[late]

The issue is whether others should force a citizen to cough up money so they can use it for themselves.

We crossed that bridge in the 1800s, and nobody sane wants to go back to the way things were in the 1800s.

The issue is do you want civilisation, since you don't, try Somalia.

[Julian658]

We crossed that bridge in the 1800s, and nobody sane wants to go back to the way things were in the 1800s.

The issue is do you want civilisation, since you don't, try Somalia.

I have no issues with paying taxes for the privilege on living in the USA (or any other similar nation). Obviously the government needs funds to function. I will never qualify for any free cash and that is fine too. I thank God (or the force) for that.

The issue is that the people that actually support the government with taxes are seen as the bad guys and the people that use resources form the government as the good guys. I find that quite odd.

In a post above MT said:

I see nothing wrong with income redistribution. The wealthy would just love to hold 80% of the money for themselves. This is wrong. Others who have less should have the chance to get more money. Notice that I did not say that anyone is "entitled" to the money. I said "chance". I do not approve of people hoarding up as much as possible and weaker ones or disadvantaged have very little.

That is pretty scary stuff. If the great majority of the population that thinks that way takes over the government we are in trouble. Then what?

Ayn Rand says:

The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?

it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others—it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch—
Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a strange lady, but I bet a case of Coca Cola you cannot refute her statements without using Ad Hominem.

[late]

Ayn Rand was a strange lady,

but I bet a case of Coca Cola you cannot refute her statements without using Ad Hominem.

That's an understatement.

I already did. It's not how the developed world works, or could work.

[Julian658]

That's an understatement.

I already did. It's not how the developed world works, or could work.

OK

I said I believe in paying taxes to support the government.
I ask you:

Who are the bad guys?

The tax payers?
Or the people that live off the tax payers?

This is important. Nowadays the tax payers are considered persona non-grata. And the wealthy are evil. This type of thinking is not healthy.

[late]

Who are the bad guys?

Watch the video, or read his book, Price of Inequality. You have the world's best economists literally at your fingertips, and you're still using an antique kook.

[Pants-of-dog]

How do you tax wealth?

You calculate the monetary value of someone's assets, and then send them a bill for a given percentage of said amount.

This is easily doable. Except for the fact that this will be stopped by those wealthy enough to influence politics.

[Julian658]

You calculate the monetary value of someone's assets, and then send them a bill for a given percentage of said amount.

This is easily doable. Except for the fact that this will be stopped by those wealthy enough to influence politics.

Easier said than done when YOU are the one talking away the money of another person.

The people that almost always want socialism are the ones on the receiving end of the cash.

[B0ycey]

The people that almost always want socialism are the ones on the receiving end of the cash.

Really. So why do you think that is?

They are also the guys making the wealth. Unless you think sitting and ivory towers generates wealth.

[Pants-of-dog]

While this tax could generate 80 billion dollars, the billionaires could easily spend a few million in Washington to make this never happen.

I wonder how much Warren will receive.

[Unthinking Majority]

You calculate the monetary value of someone's assets, and then send them a bill for a given percentage of said amount.

This is easily doable. Except for the fact that this will be stopped by those wealthy enough to influence politics.

How do you know the value of the valuables inside my home, and why would I let anyone on my property to assess this? Why would I have to tell anyone my assets? Imagine evaluating the assets of 300+ million Americans.

Income is far easier to assess because everyone pays income tax.

[Julian658]

While this tax could generate 80 billion dollars, the billionaires could easily spend a few million in Washington to make this never happen.

I wonder how much Warren will receive.

I agree with POD!

[Pants-of-dog]

How do you know the value of the valuables inside my home, and why would I let anyone on my property to assess this?

Are you a billionaire who regularly purchases expensive things that are then insured? Because if not, then your situation is not comparable.

Why would I have to tell anyone my assets?

So that the government can calculate the tax on wealth.

Imagine evaluating the assets of 300+ million Americans.

Insurance companies do this every day.

Income is far easier to assess because everyone pays income tax.

So?

[Julian658]

How do you know the value of the valuables inside my home, and why would I let anyone on my property to assess this? Why would I have to tell anyone my assets? Imagine evaluating the assets of 300+ million Americans.

Income is far easier to assess because everyone pays income tax.

POD is a socialist and hence he also believes in an authoritarian government. You have no chance with the socialists.

You obtained your assets because of privilege. The assets you have were stolen from the poor.

That was my best POD impersonation

[wat0n]

Appraising homes is hard even for insurers (who have every incentive to bias the appraisal downwards).

Another issue is that these wealth taxes failed in pretty much all European countries where they were attempted. So it's reasonable to wonder just how much would the US collect from it.

$80 billion may sound like a lot, but it's not. It's less than 0.5% of GDP.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think any reasonable person actually thinks this will happen.

Since it would be relatively easy and inexpensive for the billionaire class to successfully lobby against this, and since we can assume that Warren knows this, the logical conclusion is that this is some sort of publicity stunt instead of a real proposition.

[Rugoz]

Another issue is that these wealth taxes failed in pretty much all European countries where they were attempted. So it's reasonable to wonder just how much would the US collect from it.

A wealth tax has existed here in Switzerland for ages and nobody wants to abolish it or considers it failed (the top tax rate is only about 1% though). If you ask me it has a lot to do with ideology and what's currently "on vogue". I don't see why a wealth tax should be theoretically inferior to a capital income tax, after all the two are equivalent for equal returns. They only differ with heterogenous returns and in that case a good argument can be made for the wealth tax being more efficient.

[wat0n]

A wealth tax has existed here in Switzerland for ages and nobody wants to abolish it or considers it failed (the top tax rate is only about 1% though). If you ask me it has a lot to do with ideology and what's currently "on vogue". I don't see why a wealth tax should be theoretically inferior to a capital income tax, after all the two are equivalent for equal returns. They only differ with heterogenous returns and in that case a good argument can be made for the wealth tax being more efficient.

Both can be pretty bad, but leaving efficiency aside it doesn't seem a wealth tax would generate enough revenue anyway.

I'm also thinking about the failures like France. There the tax was an abject failure as the wealthy just moved elsewhere and switched citizenship.

[B0ycey]

It doesn't matter how you tax as long as the method is proportional. Arguing which method is best is missing the point anyway. Tax needs to pay for services and the better the services, the more tax you will pay. You get more out by taxing the rich so they should pay the most. As long as we agree on that, surely that is all that matters.

[Julian658]

I do not think any reasonable person actually thinks this will happen.

Since it would be relatively easy and inexpensive for the billionaire class to successfully lobby against this, and since we can assume that Warren knows this, the logical conclusion is that this is some sort of publicity stunt instead of a real proposition.

AKA virtue signaling which is a sign of narcissism. I give you credit POD; I don't think you are virtue signaling. You seem to be committed to what you say.

[Julian658]

It doesn't matter how you tax as long as the method is proportional. Arguing which method is best is missing the point anyway. Tax needs to pay for services and the better the services, the more tax you will pay. You get more out by taxing the rich so they should pay the most. As long as we agree on that, surely that is all that matters.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent).

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-th ... %20percent).