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

[Bush92]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

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

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Because it’s phrased a “wealth tax.” Phrase it what it really is. “Socialism.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

How 'bout us home schoolers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

That's my point. Taxation was always unfair. In a sense, I'm being punished because I don't have any children.

 

[dblack]

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?

I think it's because, consciously or not, they sense the hypocrisy they're soaking in.

 

[dblack]

That's my point. Taxation was always unfair. In a sense, I'm being punished because I don't have any children.

Yep. Just like people are being punished because they don't have a mortgage. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Put the pieces together, Ray. You're almost there.

 

[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?

How 'bout us home schoolers?

Same thing. Even worse if your children attend a private school, because then you are supporting the public school with your property tax, and paying the bill to the private school for your children's education. That's what happened to my sister. She sent her kids to a religious school.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

The Federal Government is not allowed to do ANYTHING.... except the enumerated purposes. Do you see anywhere in the constitution that says the Federal Government is allowed to reward some, and punish others, for politically acceptable choices?

No, sir. You do not. Therefore, there is no need for a constitutional restriction. Everything is restricted, except for the specifically enumerated powers given to the Federal Government.

As for state rights, I have no problem with that. I think we can debate that, and I would debate that taxes should be used only to fund the state government, and the duties we decide our state should engage in.

But if you want your state to reward and punish with taxes, that's between you and the people of your state. I have no problem with California beating the crap out of the poor with taxes, and giving deductions to all the wealthy elites that live there, because it's their state, and they voted for those idiots, and they are getting exactly what they deserve.

But again, on the Federal level, no. There is no provision in the constitution that says the Federal government can do any of that, and thus it is wrong, unconstitutional, and they are prohibited from doing it. The entire tax code should be tossed out, burned, and replaced with an absolute flat universal tax, that applies to absolutely everyone equally, rich or poor no deductions, no nothing. You should do your taxes on a 3X5 card... name, social, income, multiply by 0.1... pay tax, done.

 

[Ken Mac]

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?

Because you are against those classes. You think they are getting way too good of a deal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

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

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Because it’s phrased a “wealth tax.” Phrase it what it really is. “Socialism.”

And socialism is theft.

They use the bogus term 're-distribution' of wealth.

The money was never 'distributed'....it was earned.

 

[Questioner]

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.

Please show me proof of that; I could be wrong but I believe taxes were higher during WWII.

My understanding is that there was a huge post-war economic boom, which is why people in the 1950s could own a home and raise a family on a single income (at least those with some education or job training).

This is likely also a reason for the rampant consumerism which has been around since the 1960s and beyond.

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.

State taxes are a states' rights issue; Federal taxes have specific enumerated purposes in the Constitution. (I'm not sure how "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" could coexist with the government being able to take everything, but that's a separate issue entirely).

Beyond that, it's not that complicated; what "FDR" says is irrelevant.

Much as even per Originalism, rather than the inconsistent nonsense which idiots mistake for "Originalism", the constitution could potentially be amended or changed via the outlined process (not merely "reinterpreted" to mean potentially anything without restrictions or context).

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Tax deductions are written by the wealthy

 

[dblack]

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?

Because you are against those classes. You think they are getting way too good of a deal.

You're missing the point. The government shouldn't be doling out "deals".

 

[Bush92]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

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

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Because it’s phrased a “wealth tax.” Phrase it what it really is. “Socialism.”

And socialism is theft.

They use the bogus term 're-distribution' of wealth.

The money was never 'distributed'....it was earned.

Sure enough is “Chic.”
Capitalism: people strive for success.
Socialism: people strive for mediocrity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's my point. Taxation was always unfair. In a sense, I'm being punished because I don't have any children.

Yep. Just like people are being punished because they don't have a mortgage. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Put the pieces together, Ray. You're almost there.

Not really. That's kind of apples and oranges. If you rent, live with your parents, or otherwise don't have a house, it's not costing you anything because others do. In my situation I described, I am paying for the education of children that are not mine, simply because of the fact I have a more expensive property than others.

 

[Questioner]

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?

How 'bout us home schoolers?

Same thing. Even worse if your children attend a private school, because then you are supporting the public school with your property tax, and paying the bill to the private school for your children's education. That's what happened to my sister. She sent her kids to a religious school.

State's rights issue, what's the point?

 

[Ken Mac]

I live where I do (in the south) because of taxes. In Illinois, a typical property in Gurney (this is not 90210 by any stretch - it is middle class) pays about $12,000 a year in property taxes. Meanwhile those that rent don't have to pay any. So if you have kids, you ought to rent in my opinion. In the south, that unfavorable tax treatment to those that own real estate is mitigated by taxing personal property such as automobiles. My taxes are about $3,000 yr on my house/property.

 

[dblack]

That's my point. Taxation was always unfair. In a sense, I'm being punished because I don't have any children.

Yep. Just like people are being punished because they don't have a mortgage. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Put the pieces together, Ray. You're almost there.

Not really. That's kind of apples and oranges. If ....

Or not...

 

[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?

How 'bout us home schoolers?

Same thing. Even worse if your children attend a private school, because then you are supporting the public school with your property tax, and paying the bill to the private school for your children's education. That's what happened to my sister. She sent her kids to a religious school.

State's rights issue, what's the point?

Point is taxation has never been fair to everybody, and probably never will.

 

[dblack]

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?

How 'bout us home schoolers?

Same thing. Even worse if your children attend a private school, because then you are supporting the public school with your property tax, and paying the bill to the private school for your children's education. That's what happened to my sister.
She sent her kids to a religious school.

State's rights issue, what's the point?

Point is taxation has never been fair to everybody, and probably never will.

This is sort of like the way liberals argue against a free market by saying there's no such thing (because it isn't perfectly free). Are you saying, it's not fair, so we should just use it to push people around wily-nilly?

 

[Questioner]

And socialism is theft.

I'm not sure how you define "socialism". All 1st world countries including America, from their inception until today are a "blend" of capitalism and socialism; socialism, as in the state and federal governments; capitalism as in they acknowledge the right to own and possess private property, and individual rights (not "Communism", or a government in which all property and businesses are state owned).

And no, confiscation of property by the state is not "theft", anymore than an armed criminal being legally shot and killed by police is "murder".

As per the Framers and the Constitution, the Federal and State governments have a right to confiscate property, much as the revolution was not a naïve attempt at "no taxation", but merely no "taxation without representation". That of course would be anarchy, so "America" would be irrelevant to any attempt at "serious" discussion about anarchy, if such a thing is even possible...

They use the bogus term 're-distribution' of wealth.

The money was never 'distributed'....it was earned.

Too bad. The state has a right to do so as per the Federal and State constitutions, your only option is to find a country to live on which refuses to tax you, or start your own, or find a way to avoid paying taxes.