The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

I don't play wack-a-mole and no you have not refuted the points I made as to why such a system would not work and your empty claims it could without explanation how have no credibility.

 

What is false/fake - is you avoiding the central point of my post. Access to healthcare costs money - this is not hyperbole. I then give the main choices for how to pay these costs and you completely ignore discussion of the central point.

There is no such thing as "free". Our healthcare system cost's money - someone is footing the bill - which was the point of my post.

 

I can have lots of wealth and little income or lots of income and little wealth. When I retire I will have, already do, lots of wealth compared to the average citizen out there, but I will not have a huge income.

 

But for most of your life that will not be true.

And we are talking about tax policy that covers DECADES.'

You keep trying and you keep failing
'

 

It is a lifelong shift for most people. So why would you tax the wealth of senior citizens with low income and let the young high earners skirt taxation because they have little wealth built up? What happens to the senior citizens after you have taxed away their wealth?

If the person retires with $500,000 in just ready cash or marketable securities and you tax it at 15% a year in just 10 years they will only have less than $100,000 left and even if they can make 2% on a safe investment they would only have about $114,000 left and the income they were hoping to live off of would have dropped from $25,000 down to down to about $6,000 a year.

And you have yet to offer a viable rebuttal nor deal with the problems of your plan to tax wealth?

Where am I failing as you so self-servingly attempt to claim?

 

Why would you attack something I never suggested.

Point to where I ever said we should "tax the wealth" of anyone?

 

Well when you said

And

As you continue to conflate wealth with income in our system of taxation.

But HEY if I am wrong I will stand to be corrected, so you do oppose a wealth tax system?

 

And the way they should pay for it is with INCOME Taxes that a.re appropriate as well as an Estate Tax

So do we have a reasonable basis of debate now without your nonsensical straw man?

 

You don't have to **** with everybody else's insurance to provide care to the indigent

 

That would be you, as you have proved.

Nope. I just gave you the dictionary citation that proved you wrong.

You just love finding new ways to be wrong, don't you? 99th %ile is my most frequent %ile score. By far.

<yawn> So you know you have been proved objectively wrong, and you have no answers. Check.

 

All concepts are abstractions by definition; but there is a difference between the abstract concept of "wealth" and wealth, just as there is a difference between the abstract concept "car" and a car. A car is not an abstraction, it is a tangible physical object. The concept of wealth is an abstraction that denotes tangible physical products that have exchange value. You can exchange wealth in a market. You can't exchange abstractions in a market.

Shares are tangible wealth. The fact that their value changes does not make them abstract any more than an ounce of gold is abstract just because its value may change.

There was nothing abstract about it. The shares were tangible wealth legally exchangeable in a market. Abstractions can't be exchanged in a market.

 

So you finally admit that I am right and you are wrong. Good.

Are all wealth because they are tangible physical products that can be exchanged in a market.

No. Now you are disingenuously trying to smuggle in things that are NOT wealth, as they cannot be exchanged in a market. That is your equivocation fallacy again. You are trying to switch to a different sense of the word, and pretending it is the same sense.

Are tangible products that can be bought and sold and are therefore wealth.

Nope. One's health is inseparably one's own. Health therefore cannot be exchanged in a market, has no exchange value, and is therefore not wealth.

Nope. Refuted above. The concept of wealth, like all concepts, is an abstraction, a mental representation, but it is a mental representation of tangible physical products, which are NOT abstractions and are not subjective.

No, it is your claims that are garbage. And illogical, disingenuous, and misleading. Wealth consists of products with exchange value. Full stop.

Garbage. You are just trying to play it deuces wild by equivocating: refusing to discuss wealth in the relevant sense, and trying to change the subject to the concept of wealth.

Tax policy is very important. We can discuss what tax policies would be best; but you don't want to do that, so you just change the subject to a blatant ad hominem fallacy. The LW Complex folks are not the topic, sorry.

 

Income is always the wrong thing to tax, and EARNED income is an obscenely evil thing to tax. Why on earth should people be robbed in proportion as they contribute to the wealth of society through their labor? Who thinks they can justify such an atrocity?

 

Sure as long as everyone agrees the idea that a wealth tax is not a possibility and wealth has nothing to do with our tax system other than the estate tax which even the left agrees pulls in relatively little revenue.

How about answering this, what is the purpose of the tax system as expressed in the Constitution?

 

Still tilting at windmills.

I never...ever...suggested a wealth tax.

You know the difference between that and an Estate tax...right?

 

Scroll back it was brought up as a possible tax even beyond an estate tax and then how the WEALTHY don't pay enough. But glad you agree a wealth tax would not be feasible for reasons I have already stated.

 

There's very little I agree with you on and besides you and one other poster...no one is talking about your wind mill...er...I mean "wealth tax"