Rx for income inequality - Wealth Tax

[Vic]

An ultra liberal site with which I'm sure you're familiar, the Daily Kos, even admits that the Constitution would have to be altered in order to pull this off. They even proposed one here:




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/22/1293419/-UPDATE-Wealth-Tax-Solve-the-Piketty-Dilemma-With-Amendment-XXVIII-Intangible-Property-Tax#

Property taxes go back to the very founding of this country. I don't read dailykos either.

 

[Zaap]

I don't read

Just cut to the chase!

 

[Vic]

Just cut to the chase!

Are you intellectually capable of contributing anything to this forum, or are you just trolling?

 

[berzerker60]

Why wait until people die? Why not every 10 years, annually, or even weekly? If you think this should be done at someone's death why not have the balls to do it while they're still alive and can protest? Make everyone start over from zero at each paycheck, that's the only way to make things fair.

"What do you mean drinking water is good? If one glass is good, why not drink 10 gallons per day? 1000 gallons? Why not live entirely in water?"
This is a stupid form of argument.

The extremely obvious actual answer is that the person has at least nominally earned the money he has during his life, whereas his inheritors haven't done shit to earn it, and feeding the hungry is more important than making sure Paris Hilton and Mort Romney don't ever have to contribute anything to society.

 

[glenn1]

"What do you mean drinking water is good? If one glass is good, why not drink 10 gallons per day? 1000 gallons? Why not live entirely in water?"
This is a stupid form of argument.

The extremely obvious actual answer is that the person has at least nominally earned the money he has during his life, whereas his inheritors haven't done shit to earn it, and feeding the hungry is more important than making sure Paris Hilton and Mort Romney don't ever have to contribute anything to society.

I don't see what difference it makes. So what, Mitt Romney puts the money into a trust or buys a shitload of (resellable) physical stuff for Mort Romney while he's still alive instead of waiting until he dies to inherit his estate. Paris and Mort both remain wildly rich after their parents' death. Meanwhile Joe Sixpack who's saved up $150k in his 401(k) and owns his house kicks the bucket early and his shit is sold so that his toddlers get to live in poverty since "they haven't done shit to earn it." So why go through the charade?

 

[berzerker60]

I don't see what difference it makes. So what, Mitt Romney puts the money into a trust or buys a shitload of (resellable) physical stuff for Mort Romney while he's still alive instead of waiting until he dies to inherit his estate. Paris and Mort both remain wildly rich after their parents' death. Meanwhile Joe Sixpack who's saved up $150k in his 401(k) and owns his house kicks the bucket early and his shit is sold so that his toddlers get to live in poverty since "they haven't done shit to earn it." So why go through the charade?

Trusts and resaleable physical things are both part of an estate and if we were able to change tax law at all (fat chance in reality), there's no reason they couldn't be taken into account. Then we get to tax dodging, which will always be an issue, but some is better than none.

No one is advocating a 100% estate tax. A 0% estate tax on the first $X is an obvious way to go, with X being something like 'The amount it takes to raise the kids with excellent schooling through adulthood/college.' Again, the absolute extreme of a policy being bad doesn't make a moderate version of that policy bad.

People should work for a living and contribute to society. Romney's kids already have enormous advantages via his connections, the connections they've made at fancy private schools, top health care and opportunities to travel and every other possible advantage. They don't need to inherit his money to succeed in life, and meanwhile there are malnourished children in America and demands to cut food stamps because we 'can't afford them.' That's a more important priority for any sane society than making sure the Romney kids inherit an extra few ten million they didn't do a thing to earn.

 

[ElFenix]

An ultra liberal site with which I'm sure you're familiar, the Daily Kos, even admits that the Constitution would have to be altered in order to pull this off. They even proposed one here:




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/22/1293419/-UPDATE-Wealth-Tax-Solve-the-Piketty-Dilemma-With-Amendment-XXVIII-Intangible-Property-Tax#

 

[Zaap]

They don't need to inherit his money to succeed in life, and meanwhile there are malnourished children in America and demands to cut food stamps because we 'can't afford them.' That's a more important priority for any sane society than making sure the Romney kids inherit an extra few ten million they didn't do a thing to earn.

Nothing you're proposing will change any of that. Govt has spent trillions on "fighting poverty" and just ends up with the same amount of it, or even creating more of it. HInt: because it's never actually going to make poor people well off by giving them lots of other people's money.

Your ilk is just motivated by some insane jealousy over Mitt Romney's kids, and seeking to get even with them.


So a family leaving their own money to their own kids who supposedly haven't done anything to earn it = evil.

Taking that family's money and giving it to wealthy politicians (who haven't done anything to earn it) who supposedly will then trickle it down to perfect strangers (who haven't done anything to earn it) = great.

Why? Neither party has done anything to earn it (even though I'd disagree with that, since my son does plenty every day to earn whatever I'll eventually leave him, vs. perfect strangers that haven't done jack shit for any inheritance from me, let alone rich politicians who've already extracted more money from me than any other single entity has.

It amazes me what sycophants people are to the state.

 

[berzerker60]

Nothing you're proposing will change any of that. Govt has spent trillions on "fighting poverty" and just ends up with the same amount of it, or even creating more of it. HInt: because it's never actually going to make poor people well off by giving them lots of other people's money.

That's just factually incorrect. The government will never eliminate poverty by itself, and the War on Poverty is far from a perfect success, but it has undeniably led to important improvements.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...n-poverty-a-new-study-says-absolutely/262371/

Your ilk is just motivated by some insane jealousy over Mitt Romney's kids, and seeking to get even with them.

No I'm not.

So a family leaving their own money to their own kids who supposedly haven't done anything to earn it = evil.

Correct, when the alternative is using it to aid the needy, and assuming that the kids in question have already been left enough to get a full education and taken care of through adulthood.

Taking that family's money and giving it to wealthy politicians (who haven't done anything to earn it) who supposedly will then trickle it down to perfect strangers (who haven't done anything to earn it) = great.

No, that would also be bad, which is why literally nobody is arguing for it.

Why? Neither party has done anything to earn it (even though I'd disagree with that, since my son does plenty every day to earn whatever I'll eventually leave him, vs. perfect strangers that haven't done jack shit for any inheritance from me, let alone rich politicians who've already extracted more money from me than any other single entity has.

Because some of us aren't sociopaths and actually give a shit about people we'll never meet being able to feed their children and get medical care they need.

 

[Zaap]

That's just factually incorrect. The government will never eliminate poverty by itself, and the War on Poverty is far from a perfect success, but it has undeniably led to important improvements.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...n-poverty-a-new-study-says-absolutely/262371/

That's your big success story for spending trillions on a "war on poverty"? That's pretty sad.

Correct, when the alternative is using it to aid the needy

Once again, nothing you propose is actually aiding the needy. That's the crutch your ilk always uses to justify your desire for theft.

"Why did you want to steal my shit?"
"You're just against feeding the needy!!!!"

Hiding behind that "It's for the kids!" and "It's for the needy" bullshit is fucking lame.

and assuming that the kids in question have already been left enough to get a full education and taken care of through adulthood.

Who died and made you Emperor Jackboot Supreme to decide all this for everyone else?

]No, that would also be bad, which is why literally nobody is arguing for it.

LOL. Total lie. Its exactly what you're arguing for. You're actually going to pretend you're not advocating to have government collect this money from the rich? What, poor people will just show up directly and help themselves to a "fair share" of every dead rich person's stuff? Yeah, right.

You know damned well it'd be a bunch of rich politicians collecting the money, and you also know damned well that once such people get their hands on ANY amount of money, all they ever do is whine that it's not enough, not enough to pay their own debts, and then start whining for more. They never bail out poor people, they bail out mega-huge banks, their campaign doners, and their cronies in big business.

Because some of us aren't sociopaths and actually give a shit about people we'll never meet being able to feed their children and get medical care they need.

You want to pick over the carcuses of the dead and steal everything from them, hand the money over to a bunch of ultra-wealthy pricks just because you worship them, so you can feel good about pretending to "give a shit" about poor people *sniffle* *sniffle*. Yeah, it's everyone else who thinks you (and all the busybodies like you) have no business dictating what other people do with their own property that are the sociopaths. Riiiiight.

 

[Knowing]

Slavery was only one of many issues that started the civil war, and the South seceded (and started the war) while slavery was still legal.

Yes...

That slave societies are economically uncompetitive compared to free societies is IMO self-evident...

Yes...

So rather than peacefully giving up slavery it was done under war powers during the war to distance the British (who were totally addicted to cotton) from the south. Then after the war they made it permanent with the passage of the 14th amendment. This made the south butthurt because their economy was doubly crushed and we've had a rather unique problem with racism ever since.

 

[MagickMan]

This. Plus people are all for global income redistribution until the find out that about 90% of the people in the US would be giving up their shit to share it with the rest of the world.

Try 95%. Let's completely level the playing field and see what happens, that would be fun, until it all collects back to where it was before, because the people who were wealthy before know how to do it again... and they learn more effective ways of hiding it.

So every single person who becomes educated and works hard in America becomes successful? Without fail?

Yep, as long as they don't go crazy and do stupid shit with their money, it takes a lot of time and a change in spending habits.

 

[Sea Ray]

No, that would also be bad, which is why literally nobody is arguing for it.

Because some of us aren't sociopaths and actually give a shit about people we'll never meet being able to feed their children and get medical care they need.

OK, so what are you proposing? Where does the money go?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Something has got to give, and, it certainly won't be the rich. And, despite alarms ringing, sabers rattling and shot guns being cocked, the government won't do anything about it. Ever.

Also, we are still far away from a dystopian society where people are just used, abused and discarded - because most of us still get paid for our jobs.

Eventually, credit card and loan debt will be so overpowering and crushing, you will just work to get the basics (food, water, medicine and sleeping quarters), with time spent working, counting towards what you owe.

And, it will be like Elysium; where you are given radiation pills, told you will die and fired for being part of a work related accident (got to keep insurance and law suits down you know,... they cut into profits).