The Argument for A Wealth Tax

[danielpalos]

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

That is all of history. You can't change that.

i am not the one who has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

 

[Yarddog]

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

 

[Lesh]

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

That was some fairly unimpressive word salad

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[danielpalos]

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

why does the right wing prefer a vacuum of special pleading regarding spending not correlating with revenue.

 

[martybegan]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

 

[Lesh]

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

Wrong. An income tax had previously been ruled unconstitutional only BECAUSE of the apportionment issue. The 16th removes that issue

 

[Yarddog]

Jealousy has gotten the best of you.

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

why does the right wing prefer a vacuum of special pleading regarding spending not correlating with revenue.

Because there is a percentage which can be considered fair, and another which anyone can see is outrageous.
They can also see history and what happened because of 'Idealists' , take what happened under Stalin. Farmers? selling food for profit? oh my my, cant have that while people are hungry.... punish the rich to feed the poor right?
And you can see how that worked out. Its what happens when idealists who don't really know how things work because they haven't created anything themselves **** with the free market. Today its the billionaires but when that doesn't do the trick they will find someone else to blame for having too much.

Why not concentrate on helping people to be successful and make more money from the bottom up... grow the economy and increase tax revenue that way?

 

[martybegan]

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

Wrong. An income tax had previously been ruled unconstitutional only BECAUSE of the apportionment issue. The 16th removes that issue

Only for income taxes.

The word income is explicit in the wording of the amendment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

 

[martybegan]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

I misrepresented nothing. the whole thread was about wealth taxes, of which property taxes are a form of. The proposed wealth tax is just that, a tax on all holdings.

And that is not covered by the 16th amendment.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Not jealousy...pragmatism and reality

No, its all just "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE"

tax cut economics is merely the rich getting richer faster.

The government gets their fair share, keep money in the hands of the people and the market place. We will decide where we want to spend our money. The government gets to tax the transaction.

why does the right wing prefer a vacuum of special pleading regarding spending not correlating with revenue.

Because there is a percentage which can be considered fair, and another which anyone can see is outrageous.
They can also see history and what happened because of 'Idealists' , take what happened under Stalin. Farmers? selling food for profit? oh my my, cant have that while people are hungry.... punish the rich to feed the poor right?
And you can see how that worked out. Its what happens when idealists who don't really know how things work because they haven't created anything themselves **** with the free market. Today its the billionaires but when that doesn't do the trick they will find someone else to blame for having too much.

Why not concentrate on helping people to be successful and make more money from the bottom up... grow the economy and increase tax revenue that way?

Why is it the poor cant make their own food? Why do they sit on their lazy liberal asses and do nothing and the liberal elites pander to such people?

Jason Greenslate, Food Stamp Surfer, Responds To The Haters | HuffPost

“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said in front of the news cameras. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”

May a great white shark feed on this slime ball..

 

[Lesh]

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

I misrepresented nothing. the whole thread was about wealth taxes, of which property taxes are a form of. The proposed wealth tax is just that, a tax on all holdings.

And that is not covered by the 16th amendment.

The 16th removes the "apportionment" issue FOR the income tax. Previously the income tax was held as unconstitutional BECAUSE of that issue...now removed for ANY taxation

 

[OKTexas]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

 

[martybegan]

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That allows an income tax. That does not allow a property or wealth tax at the federal level without it being apportioned among the States.

Maybe you should be the one needing reading comprehension help.

You misrepresented, or I did, the term wealth tax. I inferred that was income from any source. I did not mean the assessment of all property, real estate and other valuables.

I misrepresented nothing. the whole thread was about wealth taxes, of which property taxes are a form of. The proposed wealth tax is just that, a tax on all holdings.

And that is not covered by the 16th amendment.

The 16th removes the "apportionment" issue FOR the income tax. Previously the income tax was held as unconstitutional BECAUSE of that issue...now removed for ANY taxation

No, the 16th removes it only for income taxes. Apportionment still applies to any other tax the federal government may try to impose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

 

[Yarddog]

Interesting idea. It would end a lot of debt and funding issues

Consider

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

The top 1/10 of one per cent own almost 25% of the nation's wealth

That's the same amount of wealth as the bottom NINETY PER CENT of the county

In that light a 2% wealth tax isn't that outrageous

I haven't checked the numbers but I have read that it could provide 30 trillion dollars over 10 years.


Health care

Education

Green New Deal

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

This new batch of congress people are dumb as bricks. They only see that someone else has something but no idea of how it was acquired, they have no idea that taxes were already paid ( i really believe that they are that stupid) and how that process also stimulates the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

You must be very happy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

That is not what I posted. However, the Ryan/Trump Tax fraud does exactly that (tax homeowners via reducing drastically the real estate tax deduction).

My home, north of $1.3 million, and my rental property (approx. $615,000) are a wink and a nod by Ryan's and Trump's tax reform, & are in fact more costly to my family; I will pay more to the IRS than I have before this fake reform.

Each year they are reassessed and the RE Tax will raise by 2%. However, when the property is sold, it is reassessed at full market value.

Another wind and nod from the plutocracy who fool most of the people. Since most commercial building are never sold, and never assessed at full market value.

This ^^^ eats the profits from small businesses and benefits the property owner. All thanks to Prop 13.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The argument against.

1) it's stupid
2) it would lead to massive needs for liquidation of fixed assets in some cases, which requires buyers, who would also probably be trying to liquidate assets
3) It's Unconstitutional at the Federal level.

1a. It's not stupid, it's an idea that has merit.
2a. This is stupid, adding four or more tax brackets***
will add significant revenue to allow for rebuilding are aging infrastructure and reducing the annual deficits.
2a. It is legal and not immoral as is the Ryan - Trump fraud.


***There are seven federal income tax brackets in 2018: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%; let's add four more: 47%, 59%, 74% and 86%.

Where does the constitution allow for a wealth/property tax that does not have to be apportioned between the States?

The 16th Amendment, read it.

Your biases create gaps in you ability to comprehend writing which attacks your beliefs.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Taxes were paid on the income, now you commies are wanting another bite of the post tax savings. You already get a bite from the gains which result form savings and investments, but now you want to tax the principle again. That does not fall within the 16th.

.

This new batch of congress people are dumb as bricks. They only see that someone else has something but no idea of how it was acquired, they have no idea that taxes were already paid ( i really believe that they are that stupid) and how that process also stimulates the economy.

It's so sad that you have been fooled by the rhetoric. Try to think for yourself and do some research. You will see what you posted is regurgitated Poopaganda (i.e. propaganda which is in reality bullshit).