• 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?

Wealth has been growing more than income:

fredgraph.png




The overwhelming majority of all wealth is held in real estate and financial securities (our asset markets are highly liquid), which often grow far in excess of any costs associated with ownership.

that does not counter nor even respond to my post
 
that's either stupid of dishonest. I pay for far more government than I get in return. I worked 24 years for the DOJ and my tax payments quarterly were more than I was paid as a maxed out DOJ attorney

You said this: "those who are living off the work of others, are going to support such schemes."

As someone who is living largely off of investments from an inheritance, you absolutely fit the description of "those who are living off the work of others." You may not like to think of yourself in that way, but it's true. You are a rentier. So when you try to draw some kind of line between yourself and "those who are living off the work of others" in order to make a quick argument, I'm going to remind you that there really is no significant difference between you and them.

The fact that you pay a lot of taxes doesn't change anything. It just means that you are skimming far more from the work of others than those who pay fewer taxes.
 
You said this: "those who are living off the work of others, are going to support such schemes."

As someone who is living largely off of investments from an inheritance, you absolutely fit the description of "those who are living off the work of others." You may not like to think of yourself in that way, but it's true. You are a rentier. So when you try to draw some kind of line between yourself and "those who are living off the work of others" in order to make a quick argument, I'm going to remind you that there really is no significant difference between you and them.

The fact that you pay a lot of taxes doesn't change anything. It just means that you are skimming far more from the work of others than those who pay fewer taxes.

Translation, you hate investment and capitalism. Are you upset that you don't have investment income? And you really have no clue of all the sources of income I have.
 
Translation, you hate investment and capitalism. Are you upset that you don't have investment income? And you really have no clue of all the sources of income I have.

I don't hate investment and capitalism at all. But I do recognize the problems and shortcomings of our system. Dynastic wealth allows for a nonproductive, high consumption class that feeds off the production of others. The "investment" you talk about isn't investment in new production, it is only "investment" in the sense that the rich guy is buying more stock and properties in order to skim more and more production off of others.
 
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.

No, I accept the fact that inequality is a natural occurrence.
The vast majority of people who complain about the wages they are paid or could be paid if they became employed would quickly find that they are not worth near as much as they feel/think they are.
If you're hungry, plant something, go fishing, hunting or find some work to earn enough to buy a meal.
 
I don't hate investment and capitalism at all. But I do recognize the problems and shortcomings of our system. Dynastic wealth allows for a nonproductive, high consumption class that feeds off the production of others. The "investment" you talk about isn't investment in new production, it is only "investment" in the sense that the rich guy is buying more stock and properties in order to skim more and more production off of others.

that is hating investment.
 
that does not counter nor even respond to my post

Your arbitrary opinion of property rights does not negate the statement you chose to quote from post #566. You whine about income taxes but have nothing to counter to the fact that wealth grows far in excess of income, and that the overwhelming majority of wealth is a creator of income. Being the ignorant person you are, this point falls on deaf ears.
 
Your arbitrary opinion of property rights does not negate the statement you chose to quote from post #566. You whine about income taxes but have nothing to counter to the fact that wealth grows far in excess of income, and that the overwhelming majority of wealth is a creator of income. Being the ignorant person you are, this point falls on deaf ears.

that ignores cases where someone has "great wealth" such as a valuable piece of property but not much income. The parasite class would demand the owner sell off the real estate to pay a wealth tax. I love people who are obviously upset about the wealth of others calling others "ignorant" when you completely ignored what I have said and why I oppose a wealth tax.
 
You don't understand what investment means.

we should compare our understanding of investments and the returns. I suspect if you really understood the issue, you wouldn't be constantly complaining about the wealth of others
 
that ignores cases where someone has "great wealth" such as a valuable piece of property but not much income.

Property that does not generate income is a cost in and of itself, in the form of property tax and various other upkeep costs associated with ownership. I've ignored nothing.

The parasite class would demand the owner sell off the real estate to pay a wealth tax.

There are already taxes and costs associated with ownership. You're not saying anything that refutes post #566.

I love people who are obviously upset about the wealth of others calling others "ignorant" when you completely ignored what I have said and why I oppose a wealth tax.

In a post where i explained wealth growing well in excess of income, you come back with some frivolous point that doesn't address 99% of potential wealth tax liability. You can pretend to be whatever you want... your ability to articulate substance is severely limited given the subject matter.
 
we should compare our understanding of investments and the returns.

Internet rando on an anon message board wants to tell us about his knowledge of investment while simultaneously being unable to keep up in a discussion pertinent to financial economics. Am i shocked? Not in the least bit. If you want to create a thread about your opinions... go right ahead.

I suspect if you really understood the issue, you wouldn't be constantly complaining about the wealth of others

When have i complained about the wealth of others? I've only pointed out the serious flaws of the opinions of those who harp against income taxes because they are too ignorant and greedy to understand that wealthy people benefit the most from economic redistribution funded via progressive income taxation.
 
Property that does not generate income is a cost in and of itself, in the form of property tax and various other upkeep costs associated with ownership. I've ignored nothing.



There are already taxes and costs associated with ownership. You're not saying anything that refutes post #566.



In a post where i explained wealth growing well in excess of income, you come back with some frivolous point that doesn't address 99% of potential wealth tax liability. You can pretend to be whatever you want... your ability to articulate substance is severely limited given the subject matter.

Again, avoidance. why should someone have to sell property to pay a wealth tax. You love avoiding issues that destroy the parasitic arguments
 
Again, avoidance. why should someone have to sell property to pay a wealth tax.

The same reason people have to sell anything they don't want to... they can't afford these things for one reason or another.

You love avoiding issues that destroy the parasitic arguments

You haven't provided anything of value.
 
The same reason people have to sell anything they don't want to... they can't afford these things for one reason or another.



You haven't provided anything of value.

you want the government to take something because you are upset they own it,
your argument sucks because the only reason why they cannot "afford it" is because the parasite mentality wants to impose a second tax on property
 
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.

The answer to wealth inequity is to get over it. If it was accumulated legally it's none of your business.
 
you want the government to take something because you are upset they own it

Absolutely not! You're consistently failing to comprehend the gist of post #566. The people will be coming after wealth because greedy and ignorant citizens miss the forest for the trees.

your argument sucks because the only reason why they cannot "afford it" is because the parasite mentality wants to impose a second tax on property

People can't afford things all the time for various reasons. The fact of the matter is this: wealth grows well in excess of income. If people who earn a substantial income do not want to see their wealth taxed, they will need to pay a more appropriate tax on their income. Your opinions on property rights have absolutely no baring on the economics behind my statement, which you are refusing to address.
 
Absolutely not! You're consistently failing to comprehend the gist of post #566. The people will be coming after wealth because greedy and ignorant citizens miss the forest for the trees.



People can't afford things all the time for various reasons. The fact of the matter is this: wealth grows well in excess of income. If people who earn a substantial income do not want to see their wealth taxed, they will need to pay a more appropriate tax on their income. Your opinions on property rights have absolutely no baring on the economics behind my statement, which you are refusing to address.

I don't find income taxes to be appropriate at all.
 
Absolutely not! You're consistently failing to comprehend the gist of post #566. The people will be coming after wealth because greedy and ignorant citizens miss the forest for the trees.



People can't afford things all the time for various reasons. The fact of the matter is this: wealth grows well in excess of income. If people who earn a substantial income do not want to see their wealth taxed, they will need to pay a more appropriate tax on their income. Your opinions on property rights have absolutely no baring on the economics behind my statement, which you are refusing to address.
"A more appropriate tax on their income" WTF does that mean? What defines "appropriate"; who makes that call. Taxing wealth is misappropriation bordering on theft.
 
I don't find income taxes to be appropriate at all.

What you do or do not find appropriate has nothing to do with this discussion. You clearly do not have even a basic grasp on the growth mechanics behind both income and wealth.
 
Again.. strawman. That's not what we were talking about.. the fact is and you keep avoiding it.. is that our system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE.. and yet inequality has increased.
Equality will never be attained, nor should it. Whether income or wealth equality, there is no logical or economic reason why equality should be the goal.
 
What you do or do not find appropriate has nothing to do with this discussion. You clearly do not have even a basic grasp on the growth mechanics behind both income and wealth.

your tactic is to try to narrow a conversation to some idiotic arcane point while missing or ignoring fundamental underlying philosophical positions concerning what is just and what is fair. 99% of those who want a "wealth tax" don't engage in your arcane and obscure arguments. Rather they whine that its not fair that the rich aren't taxed enough and they try to dream up reasons to confiscate the wealth of others. Income taxes are generally "justified" by the parasite mentality by claiming they are "fair" when, in reality, it is based on political expediency and pandering by politicians. And wealth taxes are based on pandering and a parasitic mentality, I couldn't care less if wealth increases faster than income. I oppose taxes on BOTH. and none of your stilted arguments can overcome that position of mine. You might disagree, but this is a value judgement that your "facts" are worthless against. And you have never been able to understand that. 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
 
"A more appropriate tax on their income" WTF does that mean? What defines "appropriate"; who makes that call. Taxing wealth is misappropriation bordering on theft.

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).
 
"A more appropriate tax on their income" WTF does that mean? What defines "appropriate"; who makes that call. Taxing wealth is misappropriation bordering on theft.

That is the flaw in his argument. he starts out with a value judgement that there is an "appropriate" level of tax on SOMEONE ELSE. and if you reject that there is ever an appropriate level of taxation on wealth or income, he pretends you don't understand his argument when, in reality, we reject his underlying premise, and thus his argument will never be relevant or convincing. 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.
 
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).

that ignores the source of the income and the type of the income. and why should someone who makes 87 million a year pay a higher rate or even more tax dollars?
 
Back
Top Bottom