Reuters article talks additional COVID PSP...
#51
Don't feed the little baby troll..
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 9
not sure one is better than the other. But taxing labor is a lot easier as labor isn’t as mobile as wealth. The easy answer is to tax labor.
#55
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 410
Likes: 3
For an example, check out “imputed rent.” If you own your own house, paid off after years of sacrifice, you still pay taxes on the rent you should be charging yourself. Live in a paid off house that would rent for $30,000 a year? In addition to property tax, you also owe taxes on the rental “income” you would be paying to yourself.
https://www.businessinsider.com/impu...eowners-2016-9
Everyone thinks they can answer the question you posed until it affects them.
#56
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 832
Likes: 69
A couple reasons that I am not a fan of wealth as a form of government revenue.
1) Honesty - The government does not have an ideal track record for this trait. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe when the income tax was introduced, it was only intended for the richest Americans. Of course, this was not to be the final result and now everyone that has an income over $50K pays federal tax. This will be the case for the wealth tax eventually.
2)Wealth creation is good for the middle class. And those with the highest levels of wealth have done more for the middle class than any other income group. This reward for innovation has resulted in the largest middle class in the world. Compare the US population in 1880 to any other country. Germany and the US had roughly the same population at this time. Today, the US middle class population is 130 million. That is more than the entire population of Germany. Yes, there are real issues to be dealt with regarding the poor. But the wealthiest among us are the best financial managers and they have invested heavily in the US and it has created the healthiest middle class in the world. Why would we take money out of their hands and give it to politicians that have a tragic history of destroying wealth.
3)Giving the government another revenue stream does not hold them accountable for the poor capital allocation decisions they have made in the past. They simply do not steward finances well. They exceed their own budgets and have been reckless financially. Why should this kind of history be rewarded?
4) The federal government has come to be equated with a panacea for all issues. However, they consistently go outside the purview of their authority. General welfare, national defense, infrastructure that facilitates interstate commerce, justice, etc. is basically the extent of the responsibility. But they continue to not respect those limitations.
5) The message of the wealth tax is just bad optics. The federal government serves the people. The people don’t serve the government. The government does not let us have possessions. The possessions belong to us. A wealth tax conveys the image that wealth can just be allocated based upon government values. Not to mention that the wealthiest Americans money is tied up in the means of production. Transferring wealth from the highest net worth individuals to the government will inevitably lean to the means of production being minimized or transferred to the government. That is bad for the middle class.
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,658
Likes: 122
Since the politicians gain most of their power and wealth from lobby groups buying their vote to manipulate the tax code, they will vote to end the current model about the time that we vote to allow cabotage. I’ve read the fair tax books and think that it would be a vast improvement over our current system, but politicians are primarily driven to enrich themselves and their party, not their constituents.
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,637
Likes: 212
People too often equate money that you didn’t spend on the newest cars, biggest house or fastest boat with wealth.


