Page 27 of 47 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 461

Thread: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

  1. #261
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    61,939

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
    Only if it is larger than spending. Otherwise we have to borrow more. And Congress spends over 200 days a year finding new ways to spend.
    Either way, the debt is better off with the additional revenue than it is without the additional revenue. Increase spending by $200 billion, increase revenue by $100 billion, deficit grows by $100 billion. But if you don't increase the revenue by $100 billion, your deficit growth is $200 billion. Since 200 is objectively larger than 100, if deficit is a concern one would surely agree that 100 is better.
    “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't know who [Individual-1] is and neither do you.

  2. #262
    Sage
    OldFatGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,215

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Convenient that your "fair share" of taxes is exactly what you've already paid. What about me? I've paid more than my fair share. So I've been stolen from, right?

    End of the day, your entire objection is based on subjective feelings of what you think is fair.

    Wealth taxes don't create "equal outcomes."

    I've often said the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals in America want equal opportunity, conservatives think we have equal opportunity.
    Wrong. A wealth tax would be a theft, not income, gains, sales or property taxes.

    No it is not subjective, not what I feel. It is double dipping, taxing the same money twice.

    No one in this life is truly equal, yet our system of government and economics provide the most equal of opportunities for those who try, with no guarantee for outcome.
    What kind of a man is a man who has not left this world a better place?

    No one is in control.

  3. #263
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!
    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    38,374
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    Paying a tobacco tax is voluntary? If the tax were voluntary, you could opt out of the tax while buying the cigarettes. So how do people go about buying a pack of cigarettes from a 7/11 NYC without paying the tax? They can't, can they?

    For your position to hold, the operative decision must be the decision to buy the tobacco or not, and not the question of whether or not someone can choose to pay the tax independent of choosing to buy the tobacco. To you, it's voluntary even if the only way to avoid the tax is to avoid the product.



    Careful. This runs headlong into the attack on income taxes, because there is also an all-or-nothing choice there.

    You could choose to get a job and thus be subject to income tax. Or you could choose not to work and thus avoid paying income tax. Under your view regarding tobacco taxes, the fact that you cannot get a job but choose not to pay taxes does not affect the analysis. Because remember, your view was you could avoid the tobacco tax by not buying tobacco.

    So if you're right about tobacco tax, you're wrong about income tax. And if you're right about income tax, you're wrong about tobacco tax.




    (Though really, you're wrong on both. Taxes are involuntary, but calling them "theft" is silly, not that you'll ever have to face the consequences of actually putting this broken "voluntary payments only" idea into practice.

    This post just pinpoints the logical flaw in your argument).
    You should try reading what I've already written before showing up with egg on your face. The tobacco tax, just like the alcohol tax, is completely voluntary. I choose to pay those taxes if I choose to buy tobacco or to buy alcohol. It's isn't being forced on me unless I purchase those goods. I also already made the point about choosing to work. Maybe next time instead of speaking about that of which you obviously don't know, do a little research so you don't look so ignorantly uninformed next time because there is no "logical flaw" in my argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    See, I don't expect to be taken seriously.

  4. #264
    A Little Bitter

    Mr Person's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-14-19 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    24,207

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    Paying a tobacco tax is voluntary? If the tax were voluntary, you could opt out of the tax while buying the cigarettes. So how do people go about buying a pack of cigarettes from a 7/11 NYC without paying the tax? They can't, can they?

    For your position to hold, the operative decision must be the decision to buy the tobacco or not, and not the question of whether or not someone can choose to pay the tax independent of choosing to buy the tobacco. To you, it's voluntary even if the only way to avoid the tax is to avoid the product.



    Careful. This runs headlong into the attack on income taxes, because there is also an all-or-nothing choice there.

    You could choose to get a job and thus be subject to income tax. Or you could choose not to work and thus avoid paying income tax. Under your view regarding tobacco taxes, the fact that you cannot get a job but choose not to pay taxes does not affect the analysis. Because remember, your view was you could avoid the tobacco tax by not buying tobacco.

    So if you're right about tobacco tax, you're wrong about income tax. And if you're right about income tax, you're wrong about tobacco tax.




    (Though really, you're wrong on both. Taxes are involuntary, but calling them "theft" is silly, not that you'll ever have to face the consequences of actually putting this broken "voluntary payments only" idea into practice.

    This post just pinpoints the logical flaw in your argument).


    Quote Originally Posted by RedAkston View Post
    You should try reading what I've already written before showing up with egg on your face.

    The tobacco tax, just like the alcohol tax, is completely voluntary. I choose to pay those taxes if I choose to buy tobacco or to buy alcohol. It's isn't being forced on me unless I purchase those goods. I also already made the point about choosing to work.

    Maybe next time instead of speaking about that of which you obviously don't know, do a little research so you don't look so ignorantly uninformed next time because there is no "logical flaw" in my argument.
    Is this your idea of what "political debate" is? The first bit is a snotty attack. The middle bit is simply you claiming that you are right because you are saying you are right. The last bit is more snotty attacks.

    If there were no logical flaw, you could demonstrate it by addressing what I actually said. You can't address an argument why what you said doesn't work, so instead you just repeat what you said. And to try to cough over that particular fart, you bookend it with haughty attacks having nothing at all to do with the subject.

  5. #265
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!
    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    38,374
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    Is this your idea of what "political debate" is? The first bit is a snotty attack. The middle bit is simply you claiming that you are right because you are saying you are right. The last bit is more snotty attacks.

    If there were no logical flaw, you could demonstrate it by addressing what I actually said. You can't address an argument why what you said doesn't work, so instead you just repeat what you said. And to try to cough over that particular fart, you bookend it with haughty attacks having nothing at all to do with the subject.
    Everything I said just went flying over your head didn't it? To the surprise of no one...
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    See, I don't expect to be taken seriously.

  6. #266
    A Little Bitter

    Mr Person's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-14-19 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    24,207

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Person View Post
    The problem with a wealth tax beyond any broad ideological objection is an administrative one. So much property of the wealthiest is indeterminate in value, essentially being worth whatever someone buys it for. Think: art, houses, other collectibles.

    So, first, what are people supposed to do? Have all their **** appraised as an estimate, then report that? And how do we know they're telling the truth? They'd have to send around an army of IRS assessors to double-check reported values. And if they didn't, people would just massively under-report and "forget" to mention various things.


    Go back to Clinton income tax/corporate tax rates and reassess. Before we begin talking about this kind of stuff we should start paying for what we have. But for the last few decades, the GOP has been happy to have us borrowing a pile of cash so that their richest donors can have tax breaks that in no way cause said donors to meaningfully invest. It's just a handout sold to fools by inverting reality, that is, that borrowing more to give a tax cut to the richest isn't a handout but is "letting them keep more of their money"....just...


    If dynasty-ism is the problem, why not focus on estate tax AND getting rid of the myriad ways the richest evade it while passing on wealth to the next generation? Why so something as unworkable as a yearly wealth tax, with all it would require?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    Your comment makes no sense. Estates are appraised for inheritance taxes. Surely, they could come up with a good method to determine the tax, and even if it's not entirely accurate, it doesnt' have to be, really, it's just a tax. So, as long as the same methods for appraisal are applied to everyone, that is what counts.

    As for focusing on the inheritance tax, that's a one shot deal. A wealth tax, in my view, is yearly right along with the income tax. so, first tax, should be a a big one based on the whole, for the first time, then subsequent taxes be based on the net appreciation from the year before.
    Once. Estate tax is applied once. You are talking about a yearly set of assessments. An incredibly burdensome thing where the targets of this tax have to constantly update the value of just about everything they own, and an army of assessors if it has any hope of being enforced in a remotely equitable manner. How on Earth is there any reasonable hope of this working let alone working in a fair manner when we can't even properly police income tax payments?

    Plus, the stuff targeted was purchased with already-taxed money and will be taxed again for capital gain if sold.

    But that last point verges on the ideological basis which I avoided due to seeing it as entirely unpragmatic, especially where we have tried methods of raising revenue. More pragmatism would be to point out that the probability of getting a yearly tax on all possessions passes is probably far lower than simply bumping tax rates up a bit (not that that will happen).

    I can pretty much guarantee that if the Dems get a supermajority and pass a wealth tax, they're losing that supermajority (and then the tax itself) in the next election or two at least. And then we won't ever raise taxes to where we need to to pay for what we're spending.

  7. #267
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    10,757

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Either way, the debt is better off with the additional revenue than it is without the additional revenue. Increase spending by $200 billion, increase revenue by $100 billion, deficit grows by $100 billion. But if you don't increase the revenue by $100 billion, your deficit growth is $200 billion. Since 200 is objectively larger than 100, if deficit is a concern one would surely agree that 100 is better.
    And once again, for possible comprehension - revenue HAS INCREASED. It's time to work on the spending side of the equation. Let's put Congress on a pork-free diet.
    Democracy fails when the people realize they can vote themselves someone else's money
    Recipe for success: Emulate the rich
    Recipe for failure: Immolate the rich.

  8. #268
    Sage
    OldFatGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,215

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    This nation has never not been in debt. Its most egregious debt after the American Revolution. That debt was repaid with tariffs. Both on import and export. Other taxing schemes were experimented with, however none were as successful as tariffs for the Federal Government. Not even the leasing of government lands for mining, oil and forest harvesting, brought as much Federal revenues. The only tax that came close was whiskey taxes. Since this nation was built by booze and prostitution, sin taxes made the most sense, and totally voluntary. One could indulge, or not. The income tax was to be a temporary experiment with the purpose of resolving WWI debt. We all know how temporary it was and is. We still prohibit prostitution, outlawed because of the intolerance movement which brought us prohibition and organized crime. Another failure, and we refuse the tax revenues prostitution could generate, just as we refuse the tax revenue from recreational drugs, another sin market that refuses to go away. Sin taxes on tobacco don't punish the big tobacco companies, they punish the user already suffering addiction to tobacco. The hypocrisy is unlimited. Taxers want to have their cake and eat it as well.

    The inherent dishonesty of wealth taxes, nothing more than a euphemism for theft from the rich to appease the poor, a Robin Hood syndrome is a form of double taxation forbidden by our laws.

    NFIB Legal Center to Court: Double-Taxation of Income is Unconstitutional
    Double Taxation

    After two years of decrying Trump's tax cuts, democrats and wall street are now claiming the $31 million to be generated Tariffs is unacceptable, a burden on America with its $1.7 trillion dollar budget spending. Under Obama, the Treasury Dept. suggested a wealth tax would generate $131 million annually, however within ten years an expected drop to $11 million annually as wealth fled the nation and investment dried up, netting a loss of greater than $500 billion annually.
    What kind of a man is a man who has not left this world a better place?

    No one is in control.

  9. #269
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,038

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    There is no such thing as "ethical." This is an illiterate use of a word which means the study of morals, and which is judgment free. There is no moral justification for closing any perceived "growing" disparity of wealth. Morals are always a convenience, not written in stone. Your morals are not my morals, and you cannot impose your morals on anyone else. I do understand, this conversation is now over your head. Justice is blind, in many ways. I doubt you would recognize justice if she slapped you in the face. All you stand for is thievery.
    I stand for justice. We just disagree on what that is.

    Someone once asked Ron Paul, (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact quote, but this is the gist of it, and the answer, I believe, is correct)

    Q to Paul:

    "if someone were bleeding in the road and dying, was poor, had no health care plan, you believe that the government should not help that person? "

    Paul's reply, "Well, that's a testament to freedom, isn't it".

    Perhaps (if you are a libertarian, I don't know) you would believe that his answer was moral and just, but in my view, it's reprehensible and not in accordance with the majority of people in America.

    So

    My opinion is just an opinion. It doesn't matter what your morals are or mine are, it only matters what is legislated. The vote and it's consequences is all that matters. The rest is just disputes on what should be, and shouldn't be, or whatever reason.

    If the majority says it is, and it's legislated that way, that's it. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that it is moral and just. That it differs from yours, fine, and that's a given.

    Also, calling someone a thief, which is a crime, is not respectful when it is a policy dispute ( policies are not crimes) , so apparently you are a hypocrite for demanding it of me. You speak of misusing language, like "ethical", uttering the preposterous notion that it does not exist, when your usage of the word "thievery" is wholly and factually incorrect. If you want to claim you are waxing poetic, not being literal, fine, then I should have the same license of word usage when I use the word "ethical", you can't deny me what you claim for yourself.

    Moreover, you accuse me of arrogance, you chide me for not being respectful, yet what you accuse me of, you exude in your comments in spades, your comments reek of the stench of self-righteous indignation, reeks of arrogance, you belittle in order to puff yourself up, under the misguided and foollish notion that this improves your argument.

    All it does, really, is reveal what a hypocrite you are, not just on one point, but on many levels.
    ...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. --- The Mueller Report

  10. #270
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,038

    Re: Why We Need a Wealth Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    That is why the wealth tax won't be passed and it is malignant. It forces you buy non-income producing property over and over just to keep the envious happy

    I disagree, but if we take over both houses and the prez, it might happen.
    ...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. --- The Mueller Report

Page 27 of 47 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •