Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that for the added revenue from taxing the rich to make a dent, DCUM would have to agree that the rich includes anyone worth $3 million or earning $300k+. Watch the DCUM liberals squawk about that.

But I'd be for it.

Tax away. HHI $500-700k.

Glad to hear it. I wish more rich families in DC liberal land were like you. (And yes, you're rich.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she wants to tax wealth! Not dumb at all. Easier than taxing income. No complicated tax rules for deductions needed.

Yes people can try to hide their wealth, but this is already illegal so good if we can catch more people doing it

You are so, so naive.
Taxing assets is far more challenging than taxing income.

Please cure me of my ignorance then

Haha, me too. In my ignorance, I thought taxes on property had been a thing since the founding of the Republic.

If the two PPs are truly interested in learning...

Taxing income is straightforward because income statements are prepared by the entities that are the payers of that income - they do it in order to properly deduct it from *their own* income. So for example a business issues a W2 because they want to deduct wages from the income they've generated so that they are not taxed on that income. Businesses generate 1099s to each other to report sales for tax purposes. I'm just listing a couple but essentially the transactional nature of income producing activities in conjunction with reporting requirements makes it easy to track.

Wealth is entirely different. A PP pointed to taxes on property but property tax is not a wealth tax - this is why you are taxed on the market value of the property and not what your actual equity is on the property. Property taxes are also fairly well focused on specific things: homes, cars, etc, things that have a reasonably efficient market to determine the current market value. Plus, homes and cars have fairly steady markets and do not suffer from the same volatility that stocks would have. Many other forms of wealth have values that are very tough to determine the market value of. What's the value of the Washington Redskins franchise - certainly it has a value, but now the IRS has to develop expertise in NFL franchise valuation? Aside from the difficulty of valuation is the fact that wealth is not transactional and many forms of it is simply not in a form that can be known or therefore audited. Someone's substantial wine collection doesn't have to be registered anywhere, nor their art collection, or jewelry collection. And speaking of precious metals, someone holding wealth in actual bars of gold has no reporting requirements and therefore no way to audit.

For the above reasons, the countries that have tried a wealth tax is generally moving away from it. Take a look at France - they are one of the nations to have recently tried a wealth tax. The law was tweaked and adjusted to excluded all kinds of "wealth" but was eventually abolished altogether and replaced with a real estate tax.

So here we are trying to institute a tax that even the French have given up on. What a sad and ironic world we live in.

You lost me in your first sentence. We already said that it's easy to tax middle class people if all their income comes from a W-2.

It's already hard to tax the income of the rich just like it will be hard to tax their wealth too. Something being hard is not an argument for not attending to make it work

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that for the added revenue from taxing the rich to make a dent, DCUM would have to agree that the rich includes anyone worth $3 million or earning $300k+. Watch the DCUM liberals squawk about that.

But I'd be for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

No one is demonizing the wealthy - we are demonizing the wealth gap. Rising wealth gap is destructive to a country. I pay property tax for a property I bought after working 30 years. So I do not see a reason for super rich people to pay wealth tax on their diamonds, yachts, and planes they have worked for. Its okay if some wealthy folks leave America for this reason (although I can guarantee you that most would not). It's not like the wealthy people are sharing their wealth or obligation to maintain this country anyway. All the laws that the wealthy support is regressive and detrimental to the long term viability of this country. So, I do not care if they leave.

Could have fooled me. The wealth gap is being blamed on the wealthy. Democrats believe wealth is a zero-sum game, that the wealthy are wealthy because they somehow cheated the money from those people who are poor. Just look at the posts that started this thread - describing wealthy people as hoarders, implying that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be hoarded. Yes, you pay property tax, so do wealthy people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

He probably worked to make his hundreds of thousands. The rest was a windfall. No one ever earned a billion dollars.

Imagine if someone said that a vaccine only saves a few hundred thousand people, the other billions of people were just lucky, no vaccine ever prevented a billion sicknesses. By this analogy, I am illustrating that incremental value of a product or service in economics doesn't diminish as you get it to more people, but rather it multiplies. So long as the payment is not coerced, the profit is absolutely earned and not a lucky windfall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

No one is demonizing the wealthy - we are demonizing the wealth gap. Rising wealth gap is destructive to a country. I pay property tax for a property I bought after working 30 years. So I do not see a reason for super rich people to pay wealth tax on their diamonds, yachts, and planes they have worked for. Its okay if some wealthy folks leave America for this reason (although I can guarantee you that most would not). It's not like the wealthy people are sharing their wealth or obligation to maintain this country anyway. All the laws that the wealthy support is regressive and detrimental to the long term viability of this country. So, I do not care if they leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she wants to tax wealth! Not dumb at all. Easier than taxing income. No complicated tax rules for deductions needed.

Yes people can try to hide their wealth, but this is already illegal so good if we can catch more people doing it

You are so, so naive.
Taxing assets is far more challenging than taxing income.

Please cure me of my ignorance then

Haha, me too. In my ignorance, I thought taxes on property had been a thing since the founding of the Republic.

If the two PPs are truly interested in learning...

Taxing income is straightforward because income statements are prepared by the entities that are the payers of that income - they do it in order to properly deduct it from *their own* income. So for example a business issues a W2 because they want to deduct wages from the income they've generated so that they are not taxed on that income. Businesses generate 1099s to each other to report sales for tax purposes. I'm just listing a couple but essentially the transactional nature of income producing activities in conjunction with reporting requirements makes it easy to track.

Wealth is entirely different. A PP pointed to taxes on property but property tax is not a wealth tax - this is why you are taxed on the market value of the property and not what your actual equity is on the property. Property taxes are also fairly well focused on specific things: homes, cars, etc, things that have a reasonably efficient market to determine the current market value. Plus, homes and cars have fairly steady markets and do not suffer from the same volatility that stocks would have. Many other forms of wealth have values that are very tough to determine the market value of. What's the value of the Washington Redskins franchise - certainly it has a value, but now the IRS has to develop expertise in NFL franchise valuation? Aside from the difficulty of valuation is the fact that wealth is not transactional and many forms of it is simply not in a form that can be known or therefore audited. Someone's substantial wine collection doesn't have to be registered anywhere, nor their art collection, or jewelry collection. And speaking of precious metals, someone holding wealth in actual bars of gold has no reporting requirements and therefore no way to audit.

For the above reasons, the countries that have tried a wealth tax is generally moving away from it. Take a look at France - they are one of the nations to have recently tried a wealth tax. The law was tweaked and adjusted to excluded all kinds of "wealth" but was eventually abolished altogether and replaced with a real estate tax.

So here we are trying to institute a tax that even the French have given up on. What a sad and ironic world we live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

He probably worked to make his hundreds of thousands. The rest was a windfall. No one ever earned a billion dollars.

Imagine if someone said that a vaccine only saves a few hundred thousand people, the other billions of people were just lucky, no vaccine ever prevented a billion sicknesses. By this analogy, I am illustrating that incremental value of a product or service in economics doesn't diminish as you get it to more people, but rather it multiplies. So long as the payment is not coerced, the profit is absolutely earned and not a lucky windfall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Liberals sure didn't demonize JFK, who didn't even earn his money.

Of course, he would be a Republican by today's standard. He lowered taxes.

Haha. His proposal reduced the top marginal rate to 65%. That's not too far off from the rate proposed by ACO that has idiots screaming about our descent into a dysfunctional Venezuelan style of socialism. But, sure, if the Republicans want to set the top marginal rate at 65% and a corporate tax rate of 48%, then I'm in. GOP all the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she wants to tax wealth! Not dumb at all. Easier than taxing income. No complicated tax rules for deductions needed.

Yes people can try to hide their wealth, but this is already illegal so good if we can catch more people doing it

You are so, so naive.
Taxing assets is far more challenging than taxing income.

Please cure me of my ignorance then

Haha, me too. In my ignorance, I thought taxes on property had been a thing since the founding of the Republic.

If the two PPs are truly interested in learning...

Taxing income is straightforward because income statements are prepared by the entities that are the payers of that income - they do it in order to properly deduct it from *their own* income. So for example a business issues a W2 because they want to deduct wages from the income they've generated so that they are not taxed on that income. Businesses generate 1099s to each other to report sales for tax purposes. I'm just listing a couple but essentially the transactional nature of income producing activities in conjunction with reporting requirements makes it easy to track.

Wealth is entirely different. A PP pointed to taxes on property but property tax is not a wealth tax - this is why you are taxed on the market value of the property and not what your actual equity is on the property. Property taxes are also fairly well focused on specific things: homes, cars, etc, things that have a reasonably efficient market to determine the current market value. Plus, homes and cars have fairly steady markets and do not suffer from the same volatility that stocks would have. Many other forms of wealth have values that are very tough to determine the market value of. What's the value of the Washington Redskins franchise - certainly it has a value, but now the IRS has to develop expertise in NFL franchise valuation? Aside from the difficulty of valuation is the fact that wealth is not transactional and many forms of it is simply not in a form that can be known or therefore audited. Someone's substantial wine collection doesn't have to be registered anywhere, nor their art collection, or jewelry collection. And speaking of precious metals, someone holding wealth in actual bars of gold has no reporting requirements and therefore no way to audit.

For the above reasons, the countries that have tried a wealth tax is generally moving away from it. Take a look at France - they are one of the nations to have recently tried a wealth tax. The law was tweaked and adjusted to excluded all kinds of "wealth" but was eventually abolished altogether and replaced with a real estate tax.

So here we are trying to institute a tax that even the French have given up on. What a sad and ironic world we live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

He probably worked to make his hundreds of thousands. The rest was a windfall. No one ever earned a billion dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, she wants to tax wealth! Not dumb at all. Easier than taxing income. No complicated tax rules for deductions needed.

Yes people can try to hide their wealth, but this is already illegal so good if we can catch more people doing it

You are so, so naive.
Taxing assets is far more challenging than taxing income.

Please cure me of my ignorance then

Haha, me too. In my ignorance, I thought taxes on property had been a thing since the founding of the Republic.

Anonymous wrote:
Liberals sure didn't demonize JFK, who didn't even earn his money.

Of course, he would be a Republican by today's standard. He lowered taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always surprised at how we have become the country of “its hard so we don’t do it.”

Single payer is hard so we won’t do it
Taxing rich people is hard so we won’t do it
Making equitable education is hard so we won’t do it
Building up infrastructure is hard so we won’t do it


What is this??

Funny.
I find it hard to believe how so many choose to demonize the wealthy.
Like Howard Schultz, for example. He worked to make his millions.
Keep on, folks. The truly wealthy have options. They can choose to leave.
Much like they did in France.