Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.
So much for "free market" capitalism?
there has never been any such thing
So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?
When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.


If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.
You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.
Well you have the right to be wrong.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
4,240
Points
290
You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.
So much for "free market" capitalism?
there has never been any such thing
So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?
When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.


If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.
You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.
Well you have the right to be wrong.
You would know about being wrong
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.
So much for "free market" capitalism?
there has never been any such thing
So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?
When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.


If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.
You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.
Well you have the right to be wrong.
You would know about being wrong
Well of course. You just demonstrated it for me.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
4,240
Points
290
You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.
So much for "free market" capitalism?
there has never been any such thing
So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?
When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.


If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.
You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.
Well you have the right to be wrong.
You would know about being wrong
Well of course. You just demonstrated it for me.
And you're the expert on being wrong.

Or do you have to win the internet to feel good about yourself so you just tell everyone else that you're always right?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,431
Reaction score
5,703
Points
1,130
Many reasons, both moral and practical - yes.
Capitalism is a zero-sum game.
Not true.
Billionaires are at the apex of that contrived inequality.
How is it contrived? If they are defrauding people, we should nail them for it. If people are voluntarily giving them their money - it's none of our fucking business.
No one needs a billion dollars.
It's not a question of "need".
No one deserves a billion dollars.
It's not a question of what anyone "deserves".

It's a question of useful allocation of resources. Billionaires, unless they are defrauding people or stealing, are allocated vasts somes of wealth because they are good at allocating it effectively. We give them lots of money because they do smart things with it, things that society wants and needs. Otherwise society would not assign them so much wealth.

What you want to do is intervene and "correct" society's allocation of wealth via force. That's immoral and impractical.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,210
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.
So much for "free market" capitalism?
there has never been any such thing
So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?
I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?
When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.
So the fuck what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the fuck what?". Does that mean we should just say "fuck freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?
you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.
I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.
All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.
But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.
Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.
I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.


If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.
You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.
Well you have the right to be wrong.
You would know about being wrong
Well of course. You just demonstrated it for me.
And you're the expert on being wrong.

Or do you have to win the internet to feel good about yourself so you just tell everyone else that you're always right?
Sure. I've dealt with people making wrong arguments like you, for 25 years now. Of there was a Ph.D for identifying false claims, I should have it by now.

I'm a Christian. I'm going to Heaven whether I win an internet argument or not. I'll be good either way.

Regardless, your statement was wrong, whether I'm here to point it out, or not.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
How many times do you have to be told that the average American is NOT taxed on his wealth?
Point out the word "income" in the following:

"WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced legislation on Monday that would tax the net worth of the wealthiest people in America, a proposal aimed at persuading President Biden and other Democrats to fund sweeping new federal spending programs by taxing the richest Americans.

"Ms. Warren’s wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million."

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The average person does not pay 40% of his "wealth" in taxes.

You're entire argument is based on a falsehood therefore your entire argument is invalid
My argument is based on this:
"The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?"

"
Exceedingly rich and average Americans both, of course, own property subject to property taxes.

"But the real estate holdings of our richest — our top 1 percenters — make up only a small share of their net worth, just 12.1 percent according to the latest Federal Reserve figures..."


"Now let’s shift to the other end of the American wealth spectrum, to the poorest 50 percent of Americans.

"Taken as a group, the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold.

" But this $3.85 trillion in taxable property makes up most of the assets — 52 percent — that America’s poorer half holds."

The average American does not pay "40% of his 'wealth' in taxes," she pays tax on half of her wealth.

Rich Americans do not.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
95,290
Reaction score
11,119
Points
2,030
Nope, because of government. Restrictions.
Without government providing the politically constructed laws and institutions and the MONOPOLY OF VIOLENCE you would find it much more taxing to build and hold anything of value.
By the people. Indeed. People who represent society based on rules. The demofks aren’t a government to enforce their rules. Yet, you think they are. Fk that junior
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
ude, until someone does my job for me, I earned it. sorry. My time, my money. If I feel generous I give to charities and needs of the government. Taxes are volunteer. Look it up.
Bro, how much of the money you earn depends on the stability provided by government? How much justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty would society have if paying taxes was voluntary?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
95,290
Reaction score
11,119
Points
2,030
ude, until someone does my job for me, I earned it. sorry. My time, my money. If I feel generous I give to charities and needs of the government. Taxes are volunteer. Look it up.
Bro, how much of the money you earn depends on the stability provided by government? How much justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty would society have if paying taxes was voluntary?
Fk it does. It’s based on the job, the employer and what the employer will pay. Government got nothing to do with any of that.

it’s a fool like you who thinks you get to tell the employer what to pay. Nope,
 
Last edited:

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Ever hear of off shoring your assets. Can't talk to a moron. All they do is ask stupid, obvious questions. Democrats, pfffft.
"The Office of Foreign Assets Control administers and enforces economic sanctions programs primarily against countries and groups of individuals, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers. The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. [09-10-02]":abgg2q.jpg:

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-is.../ofac-consolidated-frequently-asked-questions
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
5,132
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
Ever hear of off shoring your assets. Can't talk to a moron. All they do is ask stupid, obvious questions. Democrats, pfffft.
"The Office of Foreign Assets Control administers and enforces economic sanctions programs primarily against countries and groups of individuals, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers. The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. [09-10-02]":abgg2q.jpg:

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-is.../ofac-consolidated-frequently-asked-questions
Blah, Blah, Blah--tell that to the banks in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland. Why do you think they flag ships in little shit hole countries?
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Why do you want the government to tell people how high their net worth must be?
It was government that created the laws and institutions that allowed a few parasites to amass billion$ If you have a problem with that, it's time to replace the economic system that creates government. Government is not the problem; capitalism is.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
4,240
Points
290
How many times do you have to be told that the average American is NOT taxed on his wealth?
Point out the word "income" in the following:

"WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced legislation on Monday that would tax the net worth of the wealthiest people in America, a proposal aimed at persuading President Biden and other Democrats to fund sweeping new federal spending programs by taxing the richest Americans.

"Ms. Warren’s wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million."

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities
You have been posting this over and over

"The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?"


Income is not wealth
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Income is not wealth
Agreed.
Net worth is wealth.


MARCH 2, 2021
The Average American Pay Tax on Half of Their Wealth, Shouldn’t Rich Americans?

"...the poorest 50 percent of Americans..." the Federal Reserve calculates, these Americans own less real estate than America’s richest 1 percent, $3.85 trillion of taxable property compared to the $4.48 trillion-worth that the ultra-rich hold. But this $3.85 trillion in taxable property makes up most of the assets — 52 percent — that America’s poorer half holds."

The poorest 50% of Americans pay tax on half their wealth. The richest one percent do not.

"But the real estate holdings of our richest — our top 1 percenters — make up only a small share of their net worth, just 12.1 percent according to the latest Federal Reserve figures."

Applying a wealth tax to stocks and bonds would go a long way in making the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
119,988
Reaction score
34,738
Points
2,220
How many times do you have to be told that the average American is NOT taxed on his wealth?
Point out the word "income" in the following:

"WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced legislation on Monday that would tax the net worth of the wealthiest people in America, a proposal aimed at persuading President Biden and other Democrats to fund sweeping new federal spending programs by taxing the richest Americans.

"Ms. Warren’s wealth tax would apply a 2 percent tax to individual net worth — including the value of stocks, houses, boats and anything else a person owns, after subtracting out any debts — above $50 million."

Warren Revives Wealth Tax, Citing Pandemic Inequalities
They should call it the Buffett Gates Tax! Their Foundations go first!

Fucking weasels sock their wealth away in a tax free trust!

WTF?!
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,951
Reaction score
3,289
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Consumer debt is a choice.

No one is forcing people to buy shit they don't need.
Going into debt to finance higher education or medical care is not a choice. They are necessities for millions of Americans since privatization and other neoliberal economic policies imposed over the last forty years have raised the costs of living and doing business to such an extent it is no longer possible to survive otherwise.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top