Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[BigFatMeanie]

I won't give the US more money that I am legally obligated to. But I also won't be too mad if tax laws are changed so I do pay more.

I'm not surprised to get push back from that comment. But c'mon, are there any billionaires here? Is there a chance that anyone here will ever become one? It's not like I'm threatening your livelihood. And I'm not threatening billionaires' livelihood either.

You're not giving it to the feds - you're giving it to future generations that would otherwise be saddled with debt. C'mon, do the right and moral thing and donate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, I am all of those things and I don't really care.

That was funny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's been called a lot of things - but the Corporation of the President isn't known for being a charity.

The presence of billionaires is a moral failing of society.

This stuff would kill on twitter!

Or the SLTrib comment section.

[Northwestcoug]

what is your fix for this scenario? because if it involves people not being incentivized to take money off the table in ways that would create wealth over a threshold, that certainly threatens the livelihoods of people on this chat blog and their immediate families. by the way, bro stevenson will be paying a cool couple hundred mill in cap gains (depending on how much of this is sitting in a donor advised fund earmarked for charitable donations to the church, usu, byu, etc.)

I have no realistic fix. Ideally there would be no billionaires until everyone in society has adequate wealth to live and to prepare for their children's lives.It will never happen, but you may say I'm a dreamer.

But until that time, I'm a huge fan of more progressive tax strategies. I won't pretend to know if that will even have a significant effect on the funding governments should be providing. But it is morally wrong that the ruling class have the power to impose tax strategies that benefit them much more than the rest of society. There's no reason why a much higher tax rate after your first cool millions in income shouldn't be taxed like it used to, and many ethical reasons to do so. I would not shed a tear if more progressive taxation makes some billionaires only multi-millionaires.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have no realistic fix. Ideally there would be no billionaires until everyone in society has adequate wealth to live and to prepare for their children's lives.It will never happen, but you may say I'm a dreamer.

But until that time, I'm a huge fan of more progressive tax strategies. I won't pretend to know if that will even have a significant effect on the funding governments should be providing. But it is morally wrong that the ruling class have the power to impose tax strategies that benefit them much more than the rest of society. There's no reason why a much higher tax rate after your first cool millions in income shouldn't be taxed like it used to, and many ethical reasons to do so. I would not shed a tear if more progressive taxation makes some billionaires only multi-millionaires.

This sounds nice in theory, but almost impossible to put in practice. What do you do, put on a 90% upper tax bracket? Still might not prevent billionaires. So do you confiscate all wealth over $1B in assets? gtfo, that will never fly.

I am fine with making sure massive wealth isn't passed along via inheritance, but attempting to eliminate billionaires just because we are offended by wealth is dumb.

[Northwestcoug]

Riled up og is the best og.

im all for higher taxes on the wealthy and certainly on people like Huntsman that inherited their wealth, but wealth isn’t a zero sum game so the presence of billionaires doesn’t mean people are starving.

and I agree the reporting in that article is awful but it’s written for a financially illiterate audience

No but the presence of hunger and substandard living conditions does not make the existence of billionaires just a neutral thing. Billions more in funding wouldn't cure all societal ills. And we can argue about the efficacy of government programs, but society can improve peoples' lives with more money. Some people can afford to pay more. That's low hanging fruit for the improvement of society.

[Northwestcoug]

This sounds nice in theory, but almost impossible to put in practice. What do you do, put on a 90% upper tax bracket? Still might not prevent billionaires. So do you confiscate all wealth over $1B in assets? gtfo, that will never fly.

I am fine with making sure massive wealth isn't passed along via inheritance, but attempting to eliminate billionaires just because we are offended by wealth is dumb.

Straw man. As if sensible people are offended by the mere existence of wealth. There wouldn't be as much a cry against it if more of society has access to it. And no, it's not a dumb 'equality of outcome' argument. The inequality of wealth distribution is a real problem.

And sure, I'm fine with a 90% bracket for any income above a certain amount, that all of us could agree on is still a lot of income.

[old_gregg]

No but the presence of hunger and substandard living conditions does not make the existence of billionaires just a neutral thing. Billions more in funding wouldn't cure all societal ills. And we can argue about the efficacy of government programs, but society can improve peoples' lives with more money. Some people can afford to pay more. That's low hanging fruit for the improvement of society.

people can improve society with more money

[Pelado]

and the stone cold irony of a paper owned by paul huntsman being on the warpath about some obscene and impliedly untoward transfer of wealth. loser.

This is great.

[BigPiney]

I'm thinking when the story is told - you'll be embarrassed by your hubris.

I forgive you in advance - and we'll see.

Sweet, I have always wanted indulgences!

[Pelado]

No but the presence of hunger and substandard living conditions does not make the existence of billionaires just a neutral thing. Billions more in funding wouldn't cure all societal ills. And we can argue about the efficacy of government programs, but society can improve peoples' lives with more money. Some people can afford to pay more. That's low hanging fruit for the improvement of society.

What is the standard by which substandard is measured?

The standard of living for most Americans is substantially higher than for many third-world countries. Your theory, applied at a world-wide level, would likely mean that most people on this board - especially the doctors - would have a substantial amount of earnings repurposed to alleviate the "hunger and substandard living conditions" around the world.

Are you ready for a 90% tax rate on any earnings over $50k?

[Moliere]

I have no realistic fix. Ideally there would be no billionaires until everyone in society has adequate wealth to live and to prepare for their children's lives.It will never happen, but you may say I'm a dreamer.

But until that time, I'm a huge fan of more progressive tax strategies. I won't pretend to know if that will even have a significant effect on the funding governments should be providing. But it is morally wrong that the ruling class have the power to impose tax strategies that benefit them much more than the rest of society. There's no reason why a much higher tax rate after your first cool millions in income shouldn't be taxed like it used to, and many ethical reasons to do so. I would not shed a tear if more progressive taxation makes some billionaires only multi-millionaires.

Most billionaires aren’t billionaires because they are drawing a huge salary. They are billionaires because they started a company that is worth billions and they just happen to own a lot of the company because they started it with their own capital and/or blood sweat and tears.

This is why Warren wants a wealth tax. Even though she’s low on street smarts, Warren knows finances and knows a wealth tax would do a lot more than just increasing the tax rate. However, a wealth tax is an impossible idea to implement effectively.

America is going through a bit of a shift right now with inflation driving prices up and people refusing to work for less than $15/hour. It’s squeezing the middle class but that’s where most of the redistributed wealth will come from under progressive policies. Yeah, the middle class will lose wealth, but that’s what the progressives want, or not what they want but what they’ll get because of what they want.

[Northwestcoug]

people can improve society with more money

That is correct. It should be a guiding light for governments

What is the standard by which substandard is measured?

The standard of living for most Americans is substantially higher than for many third-world countries. Your theory, applied at a world-wide level, would likely mean that most people on this board - especially the doctors - would have a substantial amount of earnings repurposed to alleviate the "hunger and substandard living conditions" around the world.

Are you ready for a 90% tax rate on any earnings over $50k?

I am not. And I'm fully aware of the relative hypocrisy of my position. Still, I can say without hypocrisy that we can absolutely have a more progressive tax system. Most developed countries have a more progressive system. I think we can do similarly, and the benefits to society would outweigh the damage to our economy.

A more progressive system should be our guiding light. We can argue about income levels later.

Most billionaires aren’t billionaires because they are drawing a huge salary. They are billionaires because they started a company that is worth billions and they just happen to own a lot of the company because they started it with their own capital and/or blood sweat and tears.

This is why Warren wants a wealth tax. Even though she’s low on street smarts, Warren knows finances and knows a wealth tax would do a lot more than just increasing the tax rate. However, a wealth tax is an impossible idea to implement effectively.

America is going through a bit of a shift right now with inflation driving prices up and people refusing to work for less than $15/hour. It’s squeezing the middle class but that’s where most of the redistributed wealth will come from under progressive policies. Yeah, the middle class will lose wealth, but that’s what the progressives want, or not what they want but what they’ll get because of what they want.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean I hear that all the time but it's not convincing. Let's say progressives get their wish, most Trump and Bush era tax cuts are repealed, and we bump up marginal tax rates, and maybe some other policies except for wealth tax (I'm still intrigued by this idea but I know it'll never fly). How is the middle class going to be squeezed? I just googled the median middle class income; it's 62K. Without researching it, I assume some of those tax cuts affected the upper middle class: which by Google was 370K. Still, the majority of the middle class is not going to be 'squeezed' by a more progressive tax rate that targets the upper class.

I'm exposing my ignorance here. Have at it and prove me wrong. Just remember, I'm more of a gestalt rather than a numbers kind of guy

[Pelado]

That is correct. It should be a guiding light for governments



I am not. And I'm fully aware of the relative hypocrisy of my position. Still, I can say without hypocrisy that we can absolutely have a more progressive tax system. Most developed countries have a more progressive system. I think we can do similarly, and the benefits to society would outweigh the damage to our economy.

A more progressive system should be our guiding light. We can argue about income levels later.



I'm not so sure about that. I mean I hear that all the time but it's not convincing. Let's say progressives get their wish, most Trump and Bush era tax cuts are repealed, and we bump up marginal tax rates, and maybe some other policies except for wealth tax (I'm still intrigued by this idea but I know it'll never fly). How is the middle class going to be squeezed? I just googled the median middle class income; it's 62K. Without researching it, I assume some of those tax cuts affected the upper middle class: which by Google was 370K. Still, the majority of the middle class is not going to be 'squeezed' by a more progressive tax rate that targets the upper class.

I'm exposing my ignorance here. Have at it and prove me wrong. Just remember, I'm more of a gestalt rather than a numbers kind of guy

While I may not agree with your policy ideas, I do appreciate your use of the multi-quote feature.

[Northwestcoug]

While I may not agree with your policy ideas, I do appreciate your use of the multi-quote feature.