• 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 fair tax would be to require capital gains be paid each year just like income tax and at the same rate.

I believe that's already happening. If you sell a stock, then you've earned income, and then that is taxed.

At s lower rate than wage income. Totally ridculous and a sop to the wealthy. Let's hope that Biden and the Dems can do something about that.
 
The wealthy have not somehow taken your money. Taxing them more will do nothing to help you earn more, and could arguably make it harder for everyone to earn more if those rates get so high as to curtail investment and thus damage the economy.
It does because income taxes have to be much higher to balance. That means less income to create wealth for the working class.
 
The wealthy have not somehow taken your money. Taxing them more will do nothing to help you earn more, and could arguably make it harder for everyone to earn more if those rates get so high as to curtail investment and thus damage the economy.

It's not going to curtail investment. There is way more money out there than ther are good investments, I suspect that there is some sort of "bubble" out there but we just don't know what it is yet.
 
Here's the thing, for the last 50 years the amount paid in taxes by all filers as a percentage of GDP falls within a fairly narrow range of only a few percentage points.

1620576185521.png

... what also should be clear from this graph is that it's not tax rates that drives the ups and downs, but the economy. Almost all the significant dips come on the heels of a recession (grey columns), as would be expected.

Want more revenue for the Federal Treasury? Don't spend time screwing with the rates. Pursue policies that grow economic output.
 
No, it's not a legal fiction. You apparently don't know what you're talking about and should delete your thread.
The fiction is that the current asset value is not the appreciated value until sold. A legal fiction is something that does not actually exist but is defined in law for a purpose such as triggering a taxing event.
 
It's not going to curtail investment. There is way more money out there than ther are good investments, I suspect that there is some sort of "bubble" out there but we just don't know what it is yet.
The more money that is extracted from the private sector the less there is to invest in activities that create jobs and create wealth. The trick is to figure out the minimum amount a government needs to fund the services only it can provide well and extract no more.
 
The more money that is extracted from the private sector the less there is to invest in activities that create jobs and create wealth. The trick is to figure out the minimum amount a government needs to fund the services only it can provide well and extract no more.
The trick is to get the wealthy who benefit from government in direct proportion to the wealth they own to pay for it. (And not the middle class who do now.)
 
It’s a merry-go-round. The ultra-wealthy contribute millions upon millions to the campaigns of Republicans and they pay them back by passing yet another huge tax cut for them. Pure corruption of the worst kind.
the democrats have many of the top fat cats on their side.
 
At s lower rate than wage income. Totally ridculous and a sop to the wealthy. Let's hope that Biden and the Dems can do something about that.
Why do you think it's taxed at a lower rate?
 
The trick is to get the wealthy who benefit from government in direct proportion to the wealth they own to pay for it. (And not the middle class who do now.)
that assumes the rich benefit from the government in direct proportion to the wealth they own. I doubt you can even make an attempt to establish that claim
 
that assumes the rich benefit from the government in direct proportion to the wealth they own. I doubt you can even make an attempt to establish that claim
I think I can.
A primary responsibility of our government is to protect private wealth from external and internal threats. The amount of benefit depends on the amount of wealth you own. (As Dylan say, "If you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose.") So this accounts for military spending and spending to keep order. (Including social spending to prevent revolution and wealth confiscation.)

Same with physical, legal, and financial infrastructure spending, benefit is proportional to the wealth you own. The breakdown on that is obvious and so I won't bore you with it.
 
Last edited:
I think I can.
A primary responsibility of our government is to protect private wealth from external and internal threats. The amount of benefit depends on the amount of wealth you own. (As Dylan say, "If you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose.") So this accounts for military spending and spending to keep order. (Including social spending to prevent revolution and wealth confiscation.)

Same with physical, legal, and financial infrastructure spending, benefit is proportional to the wealth you own. The breakdown on that is obvious and so I won't bore you with it.
that's bullshit. the rich tend to live in safe areas and can afford private security. The police rarely visit wealthy areas, and guess what, if you are robbed, the government doesn't replace what you have lost.
 
that's bullshit. the rich tend to live in safe areas and can afford private security. The police rarely visit wealthy areas, and guess what, if you are robbed, the government doesn't replace what you have lost.
What keeps those areas safe? Sure hear a lot of talk about riots, looting, and property destruction lately. And how does private security charge for their services. I would bet it is based on the worth of the property and persons protected. And how much would they have to charge if the government including the police and guard were not keeping the rich areas isolated. (Sounds like my premise.)
 
Last edited:
life is regressive and the rich end up paying far more. A truly regressive tax would be everyone pay the same amount. That would be more fair than progressive taxes

Life is regressive?

With the flat tax, the working class end up paying a much higher proportion of their wealth/income than the rich do.
 
Nearly half of all Americans can afford to think that way; they do not pay federal income taxes.

In a flat rate system, the rich do pay more in an exact proportion to their greater income. Nothing could be more fair.

They are left with a much higher proportion of wealth than the middle class.

We often refer to the tax burden. So think of the burden of moving furniture. You would not insist children and older people carry the same heavy furniture that a strong, young man can carry. The young man has the resources to shoulder the burden. Its the same with paying taxes. Let the burden fall on shoulders of those who have tge resources to carry it.
 
They are left with a much higher proportion of wealth than the middle class.

We often refer to the tax burden. So think of the burden of moving furniture. You would not insist children and older people carry the same heavy furniture that a strong, young man can carry. The young man has the resources to shoulder the burden. Its the same with paying taxes. Let the burden fall on shoulders of those who have tge resources to carry it.
Since 40% of all wealth is inherited, for many there is no burden at all no matter how able to work.
 
Since 40% of all wealth is inherited, for many there is no burden at all no matter how able to work.
That number is essentially the percent of households between 1-5 million. Hardly could be considered wealthy.
 
Work and capital should be taxed the same. Basis is reset each year.
Actually a fair tax would be for the rich to go down an assembly line once a year, and have a giant crane pick them up, turn them upside down, and shake them until their pockets are emptied of cash. Millions of dollars.
 
That number is essentially the percent of households between 1-5 million. Hardly could be considered wealthy.
I don't understand your point. Since the top 1% of the wealthy own 40% of all wealth much of it must be inherited wealth.
 
That number is essentially the percent of households between 1-5 million. Hardly could be considered wealthy.

If they feel the tax burden is too great, I would be willing to trade places with them.
 
I don't understand your point. Since the top 1% of the wealthy own 40% of all wealth much of it must be inherited wealth.
Which of the top 5 wealthiest Americans inherited that wealth?
 
Which of the top 5 wealthiest Americans inherited that wealth?
Is this a different point? All inherited wealth or got their start with family wealth.
 
The trick is to get the wealthy who benefit from government in direct proportion to the wealth they own to pay for it. (And not the middle class who do now.)
The wealthy benefit less than the poor from government services. In the grand scheme there are net givers and net takers. The wealthy are the former.
 
They are left with a much higher proportion of wealth than the middle class.

We often refer to the tax burden. So think of the burden of moving furniture. You would not insist children and older people carry the same heavy furniture that a strong, young man can carry. The young man has the resources to shoulder the burden. Its the same with paying taxes. Let the burden fall on shoulders of those who have tge resources to carry it.
I don't think you appreciate the difference between a flat amount and a flat rate. With a flat rate lower earners don't "lift" as much as high earners. That math addresses that problem.
 
Here's the thing, for the last 50 years the amount paid in taxes by all filers as a percentage of GDP falls within a fairly narrow range of only a few percentage points.

View attachment 67332463

... what also should be clear from this graph is that it's not tax rates that drives the ups and downs, but the economy. Almost all the significant dips come on the heels of a recession (grey columns), as would be expected.

Want more revenue for the Federal Treasury? Don't spend time screwing with the rates. Pursue policies that grow economic output.

If wealth that sits in low yield funds because the rich have so much it that they have nothing better to do with it, was redistributed to people who are not in that position, it would grow economic output.
 
Back
Top Bottom