Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

I have no interest in getting drawn into this topic itself. I was merely making a point about your method of discussion.

Take it as you will.

"That's the fourth post without comment!". I have no desire to comment. I've made my point, now I'm out of here. You won't here response from me on this thread again.

 

Ahh, just spamming the thread. Not a cunning idea, but each to their own!

 

I don't.

To demonstrate the invariable falsehood, absurdity and dishonesty of the opposing side's claims.

The prosecuting atttorney does not present his case in hopes the defense attorney will accept it.

 

A wealth tax is unfair and counter-productive as it taxes future wealth and the ability of the person to pay the tax is not considered. Imagine a person with a house and a car but minimal income. Their wealth might be signficantly above their ability to pay.

Imagine a retired person living off of their life savings, they could easily have significant wealth but that wealth must keep them fed for the remaining years (decades) of their lives. Over time even a 1% wealth tax will put them in poverty.

Or imagine a business that has a large inventory and capital equipment (like an automobile plant), the business may have a great deal of wealth but a poor cash flow and pay no taxes. It may not have the ability to pay the the wealth tax.

A wealth tax repeatedly taxes the same item, year after year, and is a big disincentive to capital investment, reinvestment of corporate income, and even individual savings. A person pays income tax, then pays an annual "fee" on that same money until the money is taxed away.

A wealth tax also taxes future wealth. As your house appreciates, your wealth on paper increases and you pay the tax on that wealth, but you have not received the benefit of that purely theoretical wealth. And what happens if the value of your home drops (as in the recent housing bubble) - do you receive a refund on the now nonexistent wealth you paid tax on?

 

But not remotely as unfair and counter-productive as income tax, sales tax, VAT, and almost every oher tax in common use.

That is false. Wealth IS ability to pay.

No, their wealth is exactly equal to their ability to pay.

No, that is just false, stupid, and dishonest garbage from you, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the fact that many retired people manage to live just fine WITHOUT a hoard of wealth.

ROTFL!!

Yeah, like... in 1000 years.

Do some grade school arithmetic, or continue to talk nonsense permanently. A 1% wealth tax would take MORE THAN 70 YEARS to reduce a $1M fortune by HALF. How long do you think it would take to reduce that fortune to zero? Think hard, and you might get the beginning of a clue.

Actually, work in progress and production equipment in use almost always have very little market value.

By definition, it does. And if the company is so inefficient that the wealth tax puts it out of business, it just means someone more productive will get the opportunity to use those resources. That is a BENEFIT of free markets.

Because purely by virtue of owning it, its owner is getting benefits from government and the community year after year. So your point would be....? Are you saying that the wealth owner should get those benefits at the expense of people who are actually poorer than him? Run that one by me again.

No, that is the exact, diametric opposite of the truth. The wealth tax gives wealth owners a stark choice: place your wealth in the service of profitable production, or slowly lose it to the tax.

No, the point of a wealth tax is to do away with income tax, sales tax, VAT, and all the other taxes that are far worse for the economy and society than a wealth tax.

Self-evidently false.

Yes, of course you have. It is the land that is appreciating, not the building, and it is appreciating because the welfare subsidy that the community gives to its owner is increasing.

No because the wealth existed when you paid tax on it. Now that it doesn't, you don't pay tax on it.

Just what part of that are you having trouble understanding?

 

This continues to be nonsense. An OAP does not have a higher ability to pay because of their home ownership, unless of course you're demanding that they sell their abode.

 

No, it continues to be self-evidently and indisputably true by definition.

Of course they do, as you already agreed, remember? "Imputed rent"?

Giant non sequitur. It is self-evident and indisputable that cet. par., the OAP who owns a home has greater ability to pay than the one who doesn't. You just demand that the OAPs who don't own homes be robbed to subsidize the ones who do. That is entirely normal, routine, and expected. All apologists for the greed, privilege, and parasitism of the super-duper uber-rich issue the same demand. It is their only purpose in existing.

 

A measure merely attempting to control for elements of well-being effects (only of any significant impact for the working aged, given OAP rents are typically heavily subsidised).

Please be honest and direct. Do you demand that these OAPs sell their homes? Its a yes or no question so you really shouldn't have so much difficulty with it

 

You don't seem to understand what "wealth" is. It is not just cash, it is the value of all your possessions - cash, car, home, business, jewelry, computer, software. Wealth does not have to be liquid and immediately accessible.

A property tax on a house is a wealth tax based on the value of the house. If the tax exceeds the ability of the homeowner to pay, then the homeowner either sells the house or loses the house. This happens frequently.

The appreciation in a house is only useful if you sell the house and receive the appreciation. If you do not sell the house, you do not receive any benefit from the appreciation but you pay tax on the appreciation. If the value of the house drops (housing bubble), you lose the appreciation without receiving any benefit from it, yet still paid tax on the now evaporated appreciation - you paid tax for nothing.

 

Wrong. It is an attempt to make real estate value commensurable with income.

Wrong again. It is significant for all property owners who are not already actually renting to others.

There are many people on this forum of whom it would be appropriate to make such a request. I am not one of them.

Of course not. I have explicitly identified numerous convenient alternatives if they find a tax on their homes onerous.

What could have led you to the erroneous conclusion that I had any difficulty with it?

 

No, I understand it far better than you, believe me.

That is "assets." "Wealth" is generally considered to mean assets less liabilities.

Correct. That was Reiver's error, not mine.

No, a "wealth tax" is generally considered to mean a tax on all wealth less liabilities, not just property taxes. A property tax ignores mortgage debt. A wealth tax would not.

But the tax cannot exceed the owner's ability to pay, because the house's value itself confers ability to pay. What you mean is that if the tax exceeds the ability of the owner to pay while continuing to consume the benefit stream associated with exclusive use of the house, then the homeowner either sells the house or loses the house.

Of course. People who are not stupid, greed-besotted sacks of $#!+ shrieking that everyone else must give them something for nothing are willing to listen when the market tells them they are occupying accommodation beyond their needs and means.

No, that is false. The house could not possibly appreciate if its usefulness were not increasing. What would make others willing to pay more for it?

That is also false. The appreciation is the MEASURE of the benefit you have ALREADY RECEIVED, as it made others willing to pay that much more for the house.

False. You ALREADY RECEIVED the benefits that made the house appreciate -- i.e., that made people wiling to pay more for it -- in the first place. If you chose not to take advantage of those benefits, you nevertheless took them and deprived everyone else of them.

Garbage, as already proved. You justly paid tax on whatever publicly provided advantages made people willing to pay more for the house.

 

You miss the point completely. A house can appreciate through no effort on the owners part, or through no improvement to the house or neighborhood or community, and in those cases the usefulness of the house does not change whether the house value increases or decreases (the recent housing bubble is a perfect example). The house is not more pleasant to live in, it is not more energy efficient, the physical house does not change at all. The owner receives NO benefit from the appreciation unless he sells the house.

That is a totally boneheaded statement.

 

That doesn't happen.

That is certainly true. In fact, it is the norm, because it is the land that appreciates, and the owner does nothing to earn that gain. Buildings DEpreciate.

That is NOT true. It is improvement to the community that creates almost all house appreciation.

It is true that even in the absence of any change, the market value of a house can rise and fall. In such cases, it is not the usefulness of the house that changes, but the market value of that usefulness. And that is what is being taxed. You just want to claim that the market is wrong about its value and you are right. But we can't second-guess the market. Market value is what it is. If the market says the usefulness of the house is worth $1M one day, and $500K the next, THAT'S WHAT IT'S WORTH, and THAT'S WHAT IS BEING TAXED.

He receives EXACTLY THE MARKET VALUE of the benefits, and THAT VALUE IS HIGHER. You just think you know better than the market. But you don't.

It is the literal truth.

 

Yes let's steal wealth from the successful and reward the lazy. There is no point spending trillions of dollars trying to help people out of poverty if you are going to turn around and tax them back into it. It is conceptually self-defeating and inconsistent with our public efforts for the last 50 years. If you want people to share in the wealth, they must have wealth. Converting wealth into currency and giving it to people to blow at Walmart on Chinese-made toys destroys national wealth, not shares it.

 

Your reply lacks honesty. The idea, for example, that a vulnerable OAP can simply rent a room out to a stranger is not credible. And let's not forget that you've attached home owners in your "evil" rant. Clearly your stance will necessarily coerce OAPs into selling their house. I find that repugnant

 

??? This, from YOU??!?!???

ROTFL!!!

The fact that it happens quite routinely proves that you are wrong and I am right. And speaking of replies that lack honesty, you are of course perfectly well aware it doesn't have to be a stranger. It can be a friend or relative who doesn't stupidly insist on defying the market, and so doesn't mind moving to accommodation better suited to their needs and means. And (still speaking of replies that lack honesty), why are you pretending that there are not all the other alternatives I identified, and more?

Just as I would "attack" slave owners because slavery is evil and they participate in and profit by that evil. That doesn't mean they are necessarily evil as individuals. Jefferson owned slaves, yet was one of the greatest champions of liberty and justice in history. Similarly, plenty of perfectly nice people currently own land (mostly in financial self-defense).

Still speaking of replies that lack honesty, market price signals are not coercion and you know it, no matter how many times you chant that they are. Do you also dishonestly claim that e.g., a car insurance mandate that makes it too expensive for an OAP to drive "coerces" them into selling their cars? Such claims are self-evidently absurd, dishonest, and made only to serve an agenda of evil.

I am aware that you find liberty, justice, and equal human rights to access opportunity repugnant. OTOH, I find injustice, robbery and enslavement repugnant. But there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. You just prefer evil to good, while I prefer good over evil. Simple.

 

First, it doesn't (and its often a bad idea to allow a stranger into a vulnerable person's household). Second, this isn't about choice. You want to force old age pensioners to become landlords, all because of your ideological bent which forces you to hate folk. Despicable!

 

Yes, it most certainly does. Check out craigslist for "cheap room in exchange for light housekeeping."

No, it's only a bad idea to do it without checking their references.

Yes, it is: your choice to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written because you have been refuted, and you have no answers.

Silliness. That's just one choice. I couldn't care less if they do that or opt for any of the other alternatives I suggested, or do something else entirely.

Despicable!

 

Not one comment worth replying to! Of course, given your argument is effectively 'make old age pensioners pay more tax' you're on a sticky wicket in the sense stakes!

 

If simple poverty were solved in the US, I believe I would have no basis to care how much the wealthiest make in our republic.

 

I.e., not one reply worth making.

Of course, that is a fabrication on your part.

 

You do realise that is what you've been demanding? I have to ask as you don't seem very sure of yourself.

Let's summarise it. You've said that old age pensioners can get in renters in order to pay the taxes that you demand they pay because they are mortgage-free owner occupiers. Didn't you realise?

 

I realize it is something that you made up.

I am very sure of myself -- and of you.

You will now make something up:

Which is certainly indisputable. Around here, such arrangements are called, "mortgage helpers," but they could just as easily be tax helpers.

I have not suggested, let alone demanded, that old age pensioners or anyone else pay taxes because they are mortgage free. That is an outright fabrication on your part. I've simply identified the fact of objective physical reality that someone who owns their residence mortgage-free is more able to pay a tax than someone in exactly the same situation who isn't mortgage-free, who is in turn more able to pay a tax than someone who is in exactly the same situation but renting.

Now, rather than just makin' more $#!+ up about what I have plainly written, why don't you explain which of those facts you dispute, and why?

I realize that you have to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written in order to have anything to say at all.

 

Your inconsistency is tiresome. You've been rambling on about how OAPs can rent out rooms. Are you now stating that they won't have higher taxes because of home ownership? (You're either being deliberately unclear or you haven't a clue what you mean)

 

Yet somehow, you cannot provide direct, verbatim, in-context quotes to support your claims of my inconsistency...

No, you have been rambling on about how they can't. And you have now tried to change the subject. Again.

No -- and notice how you have now changed the subject from "mortgage-free" to "home ownership."

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

I am being very clear. You just have to pretend I have said something other than what I plainly did say. This might help you out: I have not advocated wealth taxation, merely pointed out that it would be a much better implementation of the principle of ability to pay -- i.e., progressivity in the relevant sense -- than income tax.