Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › wealth tax
- This topic has 115 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
drunkle.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM #137835January 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM #137536
drunkle
Participanti understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.
your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.
consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.
“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?
January 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM #137743drunkle
Participanti understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.
your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.
consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.
“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?
January 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM #137771drunkle
Participanti understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.
your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.
consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.
“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?
January 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM #137798drunkle
Participanti understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.
your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.
consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.
“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?
January 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM #137840drunkle
Participanti understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.
your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.
consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.
“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?
January 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM #137551robson
ParticipantI was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.January 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM #137758robson
ParticipantI was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.January 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM #137786robson
ParticipantI was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.January 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM #137813robson
ParticipantI was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.January 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM #137855robson
ParticipantI was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.January 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM #137556meadandale
ParticipantI find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.
January 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM #137762meadandale
ParticipantI find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.
January 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM #137791meadandale
ParticipantI find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.
January 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM #137818meadandale
ParticipantI find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.