451–460 of 727 posts
So 5% wealth tax would be the same as 100% income tax, 6% would de 120% AND 100% wealth tax would be the same as 2000% income tax. I think some relevant factors are missing. What is the polite way of putting it... Ah right! You are a clown!
Isn't this argument simply confusing income tax with capital gains tax? Because that's the tax you pay on your investment returns, and it's actually capped (in the US) at around 20%.
There's a way to levy a wealth tax that requires no asset liquidation whatsoever . Allow paying taxes with assets. The assets go into a sovereign wealth fund. At scale the fund effectively holds a percentage of the entire economy. Its returns should only be used to reduce income tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i hate when people bring it up. everybody that works pays payroll taxes which is around 25% when you count both sides.
It’s 15.3% counting both sides, and capped. And it’s the only “tax” that is paid back, at progressive rates, because it’s a retirement annuity not an income tax.
> To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%. This seems to only be true for people whose income entirely comes from their wealth, rather than their labor. The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtai…
I can't tell what's worse: intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social security and Medicare are also payroll "taxes" in that they're not optional and are automatically deducted.
This is called insurance, not tax.
It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax.
But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. Mitt Romney mentioned a number of 47% during his presidential campaign and that number was mostly true. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romne... People love to talk about the marginal tax rates but not the average tax rates. And I think that’s right because the conversation should be focused on the wealthi…
> On the other hand, almost a majority of people already pay no federal income tax anyways. That's an irrelevant diversion though, because the measure that matters when discussing the fairness of taxes is how much people are left with at the end after paying whatever taxes they pay, including sales tax, income tax, and any other kind of tax. And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very litt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most people when they earn income save some of it. Therefore it is wealth taxed. This is one of those “check your privilege” moments and one where it is best to look at the median and not just the average when talking about household wealth in the US. Between 57% and 67% of U.S. adults are estimated to live paycheck to paycheck. They aren’t saving it, they’re going into debt because the only local grocery store is a…
Do they still live paycheck to paycheck after receiving a raise? If so, the problem likely isn’t the paycheck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wealth accumulates with no input once established. This is incorrect, historically you'll pay a ~2%-3% loss via inflation if you keep your money in cash. If you invest (making it capital) in bonds or securities then you will see accumulation, but thats actually a risk premium. > Additionally, wealthy people can use securities as collateral for near zero interest lifetime loans which also bypass having to pay income…
The S&P500 has increased 9.8% annually the last 100 years, roughly 6% annually adjusted for inflation. Yes, past performance is no guarantee for future, but historically a completely passive index placement of wealth into S&P500 would double the real (adjusted for inflation) wealth every 12 years. With absolutely no work.