Here's a good reason why we need a wealth tax

[The Mark]

Over #120 posts in this thread and none of our modern liberalism friends can made an economic argument to "tax wealth."

The argument is that the wealthy don't need as much wealth as they have, and a bunch of people need more than they have.

It's that simple.

I know plenty of people won't accept that reason, but it IS the reason.

People-centered arguments are more important than economic-centered arguments, IMO.

But side effects of a larger middle class and a better situation for the lowest economic class include a better economy.

 

[apdst]

The argument is that the wealthy don't need as much wealth as they have, and a bunch of people need more than they have.

It's that simple.

I know plenty of people won't accept that reason, but it IS the reason.

How much wealth is too much?

 

[Hamish Howl]

How much wealth is too much?

Billionaires should not exist. They're basically a kind of liquidity trap.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The argument is that the wealthy don't need as much wealth as they have, and a bunch of people need more than they have.

It's that simple.

I know plenty of people won't accept that reason, but it IS the reason.

People-centered arguments are more important than economic-centered arguments, IMO.

But side effects of a larger middle class and a better situation for the lowest economic class include a better economy.

That is not an economic argument either, just more of the "we are 99%" rhetoric that ended with a bunch of leftover hippies sleeping in public parks.

The only reason you listed is classroom level nonsense with no practical argument on even the government handling redistribution well.

So I'll wait for someone to argue the economics (and the consequences) of taxing wealth.

 

[The Mark]

How much wealth is too much?

Anything more than enough to live comfortably without worrying about money.

The exact number changes with the costs of things.

Let's say $25,000,000, for the sake of argument.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Over #120 posts in this thread and none of our modern liberalism friends can made an economic argument to "tax wealth."

1. We're not your friends. Stop being passive aggressive.

2. How about "We do it, or eventually rich folks start 'sneezing into the basket'"? That's how this sort of thing commonly ends.

 

[The Mark]

That is not an economic argument either, just more of the "we are 99%" rhetoric that ended with a bunch of leftover hippies sleeping in public parks.

The only reason you listed is classroom level nonsense with no practical argument on even the government handling redistribution well.

So I'll wait for someone to argue the economics (and the consequences) of taxing wealth.

For myself, the fact that people are living in the USA homeless and hungry, or without needed healthcare, is evidence enough that the current system isn't working.

If you have a way to address that without taxing the wealthy and corporations, I'd like to know it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

1. We're not your friends. Stop being passive aggressive.

2. How about "We do it, or eventually rich folks start 'sneezing into the basket'"? That's how this sort of thing commonly ends.

1. Get over it, I will not take a command from you. No one is impressed with you trying to boss others around. As in, at all.

2. History does have a way of repeating itself when it comes to wealth, and it is still not an economic argument.

3. Dig deep and come up with an economic argument.

 

[apdst]

Anything more than enough to live comfortably without worrying about money.

The exact number changes with the costs of things.

Let's say $25,000,000, for the sake of argument.

IOW, destroy all incentive to make more than $25,000,000?

 

[The Mark]

IOW, destroy all incentive to make more than $25,000,000?

Since the point we're talking about is where the amount goes from "could use a bit more" to "don't really need it", 90-95% tax on income above that level.

 

[apdst]

Billionaires should not exist. They're basically a kind of liquidity trap.

Ok, after it's illegal to be a billionaire, how long before it's illegal to be a millionaire? After that, it'll be illegal to make more that $500,000. See how such a law could be horribly abused?

 

[apdst]

Since the point we're talking about is where the amount goes from "could use a bit more" to "don't really need it", 90-95% tax on income above that level.

Like I said: destroy all incentive to make any more than that. Then, the cap will be on $10,000,000, then $1,000,000. This would be an idiotic idea, not to mention unconstitutional.

 

[Bullseye]

Billionaires should not exist. They're basically a kind of liquidity trap.

A “liquidity trap”? Huh? Do you think billionaires bury their money in the backyard or fill their pools with it?

 

[The Mark]

Like I said: destroy all incentive to make any more than that. Then, the cap will be on $10,000,000, then $1,000,000. This would be an idiotic idea, not to mention unconstitutional.

The cap should be set at a reasonable level of wealth, and tied to the value of the money involved.
It shouldn't be a hard cap any more than the poverty level should be a hard number - the spending power of a dollar changes depending on location.


The cap I'm talking about is the point at which we can agree more money won't be used for much of anything worthwhile, for all I know it might end up being $50,000,000

Personally I can't imagine needing that much to live comfortably, but who knows.

Edit: Hell, set it at half a billion.

 

[The Mark]

A “liquidity trap”? Huh? Do you think billionaires bury their money in the backyard or fill their pools with it?

View attachment 67309735

Literally no, effectively yes.

 

[apdst]

The cap should be set at a reasonable level of wealth, and tied to the value of the money involved.
It shouldn't be a hard cap any more than the poverty level should be a hard number - the spending power of a dollar changes depending on location.


The cap I'm talking about is the point at which we can agree more money won't be used for much of anything worthwhile, for all I know it might end up being $50,000,000

Personally I can't imagine needing that much to live comfortably, but who knows.

Ok, but who gets to decide what is "reasonable? The government? That gives the government waaaay too much power, IMO.

 

[Lisa]

Mindless blather like Reich’s doesn’t comprise any kind of argument FOR a wealth tax. Taking something from a person just because he has it is fundamentally theft.

Taxes aren't theft, so drop the libertarian blater. You know how much you are required to pay and they are constitutionally permissible.

Wealth is not and can not be a right.

It's a fact that conservatives are driven by fear of the new and unknown, so what are you afraid of happening if there is a wealth tax?

 

[The Mark]

Ok, but who gets to decide what is "reasonable? The government? That gives the government waaaay too much power, IMO.

It would have to be a bill signed into law by representatives of the people, under our current system.
So yes, "the government"...acting on behalf of the people. As they are intended to.

 

[Bullseye]

Wealth is just after tax income.

What we need is a secondary income tax for those with incomes (not wealth...) over a certain threshold.

Nope, don’t need that at all. What we need is a government that understands that the solution to every problem is throwning money at it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

For myself, the fact that people are living in the USA homeless and hungry, or without needed healthcare, is evidence enough that the current system isn't working.

If you have a way to address that without taxing the wealthy and corporations, I'd like to know it.

That means looking at the tax code itself, simply adding a "wealth tax" does not address the underline issues of why we even have a tax system. You can have a progressive tax bracket based system without going after wealth exclusively. You can have a corporate tax system that competes on the international stage and does not result in so much passed to the consumer. More importantly, you can have a tax system that handles economic need and the issues of disparity between the income quintiles.

But it is all a matter of reviewing how taxation is applied and to what ends, otherwise it is bumper sticker rhetoric thinking.

The point being saying that we have people who are homeless and hungry is not necessarily fixed by taxing wealth, saying we have too many people living at the lowest income quintile is also not necessarily fixed by taxing wealth. We have no real evidence that empowering the federal government with more tax revenues exclusively from one group benefits the most vulnerable.

This political knee-jerk "Democratic Socialism" nonsense response has never been proven to actually work, not in the long term and not even worth trying without a form of authoritarianism that the history books are not too kind in talking about. And even then all that ends up swapped is a wealth based aristocracy for a government based aristocracy. With almost no exceptions.

So I am going to ask again, what is the economic argument that taxing wealth all of a sudden removes poverty? Without that your faith ends up solely in the hands of political whim, without much evidence it will help.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Ok, after it's illegal to be a billionaire, how long before it's illegal to be a millionaire? After that, it'll be illegal to make more that $500,000. See how such a law could be horribly abused?

No, I don't.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Nope, don’t need that at all. What we need is a government that understands that the solution to every problem is throwning money at it.

We tried it your way. No such government exists.

So off we go.

 

[Hamish Howl]

A “liquidity trap”? Huh? Do you think billionaires bury their money in the backyard or fill their pools with it?

View attachment 67309735

A billionaire cannot possibly spend money as fast as they earn it. So more and more money leaves circulation.

 

[Bullseye]

Taxes aren't theft, so drop the libertarian blater. You know how much you are required to pay and they are constitutionally permissible.

Income tax, not wealth tax is constitutionally permissible.

Wealth is not and can not be a right.

But being allowed to accumulate wealth to best of your ability.

It's a fact that conservatives are driven by fear of the new and unknown, so what are you afraid of happening if there is a wealth tax?

You’re understanding of conservatism is as vapid as your grasp of wealth.

 

[Bullseye]

A billionaire cannot possibly spend money as fast as they earn it. So more and more money leaves circulation.

You think they deal in CASH?