The world was a very different place then. The US government only collected 2% of GDP in revenue. All modern developed countries collect 25-45% of GDP in government revenue, which has remained pretty constant for the last 80 years. Pretending collecting wealth taxes is some kind of slippery slope is ridiculous.
@@kyleolson9636 How is it a slippery slope when there are countless taxes / regulations that are expanded from their original focus to be broad? The point is that prior to 1914 there was no income tax, with the only way to pass it to lie and keep it narrow. As the income tax law was, this law WILL BE EXPANDED to cover anyone's financial holdings and it incentives the government to create inflation.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - not ridiculous in the least. As GDP rises and spending rises, eventually the government has to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
@@fenix6297 You don't have to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue. Revenue is based on the tax base and the tax rate. Increase either one and revenue goes up. Increasing the tax base is merely a way to create a more fair and equitable taxing system. A narrow tax base means a narrow portion of wealth is taxed, leaving some forms of wealth tax free. It is reasonable to believe US tax revenue will go up in the future. The US government spends like an average OECD nation but it doesn't tax like one. If the US taxed at just the OECD average rate, there would be no federal deficit at current spending levels. It is not reasonable to believe increasing the federal tax base somehow opens up the floodgates to tax average people more. The government can already do that today by increasing income taxes. It is however a great way to expand the tax base and tax the wealthy more. The US gets 11% of its revenue from wealth taxes and 66% from income taxes. I think that needs some balancing.
@@kyleolson9636 _You don't have to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue_ When the tax rate becomes untenable, you absolutely have to broaden the base. _The US government spends like an average OECD nation but it doesn't tax like one._ The lower tax rate why we have significantly better growth and standard of living - and the ridiculousness of comparing countries with a FRACTION of the population and economy size is ridiculous. _If the US taxed at just the OECD average rate, there would be no federal deficit at current spending levels._ It is unreasonable to assume that doubling-tripling the taxation rate doesn't have a negative impact on growth - resulting in the tax revenue you expect. _It is not reasonable to believe increasing the federal tax base somehow opens up the floodgates to tax average people more._ Except that it continues to happen. _The US gets 11% of its revenue from wealth taxes and 66% from income taxes. I think that needs some balancing._ So you think double taxation on capital already accumulated is "fair" and reasonable and will not result in negative economic results. THAT is unreasonable.
@@saffsunday9030 it is 100% true. The US budget isn't a problem of funds, it is a problem of spending. The more the government gets, they more they spend. Look at basically every tax policy since the advent of income tax. They start off as "we will only tax the rich" and then the slowly start affecting more people. Income tax was originally "only for the rich" and then it was actually a pretty small tax.
10,000 people affected!!! Almost 400 million people, that’s a bigger base to draw from and the govt could likely raise taxes by .1% and would likely get the same amount of revenue. Going after 10,000 people is just plain silly
But less than 1% of Americans hold most of the wealth. If you want to make money from taxes you only need to tax a few hundred billionaires to be honest. No reason to go after average income Americans.
@@saffsunday9030 :That’s not how it works. Way easier to get taxes from 99% rather than 1%. Start taxing the wealthy and they just move assets elsewhere, affecting job growth and tax revenue. This is a lesson Sweden has learned. It’s the middle class that fund the government. Not the 1%. That’s an impossibility.
@@saffsunday9030 Those "billionaires" are honest. Those "untaxed unrealized gains" are INVESTMENTS that create JOBS. Tax them and you get less investments, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of a living as a result for those "average income Americans".
The first income tax in 1913 had 3 brackets - 1%, 2% and 3%. The 1% bracket started at $50,000 income (equivalent to ~$400,000 today). The form was a single page. "Tax the rich" always becomes "tax everybody". And what's wrong with not spending money we don't have instead of squeezing it out of those of us who actually work for a living?
He should answer that the income tax was introduced before the Great Depression, when US federal receipts and outlays were about 2% of GDP. The Great Depression highlighted the need for a stronger central government, and federal receipts grew to 20% of GDP by the end of WW2. This would have happened regardless of how the federal government obtained its revenue. Federal receipts have remained between 15-20% of GDP since the 1940s. There has been no great acceleration of tax revenue in the past 80 years. Implying transitioning some tax revenue to wealth taxes is some kind of slippery slope is either incredibly dishonest or ignorant.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - nope. The ACTUAL history of the Great Depression is it showed how a "stronger centralized government" can make a bad policy get worse as it was FDR's monetary policy and absolutely horrible economic policies (tariffs, several banking laws) that extended the Great Depression, caused more bank failures, more lost jobs, etc. Economists say his policy extended the Great Depression by several years - not intentionally of course. Claiming the "Great Depression showed the need for a strong central government" is incredibly dishonest and ignorant. Secondly, the policy is ridiculous not because "it will only affect 10K people" is because the unintended consequences of a high tax on unrealized gains far outweigh any benefit.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - no. The Great Depression showed the PROBLEM of centralized government as the monetary policy and other federal economic policies (bank regulations, tariffs, etc) worsened and extended the Great Depression by several years. Denying that basically every tax policy was introduced as "just a tax on the rich" or a "temporary measure" before it became permanent and the affected base broadened is incredibly dishonest or ignorant.
@@kyleolson9636 Social Security tax - implemented in 1937, 2% for a max of 3K (67K in today's dollars) Currently - 12.4% to a max of $147K plus Medicare and it is still going broke. Income tax in that same year - they would pay a tax rate of 4% Now, they would pay roughly 17% between themselves and their employer - not including their Social security tax on top of that. So same relative income 1937 - 6% goes to income tax and SSI, then any State/Local taxes today - 19.4% plus their Medicare contribution and any State/Local taxes But, keep citing irrelevancies like GDP to taxation and calling people "dishonest" for pointing out the indisputable fact that the federal tax burden HAS grown over time for the American workers and these programs "only for the rich" never seem to stay that way.
There is never a conversation about brining down government spending and allowing people to keep more of their paychecks. I don't understand how anyone can get behind this unless the thought is that the taxes will never hit them. The "Harvard" economist recommended taking the rich and corporations, like those entities are not going to find a way to pass on the costs to the rest of us.
No. itl be much simpler than "passing the costs down", they will just not keep the capital in the country, whyd I invest where they blatantly take away the equity for no reason?
@@saffsunday9030 first of all, why should wealth be equal? How is wealth inequality affecting you personally? Do you not think (as a person of certain left wing persuasion which I deduced based on the nature of a question) policies by leftist presidents like obama exacerbated issue due to the bailouts, unnecessary regulation and blatant economic favoratism of china?
@@saffsunday9030 It's not "unjust". You being upset someone is richer than you doesn't make something "unjust". And wealth inequality is irrelevant, sweetie. What you should be concerned with is the standard of living of the average American. You keep citing historical comparisons of wealth inequality - which is hilarious when you look at the STANDARD OF LIVING difference between the two time periods. Great Depression had bread lines - we live in a day where the poor are more at risk for obesity, have cell phones, Air conditioning, televisions, etc. It's sad I have to explain this - but, revolutions due to poverty don't happen because of "wealth inequality" - they happen when the basic needs of the populace are not met. Which is why wealth inequality, even VAST wealth inequality has always existed, but revolutions and riots as a result are much more rare, and pretty much only occur once the government starts failing to meet the basic needs. Not happening here, which is why comparing us to "The Great Depression" or "France before the Revolution" is ridiculous.
Tariffs on foreign imports will raise prices to consumers closer to what a similar products manufactured onshore. Obviously that’s a good thing to provide jobs for young Americans.
I think tariffs can result in long-term benefits to the country and strengthen independence, which is a weakness of globalization. The Russian war and China threat definitelyattest to that. So while tariffs, in the short duration result in cost increases, it does come with the benefit of self-sufficiency and ability domestic products to compete with foreign goods. The argument that everyone will be poor is also true when you increase taxes
If you’re here hating on this policy please explain how else we can reallocate the unjust riches of the billionaires in our country? We have wealth inequality worse than France during the French Revolution. Billionaires have the wealth and power to effectively control our government and country. They have far too much power and influence. They are a problem. That much should in no way be up for debate. If you think they’ll dodge this tax then what do you think will work?
It's sad you think your personal wealth envy and hatred of billionaires is "fact" that we have to accept. It's hilarious you think comparing the United States to the Great Depression and pre-revolution France is reasonable and valid. The most telling part of your statement is the last part - It's obvious you care more about billionaires losing their wealth than you care about implementing a sound economic policy that benefits all Americans, creates jobs, lowers the deficit, raises the standard of living of the working class, etc. Simply put - if someone suggested a policy that doubled the standard of living for the poor and middle class, but also benefited the wealthy - you would oppose it because _wHat aBouT wEaLtH iNeQuALiTy_ You are the living embodiment of the Harvard study that proved that some people are willing to hurt themselves economically if it prevented other people from having more money than them. Thank goodness the economic policy in this country is run by adults.
I think we should have an unrealized capital gains tax of 90% on havards endowment. We could then have a direct transfer of all that elitist money towards unhoused and disenfranchised people.
Immigration is always ongoing. Stopping Illegal immigration is not a move to restrict immigration- WITH THE EXCEPTION- that it takes time for immigrants to integrate into society. Integration NEEDS to be measurable and measured and then immigration quotas have to be adjusted to that integration level.
The biggest problem which the economic prof doesn't address is market distortion. Markets today are extremely distorted, and very much removed from the fundamentals. I think that alone makes it an undamped tax policy and very terrible. On the other hand I'd like to see it pass and watch it wreck havoc on the fake economy, might be our barbarians finally arriving.
Economists largely agree that a broad tax base with lower rates is better for sustained growth and prosperity. The fact she is pushing this terrible plan on the bases that "it will only affect 10K people" is ridiculous. Also rather telling how the economist dodges the issue of high taxes on unrealized gains, and merely just says that generally speaking it is a good idea to not differentiate the two.
This will create an overbought market and will crash the market. Its a horribke idea. I am a full time investor and trader but worth only 500K. It will crash the market! Dont listen to these guys. Your 401K will crash.
Why? We have wealth inequality worse than France during their revolution. Are you against making America more equitable or do you think this won’t actually affect the billionaires?
@@saffsunday9030 primarily the complication of implementing this and implications for business owners. Also last time I checked America isn’t a communist regime so there will always be wealth inequality
@@paulbennett5489 dude the point of me bringing up the wealth inequality is that the French literally killed their leaders and overthrew their government because of the wealth inequality they faced. Why you talking about it like it’s a fact of life? The French didn’t accept it. If this only affects multimillionaire business owners that would be a wonderful thing.
Well i guess if all the billionaires leave for some other country youll successfuly get rid billionaires and collect 0 tax until the lower it to the middle class who cant just leave
The US exit tax is already in place and would also tax these billionaires on all unrealized capital gains. It would also be an immediate tax instead of the gradual tax proposed by Harris.
@@kyleolson9636LOL - yes, because there are no shortages of ways to expatriate the holdings and avoid the ex-pat cash. But, it's disgusting that people wanting to tax unrealized gains and fleece billions of legally earned value are so proud of their attempts to block any attempt to avoid the tax. Regardless, the point remains - even if you successfully fleece this lot, you will teach the others to leave early and invest elsewhere. Socialists always forget they eventually run out of other people's money.
Rather than introducing new taxes, how about making a better use of National budget by for example not going into wars.
Few people would face this tax. The same thing they said about income tax.
The world was a very different place then. The US government only collected 2% of GDP in revenue. All modern developed countries collect 25-45% of GDP in government revenue, which has remained pretty constant for the last 80 years. Pretending collecting wealth taxes is some kind of slippery slope is ridiculous.
@@kyleolson9636 How is it a slippery slope when there are countless taxes / regulations that are expanded from their original focus to be broad? The point is that prior to 1914 there was no income tax, with the only way to pass it to lie and keep it narrow. As the income tax law was, this law WILL BE EXPANDED to cover anyone's financial holdings and it incentives the government to create inflation.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - not ridiculous in the least. As GDP rises and spending rises, eventually the government has to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue.
To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
@@fenix6297 You don't have to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue. Revenue is based on the tax base and the tax rate. Increase either one and revenue goes up.
Increasing the tax base is merely a way to create a more fair and equitable taxing system. A narrow tax base means a narrow portion of wealth is taxed, leaving some forms of wealth tax free.
It is reasonable to believe US tax revenue will go up in the future. The US government spends like an average OECD nation but it doesn't tax like one. If the US taxed at just the OECD average rate, there would be no federal deficit at current spending levels.
It is not reasonable to believe increasing the federal tax base somehow opens up the floodgates to tax average people more. The government can already do that today by increasing income taxes. It is however a great way to expand the tax base and tax the wealthy more. The US gets 11% of its revenue from wealth taxes and 66% from income taxes. I think that needs some balancing.
@@kyleolson9636 _You don't have to broaden the tax base to capture more revenue_
When the tax rate becomes untenable, you absolutely have to broaden the base.
_The US government spends like an average OECD nation but it doesn't tax like one._
The lower tax rate why we have significantly better growth and standard of living - and the ridiculousness of comparing countries with a FRACTION of the population and economy size is ridiculous.
_If the US taxed at just the OECD average rate, there would be no federal deficit at current spending levels._
It is unreasonable to assume that doubling-tripling the taxation rate doesn't have a negative impact on growth - resulting in the tax revenue you expect.
_It is not reasonable to believe increasing the federal tax base somehow opens up the floodgates to tax average people more._
Except that it continues to happen.
_The US gets 11% of its revenue from wealth taxes and 66% from income taxes. I think that needs some balancing._
So you think double taxation on capital already accumulated is "fair" and reasonable and will not result in negative economic results.
THAT is unreasonable.
New taxes begin with high income and they trickle down to us in the middle class.
Also middle class would be trickled down to much bottom
How so? I’d like to understand this if true.
@@saffsunday9030 it is 100% true.
The US budget isn't a problem of funds, it is a problem of spending. The more the government gets, they more they spend.
Look at basically every tax policy since the advent of income tax. They start off as "we will only tax the rich" and then the slowly start affecting more people.
Income tax was originally "only for the rich" and then it was actually a pretty small tax.
Mark my words. This tax will never pass legislation. It’s just a talking point.
10,000 people affected!!! Almost 400 million people, that’s a bigger base to draw from and the govt could likely raise taxes by .1% and would likely get the same amount of revenue. Going after 10,000 people is just plain silly
But less than 1% of Americans hold most of the wealth. If you want to make money from taxes you only need to tax a few hundred billionaires to be honest. No reason to go after average income Americans.
@@saffsunday9030 :That’s not how it works. Way easier to get taxes from 99% rather than 1%. Start taxing the wealthy and they just move assets elsewhere, affecting job growth and tax revenue. This is a lesson Sweden has learned. It’s the middle class that fund the government. Not the 1%. That’s an impossibility.
@@saffsunday9030 Those "billionaires" are honest.
Those "untaxed unrealized gains" are INVESTMENTS that create JOBS.
Tax them and you get less investments, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of a living as a result for those "average income Americans".
What was the income tax rate when it was introduced? And who did it apply to? I’d like to hear him answer those 2 questions.
The first income tax in 1913 had 3 brackets - 1%, 2% and 3%. The 1% bracket started at $50,000 income (equivalent to ~$400,000 today). The form was a single page. "Tax the rich" always becomes "tax everybody". And what's wrong with not spending money we don't have instead of squeezing it out of those of us who actually work for a living?
He should answer that the income tax was introduced before the Great Depression, when US federal receipts and outlays were about 2% of GDP. The Great Depression highlighted the need for a stronger central government, and federal receipts grew to 20% of GDP by the end of WW2. This would have happened regardless of how the federal government obtained its revenue.
Federal receipts have remained between 15-20% of GDP since the 1940s. There has been no great acceleration of tax revenue in the past 80 years. Implying transitioning some tax revenue to wealth taxes is some kind of slippery slope is either incredibly dishonest or ignorant.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - nope.
The ACTUAL history of the Great Depression is it showed how a "stronger centralized government" can make a bad policy get worse as it was FDR's monetary policy and absolutely horrible economic policies (tariffs, several banking laws) that extended the Great Depression, caused more bank failures, more lost jobs, etc.
Economists say his policy extended the Great Depression by several years - not intentionally of course.
Claiming the "Great Depression showed the need for a strong central government" is incredibly dishonest and ignorant.
Secondly, the policy is ridiculous not because "it will only affect 10K people" is because the unintended consequences of a high tax on unrealized gains far outweigh any benefit.
@@kyleolson9636 LOL - no. The Great Depression showed the PROBLEM of centralized government as the monetary policy and other federal economic policies (bank regulations, tariffs, etc) worsened and extended the Great Depression by several years.
Denying that basically every tax policy was introduced as "just a tax on the rich" or a "temporary measure" before it became permanent and the affected base broadened is incredibly dishonest or ignorant.
@@kyleolson9636 Social Security tax - implemented in 1937, 2% for a max of 3K (67K in today's dollars)
Currently - 12.4% to a max of $147K plus Medicare and it is still going broke.
Income tax in that same year - they would pay a tax rate of 4%
Now, they would pay roughly 17% between themselves and their employer - not including their Social security tax on top of that.
So same relative income
1937 - 6% goes to income tax and SSI, then any State/Local taxes
today - 19.4% plus their Medicare contribution and any State/Local taxes
But, keep citing irrelevancies like GDP to taxation and calling people "dishonest" for pointing out the indisputable fact that the federal tax burden HAS grown over time for the American workers and these programs "only for the rich" never seem to stay that way.
There is never a conversation about brining down government spending and allowing people to keep more of their paychecks. I don't understand how anyone can get behind this unless the thought is that the taxes will never hit them. The "Harvard" economist recommended taking the rich and corporations, like those entities are not going to find a way to pass on the costs to the rest of us.
No. itl be much simpler than "passing the costs down", they will just not keep the capital in the country, whyd I invest where they blatantly take away the equity for no reason?
So how do we take away the unjust power these billionaires have? How do we fight wealth inequality worse than the Great Depression?
@@saffsunday9030 first of all, why should wealth be equal? How is wealth inequality affecting you personally? Do you not think (as a person of certain left wing persuasion which I deduced based on the nature of a question) policies by leftist presidents like obama exacerbated issue due to the bailouts, unnecessary regulation and blatant economic favoratism of china?
@@saffsunday9030 It's not "unjust".
You being upset someone is richer than you doesn't make something "unjust".
And wealth inequality is irrelevant, sweetie. What you should be concerned with is the standard of living of the average American.
You keep citing historical comparisons of wealth inequality - which is hilarious when you look at the STANDARD OF LIVING difference between the two time periods.
Great Depression had bread lines - we live in a day where the poor are more at risk for obesity, have cell phones, Air conditioning, televisions, etc.
It's sad I have to explain this - but, revolutions due to poverty don't happen because of "wealth inequality" - they happen when the basic needs of the populace are not met. Which is why wealth inequality, even VAST wealth inequality has always existed, but revolutions and riots as a result are much more rare, and pretty much only occur once the government starts failing to meet the basic needs.
Not happening here, which is why comparing us to "The Great Depression" or "France before the Revolution" is ridiculous.
Oh gee, it's only going to impact the other guy. No worries. Lower the threshold in the future? Ahh, not gunna happen. This guy has no credibility.
Tariffs on foreign imports will raise prices to consumers closer to what a similar products manufactured onshore. Obviously that’s a good thing to provide jobs for young Americans.
I think tariffs can result in long-term benefits to the country and strengthen independence, which is a weakness of globalization. The Russian war and China threat definitelyattest to that. So while tariffs, in the short duration result in cost increases, it does come with the benefit of self-sufficiency and ability domestic products to compete with foreign goods.
The argument that everyone will be poor is also true when you increase taxes
If you’re here hating on this policy please explain how else we can reallocate the unjust riches of the billionaires in our country? We have wealth inequality worse than France during the French Revolution. Billionaires have the wealth and power to effectively control our government and country. They have far too much power and influence. They are a problem. That much should in no way be up for debate. If you think they’ll dodge this tax then what do you think will work?
It's sad you think your personal wealth envy and hatred of billionaires is "fact" that we have to accept.
It's hilarious you think comparing the United States to the Great Depression and pre-revolution France is reasonable and valid.
The most telling part of your statement is the last part - It's obvious you care more about billionaires losing their wealth than you care about implementing a sound economic policy that benefits all Americans, creates jobs, lowers the deficit, raises the standard of living of the working class, etc.
Simply put - if someone suggested a policy that doubled the standard of living for the poor and middle class, but also benefited the wealthy - you would oppose it because _wHat aBouT wEaLtH iNeQuALiTy_
You are the living embodiment of the Harvard study that proved that some people are willing to hurt themselves economically if it prevented other people from having more money than them.
Thank goodness the economic policy in this country is run by adults.
I think we should have an unrealized capital gains tax of 90% on havards endowment. We could then have a direct transfer of all that elitist money towards unhoused and disenfranchised people.
Immigration is always ongoing. Stopping Illegal immigration is not a move to restrict immigration- WITH THE EXCEPTION- that it takes time for immigrants to integrate into society. Integration NEEDS to be measurable and measured and then immigration quotas have to be adjusted to that integration level.
The biggest problem which the economic prof doesn't address is market distortion. Markets today are extremely distorted, and very much removed from the fundamentals. I think that alone makes it an undamped tax policy and very terrible. On the other hand I'd like to see it pass and watch it wreck havoc on the fake economy, might be our barbarians finally arriving.
Oh yeh...get rid of the penny and just inflate again to the nickel, then get rid of the nickel...
Economists largely agree that a broad tax base with lower rates is better for sustained growth and prosperity.
The fact she is pushing this terrible plan on the bases that "it will only affect 10K people" is ridiculous.
Also rather telling how the economist dodges the issue of high taxes on unrealized gains, and merely just says that generally speaking it is a good idea to not differentiate the two.
This will create an overbought market and will crash the market. Its a horribke idea. I am a full time investor and trader but worth only 500K. It will crash the market! Dont listen to these guys. Your 401K will crash.
Absolutely insane policy
Why? We have wealth inequality worse than France during their revolution. Are you against making America more equitable or do you think this won’t actually affect the billionaires?
@@saffsunday9030 primarily the complication of implementing this and implications for business owners. Also last time I checked America isn’t a communist regime so there will always be wealth inequality
@@paulbennett5489 dude the point of me bringing up the wealth inequality is that the French literally killed their leaders and overthrew their government because of the wealth inequality they faced. Why you talking about it like it’s a fact of life? The French didn’t accept it. If this only affects multimillionaire business owners that would be a wonderful thing.
@@paulbennett5489 are you a small business owner that is worried about your business being affected?
@@saffsunday9030 the French Revolution of the 1700s? Times are a little different now.
Well i guess if all the billionaires leave for some other country youll successfuly get rid billionaires and collect 0 tax until the lower it to the middle class who cant just leave
The US exit tax is already in place and would also tax these billionaires on all unrealized capital gains. It would also be an immediate tax instead of the gradual tax proposed by Harris.
@@kyleolson9636LOL - yes, because there are no shortages of ways to expatriate the holdings and avoid the ex-pat cash.
But, it's disgusting that people wanting to tax unrealized gains and fleece billions of legally earned value are so proud of their attempts to block any attempt to avoid the tax.
Regardless, the point remains - even if you successfully fleece this lot, you will teach the others to leave early and invest elsewhere.
Socialists always forget they eventually run out of other people's money.