5 ms·

You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to

You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to zero", right?

youareawesome 7y ago
Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.
- ninkendo 7y ago
  > I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans. But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?
  - youareawesome 7y ago
    I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.
    - jhasse 7y ago
      The top 1% has been brought up by the articles title you commented on.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    To be fair to the other commenter, they were also talking about taking those 100's entire wealth, not just taxing a bit more.
- moate 7y ago
  Senator Warren's plan would affect about 83,620 people[1]. I'm not saying you're point isn't valid, but your reference to the wealthiest 100 Americans is relatively meaningless to any discussion being had here. Also, the federal budget is composed of so many things[2], saying that taxing high wealth individuals couldn't affect it is a bit disingenuous. The bottom line is that if you have more money in the pool (either by raising revenue or cutting expenses), you can pay for more new projects. Taxing these people could add millions of dollars to that pool. I'm not trying to say that's good or bad. It's a zero sum game here, either the individuals spend it on the projects of their choice, or the government gets it and spends it the way they want. 1-https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires-decamillionaires-america/ https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires-decamillionaires-ame... 2-https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
  - youareawesome 7y ago
    Just because it's not literally applicable doesn't mean it's meaningless, it emphasizes an important point that people overlook. The amount of wealth held by the top 80K is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total revenue of the federal government. The greatest effect of this policy is that it will harm individual liberty. It will have nearly no effect on improving poverty or increasing social programs.
    - moate 7y ago
      But it's not. 45% of the federal government's income comes from individual taxes. In 2016, the US took in about 1,442,385,000,000 total of which 839,898,000,000 was from the top 5% of individual earners. That's OVER HALF of the total amount[1]. You're wrong. You're point is not valid or based in the actual data. To say that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in extra revenue couldn't help fund social programs or improve the conditions of the impoverished is factually inaccurate. [1]https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
      - 7y ago

You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to zero", right?

youareawesome 7y ago

Only those with more than 50 million in total assets will be paying a "wealth tax" according to Liz Warren's plan, everyone else won't be paying. I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.

ninkendo 7y ago
> I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans. But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?
- youareawesome 7y ago
  I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.
  - jhasse 7y ago
    The top 1% has been brought up by the articles title you commented on.
- OJFord 7y ago
  To be fair to the other commenter, they were also talking about taking those 100's entire wealth, not just taxing a bit more.
moate 7y ago
Senator Warren's plan would affect about 83,620 people[1]. I'm not saying you're point isn't valid, but your reference to the wealthiest 100 Americans is relatively meaningless to any discussion being had here. Also, the federal budget is composed of so many things[2], saying that taxing high wealth individuals couldn't affect it is a bit disingenuous. The bottom line is that if you have more money in the pool (either by raising revenue or cutting expenses), you can pay for more new projects. Taxing these people could add millions of dollars to that pool. I'm not trying to say that's good or bad. It's a zero sum game here, either the individuals spend it on the projects of their choice, or the government gets it and spends it the way they want. 1-https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires-decamillionaires-america/ https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires-decamillionaires-ame... 2-https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
- youareawesome 7y ago
  Just because it's not literally applicable doesn't mean it's meaningless, it emphasizes an important point that people overlook. The amount of wealth held by the top 80K is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total revenue of the federal government. The greatest effect of this policy is that it will harm individual liberty. It will have nearly no effect on improving poverty or increasing social programs.
  - moate 7y ago
    But it's not. 45% of the federal government's income comes from individual taxes. In 2016, the US took in about 1,442,385,000,000 total of which 839,898,000,000 was from the top 5% of individual earners. That's OVER HALF of the total amount[1]. You're wrong. You're point is not valid or based in the actual data. To say that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in extra revenue couldn't help fund social programs or improve the conditions of the impoverished is factually inaccurate. [1]https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
    - 7y ago