The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Which DOES NOT LIST "WEALTH" AS AN ABSTRACT NOUN, and therefore offers NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for your claim.

Did you really think readers would be fooled by such transparently disingenuous posturing? Citing a fact does not support your claim if the fact doesn't say what you claim it says. Capisci?

Good advice. I invite all readers to verify, via the written record, that Sanskrit has yet to offer any factual or logical support for his claim.

Like wealth.

It IS true for wealth. The concrete forms wealth takes are much more various than the forms bread takes, but you can still experience them directly with the senses.

Which you are failing.

<yawn> I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

 

Yeah, it does. Can you not read? Last word on the list... maybe because it begins with "w," brain trust. LOL, always the same with you people, incapable of learning from your betters. It's why you lose and lose.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-abstract-nouns.html

Not that it matters, but I scored 99%ile on the GRE verbal (which any Jr College twit can do), 99%ile on both the LSAT reading comp and logical reasoning sections twice (which very few people can do). You did not.

 

Oh look we have an internet genius

 

We damn sure know you aren't one.

 

Wrong. It's the internet. I'm a Rhodes Scholar.

 

You're right, I apologize. Serves me right for not double checking.

However, you are still committing an equivocation fallacy. Wealth in the relevant sense is tangible, not abstract, as Merriam-Webster confirms:

4 b : all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time national wealth

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth

You appear not to know what 99%ile means.

True: I only took the LSAT once, so only scored 99%ile on it once.

 

No one who doesn't understand abstract nouns and that wealth always is one scored 99th percentile on anything. You aren't fooling anyone, but keep rationalizing and flailing as you swirl around the toilet bowl, it's funny.

 

I think you are the poster. i am trying to find out why a definition of wealth is called an abstraction?

My take is a bit of it is an abstraction. Such as this. John Manybucks buys a million shares of Apple when it was almost dead. And bought in cheap. Today that same stock is worth a lot more by maybe multiples of 100 times.

Was it wealth at the cheap price but not at the nigh price or vice versa or neither. In other words which was abstract and which was real?

 

Actually 2008 was a Reid and Pelosi budget which Bush was able to holdbtheir spending increase to ONLY 9% with threatened vetos. They cut him out completely for 2009 forcing a continuing resolution so that a Democrat President could sign their 18% spending increase taking the last Republican deficit of just $161B to their whoppin $1,400B in just two years

 

A persons wealth IS everything and what you dont count is what they will place it in and what exactly are "major assets" and who would do all these millions assesments? And how would seniors be affected I explained quite clearly they hold LOTS of wealth and live off the income that produces and you want to tax away that wealth.

 

So now you divert to an estate tax we were discussing a wealth tax on the living

 

And how much are you then going to lower income taxes and why should I have to pay 10% every year on the value of they nice painting I own just to keep it and howbis the value established. And if you are going to tax wealth then you tax everyones wealth. The tax system doesn't exist to satisfy your greed and envy of what someone else earned and owns.

 

Concrete things that can be included under the category "wealth" are not abstractions, cars, boats, houses, phones, computers, friends, family, pets, health (abstract, but particular healthy organs and body parts are concrete), but the term "wealth" itself always is, and subjective to boot. One person's wealth is another person's garbage. This is the fatal flaw in narratives on "wealth disparity."

There are reasonable ways to calculate the benefits of having more money on well-being, quality of life, health, etc., I listed several possibilities earlier in the thread. The LW Complex folks ignore those and want you to focus strictly on tax policy because that's what lines THEIR pockets, not helps the poor but helps THEM, Complex denizens already making 6 figures+.

 

When I studied Business law in college, we had a wide range of things called wealth.

For a lot of people, a home is their major wealth source.

What is wrong with tax policy is it is violating the purpose of Government. Government in America was not formed to rip off citizens and take as much as they would endure.

 

Here you hit squarely upon it. They use weasel words like "household wealth" to hide the fact that a big chunk of what they are talking about is actual houses, which as we all know crashed in 2008. They do the same thing with other narratives, a comparable example is how they characterize what is mostly sales tax in their narrative that the low income pay more in "state and local taxes." It's SALES TAXES that create that result but they won't phrase it honestly because it doesn't forward their narrative.

Note the changes in the curves on the union charts at 2008. But did anyone's actual "wealth" decrease due to that? Their NET WORTH and credit availability may have decreased, their financial statement may be impacted. Did the paint fall off the house, though, or a few rooms drop into a sinkhole? Of course not.

The corrupt liars who fabricate these charts and graphs ALWAYS do crap like this, just like LW posters here do, trying to stack the deck via cherry-picking, semantic squirreliness, omitting tons of necessary context. Would you or I ever link such a chart without a SIMPLE KEY describing the methodology behind calculating "wealth" or "household wealth?" without acknowledging necessary context? without acknowledging that tax policy is one of NUMEROUS correlations with these trends? Of course not, we're honest. Public unions are -not- honest, though, and never present an in-context clear picture, only a slanted one. If people knew that 2008 was a big reason the latter years of the chart look like they do, they'd be like "well yeah of course, but that's not some pervasive trend based on TAX POLICY." Anything that diverts from their myopic exaggeration of tax policy towards THEIR OWN BENEFIT is anathema.

This used to work just fine. No longer. Their narratives are being pulled from the cave of a hegemonic, protective media into the light of day, and are faring poorly. The best joke of all is that due to that, and the tsunami backlash against media dishonesty today, every time they repeat the false narratives, they lose more influence, lose more votes. It is a great time to be alive for anyone concerned about the immense Complex growth and overreach of the last 80 years. We may still have a chance for the restoration of a just central state as against the illicit, parasitic monster we now face.

 

Exactly how does a death tax affect a senior while that senior is alive ? The wealth of a senior does not get taxed until after he/she is dead.

Good grief Charlie Brown.

 

Let me know when you figure out that a senior is not affected by a death tax - because the taxes do not happen until he is dead !

When you solve that puzzle - then perhaps we can move on to something harder.

 

It's easy, those stocks represent wealth just as the US Dollar does. $100 gets you X amount of labor and services or Y amount of goods.
The stocks represent a percentage of ownership in a company.

Stocks, like dollars vary with when you appraise their worth.
For $300 in 1924 you could buy a Model T car. Today you take your kids to a baseball game.

 

30 pages of leeches trying to explain why they should be allowed to be leeches, and 30 pages of normal working moes explaining why they shouldn't be seen as hosts for leeches...

It really is amazing that not one syllogism or logical argument has been attempted by the leeches.

Dogs can't help but be dogs, I guess.

 

What a crock of shyt. Net worth is easily calculable and that is wealth.
Now back to angels dancing on the heads of pins...

 

Normal working moes excusing the rich?

Please

 

This isn't about the inheritence it is about a proposed wealth tax try again your attempt to get snarky notwithstanding.

Try again. You said it would be a simple matter to tax the wealth of citizens. Well no it would not be. So you realize that some estates go through years before the final valienis determined on them and you want to tax everyones wealth every year? Who is going to determine and certify your wealth for tax purposes? How much is that going to cost?

 

They pay 6% on every dime of that $120,000 some the full 12%, and get the worst return on those dimes while millions at the pay virtually nothing and still get to collect.

This is a retirement system not a general revenue tax system. Learn the difference.

 

So people making millions pay payroll taxes on only the first $120K they make. And everyone who makes less than $120K (which is most of us) pays the payroll tax on EVERY penny we make.

That's what I said

 

A death tax is a relatively simple way of taxing wealth.

Your claim that such a tax would hurt seniors was nonsense.

The rest of your post is a big strawman - attributing things to me that I did not say so you have something to attack.