Politics Wealth Tax

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

So why aren't you rich? Did you turn down your opportunities to be rich? Did you just not want to be rich?

You just told us that everyone has exactly the same opportunities to be rich.
I can see a valid arguement to everyone pays, “x” percent of their income in taxes. What I think most people (at least myself)are frustrated with is all the loopholes and means for the ultra wealthy to get out of paying their fair share.
 
I agree. I also don't think they should be penalized.

I think that it's fair for them to pay back into a society that helped enrich them. Not only is it fair, it also helps seed a prosperous society that can create the kinds of opportunities that give birth to more successful people, "rich" or not.

I agree. I'm also a proponent of the Fair Tax movement.
 
It's not being penalized. You give back to society. It is a privilege to pay taxes. That usually means you are doing well.

Should someone born with a permanent disability "pull themselves up by the bootstraps?" Do they have the same opportunities as everyone else?

No they don't. Let's all agree, then, to give them a home in Carmel and complete compensation for life needs.
 
I can see a valid arguement to everyone pays, “x” percent of their income in taxes.

I agree. I'm also a proponent of the Fair Tax movement.

The problem with a flat tax is that if you set "X" too low, you don't collect enough taxes to run our society and if you set "X" too high, it's extremely damaging to lower income individuals and families.

To be more clear, 10% of one's income (to pick a number arbitrarily because the exact number doesn't matter for this example) is a lot more meaningful to actually living for someone who makes 30k per year than it is to someone who makes 330k per year. The person making 330k per year will pay a lot more, but it'll barely impact their lifestyle. The person making 30k a year will be crushed by paying their "mere 3k."

That's why we have "progressive taxation." It allows meaningful taxation on those who can afford it without killing those who can't.
 
That's why we have "progressive taxation." It allows meaningful taxation on those who can afford it without killing those who can't.

You know what? I don't really oppose that proposition. So long as it's not completely disproportionate. OK, what does that mean? I'm not entirely certain. I would imagine that's negotiable, though.
 
The problem with a flat tax is that if you set "X" too low, you don't collect enough taxes to run our society and if you set "X" too high, it's extremely damaging to lower income individuals and families.

To be more clear, 10% of one's income (to pick a number arbitrarily because the exact number doesn't matter for this example) is a lot more meaningful to actually living for someone who makes 30k per year than it is to someone who makes 330k per year. The person making 330k per year will pay a lot more, but it'll barely impact their lifestyle. The person making 30k a year will be crushed by paying their "mere 3k."

That's why we have "progressive taxation." It allows meaningful taxation on those who can afford it without killing those who can't.
That goes against your socialist agenda though. If the government isnt providing the services required for the person making 30k then in socialism (something you seem to be advocating maybe I am incorrect here), then its a failure of the system in your words.
Also if were going by what you've said, like with health care it should be cheaper for the government to do it (and it might be) and they don't need to make a profit because its the government and if you haven't been able to tell our government seems to run perfectly fine on a ridiculously large deficit.

They obviously arent collecting enough on taxes to keep up with our bills now, with a progressive tax rate. So it seems like we have the same issue with a flat tax as we would a progressive one if no ones going to keep spending under control.
 
That goes against your socialist agenda though. If the government isnt providing the services required for the person making 30k then in socialism (something you seem to be advocating maybe I am incorrect here), then its a failure of the system in your words.

My socialist agenda? Am I Bernie Sanders now? I promise you, I'm not that young.

Jokes aside, I'm not sure what the contradiction is here.

1. Problems are approached from more than one angle. It makes sense to provide social programs for those in need, and it makes sense not to tax them into financial ruin. No one that I've seen, among the major candidates or on this forum, has suggested the government should pay for everything a person needs. There are some things that some of us liberals would like to be considered essential staples (housing, food, health care and education, for example) and other things (like appliances, vehicles, etc) that people need to purchase for themselves. So money still matters.

2. We don't currently live in Sanders' socialist haven, so what system is "failing?" The existing status quo? Agreed. Seems like a good argument for a new system. ;)
 
My socialist agenda? Am I Bernie Sanders now? I promise you, I'm not that young.

Jokes aside, I'm not sure what the contradiction is here.

1. Problems are approached from more than one angle. It makes sense to provide social programs for those in need, and it makes sense not to tax them into financial ruin. No one that I've seen, among the major candidates or on this forum, has suggested the government should pay for everything a person needs. There are some things that some of us liberals would like to be considered essential staples (housing, food, health care and education, for example) and other things (like appliances, vehicles, etc) that people need to purchase for themselves. So money still matters.

2. We don't currently live in Sanders' socialist haven, so what system is "failing?" The existing status quo? Agreed. Seems like a good argument for a new system. ;)
I should not have said your socialist agenda, Im just saying in general that seems to be the POV your arguing for at least thats how I read it.

Let me ask though if all those things are provided then someone making 30k if they’re crushed by a 3k bill then its probably their fault... The government no matter what they do, how much they tax cannot regulate out people making bad decisions. How would you even go about doing that...?

The question of this very thread though is Bernie and Liz are proposing a tax that doesnt seem constitutional to get their desired “socialist haven” or parts of it and haven’t even attempted to answer how they can make that happen when their tax gets shut down. What Im saying though is a flat tax or progressive tax doesn't matter if spending is out control. Which part of your argument was well if they dont charge enough the government cant pay their bills. They arent paying their bills now, nor have they since the start of the 2000’s.

So I guess my point is the progressive or flat tax really has the same sorts of issues if spending is out of control, and the government isnt providing people with what they need. Which is the real head scratcher those budgets are pretty freaking ridiculous for a country with so many homeless people.
 
Let me ask though if all those things are provided then someone making 30k if they’re crushed by a 3k bill then its probably their fault... The government no matter what they do, how much they tax cannot regulate out people making bad decisions. How would you even go about doing that...?

Again, the government isn't currently providing those things and isn't likely to any time soon. So why would we abandon a progressive tax? Based on a theoretical system that doesn't currently exist?

It's unlikely that we'll ever provide housing and food entirely--subsidies for those in need are the most likely, which means even in the far future where a Sanders-like agenda exists, this theoretical individual is still paying some money for housing and food. If they need a car (as many do in cities without great mass transit, which is a lot of them, and more rural areas where they need to go a long distance for work), the car itself costs, and insurance and maintenance are generally pretty significant costs. Since no one is advocating communism, it's likely that the poor will still struggle even with social assistance. All that said, we can always re-evaluate the need for progressive taxation when we've reached that point of social assistance. We're nowhere near it yet.

What Im saying though is a flat tax or progressive tax doesn't matter if spending is out control. Which part of your argument was well if they dont charge enough the government cant pay their bills. They arent paying their bills now, nor have they since the start of the 2000’s.

They are paying their bills. Running a debt at the national level means that their bills are debt service--paying interest to their creditors. And the US pays those. Things would fall apart pretty quickly if the US stopped paying that.

Beyond that, the federal government has mandatory spending built in--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those can also be seen as America's "bills."
 
Again, the government isn't currently providing those things and isn't likely to any time soon. So why would we abandon a progressive tax? Based on a theoretical system that doesn't currently exist?

It's unlikely that we'll ever provide housing and food entirely--subsidies for those in need are the most likely, which means even in the far future where a Sanders-like agenda exists, this theoretical individual is still paying some money for housing and food. If they need a car (as many do in cities without great mass transit, which is a lot of them, and more rural areas where they need to go a long distance for work), the car itself costs, and insurance and maintenance are generally pretty significant costs. Since no one is advocating communism, it's likely that the poor will still struggle even with social assistance. All that said, we can always re-evaluate the need for progressive taxation when we've reached that point of social assistance. We're nowhere near it yet.



They are paying their bills. Running a debt at the national level means that their bills are debt service--paying interest to their creditors. And the US pays those. Things would fall apart pretty quickly if the US stopped paying that.

Beyond that, the federal government has mandatory spending built in--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those can also be seen as America's "bills."
In the health industry I know for a fact the US isn't actually paying their bills write offs isn't paying a bill.

I think were talking about separate things though. I never said abandon the progressive tax, I said I can see an argument for it. The thing is we aren't at a place where any of this is working I think we agree on that. To make a flat tax work or to make a progressive tax actually work a lot of changes need to take place.
 
To make a flat tax work or to make a progressive tax actually work a lot of changes need to take place.

What does "making a tax work" mean to you? A balanced budget? Because a balanced budget isn't a priority for either party, and I'm not entirely sure it should be. While balanced budgets are intuitively attractive due to analogizing to personal finances, there are good arguments that keeping the budget balanced isn't optimal. Keynesian economics (which I'm a believer in) suggests that you should run deficits in times of recession, to provide financial stimulus to kickstart the economy, and budget surpluses to pay down the debt in times of prosperity. Of course, other schools of economics have their own views on whether budget deficits are harmful, neutral or necessary.
 
Taking care of permanently disabled individuals is what a good and moral society would do.

It's like you've never heard of America, because we are no longer a good and moral society.
 
What does "making a tax work" mean to you? A balanced budget? Because a balanced budget isn't a priority for either party, and I'm not entirely sure it should be. While balanced budgets are intuitively attractive due to analogizing to personal finances, there are good arguments that keeping the budget balanced isn't optimal. Keynesian economics (which I'm a believer in) suggests that you should run deficits in times of recession, to provide financial stimulus to kickstart the economy, and budget surpluses to pay down the debt in times of prosperity. Of course, other schools of economics have their own views on whether budget deficits are harmful, neutral or necessary.
Running a deficit within reason is one thing what were doing right now is another...
I think a government should be fiscally responsible, doesnt always mean “balanced”, but really our economic policies seem to be spend a lot stuff that doesnt need that excessive spending and spend less on things that my world view would say is important.
 
It's like you've never heard of America, because we are no longer a good and moral society.
Trust me, I know. I see it everyday on the Facebook group i'm a part of. Parents of children with permanent disabilities who are not as lucky as I am able to provide for my daughter by having amazing insurance. People on this very forum have made it known they couldn't care less about permanently disabled children.
 
Trust me, I know. I see it everyday on the Facebook group i'm a part of. Parents of children with permanent disabilities who are not as lucky as I am able to provide for my daughter by having amazing insurance. People on this very forum have made it known they couldn't care less about permanently disabled children.

Yep. It's my job to work with adults with disabilities, and even the state who helps provide funding (etc) does so begrudgingly.

One of my best friends has CP (among other struggles) and the state almost acts like he's faking it and just taking advantage of the government gravy train (because lord knows 700 bucks a month totally pays for everything one would need).
 
I think a government should be fiscally responsible, doesnt always mean “balanced”, but really our economic policies seem to be spend a lot stuff that doesnt need that excessive spending and spend less on things that my world view would say is important.

I agree with you.
 
Yep. My daughter's condition is so rare social security won't put it on the automatically accepted disability list. No matter how many doctors have written them letters.

Have a mom i know who had to fight with the State for 3 years to get them to allow her to go to a doctor that actually could do a finger separation surgery with success. Success meaning 5 fingers. They wanted her to go to hospitals in Oregon that could only guarantee 4 fingers.

My friend has been told by the state that they need to find a provider who has a van that can take him places (he can't do buses or large vans and most taxi's). He's been trying for 3 years and found 1 provider agency who has a mini van with a lift...and they lied about who was going to work with him and then got in an accident.

But they keep moving the goal line and then symbolically pat him on the head and say "good boy".
 
No, here's the real issue concerning you...and so many others in here. I'm a Trump supporter.

..."yes, there are 2 paths you can go by, but in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on"
 
That's the problem...What is the logic behind still feeling the need to reply to someone's posts even though you know they can't see them?
I can see the logic and it involves other readers involved in the discussion.
 
I've always questioned why the rich should be taxed (penalized) higher than anyone else. There's nothing keeping anyone of us (white, black, hispanic, etc.) from creating and amassing as much as we possibly can. This falls within the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness tag line. If there were roadblocks keeping said individuals from that result, I'd sure love to see them. They ain't there.
Currently, the wealthy pay a lower rate on their income than the rest of us. Is this fair?
Also, we've got to have some sort of method for determining tax rates and no other idea comes to mind that is even somewhat fair other than majority rules.
Last, the wealthy get the most out of our tax supported infrastructure, including the military, so why shouldn't they contribute the most? After all, those who simply can't contribute shouldn't have to pay as much, now should they.
 
Currently, the wealthy pay a lower rate on their income than the rest of us. Is this fair?
Also, we've got to have some sort of method for determining tax rates and no other idea comes to mind that is even somewhat fair other than majority rules.
Last, the wealthy get the most out of our tax supported infrastructure, including the military, so why shouldn't they contribute the most? After all, those who simply can't contribute shouldn't have to pay as much, now should they.

There has to be a better way.

Euro Flop
Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.
 
There has to be a better way.

Euro Flop
Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.
The wealth tax does seem rash. There are those that deserve it and those that don't and I have no way to distinguish which is which other than a gut feeling. Gut feelings don't seem like a fair way to determine someone's tax debt.
 
The free advice being offered is kind of condescending. No wonder you guys dont understand why Bernie is a thing.

Or... since Bernie is of our generation, not yours... maybe we understand him a little bit better than your generation does.

barfo
 
No need for a wealth tax. Candidates can just promise free healthcare and education and campaign that Mexico will pay for it.
 
Or... since Bernie is of our generation, not yours... maybe we understand him a little bit better than your generation does.

barfo

Did you get that idea off of facebook?

Baby boomers share nearly 7 times as many 'fake news' articles on Facebook as adults under 30, study finds

A recently published study found that Facebook users over 65 years old were far more likely than other adults to share disinformation on social media.

Researchers at both Princeton and New York University concluded that though the practice of spreading so-called fake news was rare overall, a person's likelihood of sharing it correlated more strongly with age than it did education, sex, or political views.

"No other demographic characteristic seems to have a consistent effect on sharing fake news, making our age finding that much more notable," wrote the authors of the study, which was published in Science Advances on Thursday.

Researchers commissioned an online sample of 3,500 people — not all of them Facebook users — with the goal of seeing which characteristics were associated with sharing disinformation on Facebook around the November 2016 US elections.

The researchers defined fake news as "knowingly false or misleading content created largely for the purpose of generating ad revenue." While that aligns with the original meaning of the phrase that sprang up ahead of the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump has more often used it to refer to reputable news organizations he doesn't like.

Of those who said they used Facebook, only 49% agreed to share any profile data. Of those users, people older than 65 captured the researchers' attention.

Eleven percent of users older than 65 shared an article consistent with the study's definition of fake news. Just 3% of users ages 18 to 29 did the same. The study drew its list of "fake news domains" from a list assembled by the journalist Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed News.

Andrew Guess, a coauthor of the study and a political scientist at Princeton University, told The Verge that the findings were not as obvious as some people might think.

"For me, what is pretty striking is that the relationship holds even when you control for party affiliation or ideology," he said. "The fact that it's independent of these other traits is pretty surprising to me. It's not just being driven by older people being more conservative."

The study did also find that, of those participating in the study, Republicans shared more links to sites peddling disinformation than Democrats, but "self-described independents" shared roughly the same number of those sites as Republicans.
The study's conclusion, that people 65 years and older share most of the intentionally false or misleading news we see on social media, could be helpful for social networks in deciphering how to tackle the spread of disinformation.

The study's authors also said more context was needed, since the oldest generation may not have a "level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online."

https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-more-likely-to-share-fake-news-on-facebook-study-2019-1
 
Did you get that idea off of facebook?

Baby boomers share nearly 7 times as many 'fake news' articles on Facebook as adults under 30, study finds



https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-more-likely-to-share-fake-news-on-facebook-study-2019-1
So what you're saying is Bernie is more likely to spread 'fake-news' than I am! I kid, I kid.
I don't even really use face-book, I have an account but I log in like once every few years, that's how interesting I find it. Do people our age even use FB though, seems like most of my friends and co-workers the last few years use IG and Twitter (of which I don't have an account on either of those).
 
Back
Top