in non-IRA/401k accounts instead.

If you're married, half a million of your home sale is exempt from capital gains. As for people with stocks above and beyond IRAs/401/403b, pretty small number. I'd be fine with indexing to inflation, but it should definitely look more like the income tax distribution.

 

[Sanman]

If you're married, half a million of your home sale is exempt from capital gains. As for people with stocks above and beyond IRAs/401/403b, pretty small number. I'd be fine with indexing to inflation, but it should definitely look more like the income tax distribution.

Working in geriatrics and in personal experience, many widows/widowers try to downsize after a spouse dies. 250K in exemption is nothing if you live in the Northeast or CA and that home is a sizable chunk of your retirement nest egg.

 

[WisNeuro]

Working in geriatrics and in personal experience, many widows/widowers try to downsize after a spouse dies. 250K in exemption is nothing if you live in the Northeast or CA and that home is a sizable chunk of your retirement nest egg.

exemption currently on 250k is $37,500, if that's nothing to someone, it would seem a slightly higher tax wouldn't be an impediment After that you can roll the cost basis, seller costs, transaction fees, and a host of other things on to the exemption. I'd still argue that this doesn't really hit many in the lower and middle class range.