The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

some taxes are just. some are theft.

 

What is the purpose of taxes?

 

Your focusing on minutiae in order to try to justify rejecting the concept of a tax on capital in its entirety. No government on the planet is going to give a fig about your watch, your car or your underpants etc. Taxes on capital gains always have caps below which they don't apply and there are always provisions for specific types of capital that let the tax on any gain be deferred till it is realized i.e your sports car (assuming it ever reaches the point where capital gains tax would apply anyway. Now if you owned a collection of 10 vintage sports cars worth in the six figures plus? You might have a problem. One car? No.

But regardless of that you seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact while you might have to pay tax on an increase in the net worth of your capital the tax you pay on your income would also go down proportionally! The idea is not stick an additional tax on capital on top of what you already pay in income tax It's to tax all forms of wealth more or less equally at about the same rate so that all Americans pay more or less the same proportion of their income in tax regardless of what type of wealth they have. No free rides anymore.

As for 'so the tax payer has to absorb all the losses and the government none' What are you? A communist! You think the state 'owes you' for any bad investments you make or bad luck you have? If your car gets wrecked (taxed or not) and you didn't have it properly insured? Does Uncle Sam have to pay you back'? Of course not. If you go big on Truth Social stock and hold on to it for too long? Are you going to call the Treasury and demand they reimburse you? No? What you do is right off the loss as previously explained. Finally yes, the State is going to take a 'loss' on losing investments because (and it should be obvious) that year there will be no capital gain to tax! I would suspect losses below a certain cap would be written off in one year. Above that over subsequent years. The details are for the experts

Now how about we just move on to other matters?

 

Nope, sorry.

 

your one line denials are as accurate as they are long.

 

proper answer-to efficiently raise revenue for the government while causing the least possible harm to the public

for the envious left-to slake the envy of those who have failed to succeed and to punish anyone luckier or more talented than they are

 

How can taxes be theft?

 

you really don''t know?

 

Nope, I really don't.

 

That's what taxes should be for. Sometimes they are simply a way to grab money and punish those who are doing something that the public looks down on. Smoking, drinking. etc. You need money for school lunches for kids that only have one Mom and bingo, let's punish the smokers because no one cares if they have to pay a 2600% tax. They shouldn't be smoking anyway. We're doing it for their own good. What? Too many people quit smoking? Look! People are drinking beer. Punish the beer drinkers! Those kids with only one Mom need free lunches.

 

well we know that the 1934 NFA tax on all sorts of firearms was a de facto ban because FDR's AG told him that this was the only way they could actually try to ban machine guns and game wardens wanted suppressors banned because hungry people were using suppressors to poach deer and their peers wouldn't convict them in state courts. taxes should never be used for such crap IMHO

 

The fair amount would be them paying the actual effective tax rate. According to our effective rates, the bottom incomes are supposed to pay 10% and the top are supposed to pay around 37% (this being the effective rate under the Trump tax cuts)

Usually what happens is the bottom and top classes pay less than their effective rate, while the middle classes pay their taxes in full. The reason the bottom classes pay less is they also take from the system in the welfare they receive. The middle classes don't receive welfare, and live off of wage based incomes. The top classes however do not have a wage based income, but a property based income, thus they are able to get a wider variety of deductions/write-offs/loopholes. We essentially have two welfare systems, one for the rich, and one for the poor. Meanwhile the middles classes get nothing.

What we saw in 2020 was the top classes getting richer by larger percentages than any of the other classes, while also paying significantly less than their effective rate. Once again it was the top and bottom classes getting the biggest tax break, the bottom payed 6% less than their effective rate, while the top classes payed 11% less than their effective rate. It's quite literally the class that is seeing the biggest income increase that is also receiving the biggest tax break. It's welfare for the rich

 

In this context, wealth tax equals whatever someone possesses. In order to levy such a tax ALL possessions from all citizens must be known and reported. It is obscene. It is not practical. Your desire to "soak the rich" creates far more problems than it would ever solve. It would even likely cost more than it generates unless of course the parameters were set low enough to capture "wealth" from individuals far lower down the spectrum than the billionaire class. When the government gets into the business of accounting for all accumulated assets in this country, you better hang on to your wallet because they are coming for you too.

 

I sincerely do not get what it is that you are trying to convey here. At first glance it looks to me like you are creating an issue out of what may very well simply be the margin of error. I wouldn't take all of those numbers to be anything other than reasonable estimates. A "movement" of 3% strikes me as insignificant if it is indeed a reasonable estimate and even IF 3% more people were paying taxes they would be paying an amount so tiny that it would account for almost nothing. Someone that just barely crosses the line into being a net payer only pays a few pennies or a few dollars. This means nothing in the big picture.

 

Garbage. Wealth taxes exempt many things people possess. No wealth tax has ever been levied on the food someone has in their fridge, the shampoo in their bathroom, the socks in their dresser drawers. Give your head a shake.

More accurately, it is a strawman.

It is your desire to exempt the rich from repaying any of the subsidies they receive that has already created more problems than it could ever solve.

Nonsense. After the war, Japan used a one-time wealth tax focused on real estate, corporate shares and debt instruments to get out from under a crushing burden of public debt and reduce the extreme inequality that had built up during the previous decades of increasing fascism. It worked beautifully, and the economy took off.

 

While possession exemption limits would surely exist, before those exemptions could be determined, an entire accounting of all possessions would be required, in much the same way there are plenty of deductions currently, but all income must first be accounted for. This is not a strawman in any way. Your lack of understanding does not equate to the existence of a strawman. If anything, your misuse of the term calls into question your understanding of what a strawman is.

Sorry.

If it only applies to specific asset classes, you will succeed in changing what asset classes get more investment. This is clearly far more complex than you realize. The billionaire class has the resources to skirt whatever rules are enacted. They would simply place their investments in swiss style bank accounts which is perfectly legal. It is the common man that would be caught up in your trap in addition to carrying the expense of creating an official balance sheet annually.

 

Wrong again, as usual. It is well known to economists that certain taxes -- called, "Pigovian" taxes, after British economist Arthur Pigou, who first described and analyzed them -- are appropriately used to discourage undesirable behavior and internalize externalities. Most taxes, such as sales tax and income tax on wages, have a "deadweight loss": i.e., they cause reduced societal welfare. Pigovian taxes typically increase societal welfare by discouraging harmful behavior. Excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are good examples.

 

No, that's just clearly false as a matter of objective physical fact. In all the wealth taxes that have actually been implemented, no one ever accounted for the food in people's kitchens, the clothing in their dressers, the toiletries in their bathrooms, etc.

Yes, of course it is, and I just proved it.

More accurately, your objectively false claims about what wealth taxes have always actually done equate to a strawman.

Sorry.

 

They have numerous purposes, but the one they all have in common is to transfer purchasing power from the private sector to the public sector. Probably the second most common purpose is to increase the cost of behaviors the government wants to discourage, typically by internalizing externalities, as "Pigovian" taxes are designed to do. A third would be to make the economy more efficient by requiring those who benefit from public spending to repay some or all of the resulting subsidies they get.

 

I guess it does not apply to the Big Mac or a pet rock that is purchased either. If taking the discussion to a ridiculous extreme is your goal, then I suppose you have succeeded. As far as legitimate assets of value however, they need to be accounted for even in the few countries that have implemented such a system that you have now entered into this conversation.

You THINK you have just proven my position to be a strawman. How so? What exactly do you think a strawman is and how does this definition apply to my position?

You are undeniably confused.

Once more...even if we were to accept your position that my claims are "objectively false" ( which they are not), that does not make it a strawman...What do you think strawman argument means? You are misapplying the term.

Hint... Whether a statement made in retort is objectively true or false has no bearing on whether it is a strawman.

 

Like the property tax on the publicly created unimproved value of land. Correct.

Like income tax on wages, broad-based sales taxes, VAT, etc. Correct.

See? That wasn't so hard, now, was it?

 

Correct. Wealth taxes NEVER even attempt to account for personal effects, with the exception of things like valuable artworks, antiques, jewelry, gold bullion, etc. that have significant market value. Which proves your claim is a strawman.

No, you were the one who tried the ridiculous strawman extreme, and I called you out on it.

What do you mean, "legitimate assets of value"?

But thank you for agreeing that your claim that ALL possessions have to be accounted for was a strawman.

By identifying the fact that actual wealth taxes have never been what you claim they must be.

A strawman is a false claim that the other side has made an argument that is clearly indefensible, like your claim that wealth taxes have to account for all possessions.

You are undeniably confused.

I just proved they are.

A strawman is specifically a false claim about what the other side has said.

No. See above, and please consult a good dictionary.

 

So, when I propose the first, why do you falsely, groundlessly, and disingenuously accuse me of proposing the second?

 

Actually, some wealth taxes do tax cars.

 

We have already established that low-value possessions such as clothing are not included, which probably did not need to be said, but it seems rather important to you to distinguish so for the second time I agree with that notion. I see that as going to a foolish extreme but since you really want to drive that point home, then so be it.

As long as we are going to extremes, I guess I should point out that jewelry is in fact a personal effect so that is an example of a personal effect that would be counted. The Hope diamond surely would not be exempt.

Except it was not a strawman even slightly.

What about this term do you find so confusing? Assets of value. I guess that would need to be determined by whatever law was written, but you can imagine that it could be set at $1k, $5k etc. I would assume there would be a total value calculation at some point.

It should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

See above. If using ridiculous extremes, You made a point that not EVERY asset is accounted for, and I made a point that your claim about personal effects not being included is not true since it would include jewelry and other personal effects of sufficient value. I am not sure that either if these points are worth anything other than to foster aimless bickering, but so be it. I only control one side of this discussion.

Yeesh. See above. Ridiculous extreme and all that jazz...

OK, this is where you are getting confused. As I said before, for sake of argument lets say that my claim about possessions being accounted for is untrue, that does not make it a strawman. For it to be a strawman, I would need to be arguing against a point that has not been raised, and that is not the case here. I realize that you are trying to insert an argument of "what has been done elsewhere", but that is not there argument I was replying to even slightly. Even that would not be a strawman if it were the argument I was replying to, but the fact that you are trying to posthumously pretend like that was the argument reveals the folly in your position.

Simply not true.

You have just proven that you haven't a clue as to what constitutes a strawman.

Not correct. Yeesh. A strawman is arguing against a point that was not raised. It has NOTHING to do with the claim being true or false. If you say that peaches cost a dollar a bushel, and I incorrectly claim that it is $5, that would not make it a strawman. It would simply be a false claim.

If on the other hand you said that peaches cost a dollar a bushel and I said wrong, apples are 50 cents a bushel, THAT would be a strawman because I would then be arguing against a point that was not raised and whether apples are 50 cents or $10 has no bearing on whether that is a strawman argument.

Keep pondering this notion. You will get it.....eventually.

It was obvious that you were confused. Now we know the source of that confusion. This is progress.

The irony here is humorous.