• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ttwtt78640 said:
That "leveling things out" idea sounds good so long as there is plenty of "the too rich" to take (a bunch?) from. Like any parasitic system, it only works well if the parasite class does not exterminate the host class - otherwise the parasites starve due to their inability to a find a new host.

Using a fairly small scale example of Widgetville, where there is one widget factory owner (Mr. Widget) making $200K/year and 50 widget workers who each make $50K/year. If the population votes to tax all income above $50K/year at 80% then what is to prevent Mr. Widget from retiring and/or opening up his widget factory elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I don't think that anybody would be complaining about an owner who only made 4X what his workers were making.

Change that to $20 million, and I'll bet you can see my point. If labor gets too small of an income share, aggregate demand suffers.
 
TurtleDude said:
they aren't. I pay top rates on earned income and the same rates as they do on dividends, capital gains etc. They pay a lower effective rate than high salaried individuals because of the ratio of earned income to "unearned" income. That is why Buffett could play that stupid game claiming his 300K a year secretary paid a higher rate than he did. It was sort of true because almost all her income was taxed as earned income, while Buffett is able to structure his compensation so it is seen as unearned income and taxed at a lower rate. I don't support income taxes on earned income nor on unearned income. It gives Congress power it should have never had
Click to expand...

Taxing unearned income at a lower rate is just another political decision influenced by the wealthy who benefit from it. For all practical purposes, income is income.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't think that anybody would be complaining about an owner who only made 4X what his workers were making.

Change that to $20 million, and I'll bet you can see my point. If labor gets too small of an income share, aggregate demand suffers.
Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to accept that someone with 50 employees is making $20M/year - that is more in line with a Walmart CEO who has 2M employees. Sharing the Walmart CEO's "excess" pay would give each Walmart "associate" less than $10/year more.

Taking Mr. Widget's "excess" 80% ($120K) and giving each widget worker $2.4K/year more income would not only starve the (already underfunded?) government of Widgetville completely but would not increase the aggregate demand much. BTW, in my example, Mr. Widget netted only $80K/year (after taxes) so that 4X what his workers net is BS.
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Taxing unearned income at a lower rate is just another political decision influenced by the wealthy who benefit from it. For all practical purposes, income is income.
Click to expand...

why should the wealthy pay a higher rate when they are paying far more actual dollars. Why not a decreasing rate? The progressive income tax is a SCHEME politicians use to buy the votes of the many by promising them more stuff that OTHERS will pay for
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is unrealistic to accept that someone with 50 employees is making $20M/year - that is more in line with a Walmart CEO who has 2M employees. Sharing the Walmart CEO's "excess" pay would give each Walmart "associate" less than $10/year more.

Taking Mr. Widget's "excess" 80% ($120K) and giving each widget worker $2.4K/year more income would not only starve the (already underfunded?) government of Widgetville completely but would not increase the aggregate demand much. BTW, in my example, Mr. Widget netted only $80K/year (after taxes) so that 4X what his workers net is BS.
Click to expand...

Giving the workers an extra $2.4K/year would increase aggregate demand by the amount they would spend over the amount the owner would spend. The more you earn, the higher your savings rate, and the less income is spent back into the economy.

Increased demand means more sales taxes, and the increased wages means more income taxes paid by the workers. Plus there are secondary spending effects from increased aggregate demand.

Now imagine the difference in savings rates if the owner made $1 million. The higher the income share to the very rich, the more savings, and less aggregate demand. The owner's fat bank account doesn't do anything for the economy.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Giving the workers an extra $2.4K/year would increase aggregate demand by the amount they would spend over the amount the owner would spend. The more you earn, the higher your savings rate, and the less income is spent back into the economy.

Increased demand means more sales taxes, and the increased wages means more income taxes paid by the workers. Plus there are secondary spending effects from increased aggregate demand.

Now imagine the difference in savings rates if the owner made $1 million. The higher the income share to the very rich, the more savings, and less aggregate demand. The owner's fat bank account doesn't do anything for the economy.
Click to expand...

OK, how about those Walmart "associates" splurging on their extra $10/year? Is that demand going to perk up the economy? That Walmart CEO does not put that money in some dopey savings account - they likely spend it buying rich folks' toys like vacation properties, yachts, taking vacation trips all over the place and on fancy cars, furniture and art. The rich folks who I know spend quite a bit (some on work which I do on their many properties).
 
There should be ONE tax rate applied to everyone, no deductions at all. The money one earns should be theirs alone to spend and Federal government should only tax money which is invested in ways to make more money, interest, dividends, stocks and bonds, homes, land, collectables, etc. which appreciate in value and/or a result of inflation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, how about those Walmart "associates" splurging on their extra $10/year? Is that demand going to perk up the economy?
Click to expand...

In the aggregate, yes it will. It's money spent vs. money saved.

ttwtt78640 said:
That Walmart CEO does not put that money in some dopey savings account - they likely spend it buying rich folks' toys like vacation properties, yachts, taking vacation trips all over the place and on fancy cars, furniture and art. The rich folks who I know spend quite a bit (some on work which I do on their many properties).
Click to expand...

They spend a (much) smaller percentage of their income than workers do. And dollars eventually do eventually come to rest as savings, either in bank accounts or in the form of treasuries. Somebody ends up holding dollars or dollar equivalents, and it's not the poor.

A lot of the things that the rich do with their money don't help the economy. Buying stocks, real estate, art, etc., simply positions them to collect more money in the form of dividends, rent, and appreciation.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't think that anybody would be complaining about an owner who only made 4X what his workers were making.

Change that to $20 million, and I'll bet you can see my point. If labor gets too small of an income share, aggregate demand suffers.
Click to expand...

Key word you seem to have overlooked...."owner".....the owner can make or pay themselves whatever they please because they are the owner.

I find it odd that you would imply that workers concerns about the owners pay should even be factored into any argument because...well, it belongs to the owner.

"I work for you and the company you own, and I dont like you paying yourself so much".

Sure to be a short conversation.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
In the aggregate, yes it will. It's money spent vs. money saved.



They spend a (much) smaller percentage of their income than workers do. And dollars eventually do eventually come to rest as savings, either in bank accounts or in the form of treasuries. Somebody ends up holding dollars or dollar equivalents, and it's not the poor.

A lot of the things that the rich do with their money don't help the economy. Buying stocks, real estate, art, etc., simply positions them to collect more money in the form of dividends, rent, and appreciation.
Click to expand...

You act as if stock/bond investments do no good for the economy except to reward their investors. In that case - outlaw corporations selling stock and see what happens. Maybe we should outlaw renting and mortgages too - if you don't have the cash then you can't live in a house or even own a piece of land.
 
Vadinho said:
Well, my position leaves you with millions. Your position leaves me with peanuts. Which one has the higher moral ground?
Click to expand...

Neither.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, you are not providing any information, you just said you are not. this is is you creating total falsehoods on top of anecdotal personal claims that cannot be verified.....to defend an argument.

It is bs built on nothing.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you feel better about being wrong Gimmee.
 
jaeger19 said:
Neither.
Click to expand...

Well that will be for the electorate to decide. Something tells me we have more sympathy for the pauper then the prince. Concentration of wealth is a problem, taxation is the only remedy.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
If I were likely to be the recipient of any redistribution, that might be an argument. Not a good argument, and not a winning argument, but an argument. But it's far more likely that I wouldn't.

Let's turn this around - what makes you think that you are justified in skimming off the hard work and production of others your whole life, simply because your grandfather made more money than he could spend by himself?

Inherited money does not make the world go 'round. Work and production, in the present, make the world go 'round. And you have not contributed one lick of work or production your whole life. What gives you the right? What is your justification? Do you have any argument to justify your lazy existence that is more convincing than calling other people jealous?
Click to expand...

Okay.. lets flip this around and look at it from his perspective. Yes.. his relatives worked hard.. and made a pile.. that he inherited. He also went on to do obviously well at college and then on to get a law degree. And worked hard enough to be a federal prosecutor and worked to keep dangerous criminals away from society and behind bars.

And I don't know his kids.. but I would bet that they are college educated and doing their own things.

NOW.. please explain why he doesn't deserve the money he has...

But the fellow that was busy drinking and doing drugs in highschool.. who will never make more than minimum wage because he works only enough to pay for his drinking and drugs...
Explain why that fellow deserves Turtledudes money? And that it should be taken from turtledude and "redistributed"..to the other fellow.
 
Vadinho said:
Well that will be for the electorate to decide. Something tells me we have more sympathy for the pauper then the prince. Concentration of wealth is a problem, taxation is the only remedy.
Click to expand...

Taxation actually isn't a remedy. In fact.. taxes have become way more progressive than they were in the past.. and yet.. funny enough.. inequity has increased.

Just a fact. And before you go.. "but but but.. they taxed at 90%"... do a little more research.

Despite the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Federal Tax System is Becoming More Progressive Over Time | Tax Policy Center
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't think that anybody would be complaining about an owner who only made 4X what his workers were making.

Change that to $20 million, and I'll bet you can see my point. If labor gets too small of an income share, aggregate demand suffers.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Taxing unearned income at a lower rate is just another political decision influenced by the wealthy who benefit from it. For all practical purposes, income is income.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. that's an argument for a flat tax.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You act as if stock/bond investments do no good for the economy except to reward their investors. In that case - outlaw corporations selling stock and see what happens. Maybe we should outlaw renting and mortgages too - if you don't have the cash then you can't live in a house or even own a piece of land.
Click to expand...

Truth is.. almost all stock/bond investments do nothing for the economy. In fact.. the stock market probably does more to hurt the economy than to help it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Taxation actually isn't a remedy. In fact.. taxes have become way more progressive than they were in the past.. and yet.. funny enough.. inequity has increased.

Just a fact. And before you go.. "but but but.. they taxed at 90%"... do a little more research.

Despite the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Federal Tax System is Becoming More Progressive Over Time | Tax Policy Center
Click to expand...

Tax avoidance is an issue at any tax rate. One must be vigilant and adjust as new schemes appear, its just a matter of closing loopholes and going after tax cheats. The only historically effective way to solve this has always been a proscription or a war. We are trying to avoid these tried and true remedies.
 
Vadinho said:
Tax avoidance is an issue at any tax rate. One must be vigilant and adjust as new schemes appear, its just a matter of closing loopholes and going after tax cheats. The only historically effective way to solve this has always been a proscription or a war. We are trying to avoid these tried and true remedies.
Click to expand...


Whoa there MR strawman. We are not talking about "tax cheats"... The fact is.. that our system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE.

And yet inequality has increased. So your "the only way to change inequality is through taxation (presumably you meant more progressive taxation)".. has already been proven false.
 
jaeger19 said:
Whoa there MR strawman. We are not talking about "tax cheats"... The fact is.. that our system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE.

And yet inequality has increased. So your "the only way to change inequality is through taxation (presumably you meant more progressive taxation)".. has already been proven false.
Click to expand...

Anyone who legally used tax avoidance schemes to hide massive wealth is in my opinion a tax cheat. Why? Because those tax schemes are only available to them and were made legal by the lawyers and officials these same creeps paid to do their dirty work. Now that only covers legal tax avoidance schemes. Most of the real dough is hidden in tax shelters, trillions upon trillions. Tax the hell out of them too and lock them up. Sorry, but whether you do it legally or illegally, you are avoiding taxes and sheltering wealth. I am for destroying that wealth upon the death of the creator of that wealth. Taxation is an easy and painless way to do it. Revolution is the more common way of doing it. Pick your poison.
 
Bum said:
Key word you seem to have overlooked...."owner".....the owner can make or pay themselves whatever they please because they are the owner.

I find it odd that you would imply that workers concerns about the owners pay should even be factored into any argument because...well, it belongs to the owner.

"I work for you and the company you own, and I dont like you paying yourself so much".

Sure to be a short conversation.
Click to expand...

The gist of the leftwing ideology is that people are pawns of society and that the interests of individuals are always subordinate to the greater good-the greater good being defined by leftwing "elites" who pretend to know what is better for you and me, than you and I. So leftwing tax schemes ignore the rights of individuals and are based merely on advancing what the leftwing elites think is the greater good (which is invariably the accentuation of their own power)
 
Vadinho said:
Anyone who legally used tax avoidance schemes to hide massive wealth is in my opinion a tax cheat. Why? Because those tax schemes are only available to them and were made legal by the lawyers and officials these same creeps paid to do their dirty work. Now that only covers legal tax avoidance schemes. Most of the real dough is hidden in tax shelters, trillions upon trillions. Tax the hell out of them too and lock them up. Sorry, but whether you do it legally or illegally, you are avoiding taxes and sheltering wealth. I am for destroying that wealth upon the death of the creator of that wealth. Taxation is an easy and painless way to do it. Revolution is the more common way of doing it. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Orwellian-if you follow the law you are breaking the law. But this is only true if you are richer than he thinks you should be. If you suck off the public teat, yet vote for more and more taxes on those who actually pay them, that is perfectly legitimate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom