Page 61 of 102 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 1016

Thread: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

  1. #601
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,594

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    your tactic is to try to narrow a conversation to some idiotic arcane point
    It was what you've chosen to quote in post #566. You refuse to address my statements while throwing up hypothetical outliers as though they refute the statement you've chosen to quote.

    ignoring fundamental underlying philosophical positions concerning what is just and what is fair.
    Opinions don't matter. That's all you have... an opinion lacking a valid backing other than some trivial notion about property rights.

    99% of those who want a "wealth tax" don't engage in your arcane and obscure arguments.
    Arcane and obscure? I'm pointing out why a wealth tax is even being discussed. Debt and wealth didn't grow to such levels inadvertently. The only reason our economy can grow is because the government borrows the funds necessary to support it's redistribution scheme. Without these deficits, wealth takes a far greater plunge than the x% being discussed.

    Rather they whine that its not fair
    When have i mentioned fairness? The only person in this exchange whining is you.

    I couldn't care less if wealth increases faster than income.
    You don't care about facts.

    I oppose taxes on BOTH. and none of your stilted arguments can overcome that position of mine.
    Your opinion isn't an argument.

    Your position is based on a value judgment that the property of the wealthy is subordinate to your views of what is "good" for you or the society you want. Then you try to prove your argument is correct but if someone does't buy into your values, then your argument fails
    Wrong. My position is derived from the fact that wealth has reached these levels partially because government has borrowed enough money so that those less fortunate can consume the goods and services responsible for wealth creation of these magnitudes. Your position is basically: i'd rather the wealthy have less wealth and make less money just so they can pay less of a proportion to Uncle Sam. You'd rather pay 0% on $1 million rather than 50% on $10 million. That type of thinking just sucks.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #602
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,505

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    A person who earns $1 million/year will pay roughly the same effective tax rate as a person earning $87 million (which ironically was the top income tax bracket in 1941 adjusting for inflation).
    This isn't 1941. This post is a non-answer.
    The more a nation drifts from the TRUTH

    The more it will hate those who speak it

  3. #603
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,594

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    It is like someone arguing that medical costs would be decreased if we euthanized those with incurable or long term costly maladies (like ALS or MS, or dementia) or babies who are born with birth defects. And if you argue that you oppose killing innocent life, he will start complaining you don't understand the cost benefit analysis.
    That's called a weak strawman, and it's all you've got. We cannot expect any economic or financial logic to come from your posts. Just opinions.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #604
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    222,833

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    It was what you've chosen to quote in post #566. You refuse to address my statements while throwing up hypothetical outliers as though they refute the statement you've chosen to quote.



    Opinions don't matter. That's all you have... an opinion lacking a valid backing other than some trivial notion about property rights.



    Arcane and obscure? I'm pointing out why a wealth tax is even being discussed. Debt and wealth didn't grow to such levels inadvertently. The only reason our economy can grow is because the government borrows the funds necessary to support it's redistribution scheme. Without these deficits, wealth takes a far greater plunge than the x% being discussed.



    When have i mentioned fairness? The only person in this exchange whining is you.



    You don't care about facts.



    Your opinion isn't an argument.



    Wrong. My position is derived from the fact that wealth has reached these levels partially because government has borrowed enough money so that those less fortunate can consume the goods and services responsible for wealth creation of these magnitudes. Your position is basically: i'd rather the wealthy have less wealth and make less money just so they can pay less of a proportion to Uncle Sam. You'd rather pay 0% on $1 million rather than 50% on $10 million. That type of thinking just sucks.
    I think the attitude that someone should have to sell say an expensive piece of real estate to satisfy parasitic wealth taxes sucks. You are lying about my position, people should have all the wealth they can legally acquire and there should be no parasitic tax schemes to impede that. I'd rather NO ONE PAY ANY INCOME TAX. It gives the federal government massive power it was never intended to have.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The only "sport" that most gun owners participate in is suicide or murder.

  5. #605
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    222,833

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    That's called a weak strawman, and it's all you've got. We cannot expect any economic or financial logic to come from your posts. Just opinions.
    your financial "arguments" are all based on your value judgements and opinions,. If I don't accept your value judgments (I don't, I am not a statist), then your arguments collapse.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The only "sport" that most gun owners participate in is suicide or murder.

  6. #606
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,594

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
    This isn't 1941. This post is a non-answer.
    We'll try again. A person earning $1 million per year pays roughly the same effective tax rate as a person earning $87 million per year. A doctor earning $1 million per year will likely pay twice the effective tax rate as a person making the same amount via capital gains. If you can't see that there's been tremendous growth in inequality, or that inequality is a major drag on the overall economy, and that the private sector is being kept afloat from fiscal stimulus... we really have nothing to discuss.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #607
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,594

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    your financial "arguments" are all based on your value judgements and opinions,. If I don't accept your value judgments (I don't, I am not a statist), then your arguments collapse.
    I haven't made a single value judgement or stated an opinion. If i'm wrong, then by all means, quote it. You're free to cower out.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #608
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,594

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I'd rather NO ONE PAY ANY INCOME TAX. It gives the federal government massive power it was never intended to have.
    Point taken. You'd rather pay 0% on $1 million than 50% on $10 million, and therefore it's difficult for me to take your opinions seriously. You're irrational.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #609
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    222,833

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    I haven't made a single value judgement or stated an opinion. If i'm wrong, then by all means, quote it. You're free to cower out.
    Your sanctimonious comments are silly. I don't buy your value judgements when it comes to taxes. Pure and simple. I get the fact that you think people who do better than you do, ought to pay more. I disagree
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The only "sport" that most gun owners participate in is suicide or murder.

  10. #610
    Conservatarian Guru
    Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,505

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    We'll try again. A person earning $1 million per year pays roughly the same effective tax rate as a person earning $87 million per year. A doctor earning $1 million per year will likely pay twice the effective tax rate as a person making the same amount via capital gains. If you can't see that there's been tremendous growth in inequality, or that inequality is a major drag on the overall economy, and that the private sector is being kept afloat from fiscal stimulus... we really have nothing to discuss.
    You overlook that the asset on which the cap gains was earned was purchase with after tax money. Just to be clear I couldn't care less about "inequality". Why shouldn't that doctor you talk about earn many times more than the housekeeper at the local hotel. If I'm wise as invest smartly, spend carefully and increase my worth to employers by gaining valuable skills, experience and intelligence why SHOULDN'T I accumulate more wealth than joe sixpack?
    The more a nation drifts from the TRUTH

    The more it will hate those who speak it

Page 61 of 102 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... 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
  •