• 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?

Gimmesometruth said:
No, you aren't providing links for your post 657, and the differential shown is greater than the (8%-4.3%=) 3.7% change you showed.
Click to expand...

I provided that it came from the CBO..you are free to look it up. You on the other hand.. didn't provide any link. What are you afraid of.

And "differential"...sorry but you don't show any differential because your graph doesn't include the bottom quintiles. Its not apples to oranges. \

In fact.. you can tell that your graph is not correct.. and that's because over the last decade.. the tax structure has gotten so that for many.. they got more from the government than they put in.. that's a net income. Which means that the effective tax rate.. is actually LESS than zero.. because its a source of income.
 
phattonez said:
No one said that they were better than you.
Click to expand...
Sure you did.. you made a moral stance regarding their work versus mine.

Why do you need millions?
Click to expand...

Well.. I use those millions to build healthcare facilities to provide care for sick and hurt people. Particularly in rural areas where care is scarce. I use those millions to provide food for people in the form of crops and cattle. Of course I do get compensated.. but if I didn't get compensated. there would be no expansion of services now would there. Which would mean fewer jobs for those hard workers..

and if there is no reward for that risk? Why should I risk what I have earned?
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure you did.. you made a moral stance regarding their work versus mine.
Click to expand...

When did I say better? That's your strawman; it's not my position.

Well.. I use those millions to build healthcare facilities to provide care for sick and hurt people. Particularly in rural areas where care is scarce. I use those millions to provide food for people in the form of crops and cattle. Of course I do get compensated.. but if I didn't get compensated. there would be no expansion of services now would there. Which would mean fewer jobs for those hard workers.
Click to expand...

If you didn't keep millions for yourself there would be MORE healthcare for sick and hurt people, and they could pay lower prices. :shrug:

and if there is no reward for that risk? Why should I risk what I have earned?
Click to expand...

Again, who said NO reward? Will free markets fall apart if the rich aren't allowed to hoard billions?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
the data I provided shows a greater decline than 3.7%, ergo, no, tax rates are not more progressive than in 1960.
Click to expand...

And it should be since wealth is far more disproportionately distributed.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. that's predicated on the idea that they are "saving".. which you are against.. remember John. and meanwhile.. they are giving it to the rich. Not.. before they give it to the rich they spend it... when the spend it.. its giving it to the rich.

The point is John.. is that the rich still end up with it. Inequality still exists. So.. when you say "but but the wealthy have too much"...well.. the wealthy will still have too much because the money is still going to go to the rich. So your measurement of success... the "the wealthy cannot have the money"... is pretty much moot.. when your whole process ENDS UP WITH THE WEALTHY HAVING THE MONEY.

The point is.. your metric for success.. is based on an invalid premise. IT doesn't work.
Click to expand...

So you don't think people are any better off if they own their own house and their kids are educated? All you can see is the dollars?

This isn't predicated on saving at all, except for those that might save a bit for retirement. If you earn a little, you can pay rent; if you earn more, you can get a mortgage. Two very different situations with very different outcomes. Surely you can see that much - or are you just arguing because you hate agreeing with me?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
So you don't think people are any better off if they own their own house and their kids are educated? All you can see is the dollars?

This isn't predicated on saving at all, except for those that might save a bit for retirement. If you earn a little, you can pay rent; if you earn more, you can get a mortgage. Two very different situations with very different outcomes. Surely you can see that much - or are you just arguing because you hate agreeing with me?
Click to expand...

He's arguing because he thinks that housing is only for making someone else money, whether it be mortgage lenders (let's be honest, salesmen at this point since they all get sold to Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae) or landlords. Housing families doesn't really matter to him. It's not his problem.
 
phattonez said:
You mean someone with $50 million might get taxed at the insane rate of 50%, and still have $25 million? HOW AWFUL!
Click to expand...

why should the government take half of what someone earns when they pay more taxes than 100 million Americans combined do in federal income tax. Your argument sounds of envy
 
phattonez said:
Libertarianism is a constant search for trying to pretend the desires of the wealthy is anything other than greed and envy.
Click to expand...

"Other" seems to be people who are authoritarian populists who hate the educated and the successful
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
They only have the rights that we give them. And no, that kind of investment does nothing for production.
Click to expand...

most of those on welfare do nothing for production. So what
 
TurtleDude said:
why should the government take half of what someone earns when they pay more taxes than 100 million Americans combined do in federal income tax. Your argument sounds of envy
Click to expand...
Because their discretionary income is far higher than most Americans. Everyone has to pay necessities, and it's far easier to do that when you're wealthy.
 
TurtleDude said:
most of those on welfare do nothing for production. So what
Click to expand...
Citation needed. I'm not a fan of federal welfare, but this is ludicrous.
 
phattonez said:
Because their discretionary income is far higher than most Americans. Everyone has to pay necessities, and it's far easier to do that when you're wealthy.
Click to expand...

that doesn't justify parasitic action by the government
 
Bum said:
The problem with all of the above is that the law provides congress the ability to tax income…..not personal wealth or perceived personal value.
Click to expand...

I agree.
Would government tax the highly educated but unemployed who possess a wealth of knowledge?

Those who earn what many feel to be excessive incomes spend large amounts on goods and services that employ a great many persons in businesses which would not exist at all otherwise.

If a poor person were to buy a painting at a flea market and later discover it to be a rare painting worth millions of dollars, should that person be forced by government to sell it in order to pay a wealth tax on it?

IMO, the 16th and 17th amendments should never have been passed.
 
TurtleDude said:
"Other" seems to be people who are authoritarian populists who hate the educated and the successful
Click to expand...
Do you call trust fund babies successful and educated?
 
phattonez said:
Do you call trust fund babies successful and educated?
Click to expand...

it depends but generally they are far more successful and educated than those who are envious of them and want the government to loot their wealth to make the losers feel better
 
phattonez said:
Taxes should be proportionate to discretionary income, agreed?
Click to expand...

nope., taxes should be based on what you use. I shouldn't pay more in sales tax than you do, even though I suspect I make 10-20 times as much as you do. My vehicle registration should be no more than yours. Same for a dog license or a hunting license. You should get the same value received for tax dollar paid
 
TurtleDude said:
nope., taxes should be based on what you use. I shouldn't pay more in sales tax than you do, even though I suspect I make 10-20 times as much as you do. My vehicle registration should be no more than yours. Same for a dog license or a hunting license. You should get the same value received for tax dollar paid
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree entirely with your response to Phattonez, I have suggested that income should not be taxed by Federal government, but as I have spoken English infrequently over the last several decades I used the word "disposable" income when I should have used the word "discretionary" income. Basically, what I've been suggesting is for the Federal government to tax wealth at the initial point of accumulation, which would eliminate Federal taxes on those who acquire no wealth at all, eliminate Federal tax returns for most every individual, and impose the burden of Federal spending even more greatly upon those who have large amounts of discretionary income to invest, and treat everyone regardless of the inequality of income equally by imposition of a flat tax rate.
 
Individual said:
While I don't disagree entirely with your response to Phattonez, I have suggested that income should not be taxed by Federal government, but as I have spoken English infrequently over the last several decades I used the word "disposable" income when I should have used the word "discretionary" income. Basically, what I've been suggesting is for the Federal government to tax wealth at the initial point of accumulation, which would eliminate Federal taxes on those who acquire no wealth at all, eliminate Federal tax returns for most every individual, and impose the burden of Federal spending even more greatly upon those who have large amounts of discretionary income to invest, and treat everyone regardless of the inequality of income equally by imposition of a flat tax rate.
Click to expand...

I disagree but it is well reasoned. Right now, those who demand more and more government are not being given the proper level of feedback as to how much their desires cost. The FIT system is the most progressive it has ever been, with the largest percentage of citizens who pay no FIT at any time in decades. we need the those who vote for more and more government to pay more and more taxes to educate them on what they demand, costs. Dem schemes to merely increase what a minority of the voters pay, will not educate the masses and will lead to more and more government
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree but it is well reasoned. Right now, those who demand more and more government are not being given the proper level of feedback as to how much their desires cost. The FIT system is the most progressive it has ever been, with the largest percentage of citizens who pay no FIT at any time in decades. we need the those who vote for more and more government to pay more and more taxes to educate them on what they demand, costs. Dem schemes to merely increase what a minority of the voters pay, will not educate the masses and will lead to more and more government
Click to expand...

Perhaps government should, by law, be required to raise taxes across the board each year to recoup the previous years budget deficit?
Taxes and inflation have little or no negative effect on the wealthiest and the poorest. It is the middle class working persons who are being gradually eroded and becoming made more dependent upon government by government actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom