• 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!

Is a wealth tax a good idea?

Craig234 said:
How about Bush tax cuts? Reagan tax cuts? Will you reverse enough to return to not only when things were more fair, but to undo the massive shifts of wealth that have happened for decades? If so, I'll withdraw my comment; if not, it stands. You're more concerned with whether it's 'NEW' than the effect.
Click to expand...

Correct. In general, I have no problems rolling back those. But only if in return we get Universal Healthcare or a public option at least as well as free public college phased in going forward (NOT debt forgiveness though - that would be unfair).

Craig234 said:
There was no propaganda or slogan.
Click to expand...

Ok, "You support plutocracy and an end to democracy whether you understand it or not." was just pure BS then. Better?

Craig234 said:
What a bizarre shoehorning of the topic into something about muni bonds. ... If you want to call taxes paying a penalty, then get rid of democracy and taxes.
Click to expand...

Blah... If you don't understand about investing and why I brought up muni bonds, then you won't understand why taxing wealth is way more progressive and in fact penalizing. It's a whole different ballgame than taxing income at high rates beyond certain limits.
 
Slavister said:
Correct. In general, I have no problems rolling back those. But only if in return we get Universal Healthcare or a public option at least as well as free public college phased in going forward (NOT debt forgiveness though - that would be unfair).
Click to expand...

We don't agree on debt forgiveness, but if you'll agree to roll back taxes to pre-Reagan, we're largely aligned. Of course I'm in favor of the benefits for the American people.

Ok, "You support plutocracy and an end to democracy whether you understand it or not." was just pure BS then. Better?
Click to expand...

No. My statement was based on your attacking Bernie's desire to reverse plutocracy as 'too far'. Opposing that is what I said. But I also said if you'd agree to rolling back the tax cuts, including reversing a lot of the redistribution they've taken, I'd withdraw it, if your only objection was the type of tax used to do it. I've changed it to an 'if you support this, then that' statement.

Blah... If you don't understand about investing and why I brought up muni bonds, then you won't understand why taxing wealth is way more progressive and in fact penalizing. It's a whole different ballgame than taxing income at high rates beyond certain limits.
Click to expand...

Understanding investing and why you brought up Muni bonds are not the same thing.

Now you're equating 'progressive' and 'penalizing'?

There are a lot of valid questions about how to tax and a wealth tax, but you're not doing well asking them. 'way more progressive and in fact penalizing'... that's a little like, 'this dish tastes way better and in fact repulsive'. Progressive is a good thing. You have a penalization fetish it seems.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It sounds like a good idea on paper. If you could tax a tiny portion of wealth, you would generate massive amounts of revenue. But of the 15 Europen countries who tried this recently only 4 still have it.

It seems that the rich are really good at avoiding these taxes. They shift their assets to asset classes that are not affected by this tax. Some leave the country. So, overall the tax costs more than it collects.

What do you think?

Democrats Love a Wealth Tax, But Europeans Are Ditching the Idea
Click to expand...

Some countries have this weird thing the US does where you can incorporate yourself and run all your money through it and just pay yourself about $30K a year in cash.

Anyway, the only effective way to tax wealth is to do it indirectly except with real estate.
 
Craig234 said:
My statement was based on your attacking Bernie's desire to reverse plutocracy as 'too far'.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Bernie or his desire to reverse plutocracy. Disagreeing with wealth tax has nothing to do with supporting plutocracy.

Craig234 said:
Understanding investing and why you brought up Muni bonds are not the same thing.

Now you're equating 'progressive' and 'penalizing'?

There are a lot of valid questions about how to tax and a wealth tax, but you're not doing well asking them. 'way more progressive and in fact penalizing'... that's a little like, 'this dish tastes way better and in fact repulsive'. Progressive is a good thing. You have a penalization fetish it seems.
Click to expand...

Saying income over $X is taxed at 50% while income under $X is taxed at 20% is progressive.
Saying income over $X is taxed at 100% while income under $X is taxed at 20% is not only progressive but penalizing.

When you tax something progressively but to a very large extent, I consider it penalizing implying it's "too much".

I am in favor of progressive taxation but to a certain extent. Taxing wealth (as opposed to income) over $X is too much IMO, and that's why I used the term "penalizing".

Hope this clarifies.
 
No, no, no, and no.

Wealthy people contribute to our economy. They invest in businesses, employ millions of people every year. Investing in stocks, bonds, and in banks is a POSITIVE for our economy. In fact, they pay the majority of the taxes in our society. We already have progressive income tax system, where the more money you make, the higher tax bracket you get, and the more in tax revenue the government collects. Adding a wealthy tax only distorts the marketplace and creates incentives to hide money in non-U.S banks.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It sounds like a good idea on paper. If you could tax a tiny portion of wealth, you would generate massive amounts of revenue. But of the 15 Europen countries who tried this recently only 4 still have it.

It seems that the rich are really good at avoiding these taxes. They shift their assets to asset classes that are not affected by this tax. Some leave the country. So, overall the tax costs more than it collects.

What do you think?

Democrats Love a Wealth Tax, But Europeans Are Ditching the Idea
Click to expand...
It's like unconstitutional. European nations aren't bound to our Constitution.

By the way: if the rich are so good at avoiding tax why do the pay a huge percentage of the total federal tax revenue?
 
Juggernaut74 said:
In theory I’m sure it would be an effective revenue raiser.

However, it would be a nightmare to administer.

Many of the country’s wealthiest’s wealth isn’t simply a publicly traded stock portfolio which can be easily valued by looking up stock prices in the Wall Street Journal. It’s in privately held businesses, real estate, and other assets that don’t have published market value. The costs that would need to be incurred to value all of these assets (and subsequently for the government to audit the values) on an annual basis would be so overwhelming, it would create an administrative nightmare.
Click to expand...
And, if the wealth is based on a business, real estate, or something like a farm or range how does the own pay? Send in a couple of cows?
 
Craig234 said:
No, that's insane, regressive, and economic tyranny. most people spend a hugely higher percent of their income on consumption than the rich. That's why the armies who serve the rich are fighting for what you want.
Click to expand...

Those who spend ALL of their income would have no disposable income to be taxed. How is that regressive?
 
Craig234 said:
Stop using right-wing propaganda like calling taxing the rich "penalizing" them. They've been "penalizing" the public for decades by shifting taxes off themselves onto the public, creating record inequality.

You can argue for what the right policy is, but quit the propaganda.
Click to expand...
Bull****. The wealthy pay a huge percentage of federal taxes now; far higher than their percentage of income. Time for you to follow your own advice and quit the propaganda.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
But if the wealth tax is small, why would I move my wealth out of a stock market that's giving me good returns?
Click to expand...
Because the stock market doesn't always give good results but the tax never quits.
 
Bullseye said:
And yet CBO says revenues are increasing. But then so is GDP.
Click to expand...

All our spending also increases with each year and our population grows larger, and more people work at jobs, and more of us die too. Your point is? GDP is increasing at a 1.8% annual rate currently. Hardly anything to crow about.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It sounds like a good idea on paper. If you could tax a tiny portion of wealth, you would generate massive amounts of revenue. But of the 15 Europen countries who tried this recently only 4 still have it.

It seems that the rich are really good at avoiding these taxes. They shift their assets to asset classes that are not affected by this tax. Some leave the country. So, overall the tax costs more than it collects.

What do you think?

Democrats Love a Wealth Tax, But Europeans Are Ditching the Idea
Click to expand...

I think we need to tax the American Dream to death. Punish the successful and reward those who refuse to work.
 
iguanaman said:
All our spending also increases with each year and our population grows larger, and more people work at jobs, and more of us die too. Your point is? GDP is increasing at a 1.8% annual rate currently. Hardly anything to crow about.
Click to expand...
You do know Democrats write the spending bills, right?
 
iguanaman said:
Not one voted for the Trump tax cut that has given us trillion $ deficits as far as the eye can see.
Click to expand...
They've given us increasing revenue; the spending bills the Dems voted for are giving us the deficits.
 
Bullseye said:
They've given us increasing revenue; the spending bills the Dems voted for are giving us the deficits.
Click to expand...

You must have flunked math. Cutting taxes reduces revenue.

A common misleading claim this fall has been that tax revenues have increased, even with the large tax cuts enacted last year. While it is technically true that fiscal year (FY) 2018 nominal revenue is higher than FY 2017 nominal revenue, revenue has fallen by more meaningful metrics. It has fallen in nominal dollars when comparing tax year to tax year and has fallen in real dollars and as a share of GDP under any scenario. Focusing specifically on revenues raised under the new tax code, revenue has declined by between 3.5 and 8 percent.

This is an updated version of our previous factchecks in August and September, now that FY 2018 has ended and final revenue numbers are available.

Nominal revenue did increase, according to Treasury's fiscal year-end report, which shows that total federal tax revenue is up only $14 billion, or 0.4 percent, between FY 2018 and FY 2017. This revenue growth rate is the eighth lowest in the past 50 years, and the seven lower years either coincided with a recession or tax cuts/expiring tax increases enacted shortly after a recession.

However, this nominal increase is well below the rate of inflation – meaning that the value of revenue collection has actually declined in real terms.
Click to expand...

The Tax Bill Did Not Cause Revenue to Rise | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
 
Individual said:
Those who spend ALL of their income would have no disposable income to be taxed. How is that regressive?
Click to expand...

Um, income that is spent on consumables is 'disposable' income.
 
Bullseye said:
It's like unconstitutional. European nations aren't bound to our Constitution.

By the way: if the rich are so good at avoiding tax why do the pay a huge percentage of the total federal tax revenue?
Click to expand...

We take everyone equally. It's different tiers of your income that are taxed differently. Jeff Bezos' first $40K is taxed at 12% exactly like your first $40K. The money he makes over $600K is taxed at 37% the same as the money you make over $600K.

The difference is you don't make any money over $600K.

Luxury income is taxed at a higher rate than the money you need to live. Rich people people contribute more in taxes because they have far far more luxury income than ordinary people.

Our system is setup to tax money that you don't need. So it only makes sense that the rich contribute more in taxes.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
We take everyone equally. It's different tiers of your income that are taxed differently. Jeff Bezos' first $40K is taxed at 12% exactly like your first $40K. The money he makes over $600K is taxed at 37% the same as the money you make over $600K.

The difference is you don't make any money over $600K.

Luxury income is taxed at a higher rate than the money you need to live. Rich people people contribute more in taxes because they have far far more luxury income than ordinary people.

Our system is setup to tax money that you don't need. So it only makes sense that the rich contribute more in taxes.
Click to expand...
No such thing as "luxury income".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom