Democrats Propose National Unrealized Gain Wealth Tax

[fatpiggy]

Democrats want to tax so bad. They talk about affordability crisis and raising taxes in the same breath. It’s an interesting position to take when the last vote was a referendum on affordability.

Mamdani and New York want to raise your taxes. Hochul may raise your taxes. Rho Khanna wants to raise your taxes.

Chamath is financing a challenger to Khanna because he is so upset about it.

My question is, are democrats TOTALLY misreading the room?

How can they talk affordability when they want to raise taxes?

Trump raised tariffs and inflation still came down. If Democrats can raise taxes without increasing inflation I’m all ears.

 

[baltimorened]

Democrats want to tax so bad. They talk about affordability crisis and raising taxes in the same breath. It’s an interesting position to take when the last vote was a referendum on affordability.

Mamdani and New York want to raise your taxes. Hochul may raise your taxes. Rho Khanna wants to raise your taxes.

Chamath is financing a challenger to Khanna because he is so upset about it.

My question is, are democrats TOTALLY misreading the room?

How can they talk affordability when they want to raise taxes?

Trump raised tariffs and inflation still came down. If Democrats can raise taxes without increasing inflation I’m all ears.

for me, I could discuss a tax increase but not for the purpose of spending the money. If we want to reduce the debt, OK, let's talk. But creating a a new entitlement or just giving the money away doesn't make sense to me.

 

[fatpiggy]

for me, I could discuss a tax increase but not for the purpose of spending the money. If we want to reduce the debt, OK, let's talk. But creating a a new entitlement or just giving the money away doesn't make sense to me.

You have top earners in California already paying close to 50%. Other states it climb as high as 40%. What moral person thinks it’s ok to tax someone else at 50%. I don’t think anyone will win with that platform.

Maybe a wealth tax will be appropriate at some time in the future (I hope not) but now is not that time. DOGE has exposed the waste fraud and abuse, of which there is Billions, why do they think anyone wants to pay more for that?

I just think their poor leadership allows them to keep making bad decisions. I don’t think Khanna is a good leader for democrats the more I read about him.

 

[baltimorened]

You have top earners in California already paying close to 50%. Other states it climb as high as 40%. What moral person thinks it’s ok to tax someone else at 50%. I don’t think anyone will win with that platform.

Maybe a wealth tax will be appropriate at some time in the future (I hope not) but now is not that time. DOGE has exposed the waste fraud and abuse, of which there is Billions, why do they think anyone wants to pay more for that?

I just think their poor leadership allows them to keep making bad decisions. I don’t think Khanna is a good leader for democrats the more I read about him.

A wealth tax has not worked anywhere it has been tried....But Bernie is dead set on keeping his schtick about billionaires. It seems as if he believes that they just have $$billions sitting in bank accounts waiting for him to tax. Money doesn't work that way.

 

[fatpiggy]

A wealth tax has not worked anywhere it has been tried....But Bernie is dead set on keeping his schtick about billionaires. It seems as if he believes that they just have $$billions sitting in bank accounts waiting for him to tax. Money doesn't work that way.

What is it about Florida that citizens like? Of course the weather is good, but it’s good in California also.

You have people and businesses fleeing California, yet Democrats want their policies nationally?

Democrats need some leadership. They need ideas on how to help the people, other than raise ridiculous taxes like an unrealized gain tax.

 

[fatpiggy]

Everywhere we look Democrat states are being investigated for fraud.

Minnesota - Somali Autism Fraud
California - Nursing home fraud
New York - Medicaid fraud

And they want to raise taxes? During an affordability crisis?

Confiscating 100% of Billionaire wealth won’t fix the problem.

Why is NY’s Medicaid spending 80% higher than the national average ? The cost of living in NYC is not 80% higher.

 

[MTTiger19]

Everywhere we look Democrat states are being investigated for fraud.

Minnesota - Somali Autism Fraud
California - Nursing home fraud
New York - Medicaid fraud

And they want to raise taxes? During an affordability crisis?

Confiscating 100% of Billionaire wealth won’t fix the problem.

Why is NY’s Medicaid spending 80% higher than the national average ? The cost of living in NYC is not 80% higher.

Whether they’ll admit it or not, many of these liberal cities are rotten with fraud as you’ve pointed out. When you’re subsidizing and enriching entire groups of people with fraudulent programs that provide nothing you eventually run out of money. Why? Because the people they’re stealing money from get tired of it and leave. The freeloaders don’t pay taxes so that doesn’t leave much. Fraud and corruption are why a city like NYC has a larger budget than the entire state of Florida. Fraud, corruption and over regulation. That should be no surprise though, these people do not believe in self reliance, they believe government should choose the winners and losers. You didn’t even touch the Massachusetts fraud. They rewrote their eligibility requirements to allow more people on food stamps. So now the state with the highest gdp per capita, Harvard, MIT, countless tech and biotech companies has the same percentage of its population on food stamps as West Virginia. It’s ridiculous, they’re dishonest thieves. Pathetic people that can’t produce so they take from those that do.

 

[FLaw47]

Democrats want to tax so bad. They talk about affordability crisis and raising taxes in the same breath. It’s an interesting position to take when the last vote was a referendum on affordability.

Mamdani and New York want to raise your taxes. Hochul may raise your taxes. Rho Khanna wants to raise your taxes.

Chamath is financing a challenger to Khanna because he is so upset about it.

My question is, are democrats TOTALLY misreading the room?

How can they talk affordability when they want to raise taxes?

Trump raised tariffs and inflation still came down. If Democrats can raise taxes without increasing inflation I’m all ears.

Where does it say that Democrats support this nationally? Do you have a source or are you just making things up?

 

[baltimorened]

What is it about Florida that citizens like? Of course the weather is good, but it’s good in California also.

You have people and businesses fleeing California, yet Democrats want their policies nationally?

Democrats need some leadership. They need ideas on how to help the people, other than raise ridiculous taxes like an unrealized gain tax.

I live in Florida, moved here from the north. Why I came.....weather of course, golf (belong to a club with 3 courses) and taxes....no income tax. Believe it or not, when we bought, I could pay for a mortgage on a brand new 2200 SQ ft home (with 100K in upgrades) for just about the amount of state taxes I was paying up north. Things have changed now, housing is more expensive because of all the people moving down here (only 500/day which is down from 1000/day 5 years ago)

Now Desantis and the legislature are pushing for a reduction/elimination of the non school property tax for residents. If that happens there will likely be an even larger influx of retirees.

 

[baltimorened]

Where does it say that Democrats support this nationally? Do you have a source or are you just making things up?

I imagine the point is that voters keep electing democrats, but I might be misreading

 

[yoshi121374]

Interesting how nobody is willing to discuss the new $1500 per family tax that Trump Inacted this year in the form of illegal tariffs.

Weird how that's just fine...

 

[FLaw47]

I imagine the point is that voters keep electing democrats, but I might be misreading

Well the thread title is that democrats proposed to national unrealized gain wealth tax, which seems to be completely fabricated or is at least not cited anywhere in his post. I want to call out disingenuous behavior.

 

[m.knox]

At the end of the day, democrats are going to talk a lot and say a lot of things, but there will only be one outcome - tax and spend.

Once read an article from Krugman about things the government can tax. Took a little to find it. Many links were behind a paywall.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/11/29/paul-krugman-things-the-united-states-should-tax/

 

[fatpiggy]

Where does it say that Democrats support this nationally? Do you have a source or are you just making things up?

I did the heavy lifting and had AI summarize it for you.

Bernie Sanders = Democrat
Ro Khanna = Democrat

It was part of Harris platform. Is it safe to say that you disagree with your party on this point?

Spoiler

The most prominent recent proposal related to taxing unrealized gains (also called a "national unrealized gains tax" in some discussions) stems from the Biden-Harris administration's fiscal year 2025 budget proposal. This was advanced during the 2024 election cycle when Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed key elements of it as part of her campaign platform.Key Details of the Proposal

• It is formally known as a "billionaire minimum tax" or minimum tax on the ultra-wealthy.
• It would require individuals (or households) with net wealth exceeding $100 million to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 25% on an expanded definition of income.
• This expanded income includes traditional taxable income plus unrealized capital gains — meaning increases in the value of assets (like stocks, bonds, real estate, or privately held businesses) that have not yet been sold and thus not "realized" under current tax rules.
• The tax would phase in (e.g., partial at $100 million, fully effective around $200 million in some descriptions), targeting roughly the wealthiest 0.01% of households (often described as affecting billionaires and multi-hundred-millionaires).
• It aims to address perceived inequities where ultra-wealthy individuals can defer taxes indefinitely by holding appreciating assets without selling them, while wage earners pay taxes annually.
• Revenue estimates from supporters (e.g., Treasury Department) suggested it could raise around $500 billion over 10 years, to fund priorities like childcare, housing, or deficit reduction.

This is not a broad national tax on unrealized gains for everyone — proposals explicitly limit it to ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Misrepresentations during the 2024 campaign sometimes claimed it would apply to average Americans, small businesses, or farms, but official descriptions restricted it to those above the high wealth threshold.Current Status (as of early 2026)The proposal was part of Biden's FY2025 budget and Harris's endorsed tax plans but did not become law during the prior administration. Following the 2024 election and subsequent changes (including the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" signed in 2025 under President Trump, which preserved existing capital gains rules without introducing unrealized gains taxation), there has been no enactment at the federal level.Recent discussions (as of March 2026) have shifted toward:

• Other wealth-tax ideas, like a 5% annual billionaire wealth tax pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (announced around March 2026), which targets billionaires' net worth directly rather than unrealized gains specifically, and aims to raise trillions for social programs.
• State-level efforts in places like California, Illinois, or others exploring wealth or unrealized gains taxes on the ultra-rich, amid federal inaction.

Critics argue such taxes could be administratively complex (requiring annual asset valuations), potentially unconstitutional (though related precedents exist), lead to capital flight, or harm economic growth by taxing "paper" gains. Supporters view it as promoting fairness in the tax code.No major national unrealized gains tax has been enacted recently, and the core Biden-era proposal remains unpassed and largely dormant federally under current policy. If you're referring to a specific recent development or source, feel free to share more details!

 

[FLaw47]

I did the heavy lifting and had AI summarize it for you.

Bernie Sanders = Democrat
Ro Khanna = Democrat

It was part of Harris platform. Is it safe to say that you disagree with your party on this point?

Spoiler

The most prominent recent proposal related to taxing unrealized gains (also called a "national unrealized gains tax" in some discussions) stems from the Biden-Harris administration's fiscal year 2025 budget proposal. This was advanced during the 2024 election cycle when Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed key elements of it as part of her campaign platform.Key Details of the Proposal

• It is formally known as a "billionaire minimum tax" or minimum tax on the ultra-wealthy.
• It would require individuals (or households) with net wealth exceeding $100 million to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 25% on an expanded definition of income.
• This expanded income includes traditional taxable income plus unrealized capital gains — meaning increases in the value of assets (like stocks, bonds, real estate, or privately held businesses) that have not yet been sold and thus not "realized" under current tax rules.
• The tax would phase in (e.g., partial at $100 million, fully effective around $200 million in some descriptions), targeting roughly the wealthiest 0.01% of households (often described as affecting billionaires and multi-hundred-millionaires).
• It aims to address perceived inequities where ultra-wealthy individuals can defer taxes indefinitely by holding appreciating assets without selling them, while wage earners pay taxes annually.
• Revenue estimates from supporters (e.g., Treasury Department) suggested it could raise around $500 billion over 10 years, to fund priorities like childcare, housing, or deficit reduction.

This is not a broad national tax on unrealized gains for everyone — proposals explicitly limit it to ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Misrepresentations during the 2024 campaign sometimes claimed it would apply to average Americans, small businesses, or farms, but official descriptions restricted it to those above the high wealth threshold.Current Status (as of early 2026)The proposal was part of Biden's FY2025 budget and Harris's endorsed tax plans but did not become law during the prior administration. Following the 2024 election and subsequent changes (including the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" signed in 2025 under President Trump, which preserved existing capital gains rules without introducing unrealized gains taxation), there has been no enactment at the federal level.Recent discussions (as of March 2026) have shifted toward:

• Other wealth-tax ideas, like a 5% annual billionaire wealth tax pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (announced around March 2026), which targets billionaires' net worth directly rather than unrealized gains specifically, and aims to raise trillions for social programs.
• State-level efforts in places like California, Illinois, or others exploring wealth or unrealized gains taxes on the ultra-rich, amid federal inaction.

Critics argue such taxes could be administratively complex (requiring annual asset valuations), potentially unconstitutional (though related precedents exist), lead to capital flight, or harm economic growth by taxing "paper" gains. Supporters view it as promoting fairness in the tax code.No major national unrealized gains tax has been enacted recently, and the core Biden-era proposal remains unpassed and largely dormant federally under current policy. If you're referring to a specific recent development or source, feel free to share more details!

Can you understand why it might be confusing to have a thread that doesn't talk at all about the thread title?

 

[fatpiggy]

Can you understand why it might be confusing to have a thread that doesn't talk at all about the thread title?

I see you didn't read the summary

This part

Recent discussions (as of March 2026) have shifted toward:

• Other wealth-tax ideas, like a 5% annual billionaire wealth tax pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (announced around March 2026), which targets billionaires' net worth directly rather than unrealized gains specifically, and aims to raise trillions for social programs.
• State-level efforts in places like California, Illinois, or others exploring wealth or unrealized gains taxes on the ultra-rich, amid federal inaction.

 

[FLaw47]

I see you didn't read the summary

This part

Recent discussions (as of March 2026) have shifted toward:

• Other wealth-tax ideas, like a 5% annual billionaire wealth tax pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (announced around March 2026), which targets billionaires' net worth directly rather than unrealized gains specifically, and aims to raise trillions for social programs.
• State-level efforts in places like California, Illinois, or others exploring wealth or unrealized gains taxes on the ultra-rich, amid federal inaction.

No, I read the summary and appreciate it. Your original post didn't actually talk about the thread topic at all. That's what I'm pointing out. You've also failed to note that the proposals (and I want to be very clear that I do not think wealth taxes are good policy) are only for the incredibly wealthy. Your post seems to imply this is a potential tax for most people, or even some people on this board when it's not.

 

[fatpiggy]

That's the thing. Democrats say it's only for the incredibly wealthy, but I don't believe them.

The income tax started out around 3% (of course im not blaming the whole increase on democrats. I wouldn't trust republicans to implement it either, but they aren't the ones trying.)

It's the same around many of the other democrat proposals. They talk about taxing the wealthy, and then in the next breath talk about taxing people making 400k or so.

Give an inch take a mile and we need to stand together and make it a resounding NO. It's terrible policy. It should be nowhere near the democrat ticket; it's disqualifying in itself in my humble opinion.

 

[Rastafarian]

That's the thing. Democrats say it's only for the incredibly wealthy, but I don't believe them.

The income tax started out around 3% (of course im not blaming the whole increase on democrats. I wouldn't trust republicans to implement it either, but they aren't the ones trying.)

It's the same around many of the other democrat proposals. They talk about taxing the wealthy, and then in the next breath talk about taxing people making 400k or so.

Give an inch take a mile and we need to stand together and make it a resounding NO. It's terrible policy. It should be nowhere near the democrat ticket; it's disqualifying in itself in my humble opinion.

Over roughly the last 25 years, both parties have overseen large increases in federal spending, but Republicans in the White House have generally seen **larger** increases in deficits and debt, while Democrats have somewhat slower growth—or in Clinton’s case, an actual reduction in spending relative to GDP.[1][2][3]

## What “bigger spender” can mean

There are a few ways to compare:

- Level of federal outlays as a percent of GDP.
- Growth of total outlays over a presidency.
- Change in deficits and debt under each president.

Because Congress controls the purse with the president, and control of Congress has flipped several times, any answer is approximate rather than a clean party lab experiment.[4]

## Rough picture by presidency (late 1990s–mid‑2020s)

- **Clinton (D, late 1990s):** Federal spending fell as a share of GDP, and the budget moved into surplus by the end of his term.[2][1]
- **George W. Bush (R, 2001–2008):** Big increases driven by tax cuts, 9/11, wars, and Medicare Part D; debt-to-GDP rose from about the low‑30s% range at end of Clinton to above 50% by the time Obama took office.[2]
- **Obama (D, 2009–2016):** Spending and deficits spiked with the Great Recession and stimulus, then spending as a share of GDP trended down for much of his presidency as the economy recovered and discretionary caps kicked in.[1][4]
- **Trump (R, 2017–2020):** Debt and spending rose substantially even before COVID, and then exploded in 2020; one analysis estimates about 8.4 trillion in new ten‑year borrowing approved, even excluding COVID relief about 4.8 trillion.[5]
- **Biden (D, 2021–mid‑2020s):** Huge COVID‑era outlays in his first year, then spending falls from the emergency peak but remains above the pre‑pandemic norm as a share of GDP; new ten‑year borrowing is estimated around 4.3 trillion, about 2.2 trillion excluding the American Rescue Plan.[5][1]

## Overall partisan pattern

If you look at the last quarter‑century:

- Periods with **Republican presidents** (Bush II, Trump) generally show larger jumps in debt and sustained higher deficits, reflecting tax cuts plus higher defense and other spending.[3][2][5]
- Periods with **Democratic presidents** (Clinton’s later years, Obama, Biden) include one era of relative restraint and surpluses (late Clinton), one with a big crisis spike then consolidation (Obama), and one with a pandemic‑driven spike then partial normalization (Biden).[4][1][5]

So if “bigger spender” means who has tended to **add more to the deficit and debt** over their terms in this 25‑year window, Republican administrations come out looking like the bigger spenders overall, while Democratic administrations have been mixed but on average somewhat more restrained relative to GDP, especially outside of crisis years.[3][1][2][5]

Sources
[1] A Century of Federal Spending, 1925-2025 | Cato at Liberty Blog https://www.cato.org/blog/century-federal-spending-1925-2025
[2] Federal Debt - Milken Institute Review https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/federal-debt?IssueID=53
[3] U.S. Presidents and the Federal Deficit - A-Mark Foundation https://amarkfoundation.org/reports/u-s-presidents-and-the-federal-deficit/
[4] United States federal budget - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
[5] Trump and Biden: Debt Growth-2024-07-02 https://www.crfb.org/blogs/trump-and-biden-debt-growth
[6] [PDF] The Budget Estimates of OMB and CBO in an Era of Divided ... https://pages.ucsd.edu/~skernell/resources/Madison True Principles/ombcbopsq.pdf
[7] The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 - CBO.gov https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
[8] Spending is the problem. For two decades federal ... - Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasM...ng-averaged-20-of-gdp-durin/1237607554388569/
[9] The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055 - CBO.gov https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61187
[10] How the Economy Performed Under Each President - Nasdaq https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/lbj-biden-how-economy-performed-under-each-president

 

[baltimorened]

Well the thread title is that democrats proposed to national unrealized gain wealth tax, which seems to be completely fabricated or is at least not cited anywhere in his post. I want to call out disingenuous behavior.

now that I know what he's referencing...there is a story that Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders are proposing a 5% wealth tax on anyone with a $1billion net worth with the funds ($3,000) going to those earning $150k or less

 

[FLaw47]

That's the thing. Democrats say it's only for the incredibly wealthy, but I don't believe them.

The income tax started out around 3% (of course im not blaming the whole increase on democrats. I wouldn't trust republicans to implement it either, but they aren't the ones trying.)

It's the same around many of the other democrat proposals. They talk about taxing the wealthy, and then in the next breath talk about taxing people making 400k or so.

Give an inch take a mile and we need to stand together and make it a resounding NO. It's terrible policy. It should be nowhere near the democrat ticket; it's disqualifying in itself in my humble opinion.

Is this a productive way to have these conversations? Like it's the equivalent of me saying "Republicans Propose Nationwide Child Marriages" because Tennessee has done it and I don't "believe" that they'll stop there.

It's disingenuous to me and I think you criticize Democrats more for things they expressly don't say than you do Trump for the things he says out loud.

 

[FLaw47]

now that I know what he's referencing...there is a story that Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders are proposing a 5% wealth tax on anyone with a $1billion net worth with the funds ($3,000) going to those earning $150k or less

Yeah and if that's the case it's helpful to include a link that's talking about that thing, that's all.

 

[baltimorened]

Yeah and if that's the case it's helpful to include a link that's talking about that thing, that's all.

don't disagree, but it wasn't my thread. I'm just trying to be a helpful poster and keep peace in the valley

 

[FLaw47]

don't disagree, but it wasn't my thread. I'm just trying to be a helpful poster and keep peace in the valley

I appreciate it! I think wealth taxes are bad policy, to reiterate. I think we could tax capital gains as income (at least for higher earners) and get rid of stepped up basis to increase revenues without "punishing" lower earners.

That being said I'm also open to a thoughtful VAT tax or even something as exotic as a land value tax but it would all depend.

I roundly reject the "flat tax", "Fair Tax" or a national sales tax. Those are just stupid.

 

[Moogy]

You have top earners in California already paying close to 50%. Other states it climb as high as 40%. What moral person thinks it’s ok to tax someone else at 50%. I don’t think anyone will win with that platform.

Tell us, at which percentage does a tax flip from being "moral" to "immoral"?

 

[fatpiggy]

Is this a productive way to have these conversations? Like it's the equivalent of me saying "Republicans Propose Nationwide Child Marriages" because Tennessee has done it and I don't "believe" that they'll stop there.

It's disingenuous to me and I think you criticize Democrats more for things they expressly don't say than you do Trump for the things he says out loud.

I don't think it's disingenous at all. Which politician DO you trust, specifically? Republican or Democrat? I trust exactly neither.

I even said I wouldn't trust republicans on the subject. Democrats have proposed this. That is their brand. It's not wrong to point that out.

 

[fatpiggy]

I appreciate it! I think wealth taxes are bad policy, to reiterate. I think we could tax capital gains as income (at least for higher earners) and get rid of stepped up basis to increase revenues without "punishing" lower earners.

That being said I'm also open to a thoughtful VAT tax or even something as exotic as a land value tax but it would all depend.

I roundly reject the "flat tax", "Fair Tax" or a national sales tax. Those are just stupid.

Why is a flat tax stupid? I personally think it sounds ........ fair.

 

[bdgan]

Democrats want to tax so bad. They talk about affordability crisis and raising taxes in the same breath. It’s an interesting position to take when the last vote was a referendum on affordability.

Mamdani and New York want to raise your taxes. Hochul may raise your taxes. Rho Khanna wants to raise your taxes.

Chamath is financing a challenger to Khanna because he is so upset about it.

My question is, are democrats TOTALLY misreading the room?

How can they talk affordability when they want to raise taxes?

Trump raised tariffs and inflation still came down. If Democrats can raise taxes without increasing inflation I’m all ears.

This is performative. There's zero chance of this happening.

I like how they say they would raise $4.4 trillion. All billionaires combined have a net worth of $8 trillion. That means they plan to take more than half of what they own. Most of their wealth is the value of stock they own in companies like Tesla, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and NVIDIA. The stock market would crash if they were forced to sell a substantial portion of their shares to pay for such a large wealth tax. Lots of jobs would be lost.

I understand that people don't think billionaires pay enough and I'm OK with that. Raise the top bracket back to 39.6%. Maybe they could try a much smaller wealth tax but just about every country that had one reversed course because it was difficult to administer and they didn't raise as much money as they expected.

And as people say, any additional taxes should be used to reduce the deficit.

 

[bdgan]

Everywhere we look Democrat states are being investigated for fraud.

Minnesota - Somali Autism Fraud
California - Nursing home fraud
New York - Medicaid fraud

And they want to raise taxes? During an affordability crisis?

Confiscating 100% of Billionaire wealth won’t fix the problem.

Why is NY’s Medicaid spending 80% higher than the national average ? The cost of living in NYC is not 80% higher.

Some states implemented programs where the government would pay family members to care for their elderly parents. The theory was that paying a family member is a lot less expensive than paying an assisted living facility. That makes sense on the surface but IMO they're just begging for abuse. Sure, I'll watch Mom if the government is willing to pay me. Some states have increased spending by thousands of percent because the feds pick up most of the cost.

Look at Medicaid spending in NY vs Florida. NY (population 20 million) spending is $142 billion while Florida (population 23 million) spending is $31 billion.

A huge proportion of spending is under code T1019, which covers personal care services. This billing code is for home and community-based care services as an alternative to residential nursing homes. Elderly or disabled people can stay in their homes and in some states hire friends and relatives to care for them using taxpayer dollars. The scheme is especially popular in New York State, which has seen $72.7 billion in such spending from 2018-2024. That’s the most of any state, and accounts for roughly half of all New York Medicaid spending. IIRC Pennsylvania spending under this code is up 10,000% since 2018. We're being scammed!

 

[FLaw47]

Why is a flat tax stupid? I personally think it sounds ........ fair.

Because it can't raise enough revenue without posing a dramatically higher burden on lower income people. And if you say "well we should just cut spending!" fine but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[fatpiggy]

Billionaires will flee

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[baltimorened]

Because it can't raise enough revenue without posing a dramatically higher burden on lower income people. And if you say "well we should just cut spending!" fine but I'll believe it when I see it.

I guess it depends on how you see higher burden.. if everyone pays exactly the same %, it's about as fair as you can make it. The complaint is that high earners pay a lower marginal rate than their secretary, this flat tax ends that. Everyone's fair share becomes the same rate.

 

[FLaw47]

I guess it depends on how you see higher burden.. if everyone pays exactly the same %, it's about as fair as you can make it. The complaint is that high earners pay a lower marginal rate than their secretary, this flat tax ends that. Everyone's fair share becomes the same rate.

I don't hear people talk a lot about the flat tax closing up loopholes but maybe I'm not listening. I hear "there will be one tax bracket" and, to make that work, you'd HAVE to raise taxes on poorer people. You simply cannot make the math work otherwise.

There are different ways to think of fair. For things like taxes, I think of fair as describing the amount of "pain" suffered through taxes. 10% is substantially more painful on someone making 50k per year than on someone making 500k. I'm sure you're aware of the marginal utility of money?

 

[fatpiggy]

I don't hear people talk a lot about the flat tax closing up loopholes but maybe I'm not listening. I hear "there will be one tax bracket" and, to make that work, you'd HAVE to raise taxes on poorer people. You simply cannot make the math work otherwise.

There are different ways to think of fair. For things like taxes, I think of fair as describing the amount of "pain" suffered through taxes. 10% is substantially more painful on someone making 50k per year than on someone making 500k. I'm sure you're aware of the marginal utility of money?

It’s ok to raise taxes on the poor. They currently pay nothing. Almost 50% of citizens pay no income tax

Tax the poor

 

[fatpiggy]

The poor have it too good and people don’t even realize it. We are letting g them scam the hard workers. We let them block our streets by being drug zombies. When they commit crime they aren’t held accountable.

Out social safety nets are making life for the poor too comfortable.


Capitalism has made being poor so comfortable, that many are not incentivized to better themselves.

We need to hold the poor accountable and make sure they are pulling their weight.

When we have all the corruption and fraud it leads to a poor class.

 

[baltimorened]

I don't hear people talk a lot about the flat tax closing up loopholes but maybe I'm not listening. I hear "there will be one tax bracket" and, to make that work, you'd HAVE to raise taxes on poorer people. You simply cannot make the math work otherwise.

There are different ways to think of fair. For things like taxes, I think of fair as describing the amount of "pain" suffered through taxes. 10% is substantially more painful on someone making 50k per year than on someone making 500k. I'm sure you're aware of the marginal utility of money?

absolutely understand marginal utility, have used it in discussions about worker salaries.

Couple of things...we talk about fairness, what could be more fair than everybody paying exactly the same % of their income? You totally remove the debates about people paying their fair share. Everybody has some skin in the game. So the main argument is that the poor are hit more severely, that's absolutely true...but only on the tax side. People at low income levels are eligible for the range of social programs be they welfare, medicaid, housing assistance, heat assistance SNAP that higher earners don't get.

Now on to pain....just because someone earns $200k a year, doesn't mean he/she is not experiencing financial pain. They probably have a bigger house, pay for their kid's college (not eligible for grants, parents make too much money), pay property taxes, pay for health insurance, etc. They aren't eligible for just about any of the social programs. A good accountant might be able to make the case that the $200k person is under more pain than the $30k employee with benefits.

The debate is fun, but flat tax will never happen in my lifetime IMO. There are too many jobs and too much money entrenched in tax preparation, tax avoidance lawyers, tax lobbyists...etc for this to ever happen politically.

 

[MTTiger19]

 

[MTTiger19]

Who among you could survive on a paltry $6000/month? We absolutely need to tax people more. Tax these rubes. You people here are heartless.

 

[baltimorened]

Who among you could survive on a paltry $6000/month? We absolutely need to tax people more. Tax these rubes. You people here are heartless.

I'm not sure economics is a strong suit of the Mambani administration. They seem to be more interested in setting the social agenda and depending on the state/federal government to bail them out.

If I were putting together a budget with more than a $5billion hole, I'd be a little more frugal with the money I had.