I've always enjoyed do as I I say, not as I do. I've also enjoyed the frivolity and banter on this board. I also enjoy being a supporter of Trump. Some in here don't like that so much, but I don't mind. I also smile being dismissed by you. Put me on ignore.
I've already stated the reason why I don't have you on ignore...it's for times like this when you are proven completely wrong.
That's the problem...What is the logic behind still feeling the need to reply to someone's posts even though you know they can't see them?
So, how about that wealth tax? Let’s, for conversation’s sake, make the assumption that the consensus is that the uber rich aren’t paying their fair share and that we want to increase spending on social programs. I know, for some folks that’s a shit sandwich, but just go with it. Is a tax in a rich person’s actual wealth, not their income, a good idea? A legal idea? Are there better ways to do it?
I would assume the legislators have a much better understanding than any of us though and would know how to write such a tax bill and what would be legal.
Wealth tax has been a big time flop in Europe. 42000 millionaires left France and many of the initial countries have discontinued it.
Did you read The NY Times article I linked when I started this thread somewhere around the turn of the millennium? Many, probably most, legal experts think that a tax on a person’s wealth is a direct tax, which is unconstitutional. You can’t legislate around that. Sure, there are some lefty lawyers who say otherwise, but I’m thinking it’s a pretty fair bet that the five conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to disagree. Bernie and Warren are both relying on it to pay for all of their new social programs. I’m wondering why they’re not being challenged on it by the other candidates and the media. Seems kind of, you know, important.
And like I said, it’s not something you can construct legislation around and somehow make direct taxation of wealth constitutional.
and I am sure there might be workarounds and it doesn't have to be a direct "wealth tax" as I am sure there are ways to write it that fit within the constitution. Did this administration not give a big tax cut to the wealthy? If it can be cut then it can also be raised can't it?
The reason they are proposing this new form of taxation is that they want to be able to get to the massive wealth of the richest people in the country. Income tax and most other forms of taxes allow rich people to take advantage of loopholes and tax reduction strategies to reduce or eliminate their tax exposure. If the whole concept of wealth tax is unconstitutional, then you have to draw on a much broader pool of taxpayers to get at the same money. That’s why this point is so critically important.
ok, I guess we will have to wait and see exactly how they target it and write it up if it gets to that point. We can speculate till we are blue in the face.
I've always questioned why the rich should be taxed (penalized) higher than anyone else. There's nothing keeping anyone of us (white, black, hispanic, etc.) from creating and amassing as much as we possibly can. This falls within the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness tag line. If there were roadblocks keeping said individuals from that result, I'd sure love to see them. They ain't there.
