No brainer. Also. Why 60%? Shouldn’t it be 100%, especially since they don’t even pay taxes on these (or other) gains? Will it get done? Don’t think so. Harris couldn’t make herself vote even for a little 10% off the Penta budget.
A Dem could win all just by saying lets go back to the FDR tax rates. And then upgrade to reality with a tAX ON the gross not net income of corporate america. Because when you make the rules for tax deductions everything is a tax decuction, net means nothing to billionioares and corps.
It was time 25, if not 70 years ago! Because the arguments to cut taxes came long before the shenanigans of criminal evasion morphing into “policy” ( make that police-eee, becoming exponentially more apparent) and the poetic ‘coincidence’ of a pandemic.
buy and produce local as much as possible
get woke, get woke again,
choose your area of public engagement
choose an area of engagement with local arts/ arts education - volunteer
share arts discoveries if you’re on social media - there is a lot going on not getting covered
and, oh yes, at the very least - a one time emergency tax. Dollars to donuts it passes. Its just Kabuki enough for both sides of the isle. Besides the theatrics of this has been planned WAAAAAY ahead of time.
Who else still has enough money to pay much in taxes?
What were the FDR tax rates?
I love common dreams, and am unfortunately not in a position to support it.
I love it because it is the best we can do right now.
I donot like self restrictive articles like this.
Please common dreams - they are proposing a hypothetical that is not likely to be agreed upon by those who make the laws.
At the very least the article should detail HOW they have made these mountains of Money.
At the very least the article should look at the situation with a historical eye - both for context, and the evolution of money.
But thank you any way.
Cuz I cannot live without what you have to offer.
No, no. It’s way past time for a reintroduction of extensive, steeply graduated income tax rates, back to where they were in the Eisenhower era, when the top rate was 91%. There needs to be an ironclad top rate of 90% on incomes of over $1Bil./yr., and an estate tax rate of 90% on estates of over $1Bil., and if the billionaire decides they are going to move to a tax haven to try and avoid those taxes, well Mr. Zuckerburg, you’re free to move to Singapore, after you pay a 95% exit tax on your assets. In other words, if you get obscenely rich off your fellow Americans, you owe your fair share in taxes to the rest of us, and you can’t weasel your way out of it. That is the only true way of correcting our inequality problems - no more billionaires.
You can find those rates at the tax-brackets dot org site.
I’m happy with higher marginal income tax rates and even some form of more progressive property tax, but ideas proposed to tax windfall of stock value increases during Coronavirus are missing a key point: those high gains reported are mostly stock price increases. Until stock is sold there is no money to tax and the price may come down again and if it is a permanent bump, then this is reflected in a capital gains taxing and when stock is finally sold (granted the rate isn’t high enough -it should match income tax rates).
But if have yet to hear this idea of taxing the windfall being very well thought out. Maybe it’s better to concentrate on general structural reform we need - coronavirus or not.
you should read what Dara wrote. He beat me to it. This tax is ludicrous. It doesn’t make any sense. Only Bernie Sanders would propose it. How could it even be implemented? All of the wealth gains come from stock price increases. So they are unrealized gains. How do you tax that? Why should you tax that? Stupid.
Thank you for that.Wow the overall tax in 1932 63% rose to 94% in 1944----and there’s lots pf intriguing things there too. I will be reading this for a while, So, that you again.