Time for a wealth tax in the USA!

You could take away all the wealth of the relatively few billionaires, and still not pay for all that the Leftists hope to do. But some young people, lured by "ooooh, free stuff" and persuaded that life is just not, you know, fair, will join the cause to pillage others.

Indeed, we've already seen the results of that again and again, as in 1917.

But I'm always wary when a politician says he or she is "workin' fer the people" but wants to start making government ever more powerful. Because guess who the politicians work for? Government.

It's as if a corporate officer were trying to make his or her corporation ever more big an powerful. Do you think that would always be done with "uhm, like, the people" in mind? Really?

And when government gets ever more powerful, does anybody who's beyond the age of maturity really think that "the people" will get more powerful and well off?

Or will it just be the connected and favored and, eventually, those in a position to dispense favor.

Before one comes to a final conclusion about that, one might wish to research if and how much outright waste and abuse via government is covered over with heart-warming descriptions when it has to be acknowledged at all.

That is, if your favorite news sources will even inform you about it.

I know, this post won't dent any brick walls. But if we all just nod along, afraid to dispute the group think, where will be 10 years from now? I shudder to imagine it.

@salmon_rushdie said ^

Fighting oligarchy and public employment has paid quite well for Mr. Sanders as well. Maybe we just need to have congress spend less than they take from us.

It's interesting people like to shift the topic immediately to point out that he has a net worth of a couple million dollars after having worked extremely hard in government to improve c...

@salmon_rushdie said ^

Fighting oligarchy and public employment has paid quite well for Mr. Sanders as well. Maybe we just need to have congress spend less than they take from us.

It's interesting people like to shift the topic immediately to point out that he has a net worth of a couple million dollars after having worked extremely hard in government to improve c...

Fair talking points.

Since most individuals have a total net worth of perhaps 10% (or less) of what the congressman seems to have, it does seem to be a lot. So, at what threshold does one gain the “wealthy” level and deserve to pay more taxes? Not much of a shift to many of those I know.

The median net worth of US congress persons is close to 1M, perhaps they all could start paying more taxes.

My comment still stands however, our elected officials need to stop collecting and spending more of our dollars. They need to curb their lust for spending. Isn’t that what we do at home when finances get tight, curb our spending? I’d hate to go door to door and ask (require in the government sense) my neighbors to send me more money to pay off my obligations.

Simply asking for more dollars is not the answer. It’s easy to say “tax the rich!”, but who gets to decide who they might be? What is the threshold?

Whatever the threshold will be, it will be MUCH lower than the incomes or net worths of "like, you know, them billionaire fat cats."

Many of the young, eager and gleefully aggrieved seem to have no idea how much even the upper middle class are taxed already.

Trump has tried to lower taxes for everybody -- preserving previous tax cuts and adding things like his new, generous treatment of tips, overtime pay and social security.

And, needless to say, not too many "billionaires" make a lot in tips and overtime pay -- even though they work plenty of overtime, they aren't typically working for a wage that can be adjusted based upon hours worked.

The notion that the average billionaire pays little or nothing in tax makes it hard for me not to laugh out loud. Some rich guy says "my secretary pays more in tax than I do" and millions of people LEAP to assume, forever after, that that's utterly typical, without ever taking the time to understand real tax law or tax policy. Or to understand the public purpose often underlying such things as tax-free investments.

I think at the very highest levels of income the marginal INCOME tax rate could be increased a bit. But some Leftist plans to start confiscating wealth -- built up with dollars already taxed -- are simply unfair and would create an accounting nightmare. Lots of jobs for accountants and lawyers, sure -- and lots more government employees to administer the enormous new complications.

Some athletes and entertainers lived in poverty as kids, worked tirelessly, took the risk against long odds and ended up making a lot of money for a few years, and now have to get by for the rest of their lives with they managed to make in those few years, despite the constant inflation caused by government spending beyond its means.

But somehow, that's not the mental picture that some Leftists try to cultivate to begin the grand seizure of wealth and power. I hope that before providing loud opinions about tax law, more people will actually READ some tax law -- starting with the tables of tax rates. Notice if, when income goes up, the rates go down or also go up.

And yes, I understand capital gains, depreciation and the like.

@tpr said ^

Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates gave back much to charity.

Relative to their wealth they give less of their money than J did by giving a homeless man a dollar on the street the other day

I hope any who down vote will tell me what I wrote that is inaccurate, with reference to actual facts.

I'll eagerly await such insight.

Oh, and by the way, let's not merely assume that Carnegie and Gates only gave away a relative pittance. Let's try to find the actual facts. Even if that will take more time than a comfortable assumption.

I believe -- but check it for yourselves -- that Gates has, just so far, actually given away many, many billions. With a B. That doesn't really seem like a relative pittance, does it?

@HerkyHawkeye said ^

Fighting oligarchy and public employment has paid quite well for Mr. Sanders as well. Maybe we just need to have congress spend less than they take from us.

It's interesting people like to shift the topic immediately to point out that he has a net worth of a couple million dollars after having worked extremely hard in government to i...

There is an innate connection between the grift of the ultra-wealthy, government misspending and the over-influence of the ultra-rich - much of the mismanagement of government funds comes from the corruption seeded in laws put in place by politicians who are lobbied upon by the ultra-wealthy - who then put in place systems which further their own accumulation of wealth - ad ininitum.

I don't think anyone is that interested in going after people with 1m in wealth, infact "The average net worth for Americans aged 75 and older is approximately $1.62 million" - so he's not even really an outlier at all. Nor is he remotely in the same ballpark, or influence as the people who are. There are also vastly richer congress people to consider, and a president that has more than doubled their wealth through inside trading utilizing the office itself... so I don't think turning the microscope on Sanders has a lot of value, nor focusing on people in the 1-4 million$ range.

I'm not sure why so many people go head over heels to defend people who hoard over 50 billion $ in wealth (not saying you are), no matter how much they gave away, (which is often in charities which then feed back into themselves or families - or for tax write off purposes which then allows them to put less back into the system than they would've if they just paid taxes) - they still have, in their reach more funds than anyone could reasonably need during their lives. So what's the point? And what's the point of defending it? It poisons the economy.

Nor do I think there is any argument in stating that people would lack motivation to succeed if they were prevented from accumulating this kind of wealth... Anyone with 100 million or less can live out basically their wildest dreams with no hindrance.

If currency wasn't finite - and negatively influenced via inflation by those who utilize the strategies of the hyper-wealthy, this may not be an issue - but as it stands - the concentration of wealth into the highest brackets (which exponentially increases) - fouls the whole system, and negatively affects common folk more than it benefits them. This isn't really up for debate either - every conceivable statistic proves this.

The stock market is one giant lottery.
In a lottery a million people each lose $1, to create one millionaire.
In the stock market a million people lose $1000, to create one billionaire.

Mercy is not when you throw a bone to a dog. Mercy is when you share it with the dog — when you are just as hungry yourself.

Jack London

@tpr said ^

The stock market is one giant lottery.
In a lottery a million people each lose $1, to create one millionaire.
In the stock market a million people lose $1000, to create one billionaire.

Investment creates wealth, though; it doesn’t just redistribute.

FWIW, I don’t particularly like the idea of a super tax on the super wealthy. You’re attempting to capture wealth from a tiny, tiny portion of the population that could just move to, say, Singapore if you do it wrong. I think the bigger issue is allocating existing tax dollars correctly. I don’t think that Sanders’ proposed use of tax income largely as a wealth redistribution mechanism is the way to go (although I suppose it’s better than some of the things tax dollars are going to now that I view as actively harmful ** cough Trump propaganda ads uncough **).

If you want to tax more things, legalize marijuana and prostitution like they do in the Netherlands, regulate it, and tax the ever-lovin’ tar out of it. Nobody is harmed, people have more opportunities to do things that they might want, and the government gets money.

"Investment creates wealth"

• Yes, but speculation concentrates wealth.