Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

Taxing wealth does not mean taxing only the wealthy. It just means taxing the wealthier proportionally more than the less wealthy. Even if there was a modest universal individual exemption analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption, the vast majority of all the wealth would still be taxed, while ordinary people would pay little or no tax.

Sure it would, because the government wouldn't need to spend so much money trying to undo all the harm caused by taxing production and exchange instead of privilege.

Flat false. The rents of privilege account for nearly half of GDP. A just government would easily run on less than half that.

 

It was indeed:

I.e., it proved me right and you wrong, and no one has even attempted to take issue with its proof that I am right and you are wrong.

You are so done.

Anyone can read it for themselves and see that you are makin' $#!+ up again.

LOL! Speaking of drivel, your absurd drivel just keeps piling up! OAPs haven't owned homes the longest. They're just old enough have finally escaped the treadmill and scrambled onto the escalator by buying one. It's the hereditary rich -- you know, the greedy, privileged parasites you serve -- who have owned homes the longest.

You are so done.

 

Its really quite simple. You sell your property then move the money abroad and then you buy abroad. I am no parasite. I provide homes for people to live in and they pay me rent on which I pay tax. Nor am I greedy. I earn the average London wage.

 

Money is only one form of wealth; what if the other country taxes you for moving money instead of moving land?

 

It proved one thing: you can only refer to a pretty much ignored minor article (which doesn’t even manage to support your argument on here). Is this part of the academic conspiracy against you?

There is no question that you made a ludicrous claim: "Every scientifically credible analysis shows that length of homeownership is the single best predictor of household social and economic welfare". You didn’t even manage to blag a credible source in support of your claim. All you’ve found is that those with lower income tend to have lower home ownership rates. Given the magnitude of your original claim, that really is low brow. Now we know that income and home ownership has a complex relationship, particularly as countries with high poverty risk will tend to have higher home ownership rates. For example, Elsinga and Hoekstra (2005, Homeownership and housing satisfaction, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20:401–424) make the following obvious point:

“People with lower incomes will frequently buy property in the less desirable neighbourhoods, whereby the benefits are fewer and less marked. Moreover, they are frequently unable to undertake proper maintenance and are unable to move elsewhere. There is a risk that these homeowners will be ‘trapped’ in a poorly maintained house in a run-down neighbourhood. In that case, there are therefore no individual or social advantages, but rather individual and social disadvantages.”

Golly gosh, not quite consistent with your position is it now?

I know you want to rant about the ‘evil minority’. And, golly, you can’t half go on and on about them. However, we’re dealing with the reality of your hatred of owner occupation here. It’s just obvious that OAPs, compared to everyone else, have on average owned their homes the longest. Why? They’re old, obviously! You want to punish them for owning their house. That continues to be repugnant.

 

Your are describing a progressive tax which is what we have now. The tax rate averages approx. 11 to 12 % overall with the top 1% paying 23% and the bottom 50% paying 2.37%. How much more do you want to tax the 'rich?'

Privilege? Please explain.

'Rents of privilege?' What exactly does that mean? We are taxing about 24% of of the incomes of the top 34% in this country. That leaves 66% being taxed from 0% to about 11%.

Currently we are taking approx. 1/3 to 1/2 of the incomes of the so-called 'wealthy' and our economy sucks big time. I don't see how taxing the 1% even more is going to help anything.

 

We could solve all kinds of problems by just expecting multi national corporations to pay their taxes. None of whom pay anywhere near the supposed corporate tax rate of 35%. In fact many of the wealthiest corporations actually get tax refunds.....courtesy of the middle class.

 

With appropriate figures and methods please explain what problems could be solved.

 

LOL!! Thus paying the wealth tax in advance, in perpetuity, through normal discounting to after-tax return. Brilliant!

Of course you are. The landowner qua landowner is always a pure parasite by definition.

You don't provide the land, and you probably charge more rent for that than for the homes sitting on it.

They also pay tax -- to fund the exact same services and infrastructure you are charging them rent for.

While doing nothing...

 

Try learning the difference between income and wealth -- unless you have been reading too many of Reiver's silly fabrications, and have consequently lost the capacity to do so.

Legal entitlements to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights, such as land titles, spectrum allocations, private banksters' debt money issuance, and IP monopolies.

The payment exacted by the privilege owner for access to opportunities that would otherwise be accessible for free.

That makes no sense, and you are still talking about income, not wealth. Until you start talking about WEALTH, you cannot say anything relevant.

The "so-called" wealthy. Right. They are not the ACTUAL wealthy, because their wealth is being measured by income not wealth.

Depends what you tax the 1% OF.

 

It proved me right and you wrong.

Because it is not consistent with reality. "No" advantages??? Such claims are not only false, they are absurd and deliberately dishonest.

I.e., the reality that all you can do is make $#!+ up and attribute it to me, hiding behind the forum's prohibition on identifying deliberate fabrications for what they are.

False. They have merely had the longest to save up for one.

So are OAPs who don't own homes, which demolishes your "argument."

You continue to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. That continues to be repugnant.

 

Income typically creates wealth for those who do not live to extravagance and invest over the long run. Is that what you propose targeting?

You mean like abrogating part of everyone's right to their income to bequeath to the fanny-sitters in this country to pay for votes?

You mean like having to pay-off the EPA in order to build almost anything in this country?

But, as I said, income produces wealth.

I have no idea what you mean.

 

Why do you think its published in a minor journal and that it has received very little attention in academia (as shown by the low number of citations). Is this an academic conspiracy?

You made a bogus claim. First, you cannot support it with anything credible. Going for an article that just says blacks have lower home ownership because of lower income was cretinous. Second, when actually referring to the well-being literature, we prove you quote wrong. Elsinga and Hoekstra (2005, Homeownership and housing satisfaction, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20:401&#8211;424) demonstrate the stupidity of assuming that home ownership translates into higher well-being. Housing quality issues can mean the home owner is actually less capable of paying the taxes that you want to force on them

This is another example of how you just haven't thought things through. You stated "OAPs haven't owned homes the longest". On average they have. Are you struggling with the concept of simple maths? Of course you are typically trying to hide from the reality of your argument: harming OAPs.

 

No. You just don't know any economics. If you try to avoid the wealth tax by selling your assets, you MUST pay the wealth tax in advance, because whoever buys the asset knows they will have to pay the wealth tax on it instead of you, and will consequently only be willing to pay for the AFTER-TAX income stream from the asset. This asset price discounting means that when you sell the asset, you get less money for it, and the difference is equal to all the future wealth tax on it. You therefore effectively pay all the wealth tax in advance by selling the asset.

Now do you understand why I say you are making a fool of yourself by your ignorance and thoughtlessness?

Yep. The landowner qua landowner is always a pure parasite by definition, because he takes but does not contribute.

You charge tenants for both, but you don't provide the land. All the location rent you get is simply taken from society in return for zero (0) contribution on your part.

Suppose there is a fellow named bAss who rents out his slaves to his neighbors instead of making them work on his own plantation. Along with the slaves, he rents out the tools they use in the fields. Just as the housing you provide is completely useless without the land it sits on, which you also charge your tenants for but do not provide, the tools would be completely useless without the slaves to wield them.

Now I come along and say to bAss, "Sir, you are a parasite. You are charging your neighbor rent for your slaves' labor, but it is the slaves who are doing the work, not you. You are just pocketing the value that their labor creates, and not justly compensating them for it."

He replies, with great self-righteousness, "I don't rent slaves. I rent tools."

Can you offer some reason why I would not be correct to call him a vicious, evil, *******med f*kking LIAR?

Right. You don't provide them. But you are privileged to charge your tenants full market value for access to them, even though others' taxes are providing them. The fact that the landowner effectively gets to pocket other people's taxes in this way is exactly why land costs so much.

As bAss says, "I provide the tools." Please explain how his provision of the tools could alter the fact that he is also charging his neighbor for his slaves' labor, which he does NOT provide.

 

It's pretty long for the more popular journals, and it's not cited because almost no one is working in the area.

Prove it.

I already did.

That's not all it says. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual.

No, you only claim to.

Only if you define ability to pay by income rather than wealth.

Nope. On average, the rich have.

Another bald fabrication, as you know. Despicable.

 

I see. So, by the same brain-dead "logic" would you also claim that height is the same thing as age, for those who are under 15?

I only propose targeting privilege. My corrections of the misinformation on wealth taxation posted by Reiver and others is simply to correct their erroneous claims.

That too, but unlike more normal forms of privilege, that one has no exchange value as it cannot be sold.

No, that's quite a different issue.

Just as age produces height -- except when it doesn't.

You are talking about the top 1% in income. But this thread is about wealth taxation, so you should be talking about the top 1% in wealth.

Of course, I realize you have served notice that you do not intend to know the difference between them.

 

That makes no sense and your tone is combative.

Privilege? OK I think anyone who is liberal has an unfair 'privilege' and should be assessed at least 80% more tax due to the costs they accrue the country with their false forced altruism that is really a money mill to advance liberal, socialist ideology.

On the contrary it has unlimited exchange value.

Legitimized fraud? Ok then....But of course it has no value...right?

But most times it does....

Ok then, I guess there IS a difference. Come to think of it, you're right. An individual's income stream is subject to division into certain random categories depending on how much $$$$ you would like to STEAL from them. Legitimately......of course....Oh yes....QUITE uh.....legitimately.

 

It makes just as much sense as your claim that income is a proxy for wealth -- and you think that was combative...?

Silly garbage in place of response noted.

That claim has unlimited silliness.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is something you erroneously imagine you think you might be talking about.
.
.
.
.
Nope.

Nope. That is very much the point. Income can only become wealth if it is not taxed, spent, or stolen by rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

I oppose income tax. But then, you would never let anything like facts get in the way of your deceitful nonsense, would you?

 

Your first comment made no sense and your second doesn't help either. Tax analysis is extremely popular!

You're clearly making up bobbins. Why pretend otherwise?

Like the paper that said poor people are less likely to be able to buy homes? Your argument is knuckle dragging.

In terms of your argument you are indeed going for an article that just says blacks have lower home ownership because of lower income. Well done, better quality than usual! .

A nonsense reply! This is about a reduction in well-being created through the demand for home ownership. Its also an article that shows the stupidity in your original "let's attack home owners because of ideological splurge" argument

OAP poverty is quite high. Many of those are home owners. Doesn't support your dogma? Welcome to economic reality!

You accuse folk of lying when you can't be honest. OAPs are obviously more likely to own their homes. You demand that they pay more tax. Try to be honest, for a change!

 

If you calculate a person's wealth as total assets minus liabilities(debt), to perform this calculation on every individual would be a monumental and very costly task. Many people, including the wealthy, will have more debt than assets therefore won't be paying any of your tax. Another issue is a person can accumulate great wealth without having cash to pay taxes on this wealth...this is very common.

I think every American over the age of 18 should pay some amount of federal income tax...

 

But far easier than doing the same for income. Real estate is already valued for property tax purposes, debt instruments have a value defined by discounting, and stocks trade in a liquid market. That leaves personal effects (which needn't be taxed) and privately held companies, which can be valued by qualified appraisers.

Every debt is someone else's asset. The difficulty arises when the debt is offshore, and thus can't be taxed as wealth in the creditor's hands. There are ways around this problem, though, such as allowing only domestic debts to count against assets.

By definition, they can sell some of their great wealth for cash, and thus pay the tax.

Such views are just baldly evil. Why should people be taxed on what they contribute to the community by their productive efforts, rather than on what they take from the community in privilege value?

 

The idea that you can replace tax system with a single 'wealth' tax is indeed unrealistic! Typically the wealth taxer would have to find easier means to proxy for wealth, such as using house prices to calculate for home ownership 'wealth'. However, that certainly leads to problems: from distortions created through housing bubbles (e.g. here some of the highest poverty levels also have above average house prices; with a wealth tax actually likely to encourage an apartheid between rich and poor as the poor are forced to move out of their neighbourhoods) and the active assault on groups such as old age pensioners. Any one pushing these tax solutions are dogmatic and simply ignore the damage that will be created.

 

A wealth tax would be absolutely impossible to perform in any fair or rational way. What would be valued, how would it be valued? Many things which contribute to ones wealth have no way of being valued as their value may depend entirely on placing them on sale to see what another would be willing to pay at that particular moment in time.
Considering how our government continues to spend with total disregard of the means provided by our tax system, it might bring the voters face to face with reality if they were to be billed for their fair share of the cost of running the government each year. Currently a single person would receive a bill for about $12,000, a couple $24,000, and an additional $12,000 for each dependent. Maybe then people would begin to demand government exercise some budgetary restraints.

 

Isn't this issue already covered by estate taxes?