The Argument for A Wealth Tax

[mudwhistle]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

Still trying to destroy jobs?????

What happened the last time Democrats raise taxes on the rich???

Google the 2008 economic collapse

2008 had NOTHING to do with tax increases.

How fukken stupid are you?

Apparently not as fucking stupid as you.
There was alot that went into the causes of the 2008 collapse (One major reason was Democrats took back Congress). But tax increases was one of them. But I don't have the fucking time to explain it all to your dumb fucking ass.

Tax cuts had ZERO to do with the BANK FAILURES....stupid...that caused the crash.

Jesus save us from these cretins

Yes.....and neither did Dodd/ Frank nor Democrats screwing with governmental banking regulations....Chuck Schumer calling for a run on banks.
Totally innocent. No effect at all.
But we're still dealing with the damage it caused today.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Tax cuts had ZERO to do with the BANK FAILURES....stupid...that caused the crash.

Jesus save us from these cretins

Banks took ridiculous risks on mortgage lending. That, coupled with the housing bubble in California. That is what caused the 2008 crash, but it was made possible by our ridiculously retarded economic system, as Natural Citizen described.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax cuts had ZERO to do with the BANK FAILURES....stupid...that caused the crash.

Jesus save us from these cretins

Banks took ridiculous risks on mortgage lending. That, coupled with the housing bubble in California. That is what caused the 2008 crash, but it was made possible by our ridiculously retarded economic system, as Natural Citizen described.

Here is a bit more detail on what happened and why:

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/recession

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

 

[Lesh]

Most jobs are created with borrowed money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

Maybe you have no clue, and need to keep on telling yourself you have one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

Maybe you have no clue, and need to keep on telling yourself you have one?

You don't know the answers? Looks like you're the clueless one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

Maybe you have no clue, and need to keep on telling yourself you have one?

You don't know the answers? Looks like you're the clueless one.

The 1%er's give money to conservative pols to write laws cutting taxes and regulations.

Middle class voters have very little dollars after paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, local, state and federal taxes, insurance for health, autos and home.

So what? Well I have empathy and you're a Callous Conservative.

The 90% have little or no money to save, especially when the banks loan money in a range of 6 - 10 % higher than earned in a savings account. Oh, and don't forget a 1%er won't pay the same interest on a loan as the average Joe.

 

[rightwinger]

We don’t need a wealth tax

Just put a one percent survharge on all stock transactions

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

Maybe you have no clue, and need to keep on telling yourself you have one?

You don't know the answers? Looks like you're the clueless one.

The 1%er's give money to conservative pols to write laws cutting taxes and regulations.

Middle class voters have very little dollars after paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, local, state and federal taxes, insurance for health, autos and home.

So what? Well I have empathy and you're a Callous Conservative.

The 90% have little or no money to save, especially when the banks loan money in a range of 6 - 10 % higher than earned in a savings account. Oh, and don't forget a 1%er won't pay the same interest on a loan as the average Joe.

The 1%er's give money to conservative pols to write laws cutting taxes and regulations.

Is that all they do with their money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We don’t need a wealth tax

Just put a one percent survharge on all stock transactions

That would be an excellent way to move all stock trades to the London Stock Exchange.

 

[Kondor3]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

I have the OP Idiot on ignore, but will try to ask one simple question again.

WHY IS IT ALWAYS WE HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH, BUT NEVER HAVE TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE OVERBLOATED, WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT, AND ITS BULLSHIT PROGRAMS, LIKE THE WAR ON POVERTY?

OPINION: It’s Time To Admit The Feds Are Making Poverty Worse — Not Better

In all, some 200 anti-poverty laws and related programs were enacted during Johnson’s administration. They now cost more than $1 trillion combined annually and represent the third most expensive government expenditure — exceeding national defense spending.

Stop paying people to sit on their lazy liberal asses, and put the money to the national debt, in 15 years, no more debt and unemployment would be nonexistent. And the Democrap Party would be a thing of the past...

Tax the rich.

They made their money on the backs of the middle class and the poor anyway.

They made their money using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers.

They made their money by shipping jobs overseas, which, in turn, did much to help create such a large pool of poor former worker-bees.

Hell, it would be fair to take a huge-assed chunk of their assets and put them back into play.

However, a tax of a couple of percentage points per year would do nicely as a consolation prize.

 

[22lcidw]

Let's not.

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money. Top earners are few, and the Middle Classes and working poor are the many; the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1% - Wealth inequality continues to grow, and by creating higher taxes for the 1% makes sense.

"From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Does the 1% have more wealth in the US than the bottom 50% - Google Search

Why not? It's not as if the top earners create jobs with their own money.

What do they do with it?

the United States is an economy driven by consumers, who buy many times more products and services than will the top 1%

So we need to reduce savings and increase spending? Our problem is our savings rate is too high?

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points.

Ok. So what?

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Maybe the bottom 90% needs less spending and more saving?

Maybe you have no clue, and need to keep on telling yourself you have one?

You don't know the answers? Looks like you're the clueless one.

The 1%er's give money to conservative pols to write laws cutting taxes and regulations.

Middle class voters have very little dollars after paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, local, state and federal taxes, insurance for health, autos and home.

So what? Well I have empathy and you're a Callous Conservative.

The 90% have little or no money to save, especially when the banks loan money in a range of 6 - 10 % higher than earned in a savings account. Oh, and don't forget a 1%er won't pay the same interest on a loan as the average Joe.

Much of the money the middle class pays goes to others in the same class and the working poor and the poor. The privileged jobs in the middle class are the real privileged in that class.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

Typical left wing someone has more than I think they need so I'll support taking from them bullshit.

Instead of worrying about what someone else has, why don't you concentrate on making yourself better, if that's possible.

That sounds so noble...and it's such bullshit

You're the one supporting taking things from others because you're jealous of what they have and know you'll never have anything without it being handed to you.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

I have the OP Idiot on ignore, but will try to ask one simple question again.

WHY IS IT ALWAYS WE HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH, BUT NEVER HAVE TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE OVERBLOATED, WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT, AND ITS BULLSHIT PROGRAMS, LIKE THE WAR ON POVERTY?

OPINION: It’s Time To Admit The Feds Are Making Poverty Worse — Not Better

In all, some 200 anti-poverty laws and related programs were enacted during Johnson’s administration. They now cost more than $1 trillion combined annually and represent the third most expensive government expenditure — exceeding national defense spending.

Stop paying people to sit on their lazy liberal asses, and put the money to the national debt, in 15 years, no more debt and unemployment would be nonexistent. And the Democrap Party would be a thing of the past...

Tax the rich.

They made their money on the backs of the middle class and the poor anyway.

They made their money using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers.

They made their money by shipping jobs overseas, which, in turn, did much to help create such a large pool of poor former worker-bees.

Hell, it would be fair to take a huge-assed chunk of their assets and put them back into play.

However, a tax of a couple of percentage points per year would do nicely as a consolation prize.

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

 

[Lesh]

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

 

[Lesh]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

I have the OP Idiot on ignore, but will try to ask one simple question again.

WHY IS IT ALWAYS WE HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH, BUT NEVER HAVE TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE OVERBLOATED, WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT, AND ITS BULLSHIT PROGRAMS, LIKE THE WAR ON POVERTY?

OPINION: It’s Time To Admit The Feds Are Making Poverty Worse — Not Better

In all, some 200 anti-poverty laws and related programs were enacted during Johnson’s administration. They now cost more than $1 trillion combined annually and represent the third most expensive government expenditure — exceeding national defense spending.

Stop paying people to sit on their lazy liberal asses, and put the money to the national debt, in 15 years, no more debt and unemployment would be nonexistent. And the Democrap Party would be a thing of the past...

Tax the rich.

They made their money on the backs of the middle class and the poor anyway.

They made their money using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers.

They made their money by shipping jobs overseas, which, in turn, did much to help create such a large pool of poor former worker-bees.

Hell, it would be fair to take a huge-assed chunk of their assets and put them back into play.

However, a tax of a couple of percentage points per year would do nicely as a consolation prize.

There's a lot to be said for that.

The rich got their money from somewhere. It IS a zero sum game