As long as your solution remains “everything is fine, do what the wealth hoarders say or they will punish you!” I stand confident that my position is far superior to yours, especially having watched the process from it’s inception.
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
But that is a stupid distinction. The entire issue is that the defenders keep saying “but they dont have an income therefore they shouldn’t pay taxes!” So the “income” claim is moot. It’s not working. It’s why the wealth tax is being proposed, and this is why every objection you’ve put forth makes you sound like the economically illiterate one, not me.
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Better than that I am self-employed and have been all my life…or most of it anyway.
Most of my clients are wealthy. I know the difference between wealth and income. I also know how income gets disguised as wealth so ut doesnt get taxed. You are not making a very good case.
Ok so if you are old enough to hold a job then you should address the colossal gap in knowledge about finances unless you are immanently terminal.
Im not being snarky if you don’t know the difference between wealth and income you likely need to learn a bunch about finance so that retirement isn’t just a mythical dream for you.
I dont know how many times I have to say it: I know the difference. Taxing income isnt working. We offered the progressive marginal system to be reinstated and everyone lost their goddamn minds over it. Taxing wealth is the next thing to do, at least until such time as wealth is properly defined as income (“the Company gave me a car, house and a yacht, but I only have an income of $1.00/year!”) and then is taxed as income.
Now go ahead, ignore the entire issue by spouting arrogant semantics about the definition of “income” again. That will totally work this time.
As long as your solution remains “everything is fine, do what the wealth hoarders say or they will punish you!” I stand confident that my position is far superior to yours, especially having watched the process from it’s inception.
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
I’m not sure how those aren’t wealth taxes. Maybe it’s the semantics that’s the problem.
Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
But that is a stupid distinction. The entire issue is that the defenders keep saying “but they dont have an income therefore they shouldn’t pay taxes!” So the “income” claim is moot. It’s not working. It’s why the wealth tax is being proposed, and this is why every objection you’ve put forth makes you sound like the economically illiterate one, not me.
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Are you old enough to work?
Better than that I am self-employed and have been all my life…or most of it anyway. Most of my clients are wealthy. I know the difference between wealth and income. I also know how income gets disguised as wealth so ut doesnt get taxed. You are not making a very good case.
Ok so if you are old enough to hold a job then you should address the colossal gap in knowledge about finances unless you are immanently terminal.
Im not being snarky if you don’t know the difference between wealth and income you likely need to learn a bunch about finance so that retirement isn’t just a mythical dream for you.
I dont know how many times I have to say it: I know the difference. Taxing income isnt working. We offered the progressive marginal system to be reinstated and everyone lost their goddamn minds over it. Taxing wealth is the next thing to do, at least until such time as wealth is properly defined as income (“the Company gave me a car, house and a yacht, but I only have an income of $1.00/year!”) and then is taxed as income.
Now go ahead, ignore the entire issue by spouting arrogant semantics about the definition of “income” again. That will totally work this time.