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

[rightwinger]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

But as they move that wealth around, the transaction can be taxed

 

[colfax_m]

I was about to ask the same thing. Did you have a point?

well you seem irritated that they use legal tools. Why is that? why does your ass get chaffed because a company follows laws? MY POINT!

I'm chaffed because this is how the wealthy manipulate the system to their advantage.

well again, manipulate the system, what does that mean? if the system allows it, there is no manipulation, it is use of the available tools. you're just pissed you're not rich. I get it. angery that they stole your money.

They manipulate the system so that it does allow it. That’s why the tax code is complex. They don’t want a simple tax code since that can’t be manipulated.

You don’t know anything about me. I do very well for myself.

They manipulate the system so that it does allow it

WTF does this mean? you are kooo koo. Dude you said what they do is legal. therefore, by your own writing, they aren't manipulating anything. you need to look up what manipulation means.

Who do you think writes the rules?

 

[jc456]

Problem I have with giving BIG tax cuts to the major rich company's & an expiring little to the rest of us.
Pay Ratio CEO verses Average Worker
Canada 20.1
Mexico 47.1
Britain 22.1
France 15.1
Germany 12.1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 475.1

I've never understood that argument. Why do you care how much a CEO makes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

Tell that to Warren. She thinks you can.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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....

I'm a Democrat and don't support the Wealth Tax, nor will I vote in the primary for either Sanders or Warren. What I do support is fair taxation, and the Federal Tax Brackets need to be expanded, not only to raise the highest bracket but to include tax credits for health care for all filers.

'fair taxation', there it is again. what does that mean? you posted it, now explain what it means. You won't, you just feel proud saying it because you think it means something you can't even explain. too fking funny. That makes you a loser leftist.

I will for the moment ignore your ad hominem.

Fair Taxes vis a vis unfair taxes:

Understanding Taxes - Theme 3: Fairness in Taxes - Lesson 2: Regressive Taxes

As to your personal attack on me, the ad hominem is used very often by people who cannot post an expository rebuttal to an issue. Likely because they are poorly educated and likely (I'll be nice) not very smart.

 

[jc456]

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....

I'm a Democrat and don't support the Wealth Tax, nor will I vote in the primary for either Sanders or Warren. What I do support is fair taxation, and the Federal Tax Brackets need to be expanded, not only to raise the highest bracket but to include tax credits for health care for all filers.

'fair taxation', there it is again. what does that mean? you posted it, now explain what it means. You won't, you just feel proud saying it because you think it means something you can't even explain. too fking funny. That makes you a loser leftist.

I will for the moment ignore your ad hominem.

Fair Taxes vis a vis unfair taxes:

Understanding Taxes - Theme 3: Fairness in Taxes - Lesson 2: Regressive Taxes

As to your personal attack on me, the ad hominem is used very often by people who cannot post an expository rebuttal to an issue. Likely because they are poorly educated and likely (I'll be nice) not very smart.

oh no's you're gonna shame me with definitions you have no idea what they actually mean. oh noooos...

so you can't explain what you mean by 'fair taxation', just say so. Still makes you a loser. I'm waiting. ad hominem or not

 

[dblack]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

 

[jc456]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

Tell that to Warren. She thinks you can.

yo Ray, she keeps saying 2 cents rather than 2%. Ask Bill Gates!!

Bill Gates Objects to Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax, and She Offers to Explain

 

[jc456]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

 

[dblack]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

 

[jc456]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point. The more the rich buy, the more the rich pays. fair.

no deduction, no nothing but paying federal taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

Tell that to Warren. She thinks you can.

yo Ray, she keeps saying 2 cents rather than 2%. Ask Bill Gates!!

Bill Gates Objects to Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax, and She Offers to Explain

Of course he objects. Most of the wealth people have is not actually cash on hand. Most wealth is invested in assets. That being said, Warren's plans is to tax all wealth, meaning that in order to pay that tax, assets would have to be liquidated. If left unchanged, that tax would eventually wipe out all wealthy people in this country as it's not a one time tax, but an annual tax.

 

[dblack]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

 

[jc456]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

there is no other way to tax someone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is almost impossible to identify and tax all of someone’s wealth.

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

Could you please explain that one? How does sales tax make one run the risk of breaking the law?

 

[Andylusion]

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).

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

Taxes were lower during the war, than they are today.

Tax RATES were higher, that is true. But saying the tax rate is higher, is not the same as saying taxes are higher, because people simply move their wealth to where they can avoid taxes.

The fact is, as rates decline, more people are willing to pay the tax. Which is why you see today that a higher percentage of the tax burden is on the wealthy, than it was in the 1970s and before.

As you can see, tax revenue, the actual amount of money taxed from the public, was lower during the years of high tax.

Again, tax rates mean little. The wealthy can conceal, or move their wealth out of the country, or into tax shelters inside the country, or any number of different things.

So, no taxation was not higher during world war 2, but rather lower. The rates were higher, yes, and they produced less revenue than today.

 

[dblack]

That's why it's so problematic trying to tax wealth, or income. It basically requires ubiquitous government.

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

Could you please explain that one? How does sales tax make one run the risk of breaking the law?

If you don't document the sale and pay the tax correctly.

 

[jc456]

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

Could you please explain that one? How does sales tax make one run the risk of breaking the law?

If you don't document the sale and pay the tax correctly.

WTF are you talking about? you pay sales tax today on goods for the state, and sometimes the county. It's collected at the time of service. You don't have to complete any paperwork. No filing, no nothing.

 

[Andylusion]

Businesses have never had so many hard working productive workers to choose from. It's unreal. Work ethic has never been close to today's americans.

Was that a joke? That had to be a joke.

It sure isn't the case in the software industry. There are way more jobs than qualified candidates.

It's no joke. Any business that has troubles finding good workers is simply a pathetic, bad, rotten place to work. Easy call. I will cheer when they struggle.

Ridiculous. I've worked at many places that were fantastic to work for, and I have to constantly tell people to put away their phones, stop surfing the internet, stop talking and get stuff done.

We have guys here, that actually get offended, when you point out that they have been here for 2 hours already, and have zero work accomplished to show for it.

How do you explain that?

Honestly, even when I was working at Wendy's, back in my high school days, we constantly had people not working. Why? If you are on the clock, you should be making stuff happen. If you are not going to work, then that is called thievery.

And don't tell me that we are not paying enough money. That's garbage. The job is extremely easy. We could have heart attack patients do this job, it's so easy.

Plus, I have even told people, if we don't pay enough, then why do you go work somewhere else, and they say "Because I'd get paid less anywhere else".... which tells you we are already paying them more than they are worth.

Getting people in here, who show up, and work, and don't take 5 fifteen minute breaks, is hard in this culture.

So I don't know what you people are talking about, but I have never been half as lazy at any point in my life, as the people who I see being hired on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

that's why we should have a federal sales tax on products purchased. The poor would then actually have to contribute for services they use.

That doesn't get around the problem. It still requires constant intrusion from government to implement consistently.

how so? dude, don't throw and go. explain your fking point.

My biggest complaint with income tax is that it requires government to monitor how everyone makes a living. It requires us to document our financial activities and report them to the government. Sales tax has the same problem, and is arguably worse because it interferes with every single trade transaction. This means you risk running afoul of the law multiple times a day.

Could you please explain that one? How does sales tax make one run the risk of breaking the law?

If you don't document the sale and pay the tax correctly.

So you were talking about from the vendors end? Because I can't see how a consumer would be breaking the law.

I like the idea of a consumption tax because that way, everybody pays. Prostitutes, drug pushers, number runners, people who work under the table, seldom pay tax on what they really earned. Even people in construction often do small side jobs cut rate because it's a cash deal.