Page 76 of 77 FirstFirst ... 266674757677 LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 767

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

  1. #751
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,312

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

    solving simple poverty is more effectual.

  2. #752
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    solving simple poverty is more effectual.
    While you are at it, solve obesity. That's a hell of a lot easier and how's that working?

  3. #753
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,312

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bave View Post
    While you are at it, solve obesity. That's a hell of a lot easier and how's that working?
    solving one can help solve the other.

    the legal and physical infrastructure already exists for solving the first.

    the "social horror" for the right wing, is that the Poor may benefit. Otherwise, we could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday.

  4. #754
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,737

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

    We already have a form of wealth tax. Property tax. Based on what your house, business, boats and cars are worth, according to state estimates. My neighboring state also has a property tax on trailers, boat motors, even electric trolling motors. All depending on a annual valuation, which the state estimates.

    So, would this new "wealth tax" mean a wealthy person pays even more - percentage-wise - than they do now? (They already pay more because their property is worth more). Do we take a look at their income and investments and just say, well you pay a lot, but now you are going to pay twice as much. That would make property taxes progressive like income taxes.

    The person owning the $50K home and making $25k a year would pay almost nothing, but the person owning the $1million dollar home and a total income of $2million pays a 25% "wealth tax" each year on top of the regular property tax. Is this how it would work?

    And if there wasn't enough coming in from taxing only the top 1%, would this tax gradually be applied to the top 10%, and then the top 20%, and then the top 50%?

  5. #755
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddy View Post
    We already have a form of wealth tax. Property tax. Based on what your house, business, boats and cars are worth, according to state estimates. My neighboring state also has a property tax on trailers, boat motors, even electric trolling motors. All depending on a annual valuation, which the state estimates.

    So, would this new "wealth tax" mean a wealthy person pays even more - percentage-wise - than they do now? (They already pay more because their property is worth more). Do we take a look at their income and investments and just say, well you pay a lot, but now you are going to pay twice as much. That would make property taxes progressive like income taxes.

    The person owning the $50K home and making $25k a year would pay almost nothing, but the person owning the $1million dollar home and a total income of $2million pays a 25% "wealth tax" each year on top of the regular property tax. Is this how it would work?

    And if there wasn't enough coming in from taxing only the top 1%, would this tax gradually be applied to the top 10%, and then the top 20%, and then the top 50%?
    Well I never got no tax cut for paying property tax which by the way are going up in my state again.

    If a person is making 35k a year a certain amount is taken out of each paycheck based on what %?
    One step further same guy turns in is tax returns makes 38k a lot of overtime with w2s if the IRS says he owes more money based on what %?
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

  6. #756
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,002

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

    The US government never turns a profit. Instead there is waste, inefficiency, and thievery to where they end up with huge deficits. A wealth tax would cause the GNP to shrink and go negative, since it would move money from the wise investors who grow the GNP, to the moron politicians who run deficits. This would be bad news for the economy. The Morons do not do a good job with the money.

    Let me put it this way, we have $1000 to invest. We can give to to an expert or we can give it to a pack of morons. Which of the two will make the money grow, and which of the two will squander it and end in a deeper deficit? I think we should tax all political campaign donations since this is often dirty money used as a bribe so the morons will rip off America.
    Last edited by wellwisher; 11-08-19 at 09:35 AM.

  7. #757
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wellwisher View Post
    The US government never turns a profit. Instead there is waste, inefficiency, and thievery to where they end up with huge deficits. A wealth tax would cause the GNP to shrink and go negative, since it would move money from the wise investors who grow the GNP, to the moron politicians who run deficits. This would be bad news for the economy. The Morons do not do a good job with the money.

    Let me put it this way, we have $1000 to invest. We can give to to an expert or we can give it to a pack of morons. Which of the two will make the money grow, and which of the two will squander it and end in a deeper deficit? I think we should tax all political campaign donations since this is often dirty money used as a bribe so the morons will rip off America.
    Oh, I see invest money to experts .
    Experts like these,
    , GMC, Freddy Mac , Fanny mae, A certain bank , all went crying like a bitch to the mean old government "who gets it's money from taxpayers/ people with jobs " for bailout money cause they got some red ink.
    Afterwards what did these experts do? well one of them gave a bonus to the person that got them into financial problems .
    The rest of these so called experts did they hire more Americans to help pay down the bills America owes no they laid more people off
    Did they even have a lousy press conference thanking the taxpayers of America NO.
    So you say give more money to the experts, after all the bailouts , after all the tax cuts after all the research grants after all the subsidies after all the outsourcing ., after 19 years of giving all this to the rich experts.
    WHERE IS AMERICA TODAY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1O%, BUT ALL OF AMERICA AND AMERICANS???
    Last edited by presluc; 11-08-19 at 03:49 PM.
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

  8. #758
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    Oh, I see invest money to experts .
    Experts like these,
    , GMC, Freddy Mac , Fanny mae, A certain bank , all went crying like a bitch to the mean old government "who gets it's money from taxpayers/ people with jobs " for bailout money cause they got some red ink.
    Afterwards what did these experts do? well one of them gave a bonus to the person that got them into financial problems .
    The rest of these so called experts did they hire more Americans to help pay down the bills America owes no they laid more people off
    Did they even have a lousy press conference thanking the taxpayers of America NO.
    So you say give more money to the experts, after all the bailouts , after all the tax cuts after all the research grants after all the subsidies after all the outsourcing ., after 19 years of giving all this to the rich experts.
    WHERE IS AMERICA TODAY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1O%, BUT ALL OF AMERICA AND AMERICANS???
    The 2018 budget deficit was 3.9% of the GNP. While tax revenues to the US government was about 27% of GNP. This amounts to about a (negative) -12% rate of return on the tax investment given to the Government. If we left that money in the private sector you can earn (plus) +3 to 12%.

    One way to deal with this is to allow the private sector to provide good and service in lieu of taxes. In other words, if you owe $1M in taxes, you can offer good and services to the community equal to $1M. Microsoft could offer free software to schools instead of pay taxes. They could turn profit, provide end user services without deficit spending.

    As far as health care, if the health industries would offer services to the poor instead of pay taxes, we not only cut out all the moron middle men, but this grows the GNP.

  9. #759
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wellwisher View Post
    A wealth tax would cause the GNP to shrink and go negative, since it would move money from the wise investors who grow the GNP, to the moron politicians who run deficits.
    Deficits boost economic output by their very definition. You're confusing economic efficiency with excess savings (the driver of deficits).

    Let me put it this way, we have $1000 to invest. We can give to to an expert or we can give it to a pack of morons. Which of the two will make the money grow, and which of the two will squander it and end in a deeper deficit? I think we should tax all political campaign donations since this is often dirty money used as a bribe so the morons will rip off America.
    I'm convinced you're not familiar with the basic mechanics behind economic growth. Therefore, it's not an accident that a poorly informed poster liked your mudslinging.
    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

  10. #760
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    lincoln park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wellwisher View Post
    The 2018 budget deficit was 3.9% of the GNP. While tax revenues to the US government was about 27% of GNP. This amounts to about a (negative) -12% rate of return on the tax investment given to the Government. If we left that money in the private sector you can earn (plus) +3 to 12%.
    LOL... now you're just making **** up. You take the deficit away, either by increasing taxes or lowering spending, and the economy will contract by at least 3.9%.

    One way to deal with this is to allow the private sector to provide good and service in lieu of taxes. In other words, if you owe $1M in taxes, you can offer good and services to the community equal to $1M. Microsoft could offer free software to schools instead of pay taxes. They could turn profit, provide end user services without deficit spending.
    Microsoft isn't in the business of charity, and is designed to derive economic rent from it's production processes. They don't have market signals to produce the appropriate charity (which is your suggestion) that mimics their efficiency in producing the goods and services for which they specialize.

    As far as health care, if the health industries would offer services to the poor instead of pay taxes, we not only cut out all the moron middle men, but this grows the GNP.
    What's to stop a firm from overstating the value of the services they offer as charity?
    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

Page 76 of 77 FirstFirst ... 266674757677 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
  •