CanuckInUSA 0 #226 September 28, 2011 QuoteYou do realize the absurdity of your position, right? Not as absurd as your desire to transfer wealth from the people who have already paid taxes, to pay for your unionized "Jobs for Life" Big Government public service. Tell me professor, did you manage to indoctrinate any young and impressionable minds this week into your Leftist "Wealth Transfer" agenda? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #227 September 28, 2011 QuoteNot as absurd as your desire to transfer wealth from the people who have already paid taxes, to pay for your unionized "Jobs for Life" Big Government public service. Tell me professor, did you manage to indoctrinate any young and impressionable minds this week into your Leftist "Wealth Transfer" agenda? And there you go making stuff up again. There already is a wealth tax. Just because you pay it to a local government doesn't make it any less of a tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #228 September 28, 2011 QuoteAnd there you go making stuff up again. There already is a wealth tax. Just because you pay it to a local government doesn't make it any less of a tax. Yes there are existing property taxes which are based on the assessed value of someone's real estate and under the existing system these property taxes are used to help municipalities pay for some of their services. Our property taxes do NOT go towards the Federal governments. But that is not good enough for the resident Leftist professor. He is calling for something even greater. He wants all wealth taxed to pay for the exponentially growing Federal bureaucracies. I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth. - Kallend (post #197 of this thread) What is wealth? Wealth is not income. Wealth is assets. Assets that as long as they were obtained through the legal channels have been purchased with money that had already been taxed. But that is not good enough. He wants the government to effectively begin seizing assets from people. He says he will only go after the rich, but what is rich? If someone practices good fiscal discipline all their life and manages to save a million or more in assets (which have already been taxed), is this person all of a sudden deemed to be rich? There is no end to the desire by some to implement their "Wealth Transfer". Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #229 September 28, 2011 QuoteThere is no end to the desire by some to implement their "Wealth Transfer". and no end of those whining about how the rich are so hard done by...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #230 September 28, 2011 QuoteWhat is wealth? Wealth is not income. Wealth is assets. Assets that as long as they were obtained through the legal channels have been purchased with money that had already been taxed. Right, like property tax, which is a tax paid on assets which have been paid with "after-tax" dollars. QuoteHe wants the government to effectively begin seizing assets from people. And there you go making stuff up again. QuoteThere is no end to the desire by some to implement their "Wealth Transfer". It would be no more of a "Wealth Transfer" than any other form of taxation. QuoteOur property taxes do NOT go towards the Federal governments. My property taxes go towards an ever growing municipal government, which has been mismanaged for years. I find that our Federal Government has been better managed over that same time period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #231 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteHe wants the government to effectively begin seizing assets from people. And there you go making stuff up again. I think he's dead on target with that comment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #232 September 28, 2011 QuoteIt would be no more of a "Wealth Transfer" than any other form of taxation. Just so that there is no confusion here, I do agree that property taxes are a form of a wealth tax. However presently they are only applied to service municipalities. They are not applied to service the other two layers of government. However the "Wealth Tax" that the professor is calling for is nothing more than a call for a "Class Warfare Wealth Transfer". Under the professor's plan only the rich would have their assets seized from the government since the poor have no wealth to seize. The disproportion of people who actually pay taxes versus those who pay no taxes will only grow when governments expand their seizure of wealth above what they already take in property taxes. I am not a fan of consumption taxes (ie: sales taxes) but they are the fairest form of all taxation. The rich will pay more consumption taxes because they have more disposable income. But as long as these consumption taxes are not too high to drive people into the underground economy, they are applied to everyone and people actually have a choice to decide "Can I afford to pay the taxes on the product/services I am about to consume". But the socialist are not really in favor of using only consumption taxes because it gives people choices. No they would rather just go seize the assets of the ever so hated rich people and if they can pile on some additional consumption taxes on top of seizing assets all the better in their minds. Oh and what is lost in all of this, many governments continue to refuse to cut their spending. Case in point not only the US Federal Government but also Toronto's municipal government. But as I said in an early post, Toronto is not the only out of touch civic government. Here in Calgary with our Purple Mayor, our city is run by a bunch of new morons even after we voted out all our old morons. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #233 September 28, 2011 Quote Right, like property tax, which is a tax paid on assets which have been paid with "after-tax" dollars. It's also a tax that is deductable on your federal return. Yes, property tax is effectively a wealth tax, but you're grossly overstating the significance of that. Even in California with ridiculously high real estate prices, this tax would only represent about 10% of my tax burden from last year. And it would be less than a third of my state tax bill. and it's intent has nothing to do with wealth transfer. It pays for local services. Once upon a time, the money largely went to the local school, libraries. And it was set by the cost of the services. However, this lead to great inequities between the rich and poor areas, and eventually shifted to paying the state who then sent the money back out. California voters then voted in Prop 13 which put a clamp on increasing the tax, which is fixed at 1-1.25% of the buying price. There are still local assessments that can be voted in that charge on a per parcel rate, but those are not based on the price of the home, again only pay for local services. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #234 September 28, 2011 Quote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers, along with questions. Why don't you carefully answer those, first? There's an obvious cash flow problem for the government as well if it abandons the payroll tax and goes to a soak the rich scheme. And then at least one market crash a year when these people dump their stocks to pay for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #235 September 28, 2011 Quote Warren Buffet is not paying the taxes he owes, he is in a court battle for taxes he hasn't paid over some of the last 10 years. why would he care if the taxes are raised? No, he is not. Bershire-Hallaway is in this dispute. While he is the leader of it, he has a fudiciary duty to the shareholders that trumps any views he may or may not have on paying his share to the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #236 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote Right, like property tax, which is a tax paid on assets which have been paid with "after-tax" dollars. It's also a tax that is deductable on your federal return. Which line would that be? It's not line 10, that's for state/city INCOME tax, not property tax.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #237 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou do realize the absurdity of your position, right? Not as absurd as your desire to transfer wealth from the people who have already paid taxes, to pay for your unionized "Jobs for Life" Big Government public service. Tell me professor, did you manage to indoctrinate any young and impressionable minds this week into your Leftist "Wealth Transfer" agenda? Reality checks for you: 1. the sky didn't fall between 1992 and 2000 when Clinton was president and tax rates were higher. Unemployment didn't skyrocket either. 2. welfare has already been reformed. That horse won't run. 3. if tax revenues were adequate we wouldn't have a deficit. 4. to whom, exactly, have I indicated a wish to transfer wealth? All I ask is that the taxpayers adequately fund the operations of the country. Right now that isn't happening. 5. you can't get blood from turnips, or tax revenues from the destitute. 6. I TEACH ENGINEERING. The only indoctrination I do is to turn high school kids into employable, responsible engineers who can pay their taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #238 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote Warren Buffet is not paying the taxes he owes, he is in a court battle for taxes he hasn't paid over some of the last 10 years. why would he care if the taxes are raised? No, he is not. Bershire-Hallaway is in this dispute. While he is the leader of it, he has a fudiciary duty to the shareholders that trumps any views he may or may not have on paying his share to the government. since he hides most of his earnings in companies like berkshire he is avoiding tax and it is his money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #239 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd there you go making stuff up again. There already is a wealth tax. Just because you pay it to a local government doesn't make it any less of a tax. Yes there are existing property taxes which are based on the assessed value of someone's real estate and under the existing system these property taxes are used to help municipalities pay for some of their services. A number of US states have personal property taxes already. Check your facts before running off at the keyboard.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #240 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt would be no more of a "Wealth Transfer" than any other form of taxation. Just so that there is no confusion here, I do agree that property taxes are a form of a wealth tax. However presently they are only applied to service municipalities. They are not applied to service the other two layers of government. . Incorrect. Several states assess tax on "personal property" such as boats and aircraft.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #241 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote Right, like property tax, which is a tax paid on assets which have been paid with "after-tax" dollars. It's also a tax that is deductable on your federal return. . So what? Does that stop it from being effectively a tax on wealth?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #242 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #243 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. Neither is parroting "wealth should be taxed like income".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #244 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. Neither is parroting "wealth should be taxed like income". READING trouble AGAIN?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #245 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. Neither is parroting "wealth should be taxed like income". READING trouble AGAIN? Post #197 "I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth" - kallend MEMORY trouble AGAIN?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #246 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. Neither is parroting "wealth should be taxed like income". READING trouble AGAIN? Post #197 "I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth" - kallend MEMORY trouble AGAIN? INCORRECT. I have stated that wealth should be taxed like wealth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #247 September 28, 2011 The next person to argue over who said "income" and who said "taxes" is getting some time off. Time to move on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #248 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. Neither is parroting "wealth should be taxed like income". READING trouble AGAIN? Post #197 "I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth" - kallend MEMORY trouble AGAIN? INCORRECT. I have stated that wealth should be taxed like wealth. lame weaseling.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #249 September 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year. Canuck and I already gave you answers,. Just parroting "wealth is not income" is NOT an answer. I had hoped you would address the questions that came with those postings. Otherwise, it seems like you're merely offering up a philosophical question rather than an honest solution to the problem at hand. It's not too unlike Buffer saying "tax me more, I can take it," knowing that he'll never be called on it. I think it's a poor solution, but any real proposal deserves to be aired out. Otherwise, it's no better than a dreamdancer cut and repost from alternet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #250 September 29, 2011 QuoteYes, property tax is effectively a wealth tax, but you're grossly overstating the significance of that. Even in California with ridiculously high real estate prices, this tax would only represent about 10% of my tax burden from last year. And it would be less than a third of my state tax bill. Right, which means the argument that a tax on assets which have been paid with money that has already been taxed is unfair, is disingenuous at best. It already exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
