What is something you think should be taxed

[zeruty]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Well your ancestors did choose to use a place name that had already been used as the name of the national capitol 99 years prior to Washington becoming a state. They should have followed form and prefixed New or West in front so there could be no confusion. 😉

Washington is the only state named after a president.
It's a tribute to him.

But my dad's family is from Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, and my mom's family is from California.... so technically my ancestors had nothing to do with naming the state.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jagec


You mean a $500k home like this one?

Perfect example of everything that is wrong with the world. There is no reason for a 1 bedroom apartment to cost that much, it's just a symptom of supply, demand, and what people are willing to pay. If nobody single person had that kind of money that apartment would be selling for $100k or less, I bet the building cost is less than that, you are just paying for the location which has no intrinsic value.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Disagree if you want, I don't care. I don't see why anyone needs that much money, and I think it should be taxed.

Aside from the obvious need to fund your retirement (that's something that we elitist "wealthy" folk do) - do you realize how much it costs to buy a home in many parts of the country? Here in central NJ a single family starter home in a decent neighborhood will run you $400k (you can get a townhouse for $300k, or you can live in a terrible area for less). You want the people in my neighborhood whose homes are nearly paid off to pay $80k/yr in taxes because they lived responsibly? 😕

Nobody needs to own anything that costs that much.

Also, the figure was per-person. A family of 4 could live in a $300k house and own another $100k worth of property without paying any tax at all, I don't think that is unrealistic or unreasonable.

If you are living alone, why the hell do you need a $500k single family home?

thats just stupid.

have you looked at what $300k house is in say new york? chicago?

and this would not stop people from buying huge houses. it make it more since if they have the money its taxed. so why not spend it?

this way of thinking is so wrong its scarry.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Nothing?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Nobody needs to own anything that costs that much.

Also, the figure was per-person. A family of 4 could live in a $300k house and own another $100k worth of property without paying any tax at all, I don't think that is unrealistic or unreasonable.

If you are living alone, why the hell do you need a $500k single family home?

I'm genuinely fascinated by your thinking. I think it's the fact that I am fairly certain you're being entirely serious and sincere, which is hilarious and kind of sad at the same time.

I'd like to know more about your tax plan.

What constitutes net worth? Is it liquid assets (cash), home value, stocks, retirement savings (401k)?

Taxing net worth puts an emphasis on spending - it wouldn't eliminate people buying $500K single family homes, it would actually encourage it (since money not spent gets taxed to shit).

And if your goal is to eliminate the "upper class" - then what would be one's motivation to work any job that is currently valued at more than 100K/year? Or one's motivation to start their own business? Are businesses taxed the same way?

I need to know more.

Net worth is exactly what you suggest, yes.

Yes, it would put somewhat of an emphasis on spending, beyond the $100k base. I think $100k is enough for anyone to live off of, anything extra can be spent on luxuries or whatever, I don't see why anyone needs to own more.

I think it would encourage renting more than buying a home, because money spent on rent is removed from your net worth, but buying a house would increase it over time as you pay down the mortgage. That wasn't intended, just something I noticed since you made me think about it. I don't see it as being a bad thing automatically though, the current system encourages buying houses for tax benefits and look at the mess we are in now because of it.

As far was "what would be the motivation to have more than $100k?" It's not like everything above $100k is instantly lost. Right now, what is the motivation in working at all, because pretty much everyone who works a full time job is going to be paying taxes? This is just a different tax. There would still be incentive to have more than $100k... because you could keep 90% of it, or 80% of it above $200k etc.

Originally posted by: Aharami
I'm a liberal guy, and your ideas scare me!
why does govt need all that extra money either?

What extra money? I clarified earlier that these taxes would be used to reduce or replace existing taxes, not be an addition to them.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: waggy


thats just stupid.

have you looked at what $300k house is in say new york? chicago?

and this would not stop people from buying huge houses. it make it more since if they have the money its taxed. so why not spend it?

this way of thinking is so wrong its scarry.

So, uh whats the issue exactly?

Let me translate your post.

Waggy: that's stupid, you need to spend $300k to have a house in new york or chicago and that tax system would make it impossible

Waggy: also your tax system wouldn't stop people from buying $500k houses because they would want to spend the money



It seems to me that you contradict yourself.

 

[meltdown75]

that AZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

tax that ass

 

[HybridSquirrel]

World of Warcraft

 

[GasX]

People like Chiropteran annoy me. They live in the world's richest country and enjoy all the benefits that it's free market principles have enabled him to take for granted and then decide that Swedish style socialism is the way we ought to run things...

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: jagec
They should tax living in the suburbs, since you're generating most of the wear & tear on the roads, most of the pollution, most of the infrastructure demands for power lines, utilities, cable, additional requirements for police, firefighters, snowplows etc, additional requirements for local branches of libraries, public schools, parks etc, and additional water processing requirements because of all the pesticides needed to keep up your filthy green lawns.

Just tax gasoline more, and you will accomplish the same thing. In European countries, where fuel is taxed more heavily than in North America, people live in more densely populated areas and drive less.

With a denser population, a city doesn't need as many branches of schools, police, fire halls, libraries, etc. and there is less infrastructure to maintain.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'd like to see religious organizations being taxed ... note: if they run a soup kitchen, or if they are donating most of the money to the poor, then they should get tax credits that will pretty much put them at a 0% rate.

If they are donating money to political campaigns or advertisements for propagations or the like, then they should be intelligible for any/all credits.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I'd like to see religious organizations being taxed ... note: if they run a soup kitchen, or if they are donating most of the money to the poor, then they should get tax credits that will pretty much put them at a 0% rate.

If they are donating money to political campaigns or advertisements for propagations or the like, then they should be intelligible for any/all credits.

Religious organizations should be treated the same as any other 501c3 organization (which includes more than just charities). 501c3 non-profits, including churches, are prohibited from donating to campaigns for political offices. I'm not sure if that applies to "propagations," or "propositions" as they call them in some states ( 😉 ), but IIRC there was some talk of revoking non-profit status for some organizations that contributed to prop 8 campaigns in California.

 

[krazydimund]

tobacco.

 

[zeruty]

I think that non-gun owners should be taxed more for the increase in police presence their lack of self-reliance creates.

Or more simply, you should get tax credits for owning firearms and being properly trained.

 

[Mrvile]

Umm...pot