• 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?

H. Ford knew that he had to pay his workers enough money to be able to buy his cars and after his people joined a union and went on a long nasty strike his wife forced him into excepting the union , so after that he swore there would never be any non union workers in his company
one more thing I get upset about is Trump calming Ford and GM brought back jobs from Mexico because of him
He had nothing to do with those jobs coming back to the states it was the UAW contract from 2015 or 16
Have a nice evening

You make a good point. thanks for that bit of info.
I keep hearing people saying "IT'S THE UNION'S FAULT" that's why there was so much outsourcing.
However I was a factory worker in Michigan . 3 nonunion shops in Michigan that I worked at were outsourced and a lot more. There was more that a few nonunion factories in Michigan that were making either minimum wage or an eyelash above minimum wage. so why were they outsourced?
Another thing everybody seems to put unions down they forget before unions there was child labor, you could be fired for no reason,no women were hired for heavy labor, wges were determined by the owner of the company being paid overtime did not exist vacations did not exist..:peace
 
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.

Not really. When the wealthy write their own laws to benefit themselves, a moral question about the basis for these laws is appropriate and necessary.
 
Rather than constantly complain about wealth/income inequality, complainers should just start their own businesses and pay themselves what they FEEL they are worth.
 
Warren is pursuing pure socialism in which the government owns everything.

Of course it is not on the ultra wealthy. The ultra wealthy will pay nothing.

Warren is doing the same LIE told to create federal income tax - only 1% of the ultra wealthy - that was the promise - and that was the lie.

Warren is telling the same like for the creation of a MASSIVE NEW federal property tax on EVERYTHING you own. You will literally, every year, have to tell the government everything you own - and then pay a "wealth tax" (lying when really it is a federal property tax.)

Pay your federal property tax on your house, car, your cell phone, your cloths, your computer, anything and everything you own - every year. At any time, the government can raid your apartment or house under a tax warrant to try to catch you hiding anything of value. Doing so is a crime.

Can't pay 25% tax on everything you own every year? Then the government takes it.

Elizabeth Warren is the most radical massive taxing candidate since the creation of the federal income tax - telling 100% exactly the same lie she is telling now.
 
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.

IPOs are the only stock sales where the company gets any money from investors. After that, the shares are just things that give owners a share of the profits, in perpetuity. When you buy shares on the secondary market, you aren't investing in the company, you are just buying a way to skim off the profits of the company. Over time, that further separates the haves from the have nots; shareholders will vote themselves as much of the profits as possible, without any real regard for the health of the company. It becomes shareholders and management vs. labor in a battle for the profits, and shareholders hold all the cards.

Compare that with a situation where the employees own the shares. Now, the shareholders aren't at odds with labor or the company's health. The workers are working for their own benefit, generally in proportion to their contributions. Pensions aren't raided for quick payouts, pieces aren't sold off for quick payouts - the corporation works as it should, with shareholders voting in the best interests of the company.
 
Rather than constantly complain about wealth/income inequality, complainers should just start their own businesses and pay themselves what they FEEL they are worth.

So your answer to the wealth inequality problem that is being discussed around the world is for everyone who thinks it is a problem to become billionaires. That is like saying the hungry should shut up and find some food.
 
Not really. When the wealthy write their own laws to benefit themselves, a moral question about the basis for these laws is appropriate and necessary.

if the wealthy wrote the laws that way, why the hell do they pay 40% of the income tax when they only make 20% of the income--or why is there a death tax which is essentially a surcharge upon those who pay tons of income taxes?>

If we really wrote the tax code, everyone would pay the same amount for having a vote
 
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.

It doesn't sound like you read the whole thread before you jumped in here. I went over my reasoning, at great length, in an exchange with turtledude.

In short, I have no problem with people keeping what they have earned. You produce, you get rewarded. The problem I have with inherited wealth is that it becomes far removed from the actual production it was built on. Now, the shareholders are merely living off of a pile of money they did nothing to earn, skimming the profits of present production and even growing the pile.

My example was that of a buggy whip mogul. He made lots of money by producing buggy whips back when they were useful, which is great. His heirs inherit that money, which they use to buy stock in other companies (secondary market, of course). The heirs live off of dividends while their pile grows, and this goes on for generations. None of the heirs has produced a thing in their lives, but they live very well off the production of others. And they are only in that position because somebody gave them a pile of money so they could buy the rights to skim profits off of presently-producing corporations. All because one man produced buggy whips hundreds of years ago. That's the problem with dynastic wealth - you end up with a class of rich people living off the production of others. The only thing they do is amass more wealth and more power, but they have never done anything for society. They haven't produced anything for anybody.

Turtledude's response was that those heirs payed taxes and bought stuff, so they "did their part." But the only real difference between rich heirs and people on welfare is the amount of other people's production they skim and consume. A rich person skims (and consumes) millions, while somebody on welfare only skims thousands. And that's not even getting into the problem of buying political power.
 
if the wealthy wrote the laws that way, why the hell do they pay 40% of the income tax when they only make 20% of the income--or why is there a death tax which is essentially a surcharge upon those who pay tons of income taxes?>

If we really wrote the tax code, everyone would pay the same amount for having a vote
Its always funny to watch "rich" volks ignore total taxation, its as if they live in a world where only fed taxes exist.
WPTIA-2019_Chart1-1024x792.png
 
if the wealthy wrote the laws that way, why the hell do they pay 40% of the income tax when they only make 20% of the income--or why is there a death tax which is essentially a surcharge upon those who pay tons of income taxes?>

If we really wrote the tax code, everyone would pay the same amount for having a vote

21,000 of the 22,000 pages of the tax code are exemptions for the super rich.

When Democratic politicians talk about "taxing the rich," they do not mean the truly super rich. They pay $0 income taxes. They mean taxing people who become financially successful: mostly mom-pop businesses - people who probably when broke a few times, worked 100 hours a week for decades and finally found success. The Democratic Party targets THOSE people and THAT is who they mean when they say "tax the rich."

Oh, of course savings, pensions and retirement accounts taxed too. That is WEALTH that must be taxed. EVERYTHING anyone has will be taxed every year.

Will you have to pay Warren's "wealth tax?" The answer is YES if you pay any income taxes. How much will the "wealth tax" you have to pay be? At least as much as you now pay in income tax and other payroll deductions. Of course, you also still have all your local, county, state and other federal taxes and fees.

It would be nice if, instead, the Democratic Party would be more truthful and establish how much of a person's income we can each keep after ALL taxes? Do you think they would allow people keeping 10% of their earnings? I doubt it. Their goal is 0% for which you get whatever the government decides you will be allowed.
 
Where it ends up back in a rich persons back.. so... whats your point?

Really?

People have to live. Money has to flow through the lower end in order for that to happen. You can still live a decent life without saving money, if you are paid enough.
 
Again; I dont care how much wealth people have, or what they chose to do with it.

Now, on the completely different subject of corporate welfare, bail out, and moving jobs overseas, I have a different view.

But the above wasn't what this was about.....it was about people deciding that they want what others have and seeking a way to pass laws to take it simply because they arbitrarily decided that "they dont need that much wealth, and I should have some of it".

Very well, You make a good point .
About people deciding that they want what others have and seeking a way to have laws to take it simply because they arbitrarily decided "that they don't need that much wealth and I should have some of it" your words are they not?

However the budget cuts on Vets benefits, medicare ,medicaid, SS, education, food stamps NASA, just to name a few ,. Where did the taxes the government got from these cuts where did it go? I mean if you are paying for something and you cut something you are paying less, so where did the taxes that were saved from these project go???

3 things haven't changed since 2000 Tax cuts for the rich , research grants, subsidies, 740 million in bailout money ect , so a lot of money going to rich from government .

Money is money if received seldom asked where it came from. so some laws were passed to pay rich millionaires and billionaires tax cuts for paying taxes nobody asked WHERE YOU GOING TO GETIT??
So cut food stamps poor people eat too much anyway, cut education , last thing we want is educated people they might figure out what were doing, cut SS, elderly people don't need that much anyway , put a raise on property tax and retail tax sneak in a gas tax, but don't use the word tax , and oh yeah less tax refund s for average workers.

So the government is saving money but where is the money going hint, who's got the most
It seems like the rich CEOS and big business in 1999 took a look at average taxpayer money going to certain projects and decided"
{" They don't need that much wealth and I should have some of it }" A certain law was passed and they are now getting it.

However now when the situations are reversed it's the old "this money is mine I earned it you have no right to take it"
So how much tax cuts did you get in taxpayer money , how much in research grants did you get from taxpayer money, Was you part of the 740 million bailout, and about those subsidies, plus giving an oil company research money for alternative fuel while yelling DRILL BABY DRILL.
I remind you sir this is the U.S. government a public organization paying a private organization.

So a LOT OF TAXPAYER MONEY WENT TO THESE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES , Everybody knows where its going I t is never discussed where it comes from????
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT GETS IT'S MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS ALL TAXPAYERS. and budget cuts.:peace
 
Its always funny to watch "rich" volks ignore total taxation, its as if they live in a world where only fed taxes exist.
WPTIA-2019_Chart1-1024x792.png

that has no relevance. we are talking about the federal income tax and a scheme to tax the rich more at a federal level.

the rich already pay more actual dollars
 
that has no relevance. we are talking about the federal income tax and a scheme to tax the rich more at a federal level.
Of course it is relevant since it includes fed taxation.

the rich already pay more actual(nominal) dollars
Of course the "rich" pay more in nominal dollars.....because.....wait for it.....they capture a greater share of income......HURRR DURRRRRRRRRRRR!
 
Of course it is relevant since it includes fed taxation.

Of course the "rich" pay more in nominal dollars.....because.....wait for it.....they capture a greater share of income......HURRR DURRRRRRRRRRRR!

lefties try to make federal taxation more "progressive" because they believe that progressive taxes are the only fair tax and the try to do this to offset some state taxes that are not progressive.

It is based on the marxist mantra of "from each according to their ability". There is nothing that objectively establishes that "progressive" rates are more fair. In reality, you should pay for what you get and the rich do NOT get more from the government
 
lefties try to make federal taxation more "progressive" because they believe that progressive taxes are the only fair tax and the try to do this to offset some state taxes that are not progressive.

It is based on the marxist mantra of "from each according to their ability". There is nothing that objectively establishes that "progressive" rates are more fair. In reality, you should pay for what you get and the rich do NOT get more from the government
We have had this debate before, you lost it then, I won't put you through it again....but the plain fact is, if so many felt cheated, they would leave en masse.
 
We have had this debate before, you lost it then, I won't put you through it again....but the plain fact is, if so many felt cheated, they would leave en masse.

you proclaimed I lost without any evidence. Many sucking on the public teat would be in deep trouble but for the government. The rich do pretty well without any of the welfare socialist nonsense.
 
you proclaimed I lost without any evidence. Many sucking on the public teat would be in deep trouble but for the government. The rich do pretty well without any of the welfare socialist nonsense.
uh, the evidence is real world, are the wealthy feeling cheated by fed progressive levels and leaving the US en masse?

No.

QfriggingED.
 
uh, the evidence is real world, are the wealthy feeling cheated by fed progressive levels and leaving the US en masse?

No.

QfriggingED.

that doesn't prove anything. I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
 
that doesn't prove anything. I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
But we probably had some progressives that suffered from terminal jealousy because some people were more successful than others and didn't need the progs enlightened and scientific help.
 
No, it's an argument against treating unearned income preferentially. A progressive income tax doesn't change that.

We know that Democratic candidate for president Yang opposes progressive welfare - demanding that Jeff Bezos, The WalMart Heirs, Man Zuckerman, Bill Gates, his wife etc all need $1000 per month welfare each just like any poor person.

No Democrats have complained about his welfare-for-the-rich - so stop pretending you favor anything based upon a person's wealth. Everyone should receive and pay EXACTLY the same $$ amount is a premise I have not read ONE Democrat on the forum oppose when it comes to Yang, Warren, or any of the other Democrats promoting welfare for billionaires.
 
that doesn't prove anything.
Oh, yeah...it does, but then this is a rhetorical exercise.

I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
We had no standing military to speak of, no infrastructure to speak of, state colleges were state affairs...and abysmal per capita gdp with much greater levels of inequality and poverty.

Yeah, great times.
 
Last edited:
We know that Democratic candidate for president Yang opposes progressive welfare - demanding that Jeff Bezos, The WalMart Heirs, Man Zuckerman, Bill Gates, his wife etc all need $1000 per month welfare each just like any poor person.

No Democrats have complained about his welfare-for-the-rich - so stop pretending you favor anything based upon a person's wealth. Everyone should receive and pay EXACTLY the same $$ amount is a premise I have not read ONE Democrat on the forum oppose when it comes to Yang, Warren, or any of the other Democrats promoting welfare for billionaires.

Yang and his UBI isn't in any danger of getting the nomination.

As usual, your posts are so biased that they are worthless, so don't expect to engage me in any sort of exchange.
 
Back
Top Bottom