Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax on anyone with personal assets over $50M.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/eliz...c-advisor.html


    Is creating a wealth tax on personal assets of Americans a good idea?

    Logically, this would mean that the IRS would require everyone to complete a new tax return form every year, itemizing all of their assets. Everything from the house and car, to cash in the bank or stuffed in a shoe box. And probably anything else of value that people acquire, such as jewelry, art, stamp collections, etc. And then... the IRS gets to audit anyone it suspects of hiding assets.

    And if you think that will only effect the super rich, don't be so sure. Once such a tax is in place, lowering the threshold from $50m to $20m or $1m would just take small changes in the tax code.

    It all seems like an incredibly bad idea to me, but is probably typical of what we'll see from leftists seeking the Democrat party's nomination for president in 2020.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax on anyone with personal assets over $50M.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/eliz...c-advisor.html


    Is creating a wealth tax on personal assets of Americans a good idea?

    Logically, this would mean that the IRS would require everyone to complete a new tax return form every year, itemizing all of their assets. Everything from the house and car, to cash in the bank or stuffed in a shoe box. And probably anything else of value that people acquire, such as jewelry, art, stamp collections, etc. And then... the IRS gets to audit anyone it suspects of hiding assets.

    And if you think that will only effect the super rich, don't be so sure. Once such a tax is in place, lowering the threshold from $50m to $20m or $1m would just take small changes in the tax code.

    It all seems like an incredibly bad idea to me, but is probably typical of what we'll see from leftists seeking the Democrat party's nomination for president in 2020.
    I have a real skepticism for this type of tax.
    A consumption tax seems most fair. Rich people spend lots of money. Poor people don't. Tax what is spent. In this way taxes could be targeted away from the poor, like no tax on food (for instance.

    Our next presidential election is going to be scary/awful/embarrassing/divisive….

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Keep in mind that we used to have a 70% tax rate on the wealthiest people for quite a while and it seemed that the effects were generally positive. Either way, if the disastrous outcomes mentioned in the OP had merit, we would have seen that in the past.

    And really what needs to happen is that no one should be hoarding huge amounts of money. Money should be circulating through our economy so if the super-rich want to spend most of their money, great. But if they are just going to sit on it, then paying high taxes seems like a good idea.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And really what needs to happen is that no one should be hoarding huge amounts of money. Money should be circulating through our economy so if the super-rich want to spend most of their money, great. But if they are just going to sit on it, then paying high taxes seems like a good idea.
    This demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance of what happens when rich people are "hoarding huge amounts of money". It is invested in businesses, or in the stock market (which is effectively investing in businesses). Even money that is put into CD's and other bank accounts is used by banks to make loans to businesses and other people who spend and invest the loaned money. It's not as though people with hoards of money are stuffing it into suitcases or the hollow parts of walls in their mansions. The monies of the rich are very much "circulating through our economy".
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance of what happens when rich people are "hoarding huge amounts of money". It is invested in businesses, or in the stock market (which is effectively investing in businesses). Even money that is put into CD's and other bank accounts is used by banks to make loans to businesses and other people who spend and invest the loaned money. It's not as though people with hoards of money are stuffing it into suitcases or the hollow parts of walls in their mansions. The monies of the rich are very much "circulating through our economy".
    I didn't say that it was stuffed in mattresses and such. I do realize that stuff is done with the money.

    But that hoarded money generally does not make it into the hands of the people who aren't rich and is generally not spent on goods and services. I work for a company that makes a product and then sells it. We prosper when people buy our products and people are more likely to buy our products if they have money to spend on it. Sure, a rich person can buy our product but he's probably not going to buy more than one of them. And the more money that is not accessible to all of the people who might buy our product if they had the disposable income to buy it, the worse it is for our company and that goes for most other companies as well.

    So maybe I should have said in the market instead of in the economy. There should be more people buying more stuff which means we need more money being spent instead of being hoarded.

    When we have many people who work full time but can't afford the basics of food, shelter, and health care, it's pretty obvious that however the super-rich are handling their money, it's not in a fashion that is doing the common worker a lot of good.
    Last edited by mican333; January 26th, 2019 at 10:13 AM.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So maybe I should have said in the market instead of in the economy. There should be more people buying more stuff which means we need more money being spent instead of being hoarded.
    You totally missed Evens point about what the "rich" do with their money.

    BTW, if you make $32,400/yr you are in the top 1% of wage earners on the planet (though I am guessing you live with your parents). The majority of wage earners in America fall into this category.

    ---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When we have many people who work full time but can't afford the basics of food, shelter, and health care, it's pretty obvious that however the super-rich are handling their money, it's not in a fashion that is doing the common worker a lot of good.


    Maybe we should just put a cap on how much wealth a person can have!
    Or it could be law that at a certain level they must do "X" with the excess $$$'s!

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You totally missed Evens point about what the "rich" do with their money.
    No I didn't. He was referring to investing and banking and such. That is not spending. I'm saying more money needs to be spent by people in the market.

    It would certainly be good more the company that I work for if people spent more money.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    BTW, if you make $32,400/yr you are in the top 1% of wage earners on the planet (though I am guessing you live with your parents).
    Then I'm guessing you live under a bridge with the other trolls.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The majority of wage earners in America fall into this category.
    But obviously the proposal was about the 1% in the US. And it's not even about a percentage but those who earn above a certain dollar amount, like 10 million.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Maybe we should just put a cap on how much wealth a person can have!
    Or it could be law that at a certain level they must do "X" with the excess $$$'s!
    Those are options. But a progressive tax rate seems like the best idea to decrease income inequality in this country.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No I didn't. He was referring to investing and banking and such. That is not spending. I'm saying more money needs to be spent by people in the market.
    You have totally missed Even's point of what the rich do with their money.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then I'm guessing you live under a bridge with the other trolls.
    That was not an ad hom. You just sound young and idealistic (lack experience of living on your own and being responsible for your own life as well as perhaps a wife and children).

    What you responded with IS an ad hom there liberal understanding, respectful, inclusive of other opinions guy.

    ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But obviously the proposal was about the 1% in the US. And it's not even about a percentage but those who earn above a certain dollar amount.
    So we only need care about the rights of those on this country?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 26th, 2019 at 04:38 PM.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You have totally missed Even's point of what the rich do with their money.
    No I haven't. Here is what he said - cut and pasted.

    "It is invested in businesses, or in the stock market (which is effectively investing in businesses). Even money that is put into CD's and other bank accounts is used by banks to make loans to businesses and other people who spend and invest the loaned money."

    So the rich's money is invested in businesses and put into bank accounts.

    And as I've pointed out, that is different than spending it on goods and services and that more money should be put towards that.

    So don't just say, without support, that I've missed the point. If you think I've missed the point, then explain what you think the point is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That was not an ad hom. You just sound young and idealistic (lack experience).

    What you responded with IS an ad hom there liberal understanding, respectful, inclusive of other opinions guy.
    No, actually your statement is more of an ad hom than mine was. You were using what you assumed was a personal characteristic of mine to color my argument - that it came from someone who "lacked experience".

    My comment was just firing back at what I perceived to be an insult and in no way was meant to be part of a rebuttal. I am respectful of others as long as they are respectful of me. And I took your comment to show a lack of respect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So we only need care about the rights of those on this country?
    We can care about people in other countries. But this debate is about the American economic system so what's going on in other countries is off-topic.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That was not an ad hom. You just sound young and idealistic (lack experience of living on your own and being responsible for your own life as well as perhaps a wife and children).
    @Mican, just wanted you to get the full quote from me.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My comment was just firing back
    IOW, ad hom

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "It is invested in businesses, or in the stock market (which is effectively investing in businesses). Even money that is put into CD's and other bank accounts is used by banks to make loans to businesses and other people who spend and invest the loaned money."

    So the rich's money is invested in businesses and put into bank accounts.
    No can you show this is an undesirable use of capitol?

    Maybe we should set up a Six Sigma project to tell people how they will use their own money?

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    We can care about people in other countries. But this debate is about the American economic system so what's going on in other countries is off-topic.
    While you are probably correct regarding the Op, it is an eye opening truth most do not realize.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    IOW, ad hom
    Incorrect. An ad hom argument is an attempt to rebut one's arguments by referring to their personal characteristics.

    I took your comment as an insult and called you a troll but did not use that in any way in an attempt to show that your argument was incorrect. So it was not an ad hom.

    Referring to my "lack of experience" isn't exactly an ad hom either but its close to one than my comment. It could be seen as portraying my comments coming from a person who doesn't really know enough about things to make a good argument and therefore is using my perceived characteristics to attack my argument. Again, I wouldn't say your comment was indeed an ad hom but is closer to one than my comment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No can you show this is an undesirable use of capitol?
    It's not inherently desirable but if so much of our money is going into these things that not-rich people have too little access to money to spend on goods and services, then we've put too much money there and should shift it back towards the less wealthy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Maybe we should set up a Six Sigma project to tell people how the will use their own money?
    As I said, a progressive tax rate is probably the best and simplest option.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    incorrect. An ad hom argument is an attempt to rebut one's arguments by referring to their personal characteristics.
    omg...………….

    ---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I took your comment as an insult and called you a troll but did not use that in any way in an attempt to show that your argument was incorrect.
    Ok, you just meant it as an insult/personal attack/getting even/whatever term you like.

    Good job on you understanding nature Super Moderator.

    ---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Referring to my "lack of experience" isn't exactly an ad hom….
    At all.
    It refers to, well, how much experience one has (in this case with life). Hardly an insult.

    Also, it appears my guess was correct...

    To your "guess", negative again! I live in a house not under a bridge and if you think I am trolling, I'm sure you know how to handle that situation on ODN...


    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not inherently desirable but if so much of our money is going into these things that not-rich people have too little access to money to spend on goods and services, then we've put too much money there and should shift it back towards the less wealthy.
    How much is enough or too much?

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I said, a progressive tax rate is probably the best and simplest option.
    Could you elaborate a bit?

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    omg...………….
    If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, you just meant it as an insult/personal attack/getting even/whatever term you like.

    Good job on you understanding nature Super Moderator.
    Actually, I meant to point out that you were trolling.

    I could have said "Don't troll please" and pretty much said the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    To your "guess", negative again! I live in a house not under a bridge and if you think I am trolling, I'm sure you know how to handle that situation on ODN...
    Yeah, I pointed out that you were trolling by calling you a troll.

    But for the record, I do take your word for it that you were not intending to troll so I likewise do not maintain that you were indeed trolling. But at the time it looked like trolling to me so I called it as a I saw it. But really, you should generally avoid making personal comments about your opponents in the debate. It never adds anything to the debate and can lead to unnecessary conflict as we've just demonstrated.

    And now that I've explained what was going on from my perspective and I'm aware of what your perspective on this situation and since any further discussion of this would not forward the debate in any productive manner, I suggest we both drop this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How much is enough or too much?
    I don't know the exact formula, but when millions of people work full-time but can't afford the basics, we need to shift more money to those people. So however the super-rich are dealing with all of the money that they have, it's not in a fashion that is letting many who work earn enough to live on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Could you elaborate a bit?
    Progressive tax means the more money you make, the higher your tax rate is.
    Last edited by mican333; January 27th, 2019 at 08:05 AM.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.



    Actually, I meant to point out that you were trolling.

    I could have said "Don't troll please" and pretty much said the same thing.




    Yeah, I pointed out that you were trolling by calling you a troll.

    But for the record, I do take your word for it that you were not intending to troll so I likewise do not maintain that you were indeed trolling. But at the time it looked like trolling to me so I called it as a I saw it. But really, you should generally avoid making personal comments about your opponents in the debate. It never adds anything to the debate and can lead to unnecessary conflict as we've just demonstrated.

    And now that I've explained what was going on from my perspective and I'm aware of what your perspective on this situation and since any further discussion of this would not forward the debate in any productive manner, I suggest we both drop this.




    I don't know the exact formula, but when millions of people work full-time but can't afford the basics, we need to shift more money to those people. So however the super-rich are dealing with all of the money that they have, it's not in a fashion that is letting many who work earn enough to live on.



    Progressive tax means the more money you make, the higher your tax rate is.
    1. I want to point out an error u made in an earlier post about 70% tax rates. Yes, this was the actual rate, but almost no one paid it do to loopholes which existed at the time and the nature of income for the very wealthy. Billionaires usually dont simply get wages that can be taxed. They have assets which increase and decrease daily.

    2. The nature of wealth for the tippy top is hard to measure and tax per the wealth tax scheme. Do people need to constantly get things like paintings, cars and other precious items appraised? How would such a scheme impact the upper middle class? Do u really think the uber wealthy will simply allow their wealth to be taken?

    3. U were worried about money in circulation. If u answer my last question, where do u think wealth will be hidden? Out of the country perhaps? How does this benefit the economy or poor individuals?

    4. Speakkng of help for the poor which you have claimed this scheme will benefit, by how much? Assuming the wealth tax is I'm implemented and every dime is collected. How much would this add to the govt coffers? Please support your claim that this scheme would actually add a significant amount of money that'd be used to improve the lives of poor people.

    5. In regard to your claim that the rich are hoarding money and that this is immoral based on the number of people who don't have enough money for basic needs, be specific. How many individuals have a job and cannot afford basic neccitites. Are there less draconian solutions to this problem? Can the poor individuals themselves take any responsibility for their condition or can govt encourage them to make better choices?

    6. Finally, and this has been pointed out, how is money in the bank different than money circulating in the market? Certainly it is important for people to have cash in their pocket to buy goods. Certainly, it is important for currency to exist in the hands of businesses who can redistribute it to those deemed likely to grow the economy (loans). So, at the very best, you are moving capital from a bank to the govt. U are proposing the govt gives it to people with a poor track record of making good choice (ie invedtments). What impact do u believe this would have on the economy? Explain how GDP could be helped in this wealth tax scheme. Or, if u believe GDP wont be helped, then explain how this scheme could be structurally sound.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. I want to point out an error u made in an earlier post about 70% tax rates. Yes, this was the actual rate, but almost no one paid it do to loopholes which existed at the time and the nature of income for the very wealthy. Billionaires usually dont simply get wages that can be taxed. They have assets which increase and decrease daily.
    I never argued otherwise nor does this counter any premise that I forwarded so it does not reveal a mistake on my part.

    The overall point is that when the tax rate is 70%, the rich pay more than they were prior to the rate increase, not that they literally pay 70%.

    Nor am I directly advocating a 70% rate but brought it up because it was a rate that existed in the past and did just fine back them. So we can say from experience that 70% tax rate has not lead to disaster and we shouldn't be afraid to do it again if we have good reason.

    But yes, I am advocating that we have the rich pay more than they currently are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2. The nature of wealth for the tippy top is hard to measure and tax per the wealth tax scheme. Do people need to constantly get things like paintings, cars and other precious items appraised? How would such a scheme impact the upper middle class? Do u really think the uber wealthy will simply allow their wealth to be taken?
    Since I'm pretty sure the wealthy do pay taxes nowadays, I believe a tax increase will lead to them paying more taxes than they have been.

    If we significantly raised the tax rate on the wealthy and their tax returns indicated the same amount of taxes paid than when the tax rate was lower, that would be a huge red flag that they were avoiding taxes. So even if they could figure out a way to not pay more taxes if the rate was much higher, they would be crazy to not pay it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    3. U were worried about money in circulation. If u answer my last question, where do u think wealth will be hidden? Out of the country perhaps? How does this benefit the economy or poor individuals?
    Are you saying that the rich will hide their money if we increase their tax rate? How much of it will they hide? How much can they hide without getting caught? If they are known to be super rich but their tax return does not reflect that due to all of the money they've hidden, won't they get caught?

    If asking questions is a valid form of rebuttal, then I can rebut your rebuttal in the way it's presented to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    4. Speakkng of help for the poor which you have claimed this scheme will benefit, by how much? Assuming the wealth tax is I'm implemented and every dime is collected. How much would this add to the govt coffers? Please support your claim that this scheme would actually add a significant amount of money that'd be used to improve the lives of poor people.
    I haven't proposed a specific way for this to happen but it certainly wouldn't be difficult to make it happen

    For example, a progressive tax rate would help the poor. You could shift the tax rate so that while the rich pay more in taxes, the poor pay less in taxes and therefore have more money than they did before. You could raise the standard deduction so high that everyone who earns less than X will receive money during tax season (I'm not necessarily recommending that but that would indeed give poorer people more money directly).

    Or you could use the gained money to subsidize housing for the homeless and help poor people that way. Or pay for trade schools training which will lead to some poor people learning a skill that will help them earn more money.

    Or you could spend that money on infrastructure projects and hire more people to work and that will get them money.

    About the only way to not think of ways that the government can use additional monies to help working people is not try to not think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    5. In regard to your claim that the rich are hoarding money and that this is immoral based on the number of people who don't have enough money for basic needs, be specific. How many individuals have a job and cannot afford basic neccitites.
    I don't know exactly how many there are but then I don't need to give you an exact number of people in order to maintain that such people exist.

    If you disagree with my statement that there are many people who work and yet can't afford the basics (such as wall-mart workers who need government assistance), then please directly state that you disagree with my position. Otherwise it is not challenged. Asking me for specifics is not a challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Are there less draconian solutions to this problem? Can the poor individuals themselves take any responsibility for their condition or can govt encourage them to make better choices?
    I have made no statements that require me to go into those issues. If you want to raise them, then you need to make your own direct statement of your position and then I may address your statement.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    6. Finally, and this has been pointed out, how is money in the bank different than money circulating in the market? Certainly it is important for people to have cash in their pocket to buy goods. Certainly, it is important for currency to exist in the hands of businesses who can redistribute it to those deemed likely to grow the economy (loans). So, at the very best, you are moving capital from a bank to the govt.
    No, I'm moving it from the bank to people who will spend the money.

    And here's the difference between bank and circulating in the market. I work for a company that makes and sells things. When money circulates in the market, then we sell more and that directly helps my company and likewise helps me as a working person. And then when I get a raise or a bonus because of all of the stuff my company is selling, I'm going to spend that money on other companies' stuff. But money in a rich person's back account does not make it to my company (at least not as much as a purchase adds to my company).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    U are proposing the govt gives it to people with a poor track record of making good choice (ie invedtments).
    If you mean investments in stocks and such, poor people do not make bad investments because they don't make such investments at all.

    And if one is not making enough money to pay for the basics, the issue isn't that they are not spending the money they have wisely but that they don't have enough money to spend on what is needed. When I hear of someone having to choose between food or medicine, they don't have a problem of spending money where it shouldn't be spent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What impact do u believe this would have on the economy? Explain how GDP could be helped in this wealth tax scheme. Or, if u believe GDP wont be helped, then explain how this scheme could be structurally sound.
    None of these issues were raised in my prior arguments so they aren't challenging any of my arguments. They likewise aren't challenging any of my arguments because they aren't challenges at all but requests and questions.

    You aren't really challenging my arguments here. If you want to challenge them, then make an ARGUMENT that reveals alleged flaws in my position.
    Last edited by mican333; January 28th, 2019 at 08:46 AM.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I never argued otherwise nor does this counter any premise that I forwarded so it does not reveal a mistake on my part.

    The overall point is that when the tax rate is 70%, the rich pay more than they were prior to the rate increase, not that they literally pay 70%.
    What matters is the effective tax rate. Your claim is that the effective tax rate was greater then than it is now because the legal tax rate was 70%. Please support this claim. The rich are only paying more if the effective tax rate in the 50's is greater than the ~36% effective tax rate today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since I'm pretty sure the wealthy do pay taxes nowadays, I believe a tax increase will lead to them paying more taxes than they have been.
    We are talking about a specific type of tax. A tax on wealth, not simply income. I am asking how do we go about measuring wealth? I'm asking how is this done without incredible cost to those not in the "1%" that the tax is aimed at? You make an interesting argument. A tax increase == paying more taxes. Again, for the uber wealthy, at what point does taxation result in them making cost-benefit type choices to avoid paying taxes?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't accept the premise that the rich will hide ALL of their wealth. You can't be rich and hide all of your money from the government. And if the rich are hiding lots of money to avoid paying taxes on it, then they should be arrested and fined and their money is taken that way.
    Hiding wealth isn't always illegal. You can operate your company overseas. You can store assets overseas. This isn't illegal, is it? They don't have to hide ALL their money. I'm just pointing out that whatever perceived benefits you can claim from a wealth tax will be offset, in part, due to lawyers and accountants being really good at finding ways to allow their clients to pay less. How good? I guess the devil is in the details, but we know compliance won't be 100%. So, take that into account when measuring how beneficial such a scheme could be and since one of your arguments is that you want more money in circulation, how does this benefit getting impacted?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I haven't proposed a specific way for this to happen but it certainly wouldn't be difficult to make it happen

    For example, a progressive tax rate would help the poor. You could shift the tax rate so that while the rich pay more in taxes, the poor pay less in taxes and therefore have more money than they did before. You could raise the standard deduction so high that everyone who earns less than X will receive money during tax season (I'm not necessarily recommending that but that would indeed give poorer people more money directly).

    Or you could use the gained money to subsidize housing for the homeless and help poor people that way. Or pay for trade schools training which will lead to some poor people learning a skill that will help them earn more money.
    First, the poor don't pay taxes, so how could they pay less? Second, how much money will you get from this wealth tax matters. Will it be millions? Billions? Will you see an initial figure that will decrease over time? How much money will there be to redistribute? Unless you can show the effective tax rate will increase AND it can occur without shrinking GDP, then this scheme makes no sense at all. You'll simply decrease the wealth of sum without making a significant impact on poverty AND if GDP shrinks, you'll actually have more poor.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I don't know exactly how many there are but then I don't need to give you an exact number of people in order to maintain that such people exist.

    If you disagree with my statement that there are many people who work and yet can't afford the basics (such as wall-mart workers who need government assistance), then please directly state that you disagree with my position. Otherwise it is not challenged. Asking me for specifics is not a challenge.
    I agree that some number of these people exist. However, how many matters, doesn't it? I mean if you have 1 million dollars from this tax scheme and 100,000 poor people, then you have $10 for each poor person. Hardly enough to make an impact. The truth is that you are supporting a new tax regime without knowing how much you can expect to add to the govt treasury and without knowing how many people need help. It just doesn't sound very well thought out.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I have made no statements that require me to go into those issues. If you want to raise them, then you need to make your own direct statement of your position and then I may address your statement.
    Your support for a new tax implies you've made some sort of calculations to demonstrate that it is worthwhile. If not, then your support of this tax scheme is baffling.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I'm moving it from the bank to people who will spend the money.

    And here's the difference between bank and circulating in the market. I work for a company that makes and sells things. When money circulates in the market, then we sell more and that directly helps my company and likewise helps me as a working person. But money in a rich person's back account does not make it to my company (at least not as much as a purchase adds to my company).
    I see. So, when your company needs to buy new equipment for all the new orders it plans to fulfill (what with all the poor people suddenly with extra money to buy your product), who is going to loan it to them? Obviously, it will still be the banks, except the banks will have less money (i.e. making that resource more scarce). A scarce resource with increased demand (from the previously poor people who now have money to buy more), means that resource will cost more. That means the loan your company needs will cost them more and they will have to increase their prices, once again making poor people too poor to purchase your product.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you mean investments in stocks and such, poor people do not make bad investments because they don't make such investments at all.
    Those are types of investments. Education is an investment. Savings is an investment. All sorts of life choices are investments and, typically, the poorest people have not made the best choices if we are to judge from results.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if one is not making enough money to pay for the basics, the issue isn't that they are not spending the money they have wisely but that they don't have enough money to spend on what is needed. When I hear of someone having to choose between food or medicine, they don't have a problem of spending money where it shouldn't be spent.
    But you don't know how many of these people actually exist, do you? If someone is choosing between food and medicine (and how many people really have to make this choice), what other bad decisions did they make prior? Handing people a few extra dollars does not suddenly give them better decision making skills, does it?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    None of these issues were raised in my prior arguments so they aren't challenging any of my arguments. They likewise aren't challenging any of my arguments because they aren't challenges at all but requests and questions.

    You aren't really challenging my arguments here. If you want to challenge them, then make an ARGUMENT that reveals alleged flaws in my position.
    They are direct challenges to your arguments. I am asking you to clarify your position and defend your claims. If you are claiming a new tax will increase wealth, then you are implicitly claiming it will increase GDP. I am trying to figure out how you are supporting this claim.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What matters is the effective tax rate. Your claim is that the effective tax rate was greater then than it is now because the legal tax rate was 70%.
    That is not my claim. Here is what I said verbatim.

    "Keep in mind that we used to have a 70% tax rate on the wealthiest people for quite a while and it seemed that the effects were generally positive."

    So my only specific point about the 70% tax rate is that it wasn't a disaster for the US when we had it in the past and therefore we shouldn't be so afraid of doing it again.

    Any other points you attribute to me regarding 70% are pretty much straw-men.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We are talking about a specific type of tax. A tax on wealth, not simply income. I am asking how do we go about measuring wealth? I'm asking how is this done without incredible cost to those not in the "1%" that the tax is aimed at? You make an interesting argument. A tax increase == paying more taxes. Again, for the uber wealthy, at what point does taxation result in them making cost-benefit type choices to avoid paying taxes?
    Again, I did not specifically call for a 70% income tax. What I DID specifically call for is the rich paying more taxes. If an income tax increase isn't effective, then fine. Don't do that and make them pay more in taxes some other way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Hiding wealth isn't always illegal. You can operate your company overseas. You can store assets overseas. This isn't illegal, is it? They don't have to hide ALL their money. I'm just pointing out that whatever perceived benefits you can claim from a wealth tax will be offset, in part, due to lawyers and accountants being really good at finding ways to allow their clients to pay less. How good? I guess the devil is in the details, but we know compliance won't be 100%. So, take that into account when measuring how beneficial such a scheme could be and since one of your arguments is that you want more money in circulation, how does this benefit getting impacted?
    Then raise the corporate tax rate on those businesses that operate over seas. Raise the taxes on assets overseas or impose penalties for storing assets overseas.

    How exactly we get the rich to pay more taxes is not really the issue here. If you know how to do it, then you can tell me the best way to do it. And if you are saying that making them pay more is just impossible so asking them to pay more taxes is a moot point, please support that assertion.

    But apparently the recent tax cuts for the rich gave them about a trillion dollars so it stands to reason that canceling that tax cut would take a trillion back from them. So it looks like getting money from the rich is pretty doable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, the poor don't pay taxes, so how could they pay less?
    Everyone pays taxes. Sales tax. Gas tax. etc. And if you work at all, something is taken from your pay check.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Second, how much money will you get from this wealth tax matters. Will it be millions? Billions? Will you see an initial figure that will decrease over time? How much money will there be to redistribute? Unless you can show the effective tax rate will increase AND it can occur without shrinking GDP, then this scheme makes no sense at all.
    Unless you can show that a progressive tax rate (which is what I'm generally advocating) shrink the GDP to a level where it will offset the benefits that the system would have, I see no reason to concern myself with that issue.

    You are the one who is making an argument about the effects on the GDP so the original burden of that particular argument is yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I agree that some number of these people exist. However, how many matters, doesn't it? I mean if you have 1 million dollars from this tax scheme and 100,000 poor people, then you have $10 for each poor person. Hardly enough to make an impact. The truth is that you are supporting a new tax regime without knowing how much you can expect to add to the govt treasury and without knowing how many people need help. It just doesn't sound very well thought out.
    I am speaking on general principle and not trying to device a well-detailed tax scheme. So really, you are just raising the bar by not addressing my general principle and instead trying to get me to spell out exactly how it will work.

    If you are arguing that there is NO way ANY adjustment to the tax code can be made that would benefit those who currently are not earning enough to live on even with a full-time job, then make your case.

    If you aren't directly arguing that, then you cannot reject my general principle as moot on the basis of being impossible to implement.

    I am arguing that anyone who works full-time SHOULD be able to afford the basics and if they can't, then the tax rate should be adjusted so that they can afford those things and since that money has to come from somewhere it should come from those who have way more than they need and therefore we should implement a progressive tax scheme. Whatever method will produce those results the best is the method i would go with so I'm not saying that I personally know that best way to do that. And if you are arguing that this general plan should not be implemented because it will never work no matter how one tries to make it happen, then please support that position.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I see. So, when your company needs to buy new equipment for all the new orders it plans to fulfill (what with all the poor people suddenly with extra money to buy your product), who is going to loan it to them? Obviously, it will still be the banks, except the banks will have less money (i.e. making that resource more scarce). ]That means the loan your company needs will cost them more and they will have to increase their prices, once again making poor people too poor to purchase your product.
    Increase loan interest rates won't effect those who aren't taking out loans. And if the poor have more money, will be less likely to need to take out loans so overall the increase might not really make much difference. Nor have you indicated that loans rates would increase to a point where it really would be a huge problem.

    If you want to argue that interest rates will increase, alright. If you want to argue that they will increase to a disastrous level, please support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Those are types of investments. Education is an investment. Savings is an investment. All sorts of life choices are investments and, typically, the poorest people have not made the best choices if we are to judge from results.
    I think the primary reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor is because they were born rich or born poor and it's not primarily based on their life decisions. Sure, SOME people do rise above their birth station or fall from their birth station but generally, people stay in the station they were born into. A rich person living off of family money is likely to say rich no matter how much of f*ck-up he is and a person who works minimum wage and has a family to support is going to stay poor no matter how well he manages his money.

    So if you are going to argue that being poor is primarily due to poor choices, you will need to support that before I will accept it as a valid premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They are direct challenges to your arguments. I am asking you to clarify your position and defend your claims. If you are claiming a new tax will increase wealth, then you are implicitly claiming it will increase GDP. I am trying to figure out how you are supporting this claim.
    I did not claim that it would increase wealth in general nor that it would increase the GDP.

    My argument for it is that it will allow those who deserve to be able to afford the basics through work will actually be able to afford the things that they are entitled to. If it raises the GDP, great. If the GDP stays the same, fine. If the GDP decreases to the point where it offsets the gains that I am referring to, then we have a problem.

    And if you want to argue that we should not do as I propose due to the GDP shrinking, then it's your burden to forward that issue.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    First, Mican, the OP is specifically addressing a wealth tax such as the one proposed by Elizabeth Warren. So, if you are arguing something else, then please clarify. I get the feeling you are merely suggesting a tax increase on the rich while I am rebutting the concept of a specific tax on wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That is not my claim. Here is what I said verbatim.

    "Keep in mind that we used to have a 70% tax rate on the wealthiest people for quite a while and it seemed that the effects were generally positive."

    So my only specific point about the 70% tax rate is that it wasn't a disaster for the US when we had it in the past and therefore we shouldn't be so afraid of doing it again.

    Any other points you attribute to me regarding 70% are pretty much straw-men.
    The 70% tax rate you are citing is meaningless. The effective rate, the rate people actually paid is what matters. I am asking you what was the effective tax rate during the period in question. Today, it is around 36% which is close to the actual tax rate because very few loopholes exist. You cannot compare the tax rate today with the tax rate from some other time period without providing the rate people actually paid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    Again, I did not specifically call for a 70% income tax. What I DID specifically call for is the rich paying more taxes. If an income tax increase isn't effective, then fine. Don't do that and make them pay more in taxes some other way.
    The OP is about a specific tax. A wealth tax is not an income tax hike. I am just pointing out that your claims regarding the 70% figure are flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then raise the corporate tax rate on those businesses that operate over seas. Raise the taxes on assets overseas or impose penalties for storing assets overseas.

    How exactly we get the rich to pay more taxes is not really the issue here. If you know how to do it, then you can tell me the best way to do it. And if you are saying that making them pay more is just impossible so asking them to pay more taxes is a moot point, please support that assertion.

    But apparently the recent tax cuts for the rich gave them about a trillion dollars so it stands to reason that canceling that tax cut would take a trillion back from them. So it looks like getting money from the rich is pretty doable.
    Actually, how we are taxing the rich here is precisely the issue. The OP is asking "Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?" I'm not arguing against taxing the wealthy in general. I am arguing that a wealth tax is a poor idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Everyone pays taxes. Sales tax. Gas tax. etc. And if you work at all, something is taken from your pay check.
    If you work at all, and don't make enough to break the poverty line, the govt collects no income tax from you. You pay no federal taxes other than those tied to consumption. I am just pointing out that there isn't really a whole lot to give back when it comes to the poor and taxes. And if we are talking the truly indigent, then they are paying absolutely nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Unless you can show that a progressive tax rate (which is what I'm generally advocating) shrink the GDP to a level where it will offset the benefits that the system would have, I see no reason to concern myself with that issue.

    You are the one who is making an argument about the effects on the GDP so the original burden of that particular argument is yours.
    No. You are supporting a wealth tax. I am trying to get you to acknowledge what this will do to the GDP. If you don't know, fine. Just say you have no idea. Then, of course, you are admitting to supporting a plan without having the foggiest idea of the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am speaking on general principle and not trying to device a well-detailed tax scheme. So really, you are just raising the bar by not addressing my general principle and instead trying to get me to spell out exactly how it will work.

    If you are arguing that there is NO way ANY adjustment to the tax code can be made that would benefit those who currently are not earning enough to live on even with a full-time job, then make your case.

    If you aren't directly arguing that, then you cannot reject my general principle as moot on the basis of being impossible to implement.

    I am arguing that anyone who works full-time SHOULD be able to afford the basics and if they can't, then the tax rate should be adjusted so that they can afford those things and since that money has to come from somewhere it should come from those who have way more than they need and therefore we should implement a progressive tax scheme. Whatever method will produce those results the best is the method i would go with so I'm not saying that I personally know that best way to do that. And if you are arguing that this general plan should not be implemented because it will never work no matter how one tries to make it happen, then please support that position.
    I am arguing against a specific tax scheme. It is one thing if you are just airily suggesting that the rich should pay more in taxes as a general principle. If that is all you are supporting, ok. I am not sure why you interjected in this thread, but fine. We are done. I am specifically making a rebuttal to the argument in support of a wealth tax.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    Increase loan interest rates won't effect those who aren't taking out loans. And if the poor have more money, will be less likely to need to take out loans so overall the increase might not really make much difference. Nor have you indicated that loans rates would increase to a point where it really would be a huge problem.

    If you want to argue that interest rates will increase, alright. If you want to argue that they will increase to a disastrous level, please support.
    That is not my argument. I never mentioned poor people taking out loans. Let me say it again and I'll try to do better at explaining myself.

    1) Raise tax revenue via Warren's wealth tax scheme.
    2) Redistributing wealth will take some money out of the bank and that money will go to some poor people.
    3) Poor people will buy more products. They will consume more. (based on your claim/anecdote)
    4) From the increase in business from the formerly poor, companies may need to expand (buy more machines, more stores, etc).
    5) To expand, your company may need to take out a loan. (Will be true for some companies and not others)
    6) The banks who typically provide business loans will have less money then they had before the money was redistributed (see #2).
    7) Companies that wish to expand from the increase in business (see #4) will result in higher demand for loans.
    8) Banks will be happy to make loans, but will have less money and more demand. (see #2 and #5)
    9) Less money and increased demand will result in higher loan costs. Money will become more expensive (increasing consumer prices).
    9) The higher costs of loaning money may dissuade companies from expanding (increasing scarcity which will also increase consumer prices).
    10) Either way, prices of goods will increase and the formerly poor will effectively be poor again.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I think the primary reason that rich people are rich and poor people are poor is because they were born rich or born poor and it's not primarily based on their life decisions. Sure, SOME people do rise above their birth station or fall from their birth station but generally, people stay in the station they were born into. A rich person living off of family money is likely to say rich no matter how much of f*ck-up he is and a person who works minimum wage and has a family to support is going to stay poor no matter how well he manages his money.

    So if you are going to argue that being poor is primarily due to poor choices, you will need to support that before I will accept it as a valid premise.
    You are basically claiming that there is no mobility in the economy. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. This is such a tired myth but I guess it has to persist as justification to blame some for the misery of others without ceding the mantle of meritocracy.

    Take this quote from the Independent of the UK
    "Next, most of the global wealth is self-made and relatively recently built up. It is first or second generation, rarely third. The American dream that anyone can become rich may be rather battered by reality but at the very top it still holds true. "
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8348721.html


    It turns out normal people with normal jobs can amass wealth
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/06/n...e-donates.html

    So, no, there is no basis in fact that the reason for being rich is that your parents are rich. This is fake news. You may desire to argue that the below the very top, mobility is not as clear. However, Warren's wealth tax is directed specifically at the very top. The billionaires and their hoarded wealth, not simply wealthy people. Well, at least her tax isn't directed at these people yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I did not claim that it would increase wealth in general nor that it would increase the GDP.

    My argument for it is that it will allow those who deserve to be able to afford the basics through work will actually be able to afford the things that they are entitled to. If it raises the GDP, great. If the GDP stays the same, fine. If the GDP decreases to the point where it offsets the gains that I am referring to, then we have a problem.

    And if you want to argue that we should not do as I propose due to the GDP shrinking, then it's your burden to forward that issue.
    Here is the argument I have laid out. If you are supporting a wealth tax scheme as proposed by Warren then you must acknowledge it will have some impact on the economy. If it didn't then it would be entirely a morality play with no real world benefits. However, you have made claims that we need to help a certain group of people. A group of people which you have ill-defined or quantified. Furthermore, you have failed to explain the impacts of such a plan. All I'm asking for you to do is to explain its impact on GDP. I already explained why it would likely shrink GDP, but if you have a different analysis, I am all ears. So far your argument has been a bit childlike (by that I mean overly simplistic) indicating that we should take money from this group who has too much and give it to this other group who has too little. Certainly this behavior has consequences outside of - poor people can have more money, yeah!
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, Mican, the OP is specifically addressing a wealth tax such as the one proposed by Elizabeth Warren. So, if you are arguing something else, then please clarify. I get the feeling you are merely suggesting a tax increase on the rich while I am rebutting the concept of a specific tax on wealth.
    I am advocating a progressive tax structure and Warren recommended would indeed qualify with what I am proposing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The 70% tax rate you are citing is meaningless. The effective rate, the rate people actually paid is what matters. I am asking you what was the effective tax rate during the period in question. Today, it is around 36% which is close to the actual tax rate because very few loopholes exist. You cannot compare the tax rate today with the tax rate from some other time period without providing the rate people actually paid.


    The OP is about a specific tax. A wealth tax is not an income tax hike. I am just pointing out that your claims regarding the 70% figure are flawed.
    I went over my previous posts and I've only made two claims about the 70% tax rate.

    1. We've had it in the past and the results weren't bad
    2. That it would be a tax increase on the rich if it were implemented today.

    Attacking any other statement regarding the 70% tax rate are attacking statements that I did not make.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Actually, how we are taxing the rich here is precisely the issue. The OP is asking "Is a Wealth Tax a Good Idea?" I'm not arguing against taxing the wealthy in general. I am arguing that a wealth tax is a poor idea.
    But a wealth tax would be taxing the wealthy which I have argued for. So per my previous arguments, I would be for this unless one can show that we should not have a progressive tax structure or that this is a particularly poor method of achieving it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. You are supporting a wealth tax. I am trying to get you to acknowledge what this will do to the GDP. If you don't know, fine. Just say you have no idea. Then, of course, you are admitting to supporting a plan without having the foggiest idea of the consequences.
    I'm not admitting that I don't have any idea of what it will do the GDP. And I will address your argument about what it will do to the GDP once you make a supported argument regarding such outcomes. Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see you support that the GDP will do anything in particular if the wealth tax is implemented.

    To me, the GDP portion of this debate, in a nutshell, has been -

    You: What about the effects on the GDP?
    Me: What about them?

    So now it's up to you to tell me what will allegedly happen and support that that is indeed what would happen. If you don't have an argument about the GDP to present and I choose to not make an argument until you make one first, then the GDP issue should be dropped.

    So make your argument or drop the issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am arguing against a specific tax scheme. It is one thing if you are just airily suggesting that the rich should pay more in taxes as a general principle. If that is all you are supporting, ok. I am not sure why you interjected in this thread, but fine. We are done. I am specifically making a rebuttal to the argument in support of a wealth tax.
    I didn't just say "we should". I explained WHY we should and therefore have supported that we should. I assume you agree with my premise that if one works full time, they should be able to afford the basics.

    So if you are going to make a rebuttal either:
    1. Disagree with my reasoning on why we should
    2. Make an assertive argument that there are downsides that override my reasons for why we should.

    And I see you are doing #2 below so I will address that.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That is not my argument. I never mentioned poor people taking out loans. Let me say it again and I'll try to do better at explaining myself.

    1) Raise tax revenue via Warren's wealth tax scheme.
    2) Redistributing wealth will take some money out of the bank and that money will go to some poor people.
    3) Poor people will buy more products. They will consume more. (based on your claim/anecdote)
    4) From the increase in business from the formerly poor, companies may need to expand (buy more machines, more stores, etc).
    5) To expand, your company may need to take out a loan. (Will be true for some companies and not others)
    6) The banks who typically provide business loans will have less money then they had before the money was redistributed (see #2).
    7) Companies that wish to expand from the increase in business (see #4) will result in higher demand for loans.
    8) Banks will be happy to make loans, but will have less money and more demand. (see #2 and #5)
    9) Less money and increased demand will result in higher loan costs. Money will become more expensive (increasing consumer prices).
    9) The higher costs of loaning money may dissuade companies from expanding (increasing scarcity which will also increase consumer prices).
    10) Either way, prices of goods will increase and the formerly poor will effectively be poor again.
    Good. I'm going to restate your argument in my own words to make sure we both know that I have it right (pretty sure I do). And I'll make about my company and a customer named Joe.

    1. The tax goes into effect. 2. Some of the money goes to Joe. 3. Joe buys one of our products with some of the money he got. 4. Because of people like Joe, my company does well and decides to expand. 5. So we need a loan. 6,7, 8. Since the bank has less money than it did before the tax change, the interest rate on the loan is very high. 9. So we may decide to not expand due to the high interest rate and that would make our product more scarce and therefore raise the price of the product. 10. So Joe can no longer afford our product because of our cost increase and he's effectively poor again.

    And my rebuttal is that your scenario is one big "maybe". You even directly say "may" ("may dissuade companies from expanding") in point 9. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. If it were true that interest rates rise and fall with the tax levels of the wealthy, I think that would be quite observable. And the notion that the increase in interest rates would be either so prohibitive that no one would take out loans or be forced to raise their prices so much that people who were poor but have some extra money now would no longer be able to afford the product is pure conjecture. Maybe the interest rate on the loan will force us to raise our price 5% and that won't price it out of affordability for Joe. Your scenario is based on so much conjecture that it falls far short of support that such a scenario is likely to happen as a result.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are basically claiming that there is no mobility in the economy. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. This is such a tired myth but I guess it has to persist as justification to blame some for the misery of others without ceding the mantle of meritocracy.
    I did not say "no one does". But I am saying that most don't. So finding some exceptions does not invalidate what I said.

    Let me put it this way. All of those self-made men have families - a wife and two kids. So that's four rich people in the family. What percentage of them got rich by achieving. About 25%. And then the kids have their own families and the percentage in the family shrinks further.

    So if you are going to argue that MOST rich people get there by achievement instead of relation, please support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Take this quote from the Independent of the UK
    [FONT="]"Next, most of the global wealth is self-made and relatively recently built up. It is first or second generation, rarely third. The American dream that anyone can become rich may be rather battered by reality but at the very top it still holds true. "[/FONT]
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8348721.html
    But again, exceptions to the rule.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It turns out normal people with normal jobs can amass wealth
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/06/n...e-donates.html
    Yes it CAN happen. Again, individual cases do not support a general conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, no, there is no basis in fact that the reason for being rich is that your parents are rich. This is fake news.
    I never said that that is the only reason. But I'm saying more often than not, it is the case. There are more people that are rich by relation than rich by achievement.

    But you are the one who initiated this point so if you are going to argue otherwise, please support your claim that most are rich by achievement And again, individual cases where it happened by achievement will not suffice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is the argument I have laid out. If you are supporting a wealth tax scheme as proposed by Warren then you must acknowledge it will have some impact on the economy.
    Sure. Assuming the money will be used to help those who are not-rich (which I imagine is the case), then I've supported that it will have a generally positive impact on workers, such as with the example of my company selling more items because more people have more to spend.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, you have made claims that we need to help a certain group of people. A group of people which you have ill-defined or quantified. Furthermore, you have failed to explain the impacts of such a plan.
    No, I've referred to people who work full-time but can't afford the basics. And I have explained the impacts of the plan. These people will have more money which will help them afford the things that they have access to due to being fully employed and they will buy more things, which will help companies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    All I'm asking for you to do is to explain its impact on GDP. I already explained why it would likely shrink GDP, but if you have a different analysis, I am all ears.
    To my knowledge, I've heard no argument from you that supports that it likely will shrink the GDP. Maybe I missed it somewhere but regardless, until you do support that it will have a certain effect on the GDP, I have no obligation to provide a counter-argument to your position.

    If I missed argument, my bad. But you still will need to show that argument, either paste it or restate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So far your argument has been a bit childlike (by that I mean overly simplistic) indicating that we should take money from this group who has too much and give it to this other group who has too little. Certainly this behavior has consequences outside of - poor people can have more money, yeah!
    Yeah, more money gets spent which helps businesses.

    And I see no problem with keeping it simple. If an argument holds up, there's no need to make it more complicated than it is for that would be making it, by definition, unnecessarily complicated.
    Last edited by mican333; January 29th, 2019 at 07:48 AM.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Theme burials - a good idea or not - hmmn.
    By FruitandNut in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 13th, 2011, 01:27 PM
  2. Using Foreign Oil Is A Good Strategic Idea
    By evensaul in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 02:15 PM
  3. The Pickens Plan -- Good Idea?
    By phrique in forum Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 5th, 2008, 09:49 PM
  4. Hit and Run may have been good idea?
    By daman in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 21st, 2007, 01:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •