71–80 of 198 posts
this is a classic case of tyranny of the majority. Majority of Americans favor stealing wealth from others.
They're trying to recapture their economic contributions. Companies won't pay more, so they're doing it via other means. When salaries were rising such actions were not popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it is a total mystery how adequately funding social welfare programs could somehow help the poor.
Benefits and welfare programs have been increasing dramatically as a percentage of GDP.
This is a feedback loop. If "spend is going up" is somehow justification for cutting welfare programs or for not funding them, how does that fix anything? The ideal would be to have more than enough funding for all your programs, then work on ideal ways to utilize the extra funding. In the end if there's a surplus you can always cut taxes on the rich again, since US lawmakers are constantly trying to do it anyway.
Alternative title: Majority of Americans are not rich, and therefore see no downside to taking from those who are I do think the inequality gap is becoming more of a problem, but simply asking the population if they want someone else to pay more is going to have the obvious result.
It's worth noting that the income tax also started out as a tax on the very rich. Once established, taxes have a way of finding their way from the rich, to the middle-class, and then even to the working poor.
This is why the wealth tax will fail to fix inequality. Eventually your parents shitty 250k house out in the sticks will qualify for wealth tax. Whatever stocks you have that aren't in a retirement account will be wealth taxed even though half their growth is just from inflation. It's going to suck.
I think you might be disconnected from what a house costs in less-than-desirable areas, but there are houses you can find within driving distances of major jobs hubs for a fraction of that price. Sure, they won't be nice, but you used the word "shitty" and implied a middle-of-nowhere locale.
When I left Pittsburgh not too long ago, you could buy a house across the river from where I worked for about $30k. Yes, it sucked and wasn't a great spot, but that's a lot cheaper than $250k and I could walk to work.
I just checked and found a shitty fixer upper (so a lot of work) in the same spot for $40k. And there are plenty of nicer houses that don't need work for under $100k, and again this is just a few minutes drive away from Pittsburgh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth noting that the income tax use to be more than 90% on the very rich...
Tax rules and deductions have changed over the years. Almost nobody paid the top rate and effective tax burdens for the rich have been more or less flat for decades: https://i.imgur.com/uWl8vsp.png
I'm skeptical that most respondents understood the questions correctly. Most people are familiar with income tax, because they know that money is removed from their paycheck every month. Many also file tax returns. A wealth tax, where a fraction of your bank balance is removed every month, is a totally alien concept to most people. If you haven't thought about it before, it can take a minute or two to wrap your head…
why have such low confidence in the intelligence of Americans? people aren't dumb, and if it was just a higher income tax it would be called such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. “Tax the rich” is all fun and games until enough voters decide the threshold for “rich” starts at approximately $120k per year and owning a house. Honestly I would not be surprised if by the time I’m ready to retire that all or part of my 401k is seized to help “solve” the (surprisingly still-present!) problem of wealth inequality.
$120k per year is a couple of orders of magnitude below any threshold thus far proposed.
I feel the wealth inequality issue needs to be addressed. My only problem with the wealth tax is that it takes money from the wealthy and feeds it to the government. I am having a hard time connecting how that improves the situation of the lower and middle classes.