141–150 of 488 posts
I’m more concerned about what happens if we don’t start taxing the rich more (in the US). I’m worried about the class divide turning violent
Or not turning violent. Either way is a lot of misery. Also, how about the game of entrepreneurship? I'd much rather play that game on a playing field where there are a lot of customers who are well off.
As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…
Strange. Business owner friends of mine have taken the opposite approach over the years. Taxes low? Start up something new, get it going. Taxes go up again? Sell it off (if they haven't already) and go back to early retirement doing whatever. Maybe it is largely the type of business that behavior changes. Their last venture was starting up an aquaponics farm in a borderline urban / suburban area, though I haven't kep…
Sure, they may feel that way. But the person who bought the business off them is still incentivized to behave in the way that the GP post describes.
If the US Government were a charity, the rating would be 0-stars. Nearly all tax money is pocketed by special interests. The usual arguments "yeah what about fire and police" account for a rounding error in tax collection while the vast majority is simply pocketed by friends of your elected officials. You know what'd be nice? Consent. I'd like to be consented before my value is forceful removed from me. I'd like to p…
Classic circular fallacy. "Wealth taxes are good. Wealthy people don't like wealth taxes, and that's how you know they are good." Or is it an ad hominem even if the "hominem" is a class (wealthy people) instead of a person?
It's definitely a useless argument for a fairly lazy article. I don't disagree that the articles they link have weak arguments, but why not actually cite economic policy experts and economists that agree with wealth inequality? The lack of attention to such viewpoints, if their claim holds true, would better indicate media bias than them publishing weak op-eds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? (I mostly agree but it's not a strong opinion)
Hard to value creating expensive compliance and easy game-ability. Not easily convertible to cash. Doesn't fix the government's spending pattern or plug its budget hole unless it resorts to full on expropriation. Not competitive.
3 and 4 are the real problems with a wealth tax.
The fundamental issue is that the government spends too much money. The politicians and the voters who support them refuse to support cuts in the magnitudes necessary to bring that situation back in hand. Many don't even believe it is a problem. On top of all that, the programs they refuse to cut, at every governmental level, are exactly the programs that suck up the most money. Medicare, Military, Police and Fire, on and on.
99.999% of all voters are like the family in the financial advisor's office who are willing to cut the trips to Starbuck's or go to a cheaper gym. So they feel they are being responsible. But they tell the financial advisor that the kids' private school tuition and the $50,000 cars they drive are not up for discussion. (Lord help you if you have the temerity to bring up the biggest issue of all, the $500,000 house they live in. You better have you kevlar on for that discussion.)
What can you do with people like that?
What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to area…
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded m…
As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things I guess “wealthy” is an easily movable goal post...
This seems to be a classic problem in American political discourse, people immediately discount solutions for very serious problems that exist right now, due to (often extremely shaky) hypotheticals that might some day come to pass (usually with a massive heaping helping of slippery slope fallacy).
Is having saved 200.000$ in 30 years (not so bonkers) being rich?
The real solution: a flat tax. 20% for everyone, regardless of take. A fair, non-political solution. Dismantle the IRS, ditch all of the complexity.
I fully agree with a flat tax w/ 0 baseline deduction.
but we still need a definition of what is "take". Afterall , paying 20% tax on $100 receipts makes no sense if it cost me $105 in expenses already.
What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to area…
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded m…
It's frightening that many people cannot imagine proper city planning when other countries (the Netherlands come to mind) demonstrate that it can be done and improves quality of life immensely.