wealth tax

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[drunkle]

i 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?

[drunkle]

i 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?

[drunkle]

i 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?

[drunkle]

i 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?

[drunkle]

i 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?

[robson]

I 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.

[robson]

I 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.

[robson]

I 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.

[robson]

I 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.

[robson]

I 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.

[meadandale]

I 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.

[meadandale]

I 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.

[meadandale]

I 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.

[meadandale]

I 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.

[Author]

Posts