Replacing all Taxes with Wealth tax

[Core Imposter]

Progressive taxes are more pro-rich than they are anti-rich.

You seem to rebut everything by rote, in general, and specifically logic, which you relentlessly rebuke at its every appearance. Progressive taxation is neither pro or anti rich, nor intended to be except in the fevered, frustrated mind of the bitter.

 

[Souron]

So, in other words, as long as I rent and spend all the money I earn every year, I won't have to pay taxes?

Let's all be grasshoppers and laugh at the ants!

This. The primary means of taxation should not discourage saving and investment.

Also, I disagree that there should be only one kind of tax. Taxes do more than just raise revenue. They encourage certain behavior, including behavior that has an effect on the economy at large. Taxes on pollution and natural resources ensure that society is compensated by the consumption or damage of resources. Some taxes effect foreign relations. These powers should be available and used by the government.

 

[Cutlass]

You seem to rebut everything by rote, in general, and specifically logic, which you relentlessly rebuke at its every appearance. Progressive taxation is neither pro or anti rich, nor intended to be except in the fevered, frustrated mind of the bitter.

Is there a language that you are speaking?


Actually, progressive taxation is extremely positive for wealth creation. It helps create more customers which causes greater business investment. It's pure win-win. Regressive taxation, on the other hand, destroys customers, and so discourages business investment. It's pure lose-lose. But conservatives love it despite the fact that the nation loses because the the rich lose less than everyone else does.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This. The primary means of taxation should not discourage saving and investment.

Also, I disagree that there should be only one kind of tax. Taxes do more than just raise revenue. They encourage certain behavior, including behavior that has an effect on the economy at large. Taxes on pollution and natural resources ensure that society is compensated by the consumption or damage of resources. Some taxes effect foreign relations. These powers should be available and used by the government.

That's basically another way of saying "Make it illegal and charge a fine for it." There's no real difference.

Is there a language that you are speaking?


Actually, progressive taxation is extremely positive for wealth creation. It helps create more customers which causes greater business investment. It's pure win-win. Regressive taxation, on the other hand, destroys customers, and so discourages business investment. It's pure lose-lose. But conservatives love it despite the fact that the nation loses because the the rich lose less than everyone else does.

I think the debate is, more or less, between a flat tax VS a progressive tax. Regressive doesn't even enter into it usually.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the debate is, more or less, between a flat tax VS a progressive tax. Regressive doesn't even enter into it usually.

Most "flat tax" proposals are disguised regressive taxes.

 

[Archbob]

Could you please break that down for me? I see that bs classism claim all the time and I would like to see some hard numbers to back it up. Any random city will do, please. I'd like to see the cost breakdown of every single call leading to every single response and every single unsolicited police action. Really. You made the claim, so back it up. Because honestly, I bet the vast majority of costs for police responses are because of domestic violence, break-ins, and so forth in poorer areas.

People don't break into them because there's law enforcement and police there. If these did not exist, large banks and other buildings where there is significant wealth or resources would be the first ones to be broken into. Also people with holdings overseas and especially companies with business interests overseas depend on the army to uphold their business interests.


Cutlass, overall our tax system even if you include sales and such is weakly progressive, all the numbers back that assertion. You can't claim our overall tax system is regressive, because it isn't.

As for people arguing that high taxes are bad, thats not true. We had the largest growth in economy in the post-war era where the top rate was 95%. Now, during that era, we probably would have grown regardless of what the tax rate was because everyone else was bombed to bits, but us gradually lowering the tax rate did not lead to greater prosperity.

 

[El_Machinae]

The main problem is asset valuation. It's nearly impossible to fairly value static assets unless they're actually sold by willing buyers and sellers. At that point, of course, income or sales taxes can kick in. The other problem is to ask what people do if they have a large asset that cannot be partially sold off. Sure, selling 2% of my current stocks seems reasonable. How do I sell 2% of my Mona Lisa? We already run into this issue with property taxes, where inherited properties rise in value well beyond the ability to pay the taxes on them, and then property holders are forced to sell.

 

[Archbob]

Also capital gains tax being different from income tax makes no sense at all. Capital gains should be just taxed as income and not be able to be deferred indefinately.

 

[Core Imposter]

And inheritance taxes which force sales of large assets as well.

 

[Core Imposter]

Also capital gains tax being different from income tax makes no sense at all. Capital gains should be just taxed as income and not be able to be deferred indefinately.

Thats just silly. I would buy gold and pay a capital gain if the price goes up. But would I get a refund if the price goes down? You have to wait until there is a gain before you tax it.

You don't pay income tax before you have received income.

 

[Archbob]

Thats just silly. I would buy gold and pay a capital gain if the price goes up. But would I get a refund if the price goes down? You have to wait until there is a gain before you tax it.

You don't pay income tax before you have received income.

You would just tally up gains and losses and report at the end of each year. If you made gains, it should be added on to your income, if you had losses, its deducted from your income. Its really not that complicated.

 

[Mark1031]

I have proposed this before and of course think it a great idea. It is also extremely easy to justify on fairness grounds even though it is highly progressive. There is always a lot of hand wringing about how can you value assets accurately. It is done all the time for insurance. You can click on Yahoo finance and find the second by second value of your portfolio. It is just a property tax and easily determined.

 

[Archbob]

Well, like people have said, you have issues with retirement funds and people stashing things overseas, but those would be the main problems.

 

[Mark1031]

Well, like people have said, you have issues with retirement funds and people stashing things overseas, but those would be the main problems.

You can easily make it protect some level of assets just like in current IRAs and 401Ks. I'd also be willing to pair it with some sort of flat tax on everyone (well sales tax and FICA is this already and you could keep those IMO) so everyone has skin in the game as the conservatives like to say.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

This. The primary means of taxation should not discourage saving and investment.

Also, I disagree that there should be only one kind of tax. Taxes do more than just raise revenue. They encourage certain behavior, including behavior that has an effect on the economy at large. Taxes on pollution and natural resources ensure that society is compensated by the consumption or damage of resources. Some taxes effect foreign relations. These powers should be available and used by the government.

That's what I say. Don't touch my hard earn savings. This isn't a utopia.

 

[Archbob]

That's what I say. Don't touch my hard earn savings. This isn't a utopia.

The only issue with this is that it encourages people to hoard massive amounts of money and thats how you get the top 1% owning 45% of all the wealth in the country.

 

[Souron]

But the problem isn't the top 1% owning 45% of all the wealth. That's just a symptom. The problem is a lack of economic mobility and an unbalanced tax burden.

Investment is a good thing. Saving is often a good thing too.

 

[BvBPL]

You are simply spouting pro-Marxist, anti-American thought. Get a job, and if that doesn't suit you, get a better one, and stop your sin.

Suggesting a hypothetical to determine how people would react to a given situation in no way grants support to that hypothetical or the policy behind it. It is simply a means of taking the measure of the feelings of a community; it is a learning tool and a long accepted one at that. Suggesting that people necessarily accept and support the hypotheticals the posit is an absurdly anti-intellectual stance. In a community that values the mind and the free flow of information, such a stance is equally anti-social and unwanted.

Shame, MisterCooper. Shame, shame, shame.

 

[Souron]

That's basically another way of saying "Make it illegal and charge a fine for it." There's no real difference.

No, a tax can be a more minor disincentive. For instance, a tax on emissions encourages reducing emissions, but does not outlaw pollution.

 

[GoodGame]

That'd just encourage spending, which might or might not be a good thing.
I think it'd also encourage people to put money into personal businesses, which might be legit or not.

The other problem is with appraisals, and the appraisal process. Will you have a one size fits all rating for used cars? What if they buy $50 of chrome plastic for their used hoofty mobile?