Progressive politics and where they go from here

[Archy1221]

24 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

We're talking about a wealth tax, not a wealth charity. Keep up.

Annnnnndddd, instead of a wealth tax that I’m sure with have loopholes, everyone in favor of a wealth tax coukd just voluntarily send 2% of their wealth into the treasury with zero loopholes in the way.   
 

BTW...for all those who want to “pay their fair share crowd”.  How many currently take deductions on their taxes to pay as little as possible??

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Annnnnndddd, instead of a wealth tax that I’m sure with have loopholes, everyone in favor of a wealth tax coukd just voluntarily send 2% of their wealth into the treasury with zero loopholes in the way.   

Again, that's nice charity and all. I'm talking about a wealth tax that is not voluntary.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Again, that's nice charity and all. I'm talking about a wealth tax that is not voluntary.

And I’m asking why the true believers don’t start this now and try to get public support based on their actions not words?  Let’s get this started NOW.  Legislation takes too long.   
 

or at the bare minimum let’s get them to at least quit taking deductions.    Your thoughts on that ever happening?  Wouldn’t be charity 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

And I’m asking why the true believers don’t start this now and try to get public support based on their actions not words?  Let’s get this started NOW.  Legislation takes too long.   

You should start campaigning or advocating for it if it's that important to you. I think it's meaningless if it isn't enforced.

Just now, Archy1221 said:

or at the bare minimum let’s get them to at least quit taking deductions.    Your thoughts on that ever happening?  Wouldn’t be charity 

I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating deductions for high incomes. Again, it's meaningless if it's not enforced though. Do I think this is likely? No. Certainly neither political party is going to do it willingly because their campaigns are heavily funded by the wealthy. If it's going to happen it'll have to be like most change in this country - the people demanding it and making it politically painful to oppose it.

[Archy1221]

37 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You should start campaigning or advocating for it if it's that important to you. I think it's meaningless if it isn't enforced.

I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating deductions for high incomes. Again, it's meaningless if it's not enforced though. Do I think this is likely? No. Certainly neither political party is going to do it willingly because their campaigns are heavily funded by the wealthy. If it's going to happen it'll have to be like most change in this country - the people demanding it and making it politically painful to oppose it.

Oh I See,  people think it’s so so important but they won’t do it willingly.   Again, nothing stops the rich talking heads who complain they don’t pay enough in taxes to proactively give their money to government.  No enforcement necessary.  The rest can pay what is legally thrust upon them 
 

Bill Gates says he should be taxed more.  Ok, well write a check for the difference.  Why does it have to enforced.   
 

 

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Oh I See,  people think it’s so so important but they won’t do it willingly.   Again, nothing stops the rich talking heads who complain they don’t pay enough in taxes to proactively give their money to government.  No enforcement necessary.  The rest can pay what is legally thrust upon them 
 

Bill Gates says he should be taxed more.  Ok, well write a check for the difference.  Why does it have to enforced.   

If it's not enforced it isn't a tax and isn't effective. The discussion is about a wealth tax, which I thought was obviously enforced as part of tax code. You can advocate for a wealth charity if you want, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If it's not enforced it isn't a tax and isn't effective. The discussion is about a wealth tax, which I thought was obviously enforced as part of tax code. You can advocate for a wealth charity if you want, but that's not what I'm talking about.

So instead of a wealth tax, let’s just have all those, like the tweeter you posted, who say they would pay their fare share or those like Gates Buffett, etc...Hollywood celebs who think they should be taxed more go ahead and give more voluntarily and stop taking deductions.  Should raise quite a bit and then the rest of us can be left alone to abide by current tax law.  

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

So instead of a wealth tax, let’s just have all those, like the tweeter you posted, who say they would pay their fare share or those like Gates Buffett, etc...Hollywood celebs who think they should be taxed more go ahead and give more voluntarily and stop taking deductions.  Should raise quite a bit and then the rest of us can be left alone to abide by current tax law.  

The tweeter is an economist talking about how a wealth tax is beneficial for society (at least for the UK in this case).

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The tweeter is an economist talking about how a wealth tax is beneficial for society (at least for the UK in this case).

Why waste our time with a wealth tax?  Let’s just cap wealth at $1billion.  More than enough to live on and that would help society more than just 2%tax wouldn’t it?  

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Why waste our time with a wealth tax?  Let’s just cap wealth at $1billion.  More than enough to live on and that would help society more than just 2%tax wouldn’t it?  

Heck, now that I think about it, $100 million In total wealth should be sufficient to live off of for a lifetime.  The rest can go to society. 

[RedDenver]

21 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Why waste our time with a wealth tax?  Let’s just cap wealth at $1billion.  More than enough to live on and that would help society more than just 2%tax wouldn’t it?  

 

21 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Heck, now that I think about it, $100 million In total wealth should be sufficient to live off of for a lifetime.  The rest can go to society. 

And how do you intend to maintain those limits? What happens to the wealth above those thresholds?

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

And how do you intend to maintain those limits? What happens to the wealth above those thresholds?

Give it to government just like the 2% wealth tax would.   
 

isn’t this what the wealth tax is saying?  Those people have enough already, let’s take more of their wealth on top of the regular taxes they pay.  If we’re gonna that route, might as well go all the way and confiscate all the money they don’t need.  $100 million ought to be enough to live on.  
 

of course I don’t believe in this, just showing how crazy it is and what it could turn into. 

[DevoHusker]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

of course I don’t believe in this, just showing how crazy it is and what it could turn into. 

 

The far progressive wing of the Dems believe in exactly what you described, even though most normal people recognize just how crazy it is

[RedDenver]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Give it to government just like the 2% wealth tax would.   
 

isn’t this what the wealth tax is saying?  Those people have enough already, let’s take more of their wealth on top of the regular taxes they pay.  If we’re gonna that route, might as well go all the way and confiscate all the money they don’t need.  $100 million ought to be enough to live on.  
 

of course I don’t believe in this, just showing how crazy it is and what it could turn into. 

This is the absurd expanding circles argument: We can't possibly control the wealth tax rate so it could turn into 100%!!!

 

Tax rates have existed for centuries, and we can set the rates without them wildly going to 100%

10 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

The far progressive wing of the Dems believe in exactly what you described, even though most normal people recognize just how crazy it is

That isn't an argument against a wealth tax anymore than far right-wingers claiming there should be no taxes is an argument against taxes.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm against a Wealth Tax.  I've stated my case a number of times on here and know people don't agree.  But....hey...we're all entitled to our opinion.

 

Just for conversation sake.  What level would anyone put the tax rate for a wealth tax?