The Argument for A Wealth Tax

[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.

1. Thanks for your stupid opinion

2. For a two per cent tax?

3.on what basis? States already tax wealth (property taxes)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

It would also end a lot of jobs and ambition.

The fact that anyone is advocating this shows a serious miscalculation of human nature.

 

[martybegan]

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.

1. Thanks for your stupid opinion

2. For a two per cent tax?

3.on what basis? States already tax wealth (property taxes)

And the Federal Constitution allows that, by the States, because it is moot on the way States can tax (mostly).

However there is no part of the federal constitution that allows such a tax at the federal level. Excise taxes and tariffs are in the main constitution, and income taxes are allowed via amendment.

There is no power given to the Federal Government via the Federal Constitution for a tax on owned property.

 

[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

What are you going to do when all of "other peoples money" runs out and the system collapses under massive debt?

A two per cent tax is hardly going to make the Uber rich run out of money but it WILL take care of the “massive debt” you pretend to care about

 

[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.

1. Thanks for your stupid opinion

2. For a two per cent tax?

3.on what basis? States already tax wealth (property taxes)

And the Federal Constitution allows that, by the States, because it is moot on the way States can tax (mostly).

However there is no part of the federal constitution that allows such a tax at the federal level. Excise taxes and tariffs are in the main constitution, and income taxes are allowed via amendment.

There is no power given to the Federal Government via the Federal Constitution for a tax on owned property.

Nor is there a provision for income tax... or an exclusion of either

 

[Votto]

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

Why is it that Dims only look to increase taxes, as if they really cared about reducing deficits or debt?

In fact, what does taxes have to do with entitlements? Nothing, that's what. The government will continue to run trillion dollar deficits regardless. The Dims will just offer free everything and not blink an eye.

 

[martybegan]

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.

1. Thanks for your stupid opinion

2. For a two per cent tax?

3.on what basis? States already tax wealth (property taxes)

And the Federal Constitution allows that, by the States, because it is moot on the way States can tax (mostly).

However there is no part of the federal constitution that allows such a tax at the federal level. Excise taxes and tariffs are in the main constitution, and income taxes are allowed via amendment.

There is no power given to the Federal Government via the Federal Constitution for a tax on owned property.

Nor is there a provision for income tax... or an exclusion of either

Sigh...I didn't think i had to give you the actual amendment....

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[g5000]

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

There is a big difference between "wealth" and "income", so perhaps you better clarify what you mean by a "wealth tax".

I will wait to kick your balls over the moon until you provide this clarification.

 

[Claudette]

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.

1. Thanks for your stupid opinion

2. For a two per cent tax?

3.on what basis? States already tax wealth (property taxes)

And the Federal Constitution allows that, by the States, because it is moot on the way States can tax (mostly).

However there is no part of the federal constitution that allows such a tax at the federal level. Excise taxes and tariffs are in the main constitution, and income taxes are allowed via amendment.

There is no power given to the Federal Government via the Federal Constitution for a tax on owned property.

Nor is there a provision for income tax... or an exclusion of either

The income tax is an amendment dumbass.

 

[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

There is a big difference between "wealth" and "income", so perhaps you better clarify what you mean by a "wealth tax".

I will wait to kick your balls over the moon until you provide this clarification.

Since I never mentioned income taxes other than that they exist... save your lunar fantasies

 

[g5000]

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...

Your figure includes both state and federal welfare.

Federal welfare is about $600 billion a year. Less than half what we spend on federal tax expenditures.

 

[litman]

When our righties figure out tat you are getting ripped off by the extreme wealthy. Look at TV and the cost. Look at the internet and see the cost if you don't live on top of your neighbor. The wealthy are refusing to pay a fair and living wage to the people they use. They are not doing you a big favor to hire you. You work for them so they can make money yet they do not seem willing to pay the cost of their employees. They force the government to pick up the costs of their employees.
So yes I think it more than fair to take back what they have stolen.

 

[g5000]

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

There is a big difference between "wealth" and "income", so perhaps you better clarify what you mean by a "wealth tax".

I will wait to kick your balls over the moon until you provide this clarification.

Since I never mentioned income taxes other than that they exist... save your lunar fantasies

By this response, I can only surmise you want to tax wealth. Wealth which has already been taxed once when it was earned.

By what god-given right do you presume to seize someone's wealth and turn it over to a 29 year old bartender from Queens to decide who gets it?

 

[Lesh]

Wealth which has already been taxed once when it was earned.

That's an entirely lame argument.You know better than that Money is taxed numerous ways and numerous times. A sales tax is levied on money that has already been taxed at least once by an income tax.

And the 16th established NOT that an income tax is allowed...but HOW it is apportioned, which was the issue. That same argument can be applied to a wealth tax

 

[georgephillip]

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

It certainly appears that wealth will continue to concentrate into fewer and fewer pockets without some fundamental change:

"As the number of men with as much wealth as half the world fell from sixty-two to just eight between January 2016 and January 2017, according to Oxfam International, fewer than 200 super-connected asset managers at only 17 asset management firms—each with well over a trillion dollars in assets under management—now represent the financial core of the world's transnational capitalist class."
Seven Stories Press

The transnational capitalist class controls virtually every government on the planet, and they have no reason or inclination to share the planet's wealth more equitably.

A wealth tax seems like a good way to begin reversing the status quo.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's an entirely lame argument.You know better than that Money is taxed numerous ways and numerous times.

So, you want to add yet ANOTHER means of taxing money already earned and taxed?

I know the proposal is only 2%, but that's not the point. All they need is to get their foot in the door. It could be .002% and the Statist Authoritarians will be satisfied. Once they have their foot in the door, all they need to do is change the percentage to whatever they want.

That's what happened with the Federal Income Tax scheme. It was NOT sold as a tax on anyone but the rich.

"People supported the income tax because it was originally meant to impose only very low tax rates on only the highest incomes," wrote Raymond J. Keating in a 1996 article for The Freeman. "Proponents argued that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would force the so-called 'robber barons' to pay taxes. It was not supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans' pockets."1

Tax History Project -- Tax History -- Original Intent and the Revenue Act of 1913

Original Intent and the Income Tax | Raymond J. Keating

 

[g5000]

Wealth which has already been taxed once when it was earned.

That's an entirely lame argument.You know better than that Money is taxed numerous ways and numerous times. A sales tax is levied on money that has already been taxed at least once by an income tax.

And the 16th established NOT that an income tax is allowed...but HOW it is apportioned, which was the issue. That same argument can be applied to a wealth tax

Ah. So your argument is, "We already tax the shit out of people, so we should tax them even more!"

 

[g5000]

If a man builds a better mousetrap, he deserves every dollar he earns. Liberal retards consider that person to be a thief, and believe that entrepreneur should be severely punished.

That kind of wealth is beautiful and good. Liberal retard leeches wants you to bleev it is ill-gotten gains.

But there is an entirely different kind of wealth concentration which has been occurring for quite some time now right under your noses. This kind of wealth concentration is achieved through legislation which tilts the playing field to the advantage of sclerotic special interests who can no longer compete on a level playing field.

And these thieves have all the legal protections of the State to rob you blind.

There is natural concentration of wealth and there is an unnatural concentration of wealth. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison used to correspond about what to do about the unnatural concentration of wealth. And one of Jefferson's solutions was to propose a progressive tax. But not to the extent of choking production to death.

Getting rich from building a better mousetrap or making Hollywood movies is a natural concentration of wealth, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Taxing the rich more to mitigate the unnatural concentration of wealth is the simpleton's means of treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

The unnatural concentration of wealth, the tilting of the playing field, is being accomplished through government legislation. So the obvious cure is to fix or delete the legislation which is tilting the field.

If your house was being robbed on a regular basis, and the police were providing protection to the thieves, how retarded would you have to be to say, "To solve this problem, we need to tax everyone who lives in a bigger house than me more"?

You'd have to be as retarded as Bernie Sanders.

But you would also have to be pretty retarded to deny there isn't a problem with the unnatural concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone else, to deny you aren't being robbed blind. You would have to be severely retarded to defend those who are stealing from you.

Liberals and libertarians are not wrong when they say we are being robbed. The liberal solutions are seriously retarded, though.

 

[bendog]

If a man builds a better mousetrap, he deserves every dollar he earns. Liberal retards consider that person to be a thief, and believe that entrepreneur should be severely punished.

That kind of wealth is beautiful and good. Liberal retard leeches wants you to bleev it is ill-gotten gains.

But there is an entirely different kind of wealth concentration which has been occurring for quite some time now right under your noses. This kind of wealth concentration is achieved through legislation which tilts the playing field to the advantage of sclerotic special interests who can no longer compete on a level playing field.

And these thieves have all the legal protections of the State to rob you blind.

There is natural concentration of wealth and there is an unnatural concentration of wealth. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison used to correspond about what to do about the unnatural concentration of wealth. And one of Jefferson's solutions was to propose a progressive tax. But not to the extent of choking production to death.

Getting rich from building a better mousetrap or making Hollywood movies is a natural concentration of wealth, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Taxing the rich more to mitigate the unnatural concentration of wealth is the simpleton's means of treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

The unnatural concentration of wealth, the tilting of the playing field, is being accomplished through government legislation. So the obvious cure is to fix or delete the legislation which is tilting the field.

If your house was being robbed on a regular basis, and the police were providing protection to the thieves, how retarded would you have to be to say, "To solve this problem, we need to tax everyone who lives in a bigger house than me more"?

You'd have to be as retarded as Bernie Sanders.

But you would also have to be pretty retarded to deny there isn't a problem with the unnatural concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone else, to deny you aren't being robbed blind. You would have to be severely retarded to defend those who are stealing from you.

Liberals and libertarians are not wrong when they say we are being robbed. The liberal solutions are seriously retarded, though.

I don't see a more progressive income tax as evil, esp when local taxes are undeniably regressive, and state and payroll taxes have no great claim to progressivity.

90% seems a bit punitive though. LOL. Reagan was at 50%

 

[g5000]

If a man builds a better mousetrap, he deserves every dollar he earns. Liberal retards consider that person to be a thief, and believe that entrepreneur should be severely punished.

That kind of wealth is beautiful and good. Liberal retard leeches wants you to bleev it is ill-gotten gains.

But there is an entirely different kind of wealth concentration which has been occurring for quite some time now right under your noses. This kind of wealth concentration is achieved through legislation which tilts the playing field to the advantage of sclerotic special interests who can no longer compete on a level playing field.

And these thieves have all the legal protections of the State to rob you blind.

There is natural concentration of wealth and there is an unnatural concentration of wealth. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison used to correspond about what to do about the unnatural concentration of wealth. And one of Jefferson's solutions was to propose a progressive tax. But not to the extent of choking production to death.

Getting rich from building a better mousetrap or making Hollywood movies is a natural concentration of wealth, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Taxing the rich more to mitigate the unnatural concentration of wealth is the simpleton's means of treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

The unnatural concentration of wealth, the tilting of the playing field, is being accomplished through government legislation. So the obvious cure is to fix or delete the legislation which is tilting the field.

If your house was being robbed on a regular basis, and the police were providing protection to the thieves, how retarded would you have to be to say, "To solve this problem, we need to tax everyone who lives in a bigger house than me more"?

You'd have to be as retarded as Bernie Sanders.

But you would also have to be pretty retarded to deny there isn't a problem with the unnatural concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone else, to deny you aren't being robbed blind. You would have to be severely retarded to defend those who are stealing from you.

Liberals and libertarians are not wrong when they say we are being robbed. The liberal solutions are seriously retarded, though.

I don't see a more progressive income tax as evil, esp when local taxes are undeniably regressive, and state and payroll taxes have no great claim to progressivity.

90% seems a bit punitive though. LOL. Reagan was at 50%

If I had my druthers, we would eliminate all income taxes and enact the Fair Tax, with ZERO exemptions.

If we had to keep the income tax, I would eliminate all deductions, credits, and exemptions.

Not allowing exemptions, deductions, or credits would go a long way toward stopping the unnatural concentration of wealth.

And we could lower tax rates for everyone.