• 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?

TurtleDude said:
your tactic is to try to narrow a conversation to some idiotic arcane point
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You don't care about facts.

I oppose taxes on BOTH. and none of your stilted arguments can overcome that position of mine.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kushinator said:
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).
Click to expand...
This isn't 1941. This post is a non-answer.
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bullseye said:
This isn't 1941. This post is a non-answer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd rather NO ONE PAY ANY INCOME TAX. It gives the federal government massive power it was never intended to have.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

wrong, I'd rather not pay anything on either since I oppose the income tax. It is hard for me to take your stupid straw man arguments seriously. You try to hide your envy by creating a facade.

0% on a million is just, 50% on ten million is not just.
 
Bullseye said:
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?
Click to expand...

but but he knows what YOUR APPROPRIATE level of theft upon your wealth is
 
TurtleDude said:
Your sanctimonious comments are silly.
Click to expand...

And yet you couldn't produce a quote substantiating your claim.

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
Click to expand...

Your opinions of me are not up for discussion.
 
Kushinator said:
And yet you couldn't produce a quote substantiating your claim.



Your opinions of me are not up for discussion.
Click to expand...

well you claim I am irrational so you are engaging in hypocrisy when you claim my opinions of you are not up for discussion. Fact remains, you spew all sorts of contortions trying to justify why other people should have more of what they own taken by the government.
 
Bullseye said:
why SHOULDN'T I accumulate more wealth than joe sixpack?
Click to expand...

I never made a value statement about who should or should not earn income.
 
TurtleDude said:
well you claim I am irrational
Click to expand...

You're responding with irrationality:

TurtleDude said:
wrong, I'd rather not pay anything on either since I oppose the income tax. It is hard for me to take your stupid straw man arguments seriously. You try to hide your envy by creating a facade.

0% on a million is just, 50% on ten million is not just.
Click to expand...

You can't even address my statements with a shred is sincerity.

so you are engaging in hypocrisy when you claim my opinions of you are not up for discussion.
Click to expand...

I've already highlighted your irrationality. You'd rather pay 0% on $1 million than 50% on $10 million.

Fact remains, you spew all sorts of contortions trying to justify why other people should have more of what they own taken by the government.
Click to expand...

The deficit will represent 5% of the economy for 2019. Why do you think this is happening?
 
Bullseye said:
You're talking about "inequality". That's value statement.
Click to expand...

It's a measurement of economic distribution. I've yet to make a normative economic statement during this exchange.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, I'd rather not pay anything on either since I oppose the income tax. It is hard for me to take your stupid straw man arguments seriously. You try to hide your envy by creating a facade.

0% on a million is just, 50% on ten million is not just.
Click to expand...

One person earn $20,000 each year and another earns $200,000 each year.
If each spends their entire income each year, which one is growing the economy the most?
Which would be preferable,
1. Government were to tax the higher income earner 50% and just redistribute $20,000 to 5 unemployed persons.
2. The higher income earner spending the $200,000 in the market place, and government taxing only money which is invested in hopes of accumulating wealth?
IMO, no one should pay tax on their income, but only on the excess which is invested for growth, bank savings, dividends, stock purchases, home/land purchases, collectables, etc.
A flat 5% tax rate, for example, would result in the following:
A low income person has a bank account balance of $2000, and the bank pays 2% interest each year, the bank would reduce the interest paid by 5% ($2) being sent directly to the Treasury.
A person with $250,000 in the same bank would experience the same, having $250 sent directly to the treasury.
Someone purchases 10 shares of a $25 stock would pay an additional 5%, or $26.25 per share sending $12.50 to the Treasury.
Another purchases 10,000 shares of a $150 stock would pay an additional 5%, or $157.50 per share sending $75,000 to the Treasury.
A home/land purchased for $75,000 would result in a one time $3,750 tax immediately paid to the Federal government.
Another home/land purchased for $350,000 would result in a one time $17,500 tax immediately paid to the Federal government.
And one purchased for $5,000,000 would result in a one time $250,000 tax immediately paid to the Federal government.
There would be no tax applied to selling for a profit or a loss, only the buyer would be taxed.
Those who buy things simply as a means of accumulating wealth would be the ONLY ones paying taxes to the Federal government.
Using 2013 figures, the NYSE alone averaged $169,000,000,000 in trade spending each day.
A 5% tax would have resulted in about $8,450,000,000 of revenue to the Treasury each trade day, or a total of about $2,137,850,000,000 over the year.
NASDAQ, AMEX, etc.?
Maybe a flat 5% tax would be too much?
Eliminate or reduce the need to file tax returns by most all individuals, with fewer sources of Federal revenue needed to be monitored/audited.
No need for complex tax laws, eliminating ALL loopholes both legal and questionable to avoid paying tax.
 
Bullseye said:
The answer to wealth inequity is to get over it. If it was accumulated legally it's none of your business.
Click to expand...

Yet another lover of wealth accumulated far beyond the means of any person to spend in a lifetime defending that wealth....the worshipping of mammon is so Christian.
 
Kushinator said:
It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Consumers have wants and producers fill these demands for a price.
Click to expand...

And ultimately.. what happens? The wealthy end up with the money that people spent on that production.

SO.. pretty much its a no brainer that wealthy will outstrip income.

I guess I am trying to figure out where you are going with this. You want to take wealth away from the wealthy so people can spend on production so it ends up in the hands of the wealthy...
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

You keep making this post of "wealth growing in excess of income".. as if it has some significance. Isn't it pretty much a standard that wealth will grow in excess of income?
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does changing the tax make a difference when it comes to the economy? How does taxing me more help my employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom