D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Sorry, I've learned that I'm Jeff Bezos in disguise.
General Billionaire cries over 2% wealth tax
- Thread starter Toelocku
- Start date
I don't believe there should be "wealth tax." I do think that everyone should pay there fair share and tax laws designed specifically to protect the wealthy is not helping. Another issue is billion dollar companies receiving money from the tax payer just to have that money siphoned off by people so rich that they don't even need it.
Well, you do have a lot of dick pics floating around.
"
Just tell me why a family that has saved should then constantly have their wealth removed yearly"
@Splinty the warren wealth tax starts at fifty Million with 2 cents on the dollar
If you are clearing 50 million annually affordable College isn't a concern
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
@Splinty the warren wealth tax starts at fifty Million with 2 cents on the dollar
If you are clearing 50 million annually affordable College isn't a concern
Even you don't seem to understand the plan. Assets vs annual income.
Are u talking about Warren's plan or yours?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Warrens. I don't have a plan. I asked an open ended question to sell me on why this, of all various taxing schemes, is the right one.
So far the responses are weak. And in your case you've conflated assets held with annual wealth gain, which is essentially income vs wealth taxes, and shows that clearly you don't understand the topic you are supporting.
You can't actually be this delusional.
Your characterization of the wealth tax proposal is applying a broad brush to something with fairly clear asset value limits. If we're talking about Warren's plan, at least, this isn't something that would apply to "those at retirement" as if we're talking about Doña Maria who turned her fruit cart into a successful small grocery store in her local city valued today at $20 million and who moved to a nice house in the hills worth $1 million. Add in her cars and vacation home back in Cancun valued at $500,000. Throw in a stock portfolio valued (somehow) at $1 million and we're still not getting anywhere close to the threshold proposed by Warren for asset value where her tax kicks in. It's unlikely that you, who make decent money, will ever hit the asset valuation for this to be relevant. To say this is what people saved again a petit bourgeois representation of the actual class we're talking about here.
Here is a fact check on Warren's plan that mostly discussed whether it will do what it's supposed to do, with some scholars saying it can't or won't and others saying it will given x, y, z. Also in the fact check are specifications on who would be targeted and how.
Facts on Warren's Wealth Tax Plan
We are talking roughly 75,000 people out of 327 million paying 2 cents for every dollar of assets they own in the event they own $50 million worth of stuff. 3 cents if they own a billion worth. The vast majority of that "stuff" is financial holdings and not tangible anything, which is typically the only way to start crawling over that 50 million mark in the first place.
But it seems like your question is mostly a philosophical one, i.e. should a society be able to take something someone else has acquired for what it defines as the greater good? The simple answer, of course, is that we do it all the time. We take an individual's basic right to survive by acquiring food and shelter wherever and however they choose by requiring that they trade labor to procure it in our system of private property. If you choose to own private property, you have to pay an ongoing fee to the state for that as well. So the horse has already left the barn on that one. The question is why this particular form of obligation seems like an overreach, and I'd wager it's because those 75,000 people have enough wealth to spend on crafting messages via reasonable sounding op-ed writers, public policy think tanks, PR departments in a nervous financial sector, and political surrogates to shape the way we understand what is being proposed. Even the framing of making claims on wealth being a sort of moral question is deliberate when instead the moral question could just as easily be why does wealth exist at all? The myth that wealth exists simply because people earn and save just isn't supported by the reality of most 50 millionaires who make most of their money by either having a lot to begin with or because financialization means the odds favor them when playing casino capitalism, often both. Pumping money into corporate bonds then putting profits into various real estate trusts (for example) isn't "earning" through being smart. It's one of the most basic strategies anyone with wealth can adopt, and it's usually their accountant or wealth advisor doing it on their behalf anyway. Taking the proceeds to go and buy paintings and jewelry doesn't suddenly mean they have property they earned either. It just means they have assets outside taxable status as either earnings or capital gains. This Jay-Z style of capitalism is what the wealth tax plan targets.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It's not. It's an open ended question on why this tax is needed, why others aren't getting the job done, etc.
All I've had in response is philosophical answers.
I didn't mention Warren's plan. I don't know anything about it. The thread doesn't mention Warren's plan.
Lots of countries have wealth tax that isn't warrens plan.
I wasn't arguing for Warren's plan I was arguing for mine
A wealth tax is needed because croney capitalism leads to a zero-sum game which leads to destruction of the society
Dude my op was about a billionaire crying over the Warren tax proposal
@Toelocku Cited the 50 million figure from the Warren plan above and you said "you don't understand the plan you're supporting" in reply, implying you do since you correctly pointed out that this plan targets assets, not income. In my response, there is a link to the details of said plan with discussion over why this approach and debate over whether it would work. Most of your other replies seem to suggest a more fundamental skepticism that can only be interpreted as philosophical. Pretending people aren't answering your question because they don't get into your specific technocratic tax policy weeds when they've accommodated them is just being obtuse.
You nob heads argue about anything.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Why not just increase and enforce existing taxes?? What does this do better?
Go back to like the second page. He doesn't care about funding social services. He wants to make sure wealthy people are punished too.
I dont support Warren's plan
I would tax @ 100% any income and total assets over 50mil as I said earlier in the thread
No I didnt you shit I specifically said I'd tax for social services
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
So you don't support a wealth tax?
Depends on why... in Warren's case no in theory yes
It's there in black and white, and you're still denying it. Hilarious.
100% is a little steep dontcha think?