Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, I can't get the NYT, so I'll take your word for it. Like I was telling dBlack, the only people who pay cash for a house are the wealthy, or somebody that owned their house, sold it, and used the money to buy the new house. I'm sure there are other exceptions like a person that won a sizable lawsuit, or perhaps an heir to a wealthy family relative. But most middle-class families cannot afford to pay cash for a house.

It still does not make it the government's responsibility to reward them for doing so. Why does someone deserve to pay less taxes just because they bought a house? Total bullshit.

Same with kids and paying for college by the way

 

[Andylusion]

Any money that it taken away from the corporation, is money that comes from one of two areas. Either it comes from employees in lower benefits, or it comes from customers in higher prices.

That's a non-sequitur, that's ultimately up to the company's delegation or discretion, on the basis of what their priorities and goals are; it doesn't just magically "happen".

Companies do not have magic trees from which to pick off the dollars leaves, and pay taxes with. The money has to come from someplace.

Not necessarily the places you arbitrarily define based on this imaginary scenario.

So whether you lay the burden directly on the public, from a sales tax, or income tax on employees or consumers.... or whether you indirectly lay the taxes on employees and consumers, by placing it on corporations that pass on those costs to employees or consumers.... either way... the employees and the consumers are who pay the tax.

That's an argument from consequentialism, which is based on the myth or blind faith assumption that this "always" happens, or that the company automatically under some obligation or necessity to do this, which isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure would vary quite a bit from company to company, based on priorities, goals, business models, and so forth.

Now to clarify, it is rare that you end up a company that directly cuts employee compensation, although that does in fact happen. I worked at a company laid everyone off, and then sent out a letter to rehire everyone, at a dollar less an hour.

However, most of the time, the way you pay taxes on the back of employees, is by simply not having yearly cost of living raises.

Take a company with $10 Million in gross profits. You have $2 Million for advertising. $2 Million in upkeep funds. $4 Million in R&D. $1 Million for shareholders. $1 Million for pay increased to employees, either through better benefits or higher direct pay.

Now if you increase taxes by $1 Million, who is going to get cut? Advertising? Of course not. Without advertising, the company will lose more in sales, and everything else will have to be cut.

That's again just a myth or presumption, which says nothing in regards to what type of advertising the company is doing, what the actual costs are - it's just another silly assumption automatically presuming a "fixed" cause and effect which always happens as if by "magic", when in reality there is no "guaranteed" cause and effect, people merely forecast and make various predictions on what the cause and effect will be, with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy.

The upkeep? So when the heater on the roof goes out, we just don't fix it? When the roof starts leaking, we just issue buckets to the employees?

Of course not. Upkeep has to be paid for.

The shareholders? The people who invested and own the company? And then we'll pay millions in legal fees, fighting the shareholders because they rightfully should get a benefit since they own the company? Which we'll lose by the way.

Or we can cut the R&D budget which is our only hope for a future? So in the short term, everything is great, but then in a few years, our competitors will be rolling us, because we didn't keep pace with them by investing in our future?

And most R&D projects have a set budget. I actually got this from an example with a car company from some years ago, where they set aside $400 Million for a specific product. When things got tight, they had to cut everything but the R&D budget, because you can't partially build a car, and just stop.

So there is only one thing on the budget that can be cut.... the compensation increase for the employees.

Even there the logic is faulty.

In the assumptions made in regards to every above scenario, this whole mythical scenario is just based on automatically assuming the "worst case" scenario in regards to all of the above, but not making the same line of assumption in regards to the employees... for some reason or another.

(For example; worst case scenario - if we cut compensation increase for the employee; all of the employees quit and go work for another company which offers them $0.01 more per hour).

So I'll say it again....

Companies do not have magic money trees to pay for taxation. Money to pay taxes comes from either the employees, or the consumers.

Same faulty and inconsentent logic and popular, nonsensical myths and assumptions.

(Worst case scenario - we raise prices on consumers and they all boycott us and visit the other pizzeria which offers them pizza for $0.01 cent less)

So no, everything you're saying is bunk, and just based on fixed set of assumptions or presumptions, of which there is no "mathematical formula" for predicting with any inerrant measure of accuracy anyway.

You're merely blindly assuming a "worst" case scenario in regards to cuts in certain areas (e.x. advertising, etc) while assuming "no effect" in regards to costs to employees or consumers.

You seem to just blither on and provide no value in the discussion excepting your opinion of everything. You must feel very self-important. Even your writing oozes with contempt for others and your value you place upon the throne you sit.

Just the reality; there are no guarantees in business or other endeavors as the poster above was asserting; people have to make predictions based on the data or information available, but it's always a "gamble".

So his scenario is unrealistic, and just pure speculation based on a bunch of assumptions taken for granted.

The reality is that lowering salary for employees or raising costs for customers could have a negative effect, and cause a company to go out of business, much as companies could potentially make cuts to advertising without losing business (in some cases, terrible advertisements could end up chasing customers away from the company, and cutting them would be a benefit; some companies, usually smaller ones with dedicated clients don't advertise at all but are based on referrals (this is the case with some high fashion companies, for example).

So it was all just an oversimplification, as per usual. This is why people should honestly learn how to make "bets" or predictions based on data (there's a book by a business expert called Superforcasting which explains this), rather than merely blindly repeating a "bet" they take as guaranteed simply because it's in popular jargon, or whatever.

You provided no evidence to back up your blithering. Please throw me a line and give me some evidence to those things you've stated.

The evidence is pretty simple.

In business people have to take risk and make predictions, they aren't psychics who know with 100% mathematical certainty that such and such a thing will happen, anymore than does a person betting on a horse race or football game. (If they did, not company would ever go bankrupt),

So no, in practice, many of these predictions and blind assumptions may not happen the way people are saying they will play out, and are usually just emotionally clouded judgments, often just based off of blind faith in some specific economic theory or axiom to begin with, rather than rational.

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.

Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.

Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.

How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.

So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?

And? Does it work or not?

The only inherently "true" statement here is that "money doesn't grow on trees", there's always a cause and effect.

Beyond that, it's merely people making blind, usually exaggerated assumptions of some "positive" or "negative" consequence to this or that (e.x. raising taxes on the rich, cutting costs for employees, etc), usually based on emotions, blind assumptions, bad information, and so on.

Or merely arguing about "what they want" or "what they don't want" on the basis of something or another, usually without much regard for what this means in theory or practice, whether today, or in history as a whole.

Well, we can look at Europe and see that everything I've said has played out like we expect it to. That would seem to be more empirical, than "blind exaggerated assumptions".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

Which is not what taxes are supposed to be for, taxes should be for funding the government. nothing more, nothing less

 

[colfax_m]

Sounds like a good case for a flat tax, no? Everyone pays the same rate, no loopholes, no deductions.

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

And sometimes those rules have unintended consequences where people get the deduction without having to engage in the behavior.

 

[Andylusion]

Well, I can't get the NYT, so I'll take your word for it. Like I was telling dBlack, the only people who pay cash for a house are the wealthy, or somebody that owned their house, sold it, and used the money to buy the new house. I'm sure there are other exceptions like a person that won a sizable lawsuit, or perhaps an heir to a wealthy family relative. But most middle-class families cannot afford to pay cash for a house.

It still does not make it the government's responsibility to reward them for doing so. Why does someone deserve to pay less taxes just because they bought a house? Total bullshit.

Same with kids and paying for college by the way

I agree. I would prefer a zero deduction, flat universal tax. It should take you five minutes to file your taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

And sometimes those rules have unintended consequences where people get the deduction without having to engage in the behavior.

Give me an example?

 

[Questioner]

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

Which is not what taxes are supposed to be for, taxes should be for funding the government. nothing more, nothing less

What is that based off of?

In America there are no Constitutional restrictions on taxes as far as the states are concerned; it's a state's rights issue; only the Federal Government has enumerated purposes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here we have a consumption tax in our county. We pay 8 cents for every dollar we spend. It applies to everybody, the rich, the poor, the middle-class. Nobody even notices it anymore.

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.

Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.

Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.

How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.

So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?

Ok, now I understand where you are going with this.

Yes, of course they are going to blither on about taxing the rich. And yes, of course people who don't know any better, are going to vote for whoever claims they will tax the rich, and fund everything they want.

But of course if you actually look Europe, and specifically Bernies Nordic Socialism ideals..... they all have 20% taxes on sales. And while you say we have 8% tax here.... a national sales tax would just be an additional sales tax, not a replacement.

So how would you like 28% tax? I still have a photo copy of a receipt at McDonald's in Germany for 4-pc chicken nuggets, and 3 regular ice teas. Cost? $20. And 1/4 of the bill is just tax.

And when you look at most of Europe, every single government is demanding even more tax.

So my problem with a national sales tax, is that it is just going to be an additional tax, resulting in additional spending, and 10-years from now, they'll be demanding even more taxes, even with a national sales tax.

My prediction is they will still be demanding more taxes regardless how we go about getting them. And of course, like smokers, they will look for a minority group to target, leaving the rest of the voting public satisfied.

So if what you say did happen, the people would revolt, vote those people out of office, or not elect them in the first place, and quit spending so much of our damn money on worthless things. That will never happen if they target a minority group of voters. But if we all had to pay the federal income tax, that's a game changer right there.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

Which is not what taxes are supposed to be for, taxes should be for funding the government. nothing more, nothing less

What is that based off of?

Reality.

 

[Questioner]

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

Which is not what taxes are supposed to be for, taxes should be for funding the government. nothing more, nothing less

What is that based off of?

Reality.

Show me.

 

[Andylusion]

I am unaware of any such tax. If such a tax even exists, it must be extremely limited on what it applies to.

If you are ever in this area, stop by a store and buy something. You will pay that sales tax.

Ohio has a 5.75% sales tax.
But there is no national sales tax. If you go to a state like Oregon, where they have no sales tax, you will not pay any sales tax.

Yes, but in Cuyahoga county, there is an additional 2.25% tax. That brings it up to 8 cents on the dollar. No revolutions in the streets as of yet. But the beauty of a consumption tax is everybody has skin in the game, and that means new social spending issues would have to be considered by the voters. Right now, nearly half the country could care less what they charge the wealthy people, so they vote for representatives that promise to take money from those wealthy to give to them.

How we going to pay for Medicare for all? Tax the rich.
How are we going to pay for free college? Tax the rich.

So if you are not paying any federal income tax, why not vote for those people?

Ok, now I understand where you are going with this.

Yes, of course they are going to blither on about taxing the rich. And yes, of course people who don't know any better, are going to vote for whoever claims they will tax the rich, and fund everything they want.

But of course if you actually look Europe, and specifically Bernies Nordic Socialism ideals..... they all have 20% taxes on sales. And while you say we have 8% tax here.... a national sales tax would just be an additional sales tax, not a replacement.

So how would you like 28% tax? I still have a photo copy of a receipt at McDonald's in Germany for 4-pc chicken nuggets, and 3 regular ice teas. Cost? $20. And 1/4 of the bill is just tax.

Thank god I don't eat at European McDonald's.

And when you look at most of Europe, every single government is demanding even more tax.

So my problem with a national sales tax, is that it is just going to be an additional tax, resulting in additional spending, and 10-years from now, they'll be demanding even more taxes, even with a national sales tax.

Sure, there's always some "cause and effect", that's a given.

Even then, most of the claims of "this and this specific cause and effect" are just people blindly guessing and probably not accurate.

And in the grand spectrum of things, why should Germany care if one random person doesn't want to spend $20 at McDonald's?

Obviously plenty of people are okay with it, or else the McDonald's would go out of business or have to lower prices.

Well no. Germany, and most of Europe has a fraction of the McDonald's that we do in the US, because far fewer people go to McDonald's there, because obviously the price is way too high.

Now in Germany, where they have lower immigration than the US, thus have a much lower need for unskilled jobs... that's fine. There isn't millions of unskilled people looking for work in the unskilled market, where McDonald's would be needed.

Here in the US, the result would be millions of low-skilled jobs would be priced out of the market by taxes, and people would be unemployed.

 

[Markle]

I would rather see a small fee on every stock and real estate transaction

You can be wealthy....but if you try to move your money around, you will pay

Please show us all a tax or fee, that it was said, "it is only a small fee" in the beginning, a small fee ot tax today?

I already pay tax on my profits when I sell stocks. I also pay taxes when I buy or sell a property.

Why should you or I PAY simply for having moved money from one investment to another?

How much does a broker charge on a stock transaction? Add one percent to that fee. Keeps the wealthy from hiding their wealth.

You pay taxes on the profit? That one percent would come off of your profit

You mysteriously avoided my question. I'll try again. "Please show us all a tax or fee, that it was said, "it is only a small fee" in the beginning, and is a small fee or tax today?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe. So what?

So what is the fact is that it's virtually impossible to buy a home for cash.

It's much harder than it should be - largely because of the government manipulation you support.

No, it's because it takes a long time to save that amount of money. If it were easy, everybody would be paying cash for a house.

May I point out that the single greatest bar to becoming wealthy, accumulating wealth......is taxation.

Know which party is responsible for that?


But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” Education of a President

Well, I can't get the NYT, so I'll take your word for it. Like I was telling dBlack, the only people who pay cash for a house are the wealthy, or somebody that owned their house, sold it, and used the money to buy the new house. I'm sure there are other exceptions like a person that won a sizable lawsuit, or perhaps an heir to a wealthy family relative. But most middle-class families cannot afford to pay cash for a house.

The article was about Obama, but the term 'tax and spend Democrat' goes back a long way.

Taxes are the reason one parent can no longer earn enough for a family, and you must know the social result of no parents being there to raise the children.

I have no opinion as to how folks spend their own money, some use due diligence, some don't.
Whether they buy outright, or use a mortgage requires due diligence.

My point is that most have simply accepted the absurd tax rates in most venues.


What is the right amount for government to take?

Here's the Democrat view:


The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”

From a speech delivered on the Senate floor

May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler's dangerous statism - The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions



Obama's father opined that 100% would be acceptable.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

Which is not what taxes are supposed to be for, taxes should be for funding the government. nothing more, nothing less

What is that based off of?

Reality.

Show me.

 

[Ken Mac]

I would rather see a small fee on every stock and real estate transaction

You can be wealthy....but if you try to move your money around, you will pay

Please show us all a tax or fee, that it was said, "it is only a small fee" in the beginning, a small fee ot tax today?

I already pay tax on my profits when I sell stocks. I also pay taxes when I buy or sell a property.

Why should you or I PAY simply for having moved money from one investment to another?

How much does a broker charge on a stock transaction? Add one percent to that fee. Keeps the wealthy from hiding their wealth.

You pay taxes on the profit? That one percent would come off of your profit

1%? you're insane. You would kill the average persons retirement account.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I can't get the NYT, so I'll take your word for it. Like I was telling dBlack, the only people who pay cash for a house are the wealthy, or somebody that owned their house, sold it, and used the money to buy the new house. I'm sure there are other exceptions like a person that won a sizable lawsuit, or perhaps an heir to a wealthy family relative. But most middle-class families cannot afford to pay cash for a house.

It still does not make it the government's responsibility to reward them for doing so. Why does someone deserve to pay less taxes just because they bought a house? Total bullshit.

Same with kids and paying for college by the way

Sorry, but our taxation system never was fair. I never had any children, so I don't get that dependency deductions or tax credits.

Here, our schools are paid for by the city. The city tax is coupled with the county tax, and you get one bill. 60% of our property taxes are for our schools in my suburb. I don't have any children in the school system, and never have, and neither have any of my tenants.

The real problem with that is your tax bill is based on how much your property is worth. So the guy down the street with four kids in the school system is paying a lot less taxes than I am because his property is worth so much less than mine. Yet he has four kids in the school system. How is that fair?

 

[Ken Mac]

Well, I can't get the NYT, so I'll take your word for it. Like I was telling dBlack, the only people who pay cash for a house are the wealthy, or somebody that owned their house, sold it, and used the money to buy the new house. I'm sure there are other exceptions like a person that won a sizable lawsuit, or perhaps an heir to a wealthy family relative. But most middle-class families cannot afford to pay cash for a house.

It still does not make it the government's responsibility to reward them for doing so. Why does someone deserve to pay less taxes just because they bought a house? Total bullshit.

Same with kids and paying for college by the way

You hate the lower middle to upper middle class, don't you. You also hate the rich, don't you. You only favor the poor. **** the rest of them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, but our taxation system never was fair. I never had any children, so I don't get that dependency deductions or tax credits.

Here, our schools are paid for by the city. The city tax is coupled with the county tax, and you get one bill. 60% of our property taxes are for our schools in my suburb. I don't have any children in the school system, and never have, and neither have any of my tenants.

The real problem with that is your tax bill is based on how much your property is worth. So the guy down the street with four kids in the school system is paying a lot less taxes than I am because his property is worth so much less than mine. Yet he has four kids in the school system. How is that fair?

Its not, that is why I am against the current system.

 

[Ken Mac]

The problem is, government.

Government loves having an insane tax system, because that's how they threaten and extort money from business.

This is exactly why we were never supposed to have an income tax at all, because the founders knew this would happen.

You have it backwards. Business loves a complex tax system. That’s how they exploit loopholes.

Those "loopholes" you speak of were written with purpose. Thus, they aren't a "Loophole". That term is used by those that are partisan and/or conspiracy theorists.

Incorrect. Most loopholes are unintended consequences.

Nonsense.

Tax deductions are written to encourage certain behavior or discourage certain behavior.

And sometimes those rules have unintended consequences where people get the deduction without having to engage in the behavior.

You're right. This also applies to those that are on the dole.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You hate the lower middle to upper middle class, don't you. You also hate the rich, don't you. You only favor the poor. **** the rest of them.

I do not hate anyone. Why do you people always get triggered by logic and run off to some emotional fantasy land?