Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

[mican333]

Taking advantage of numerous exemptions and loopholes, the rich paid about 40% and not the 70% your claim suggests.

I didn't make any claim about how much the rich actually pay when the tax rate is 70%. My point is that we've had a high tax rate on the rich in the past and it wasn't a problem.

And here is where you're getting to the truth of how you feel about the issue. The money of the rich invested in the markets or deposited in banks gets circulated to people who need it to grow or start businesses. They benefit. And the people who get the jobs created by that circulation of money benefit. But those people aren't the ones you want to help.

Actually, they are. I've directly said that those who work full-time should be able to afford the basics. And yet it's difficult to afford rent on a minimum wage job.

"You would have to earn $17.14 an hour, on average, to be able to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment without having to spend more than 30 percent of your income on housing, a common budgeting standard. Make that $21.21 for a two-bedroom home -- nearly three times the federal minimum wage of $7.25."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2149b422d933

So whatever benefit is being produced for the working poor by how the wealthy use their money, it's not nearly enough.

I have expressed no desire to financially help those who are able-bodied but just refuse to get a job. But something needs to be done to help the working poor and progressive taxation would indeed be a step in the right direction.

You want wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, directly. Doesn't that sum up your real thinking on the subject?

Not really. While doing that would help achieve the goal of helping the working poor, that does not need to be the method of doing it. So a direct redistribution does not sum up my position. Helping the working poor so they can afford to pay rent, buy food, and afford health care would sum up my position.

Again, this suggests that you want wealth transfer from rich to poor, but are cloaking that agenda in an argument about how to achieve broader and stronger economic activity. Be honest, and stop pu55yfooting around. Say that you believe in wealth redistribution from rich to poor, and we can debate whether that is a legitimate agenda, and whether a wealth tax is a good tool for the job. Sheesh.

I understand that it's easier for you to attack a straw-man position that you have forwarded instead of my actual position but I've clearly forwarded the moral premise that the working poor should be able to afford the basics numerous times on this threads so that is the position that you will have to address if you want to address my position.

We already have a progressive tax structure in the graduated income tax. So why not just raise the top bracket back to 70% and eliminate exemptions and loopholes? Or 80%, or 90%? Why should a wealth tax on personal assets be instituted in addition to an income tax (and property taxes, and inheritance taxes, etc.)?

I don't know what the best formula is but the current situation does't work, given my goal.

But given my goal, a wealth tax is a good idea. If there's a better idea that we should do instead, then I'd be for that instead. But I'd rather have a wealth tax than maintain the status quo.

[evensaul]

I didn't make any claim about how much the rich actually pay when the tax rate is 70%. My point is that we've had a high tax rate on the rich in the past and it wasn't a problem.

Even if this claim is true, it is an apples to oranges red herring, because a high income tax rate does not cause the hiding of assets in the same magnitude as a wealth tax would.

Let's just jump to your last comment...

I don't know what the best formula is but the current situation does't work, given my goal.

But given my goal, a wealth tax is a good idea. If there's a better idea that we should do instead, then I'd be for that instead. But I'd rather have a wealth tax than maintain the status quo.

So you're really just totally effing clueless as to whether a wealth tax, specifically, is a good idea. But you don't like the status quo, so any proposal to soak the rich is a "good idea" to you. That's just priceless, and a great example of how the Left thinks.

[mican333]

Even if this claim is true, it is an apples to oranges red herring, because a high income tax rate does not cause the hiding of assets in the same magnitude as a wealth tax would.

But then how much would a wealth tax cause the hiding of assets? Unless you know the answer and can show that it would be a real problem, I don't think you have much of a point here.

So you're really just totally effing clueless as to whether a wealth tax, specifically, is a good idea.

While you don't need to respond to every point I make in a post, it would be good if you understand what I wrote before you respond. I guess I need to remind you that I'm for helping the working poor afford the basics and I said that a wealth tax, assuming the money is used in a way that helps the working poor, would be a way of achieving the goal. It's kind of common sense. And your rebuttal?

But you don't like the status quo, so any proposal to soak the rich is a "good idea" to you.

Again, helping the working poor?

Did you honestly not understand that or are you intentionally misrepresenting my argument?

That's just priceless, and a great example of how the Left thinks.

Well, I could say that your misrepresentation of my argument is a great example of how the right debates but that would be as asinine as your comment about how the left thinks is.

[evensaul]

But then how much would a wealth tax cause the hiding of assets? Unless you know the answer and can show that it would be a real problem, I don't think you have much of a point here.

The conclusion should be obvious to anyone over age twelve who gives an honest assessment. Your refusal to acknowledge the logic is no surprise.

Again, helping the working poor?

At the expense of the wealthy. To you, any tax that you think will help "the working poor" is, by default, probably a good idea. Income tax? Of course! Inheritance tax? You bet! Wealth tax? Oh, yeah! You don't exactly know "the best formula", but I'm sure the overriding criteria is to maximize the total taxes on the rich and given to the "working poor".

So your initial post in this thread could have simply been "Yes, any tax on the wealthy to help the working poor is probably a good idea." Instead you went into the weeds on economic activity and GDP and the other crap. Next time, suck it up and tell it the way you really see it.

Now, I've given my argument on why a wealth tax would be a bad idea. You've not rebutted it. And I don't see any reason to add a new tax, because it is more logical to just make adjustments to the income tax. You've not rebutted that either. So unless you've got something new and relevant to offer, I'm going to ignore your next post. Give it your best shot.

[mican333]

The conclusion should be obvious to anyone over age twelve who gives an honest assessment. Your refusal to acknowledge the logic is no surprise.

Your continuous put-downs of your opponents is no surprise either.

And I did acknowledge the logic of your point and don't challenge that there will be SOME hiding of wealth. But I'm asking if it will be an amount that is worth concerning ourselves with. If you want to argue that it will be, go ahead. Otherwise this doesn't really seem to be an issue.

At the expense of the wealthy. To you, any tax that you think will help "the working poor" is, by default, probably a good idea. Income tax? Of course! Inheritance tax? You bet! Wealth tax? Oh, yeah! You don't exactly know "the best formula", but I'm sure the overriding criteria is to maximize the total taxes on the rich and given to the "working poor".

Not a rebuttal but just a somewhat inaccurate assessment of my position. Ignored for that reason.

So your initial post in this thread could have simply been "Yes, any tax on the wealthy to help the working poor is probably a good idea." Instead you went into the weeds on economic activity and GDP and the other crap. Next time, suck it up and tell it the way you really see it.

Not a rebuttal either and likewise an inaccurate assessment of the earlier debate.

I did directly state my argument numerous times in this thread. The debate moved to things like the GDP because Ibelsd made that part of his rebuttal to my clearly stated argument.

So how about just sticking to debating whatever issue you want to debate instead of inaccurately telling me my position and then giving me crap for it? It's rude and a waste of time.

Now, I've given my argument on why a wealth tax would be a bad idea. You've not rebutted it.

Because they would hide assets?

Until you can show that it would happen to such an extent that it would be a problem, you have not shown that it would be a bad idea.

And I don't see any reason to add a new tax, because it is more logical to just make adjustments to the income tax.

Saying that you have a better idea than the one that was presented does not make the other idea a bad one. So you've not shown that the wealth tax is a bad idea.