Rx for income inequality - Wealth Tax

[hans030390]

Considering how much of the wealth is already concentrated in the hands of a few and how everyone else lives in comparison, even those that live comfortable lives but are not wealthy, I think they could spare a little extra.

Most seem too narrow minded to understand how a society where all can thrive, which is not the USA currently, is best for all. Some will do better than others, sure, but there need to be limits when so many others are so far behind and relatively powerless.

 

[Sea Ray]

Considering how much of the wealth is already concentrated in the hands of a few and how everyone else lives in comparison, even those that live comfortable lives but are not wealthy, I think they could spare a little extra.

Most seem too narrow minded to understand how a society where all can thrive, which is not the USA currently, is best for all. Some will do better than others, sure, but there need to be limits when so many others are so far behind and relatively powerless.

Gov't should not be in the business of income inequality. They should not play Robin Hood. They should instead concentrate on providing defense, roads, schools and whatnot.

 

[drebo]

Considering how much of the wealth is already concentrated in the hands of a few and how everyone else lives in comparison, even those that live comfortable lives but are not wealthy, I think they could spare a little extra.

Most seem too narrow minded to understand how a society where all can thrive, which is not the USA currently, is best for all. Some will do better than others, sure, but there need to be limits when so many others are so far behind and relatively powerless.

Equality of outcome means destitution for all.

 

[Matt1970]

Equality of outcome means destitution for all.

Right. There just isn't that much money at the top. The total assets of the top 20 people in the world isn't even $1 Trillion. That's chump change compared with what our government spends on social programs.

 

[Vic]

^ Did you even read a single word be wrote? The fuck does that stupidity have to do with what he actually said?

I read every word he wrote. He said that the "problem" was that people expect too much, and that they should be content with wanting less. I guess some of us never could learn to know our place..

 

[Vic]

Equality of outcome means destitution for all.

No one argued for equality of outcome.

 

[Matt1970]

No one argued for equality of outcome.

So then we are done here?

 

[Vic]

Gov't should not be in the business of income inequality. They should not play Robin Hood. They should instead concentrate on providing defense, roads, schools and whatnot.

By this logic, government shouldn't have ended slavery or promoted civil rights.
The reason government did is because excessive inequality leads to political unrest and economic stagnation, two things government is very much in the business of preventing.

 

[Vic]

So then we are done here?

Your simple black and white view of the world is cute, but not realistic.

 

[Matt1970]

Your simple black and white view of the world is cute, but not realistic.

Seems you have a problem with the label of what you are pushing for is.

 

[ElFenix]

SCOTUS in Pollock said more than just rents on property. I'm not familiar with a later SCOTUS case claiming Pollock was wrong.

But no matter, taxes on real and personal property are considered direct taxes. I don't think there's any argument about that. IIRC, the FF discussed it and added that section to the Constitution because they were concerned specifically about a tax on land and wealth, particularly because most were wealthy land owners.

Fern

it's at the bottom of the wikipedia article:

in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), in which the Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and concluded that "t was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes."

and as to your second paragraph:

Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

 

[Vic]

Seems you have a problem with the label of what you are pushing for is.

Not at all, just your straw man.

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property..[a] means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)

 

[berzerker60]

This would be the Christian thing to do. If you're actually following Christ's commands, you'll already be giving away your money and a wealth tax won't matter at all. If you're not, a wealth tax will help save your soul! I'm sure we'll see the evangelical Christian lobby pushing this plan any minute.

 

[Zaap]

I read every word he wrote. He said that the "problem" was that people expect too much, and that they should be content with wanting less. I guess some of us never could learn to know our place..

You're a complete idiot. He didn't say that at all, he said anyone who works hard can be comfortable, just that many have a distorted view of what being comfortable is, and don't want to actually do the work required for those things, rather just have them with endless debt. And he's totally right.

You're dumb- you can't even correctly decipher a simple sentence someone else wrote. What the FUCK entitles a dumbass like you and all the people as hopelessly mired in stupidity as you to the fruits of other people's labor and effort? I'm fucking sick of busibody assholes like you. Someone needs to tell you: Your attitude sucks. You're mainly useless to your fellow human being. Until YOU change that for yourself, you don't deserve to be floated by stealing from everyone else. Is that your 'place'? If it is, you put yourself there. Suck on it.

 

[Vic]

You're a complete idiot. He didn't say that at all, he said anyone who works hard can be comfortable, just that many have a distorted view of what being comfortable is, and don't want to actually do the work required for those things, rather just have them with endless debt. And he's totally right.

You're dumb- you can't even correctly decipher a simple sentence someone else wrote. What the FUCK entitles a dumbass like you and all the people as hopelessly mired in stupidity as you to the fruits of other people's labor and effort? I'm fucking sick of busibody assholes like you. Someone needs to tell you: Your attitude sucks. You're mainly useless to your fellow human being. Until YOU change that for yourself, you don't deserve to be floated by stealing from everyone else. Is that your 'place'? If it is, you put yourself there. Suck on it.

If you think that what I said implies that I think I'm entitled to the work or property of others, then you're the fucking idiot.
What I see from you is that I talk right over your head about concepts that are completely beyond your comprehension, and then you get all pissy and fling insults when I won't deign to dumb it down for you.

I guess I will this time though. Being comfortable is not how one achieves success. Instead, one must seek to be more than what one already is. Acquisition of wealth requires (among other things) negotiation and bargaining. Therefore, in order to be successful in our materialistic culture, one must seek to acquire more and at the best terms.

 

[Zaap]

I see you're still doubling down on stupid. And yes, your crap about 'knowing your place' shows that you do indeed blame others for the results of your own stupidity. Of course I don't expect you to actually own that.

You couldn't understand what was said (typical) and so asked something completely insane that had no bearing on what was actually said.

So do as you always do, not understand what anyone says, then 'emote' to it with a bunch of drivel. Stupid people deserve what they get when they can't even figure out simple concepts, let alone address a point that was made with any shred of intelligence.

I know you wish to construct a world where you get rewarded for being a clueless dimbulb, and everyone else who isn't must be punished and forced to subsidize you and go along with your redefining everything to suit your own dim views- but that's just too bad.

 

[Sea Ray]

By this logic, government shouldn't have ended slavery or promoted civil rights.
The reason government did is because excessive inequality leads to political unrest and economic stagnation, two things government is very much in the business of preventing.

Big difference between the two. Slavery/civil rights have to do with equality of opportunity, whereas wealth equality has to do with equality of outcome. Gov't should definitely be in the business of seeing to it that everyone has equal opprtunity and this country does a better job of that than any other. Our Founding Fathers sought to protect us from wealth taxes in the 5th Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, ...

No gov't should have the right to take your private property just because you have more toys than your neighbor

 

[Knowing]

By this logic, government shouldn't have ended slavery or promoted civil rights.

There is a theory which states something to the effect of "The US wouldn't have so much of a problem with racism if they hadn't gotten rid of it in the course of fighting a war." I tend to agree, given that similar nations that didn't resort to violence to end the economically unfeasible practice don't have our issues with racism that require ever more ingenious, arcane, and unquestionable measures to correct it.

Lincoln should have answered his telegrams.

 

[Vic]

Big difference between the two. Slavery/civil rights have to do with equality of opportunity, whereas wealth equality has to do with equality of outcome. Gov't should definitely be in the business of seeing to it that everyone has equal opprtunity and this country does a better job of that than any other. Our Founding Fathers sought to protect us from wealth taxes in the 5th Amendment:




No gov't should have the right to take your private property just because you have more toys than your neighbor

That's the eminent domain clause. WTF.

 

[Vic]

I see you're still doubling down on stupid. And yes, your crap about 'knowing your place' shows that you do indeed blame others for the results of your own stupidity. Of course I don't expect you to actually own that.

You couldn't understand what was said (typical) and so asked something completely insane that had no bearing on what was actually said.

So do as you always do, not understand what anyone says, then 'emote' to it with a bunch of drivel. Stupid people deserve what they get when they can't even figure out simple concepts, let alone address a point that was made with any shred of intelligence.

I know you wish to construct a world where you get rewarded for being a clueless dimbulb, and everyone else who isn't must be punished and forced to subsidize you and go along with your redefining everything to suit your own dim views- but that's just too bad.

At what point did I say or even imply that I wanted a world where anyone is rewarded for being a 'clueless dimbulb?' Please quote me where I said that.
I guess when you have no argument you just resort to character assassination and lies.

 

[Vic]

There is a theory which states something to the effect of "The US wouldn't have so much of a problem with racism if they hadn't gotten rid of it in the course of fighting a war." I tend to agree, given that similar nations that didn't resort to violence to end the economically unfeasible practice don't have our issues with racism that require ever more ingenious, arcane, and unquestionable measures to correct it.

Lincoln should have answered his telegrams.

That's just stupid and illogical, Geosurface.

 

[glenn1]

What about... 100% death tax.

When you die everything you own is auctioned and the proceeds goes to the state; then it doesn't matter who you were born to, everyone must make their own way. And those who earn their wealth are able to enjoy it for as long as they're able.

Plus, no more families torn apart over inheritances.

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.

 

[Knowing]

That's just stupid and illogical, Geosurface.

I don't know how Geosurface is, but you're oh so clever dismissing what I said and calling me his (or her) screen name.

Could you name another country on planet Earth that killed more than half a million people to pass abolition? Did the English? The Dutch?

 

[Sea Ray]

That's the eminent domain clause. WTF.

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:

Amendment XXVIII The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on wealth in the form of intangible property, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration...

This amendment will not be easy to obtain. However it is essential, going forward into the 21st Century to halt further movement into oligarchy. ..

California and Florida have Intangible Property statutes. But this has to be implemented federally to get the reach and access needed for effective implementation...

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

 

[Vic]

I don't know how Geosurface is, but you're oh so clever dismissing what I said and calling me his (or her) screen name.

Could you name another country on planet Earth that killed more than half a million people to pass abolition? Did the English? The Dutch?

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.
That slave societies are economically uncompetitive compared to free societies is IMO self-evident, but I feel I've already addressed that when I discussed how excessive wealth inequality is economically detrimental.

Let's really dumb this down. A larger middle class equals more customers. More people buying means more business. More business means a strong economy and a confident and secure nation. OTOH, lots and lots of poor people and a few super rich makes for a crappy economy. It also leads to civil unrest which undermines national security.
The logic isn't that hard to follow. I don't want any lazy dimbulbs getting freebies.