Why don't you want to tax the rich?

[M14 Shooter]

Under current federal tax law, no tax is imposed on the purchase of securities (stocks and bonds) or other financial products.

Similarly, the value of your 401k, 503b, savings account, checking account, stacks of $1000s in you gun safe, cannot be taxed.
These things represent wealth; the constitution only gives the power to tax income.

 

[task0778]

Similarly, the value of your 401k, 503b, savings account, checking account, stacks of $1000s in you gun safe, cannot be taxed.
These things represent wealth; the constitution only gives the power to tax income.

What about inheritance and estate taxes? It would not surprise me if the democrats tried to initiate a wealth tax at the federal level, and if they ever get enough control and votes I think they'd do it. Alter the balance in the Supreme Court and they're off to the races. It wasn't long ago that they tried to get an unrealized capital gains tax.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why do we tax the wealthy?
Because that is where the money is

View attachment 1199943

That graph doesn’t mean anything. It says each slice is 62 million people. Well naturally if you take the 62 million wealthiest people, they will have the largest slice. That does let mean all 62 million are “wealthy”, among those 62 million could be high income earners but less than 1 million.

There are only 900 billionaires and 24 millionaires in the US.

So the other 38 million are people with a net worth of less than 1 million.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about inheritance and estate taxes?

They are taxed as income.

It would not surprise me if the democrats tried to initiate a wealth tax at the federal level...

They would need to first amend the constitution, just like they did to have the power to tax income.

But yeah - Democrats will try to tax anything.

 

[badbob85037]

If you are opposed, why?

Why do you oppose aggressive taxation of people making more than $250,000+ a year or $400,000+ a year annually?

Those 'rich' are ones that create jobs. Those rich have worked for their money. What right does anyone have to take more than is their share? Why do people who have nothing feel entitled to take from those that do? You only have to look around on a federal holiday. No rush hour traffic. According to the Constitution the Feds are authorized to have 30 duties, yet we have over 2,000 agencies, with no one knowing the exact number. Anyone having to deal with any one of them ends up with one big headache and unbelievable stories of getting screwed from Government idiots who if lost that job would have to go on welfare. B

 

[task0778]

They are taxed as income.

They would need to first amend the constitution, just like they did to have the power to tax income.

But yeah - Democrats will try to tax anything.

Estate and inheritance taxes sound like double taxation to me, how'd they get away with that?

 

[badbob85037]

If you are opposed, why?

Why do you oppose aggressive taxation of people making more than $250,000+ a year or $400,000+ a year annually?

Those 'rich' are ones that create jobs. Those rich have worked for their money. What right does anyone have to take more than is their share? Why do people who have nothing feel entitled to take from those that do? You only have to look around on a federal holiday. No rush hour traffic. According to the Constitution the Feds are authorized to have 30 duties, yet we have over 2,000 agencies, with no one knowing the exact number. Anyone having to deal with any one of them ends up with one big headache and unbelievable stories of getting screwed from Government idiots who if lost that job would have to go on welfare. But don't worry they will never be fired because they all have a union protecting them at every level. If we cut those agencies to 35 we wouldn't pay taxes and only have tariffs as we did our first 100 years.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Estate and inheritance taxes sound like double taxation to me, how'd they get away with that?

Beats me. Both should be repealed.

 

[LibertyKid]

This is not about GIVING anyone anything but about making it possible for everyone to have a rationally good living. There is no reason why someone who is rich because of their personal talent or because they had special opportunities (like being from a rich family to being with) to have an easy life when someone who is a good working person but did not have the same opportunities or have the same talent to have to work more just to "make ends meet".

• Record Numbers: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported a record high of around 9.3 million Americans working multiple jobs in late 2025 to make ends meet, the highest since tracking began in 1994.

First, that's not even 3% of our population.
Second, we have to ask the question WHY. Why is 2.7% of our population working 2 jobs. And it is very plausible, when you examine their personal life, you will find many answers, and some of those answers will rest on the personal and financial choices of the individual who DID have responsibility for their situation in life.

You are cherry-picking with this answer. There are many reasons for poverty that are not something those people could do anything about (like being born to a poor family and in a poor neighborhood where opportunities for education and good jobs don't exist)

Most logical people will agree, as I have pointed out, that poverty can and does beget poverty, but that is a outcome and not THE outcome. There are countless cases of those who have risen out of poverty and made very good lives for themselves and their families for generations.

Humans are human and if you cherry-pick what you are looking to criticize, you will always find examples to support your opinion.

Ditto. But what many do not want listen to is that personal life choices are many of the reasons why people are where they are in their current situation.

What you have to consider is that life will always have good things and bad things and what we all need to do is try to find more good than bad but even then, we will have bad that we need to ignore or not pay so much attention to. If you want to change that, then become an alien from another planet and lose your human status.

Huh... the great thing about this country is if you don't like the situation you are in, you can change that.

 

[badbob85037]

Darkwind No. But there is a lot of social frustration out there. A lot of people feel the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor.

"At the expense of the poor" What does that even mean? The poor need to get off their ass and contribute like buying their own food, paying their own rent and medical. I'm not cold hearted. If one is disabled, we should protect them, but when there are able body humans that haven't worked a day in their life, I have a problem. Unless you are one of them you should have a problem too.

 

[LibertyKid]

"At the expense of the poor" What does that even mean? The poor need to get off their ass and contribute like buying their own food, paying their own rent and medical. I'm not cold hearted. If one is disabled, we should protect them, but when there are able body humans that haven't worked a day in their life, I have a problem. Unless you are one of them you should have a problem too.

Just another political catch phrase to ignite the flames.
Another illogical claim: The rich own all or a certain percentage of wealth?
That might have been relevant when money was actually backed by the gold standard. Now, it's just a statiscal number. But the left like to claim that it actually means something when in reality, it doesn't.

There is no finite amount of wealth. Anyone at anytime can go out and increase their percent of wealth. It doesn't mean you're taking away from anyone else. Bezos, Gates, Musk can earn as much as they want. It hasn't stopped me or my ability to every year, earn more money. My employer has never once said, 'Well, Liberty, we were going to give you a 10% increase this year, but you know, those darn rich people keep taking more of the money so, your only getting 3% this year.

 

[Frankenstein]

Just another political catch phrase to ignite the flames.
Another illogical claim: The rich own all or a certain percentage of wealth?
That might have been relevant when money was actually backed by the gold standard. Now, it's just a statiscal number. But the left like to claim that it actually means something when in reality, it doesn't.

There is no finite amount of wealth. Anyone at anytime can go out and increase their percent of wealth. It doesn't mean you're taking away from anyone else. Bezos, Gates, Musk can earn as much as they want. It hasn't stopped me or my ability to every year, earn more money. My employer has never once said, 'Well, Liberty, we were going to give you a 10% increase this year, but you know, those darn rich people keep taking more of the money so, your only getting 3% this year.

It is simply them coveting!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, my goodness.You actually believe it's clever.

An ignorant leftist disagrees with me.

 

[EMH]

We dint have a revenue problems. We have a spending problem.

And REPUBLICAN Primary Voters need to Vote 100% on that issue, no free pass for big spenders who thump Bibles and serve israel, because those are the ones who are NOT FOR SPENDING CUTS AT ALL...

 

[EMH]

Fix the 10%-25% fraud, theft and waste.

It likely is even higher than that. It is everything. The Alliance for Treason views all spending as an opportunity to steal.

 

[SweetTea]

Tell you what, I don't doubt that there may be instances where a foreign exporter will low his price temporarily, same as some US importers are doing. Or they spread the cost around to other items with no tariff on them, believing that in 2026 (election year) Trump will reduce, delay, or drop at least some tariffs. Which he has been doing all along, for various reasons.

Some call it semantics. I call it misinformation, tariffs are paid by the importing company at the point of entry. Period. That company will no doubt try to negotiate a lower price from the exporting company, who as you say might eat some of that cost. But while the US is the biggest market in the world for whatever you want to sell, they ain't the only game in town. Which means the exporting company may decide to do business with another importer from another country. Or they may decide to just wait out the tariff storm.

Again, you vastly underestimate the power of the US consumer. They are by far and away the most powerful in the world by very large margin. That matters and matters a LOT.

 

[Luckyone]

Huh... the great thing about this country is if you don't like the situation you are in, you can change that.

granted! Nonetheless that is where competence comes into play. Trying to change something that is not working well is the right thing to do but there are intelligent ways to do things and bad ways to do things. Using a hacksaw to destroy all (both the good and bad in an organization) will not bring good results. What is needed is a scalpel to do that. For example, and using a true situation of mine, I had 3 bones in my spinal column that were sticking into the nerve and causing me pain. A neurosurgeon went into my spine and did a laminoplasty (which is carefully slicing the 5 bones to lift them up just enough to take the pressure off and then putting metal brackets to hold the spine to the point that those 5 bones cannot break thereafter). Imagine if a butcher tried to do that by slicing the spine up. That would have paralyzed me for the rest of my life. The latter is what Trump is doing and the end result of that, will be paralyzing the nation for the rest of its life.

 

[SweetTea]

Oh, I see. Two choices. Torment or enable.
Some people would call that a false dichotomy.

Who said anything about tormenting them? Forcing them to use the restrooms that align with their biological sex is not tormenting them. Using the pronoun that matches their sex is not tormenting them. I’m not sure where you get that people want to torment them. What we shouldn’t be doing as a society is confirming their delusions. Unfortunately, the psychiatric medical community is among the most progressive of all medical professions. They have allowed their political ideology to skew their science, much of which is speculative at best anyway.

 

[Frankenstein]

And REPUBLICAN Primary Voters need to Vote 100% on that issue, no free pass for big spenders who thump Bibles and serve israel, because those are the ones who are NOT FOR SPENDING CUTS AT ALL...

Supporting Israel = not being for cuts?

 

[Frankenstein]

First, that's not even 3% of our population.
Second, we have to ask the question WHY. Why is 2.7% of our population working 2 jobs. And it is very plausible, when you examine their personal life, you will find many answers, and some of those answers will rest on the personal and financial choices of the individual who DID have responsibility for their situation in life.

Most logical people will agree, as I have pointed out, that poverty can and does beget poverty, but that is a outcome and not THE outcome. There are countless cases of those who have risen out of poverty and made very good lives for themselves and their families for generations.

Ditto. But what many do not want listen to is that personal life choices are many of the reasons why people are where they are in their current situation.

Huh... the great thing about this country is if you don't like the situation you are in, you can change that.

That is the great thing about this country, forcing others to pay for your change is not!