What if US taxes were based on wealth, not income?

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy
1) teh guy with 5 million doller house and has 10 million in the bank is paying far more in taxes (just off the house) then the guy makeing 41k a year.

Those are not federal taxes. They really have nothing to do with this thread. I'm talking about going from an income tax to an asset tax. It would be similar to a property tax, sure, but it would be a FEDERAL tax.

Communist.

-edit-
You are in essence proposing a communist/marxist belief. One that has shown time and time again to fail. It sounds all rosy on the surface until you actually do it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: spidey07
This is what is so scary about people - that they think like the OP does.

Let's make everybody equal, let's tax the crap out of people that actually grow the economy. Freaking communist.

ROFL?

Income tax isn't even a flat tax, the rich pay more based on a higher tax bracket. The asset tax I'm suggesting wouldn't even have brackets, everyone would pay the same percentage. How is this unfair to the people that "grow the economy"?

All it would do is *force* the people that "grow the economy" to actually do so. As long as they invest their money in some way that gives at least 6-7% return, they will make more money than they lose in taxes. Plus, they are already losing money due to inflation if they don't invest, this tax would just increase that amount slightly.

you do understand that when poeple "grow the economy" it will increase there tax burden. wich people do not want.

this will cause more stress on the poor/lower middle class.

the rich are not as taxed (they will move everything over seas) as heavy. wich reduces the tax income for the Goverment.

wich is going to force them to raise taxes or such..

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Lothar
If you are, then your proposed taxes are bullshit.

Why?

Look. Let me break it down.

Guy makes 100k a year and pays 20% income tax.

He pays $20k every year and after working 20 years he has paid $400k in taxes. After 20 years he retires and never works again. Total taxes paid: $400k Total assets: $1.6 million


Alternative system:

He pays 0 taxes on income. Makes $100k a year. A tax rate on his assets is required such that $400k is paid in total taxes over his lifetime. Lets say 50 years for lifetime.

Over 50 years, he has to pay $400k in taxes. If there was 0 depreciation involved, the government could tax him at .7% and still make the same $400k in taxes. Thats practically nothing, compared to inflation. You have $1000 you pay $7 in taxes a year. Sucks? Yeah I would hate to pay $7/year in taxes instead of the 15% per paycheck that gets taken out for income tax currently.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Over 50 years, he has to pay $400k in taxes. If there was 0 depreciation involved, the government could tax him at .7% and still make the same $400k in taxes. Thats practically nothing, compared to inflation. You have $1000 you pay $7 in taxes a year. Sucks? Yeah I would hate to pay $7/year in taxes instead of the 15% per paycheck that gets taken out for income tax currently.

You do realize you get all that money back at the end of the year with your $1000 figure, right?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Communist.

Link? I have never heard of any sort idea as communist, did communist countries rely on property tax for government funds or something, more so than our country property taxes?

If not, quit with the name-calling.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

How can you tax someone for HAVING a lot of money? So you tax it for a year, and if they still have what's left after taxes the next year, you tax it again because they still have it?

Yes, exactly. Just like you tax someone who makes money, and tax them again the next year when they continue to make money.

People already pay this, through inflation. It doesn't seem that harmful. Lets increase it by 1-2% and use the money to replace the income tax.

thats actually pretty fucking stupid. so you want to tax them when they make it? at what %? then tax them for the money they saved? so double tax for same money?

Pacfanweb asked if you would pay this tax every year, I was saying yes you would. Just the current system where you pay income tax every year. Nothing new, no huge change there.

There is no "double" taxing here unless you mean being taxed twice over 2 years. In which case yes, you get taxed every year so it would be a "double" tax after two years, just like income tax.

You are incorrect....income tax is on the money you make EACH YEAR....and that is NEW MONEY, not money or assets you ALREADY OWN and ALREADY PAID TAXES ON.

Your way is like taxing my income every year forever. So I'll spend some of it, and the government will get some, and I'll save some. Then the next year, the gov't will get more of the same money they already got last year, because I made some more money this year and made my total increase....this goes on and on until I have nothing left of my original wealth.

Socialism in slow motion. All that is.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: misle
Maybe if we encouraged people to save and invest instead of spend, spend, spend, we wouldn't have these problems. God knows that Congress, the President, and the Federal government is setting a very bad example.

I think when everyone invests it just increases inflation so the net effect is nobody gains money.

edit: otherwise why not just give out 1 million to every US citizen, and each of us could live off of the interest?

So if investing just increases inflation, why has inflation been so low for years until just the last few months?
There's been PLENTY of investing over the last, oh, 50 years or so.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: BigJ
You do realize you get all that money back at the end of the year with your $1000 figure, right?

No you don't. Income tax isn't reduced based on the money you have in the bank, it's based on your income. If you have $50k/year income, you pay X tax, regardless of how much wealth you have in the bank- $1000, $10million, same tax.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
How can you tax someone for HAVING a lot of money? So you tax it for a year, and if they still have what's left after taxes the next year, you tax it again because they still have it?

Can't and won't work. Not to mention it'd be a FAR greater task for the IRS to try and keep up with all that info.

The government already does that with savings accounts.
You leave $100 in an ING account growing at a 5% interest rate.
By the end of the year you have $105(assuming simple interest).

That extra $5 you gained from having your money sit there is still considered taxable income.

Ah, but they aren't taxing the principal, just the interest. OP's plan taxes it ALL.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: spidey07

Communist.

Link? I have never heard of any sort idea as communist, did communist countries rely on property tax for government funds or something, more so than our country property taxes?

If not, quit with the name-calling.

I don't need a link. This should be a part of your basic knowledge.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: BigJ
You do realize you get all that money back at the end of the year with your $1000 figure, right?

No you don't. Income tax isn't reduced based on the money you have in the bank, it's based on your income. If you have $50k/year income, you pay X tax, regardless of how much wealth you have in the bank- $1000, $10million, same tax.

Yes, you do. With the standard deduction when filing your taxes, any actual income tax you pay will be given back to you at the end of the year in this case of $1000 income.

So in the current system, if I only made $1000, I'd receive the income tax I paid back in my refund at the end of the year.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy

even more screwing the poor. they manage to put away a few grand for "oh shit" situations. now that is being taxed EVERY year.

so on top of income tax,state,local, property tax you noe have a wealth tax.

man..

The poor, by definition, have less assets, and would be taxed the least, in every situation.

The current system, a person can have nothing, but if they have an income they owe taxes.

2 people.

1) has a 5 million house, and 10 million from family. He makes 25k a year working part time.

2) lives in a homeless shelter and is penniless, but has somehow found a job despite his terrible conditions and makes $41/year.

The poor guy pays a lot more taxes than the rich guy.

Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

The current system, the poor pay NOTHING in income taxes. And even people who aren't so poor pay very little.

Plus, in your system, even if the poor are taxed the least, it'll still be more tax than they pay now.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: BigJ
You do realize you get all that money back at the end of the year with your $1000 figure, right?

No you don't. Income tax isn't reduced based on the money you have in the bank, it's based on your income. If you have $50k/year income, you pay X tax, regardless of how much wealth you have in the bank- $1000, $10million, same tax.

Dude, you need to get out in the real world. Poor people DO NOT PAY TAXES. They get it all back.
Hell, they even MAKE money, with earned income credits and such.

The "wealthy", which includes incomes far below what I'd consider "wealthy", pay like 97% of all the tax.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: BigJ
You do realize you get all that money back at the end of the year with your $1000 figure, right?

No you don't. Income tax isn't reduced based on the money you have in the bank, it's based on your income. If you have $50k/year income, you pay X tax, regardless of how much wealth you have in the bank- $1000, $10million, same tax.

OK, you're an idiot.

-edit-
Sorry for the name calling, but your statement right there means you are an idiot.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: waggy

even more screwing the poor. they manage to put away a few grand for "oh shit" situations. now that is being taxed EVERY year.

so on top of income tax,state,local, property tax you noe have a wealth tax.

man..

The poor, by definition, have less assets, and would be taxed the least, in every situation.

The current system, a person can have nothing, but if they have an income they owe taxes.

2 people.

1) has a 5 million house, and 10 million from family. He makes 25k a year working part time.

2) lives in a homeless shelter and is penniless, but has somehow found a job despite his terrible conditions and makes $41/year.

The poor guy pays a lot more taxes than the rich guy.

Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

The current system, the poor pay NOTHING in income taxes. And even people who aren't so poor pay very little.

Plus, in your system, even if the poor are taxed the least, it'll still be more tax than they pay now.

not to mention he ignores the fact that the guy is paying on the 5 million house, the 10 million in teh bank (or invested ) both at a high rate (far mroe then the guy makeing 41k is) plus the 25k

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

a guy who makes 41k is oging to be paying very little tax. Add in IF he has kids. wife etc its even less.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

How the hell is a homeless guy going to be able to land a $41,000 a year job?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.[/quote]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Dude, you need to get out in the real world. Poor people DO NOT PAY TAXES. They get it all back.
Hell, they even MAKE money, with earned income credits and such.
.

You are wrong. LOW INCOME people pay little to no taxes, but simply "being poor" doesn't reduce your income tax rate.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

How the hell is a homeless guy going to be able to land a $41,000 a year job?

in his make beleive world a guy who is homelss has skills, clothes, credit etc.

personlly i think he is a high school/college (freshman) who is just learning about this stuff.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Dude, you need to get out in the real world. Poor people DO NOT PAY TAXES. They get it all back.
Hell, they even MAKE money, with earned income credits and such.
.

You are wrong. LOW INCOME people pay little to no taxes, but simply "being poor" doesn't reduce your income tax rate.[/quote]


err yes it does.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: BigJ


How the hell is a homeless guy going to be able to land a $41,000 a year job?

Publicity stunt by the company that hires him to give them a good image. Who cares, it's a hypothetical situation to make an example. If it helps you sleep better at night, pretend he lives with his mom and has 0 assets but he isn't homeless, same effective situation.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

Right, you are an idiot.

41k and homeless guy is hardly paying any federal taxes at all.

Get this through your communist skull - the "rich" pay 95% of all taxes. Your homeless guy doesn't. 41k and you aren't paying much federal tax at all.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: waggy
err yes it does.

Link please?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bullshit. The poor guy pays NOTHING. He gets it all back, plus he's on the gov't dole for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps and no telling what else.

Do you even know how income tax is calculated? It's based on INCOME. $41k is NOT in the 0% tax bracket. A homeless guy who somehow convinces a company to hire him for a job that pays that well will indeed be paying taxes, a lot of taxes, and he isn't going to get anything extra back beyond what he might inadvertently overpay.

*chuckle*
You are talking about tax brackets, but you forget what AGI is given current tax laws and credits.

IE - you don't know what you are talking about but continue to speak as if you do. That means an idiot.