Time for a wealth tax in the USA!

@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.

You think Bernie's modest wealth is the problem? Man, whatever your source of news is, stop watching it now.

I don't believe @HerkyHawkeye said that Bernie's wealth was "a problem." Herky doesn't seem like the kind of person who gets bitter or even particularly upset because someone else does well.

No, I merely think @HerkyHawkeye would likely find it a bit ironic and hypocritical if Bernie were upset by somebody else's affluence. Didn't Bernie used to talk about "millionaires" ? Clearly, that would now be off the table as a complaint for him, would it not? He's doing pretty well himself!

I could be misunderstanding, @firebreathingpoptart. If so, I hope somebody will point out my error with a quotation of something I missed or a definite statement and not merely a characterization. Simply characterizing the speech of others is not always a sure path to accuracy.

@celinofj said ^

@greatJaromie

To put it bluntly, 100%

They're the champions of their personal freedom to sequester all of societies wealth, often with the combined delusion of themselves getting that rich and a mathematical lack of understanding of just how unfathomably, unnecessarily rich that actually is (as clasically evidenced by one of the first posters comparing the wealth of a small time millionaire to the ultra-wealthy... its not even apples and oranges, its like a lone grape to an entire orchard)

@Noflaps - its fundementally & mathematically incomparable. Its like going to a restaurant and ordering a nice burger, and hes eating a tasty salmon ... then the bloke next to him has 100,000 steaks - its that level of unbalance.

Real arguments don't need to include personal attacks. Indeed, it's one of the better ways to filter out real arguments from others.

We've gotten a lot of practice using that filter recently.

In response to the post most recently addressed to me:

I don't think most chess players are challenged by fundamental math, and we all understand the difference in scale between millions and billions.

But let's not look at the scale along only one axis. Yeah, some have millions, while Musk, and Gates and a relatively few others have billions. Yeah, that's a lot more.

But don't fail to compare how much more Musk and Gates and those others typically have contributed to the employment of others, to human welfare and to human experience compared to the average millionaire. It's probably THOUSANDS of times more, too. Do we want to strongly discourage further striving by them?

I've already made it clear that I would support a reasonable increase on the marginal income tax charged to people in ultrahigh brackets.

Indeed, just to make sure it sticks, let me repeat that:

I've already made it clear that I would support a reasonable increase on the marginal income tax charged to people in ultrahigh brackets.

But when we start getting confiscatory and trying to seize their already-taxed net worth with something like a silly -- and I MEAN silly -- "wealth tax" then we not only violate human nature and fairness, but we also create an accounting nightmare that becomes one more haven for appraisers, accountants, lawyers, manipulation, endless new government employees and the consequent expense and inevitable legal conflicts created by all this new apparatus.

In short, we create an altogether awful, expensive mess. The sort of mess that might be championed in a high school or college term paper (and perhaps get an A from a sympathetic professor, at least if written without too many grammatical errors), but NOT be championed by too many adults with serious experience of the real business world.

Billionaires aren't typically walking around with billions in cash. For example, I believe much of Musk's wealth is ownership in his several companies that employ many. many others and thereby feed many, many families and provide many marvelous things.

So, under a new (silly) "wealth tax" Musk might have to liquidate some of those interests. Which might trigger still MORE taxable events (consider, for example, capital gains tax).

I wouldn't want to see Elon conclude that living with American tax law is just too disruptive and too big a pain in the, uh, rockets to continue striving or, at least, striving HERE.

It wasn't that long ago that America didn't even have an income tax and depended mostly on tariffs -- and now even the fairly successful are paying a LOT of tax to an expanding (until very recently) government. And remember, it's not just federal tax in America. There's often state tax, property tax, local taxes, sales tax, use tax, gasoline taxes and several other taxes that, together, can amount to a much bigger percentage than many young people, starting out, remotely seem to realize.

Taxwise, America actually goes pretty easy on those in the lower income brackets. And Trump's new and generous treatment of taxes on tips, overtime and social security have made American income tax even MORE humane. Many seem to work pretty hard to distract from that, perhaps by hissing against "billionaires."

For some, there seems to be an unquenchable desire to tax more and more and more and grow government more and more, as well.

Governments are like cooks in a restaurant. Necessary. Important. But too many cooks spoil the broth. And too much government creates its own problems, as well. I could -- but won't -- go on and on.

What we need most is for governments to learn to live within their already ample means, and learn to STOP waste, fraud and abuse rather than just pretend it doesn't exist, before asking for still more taxation.

But I am but a lone voice with a small reach, and there's a LOT of propaganda out there now that seems bent on exactly the opposite approach and seems to be trying to portray America's traditional institutions and capitalism as some sort of evil. Gee, I wonder where THAT'S all coming from? Ironically, I'd say: follow the money

But it's probably easier to just be taken in by such propaganda, admittedly.

Looks pretty bad for Trump, I wonder if people he took bribes from (or the supreme court) are getting worried or naw

"Share ownership (generally, as a possibility) and markets are fundamental and highly useful. "

• Yes. My point is that investment creates wealth, is no zero sum game, but speculation is a zero sum game: each $ gained by one is lost by another. If a number of people buy a share to enable to build a factory, that then produces useful products and makes a profit from which the shareholders profit, then that creates wealth.
  However, if a person buys shares at a high price and sells at a low price, then he loses money, that another one gains.

A 50 year old American on average owns $1,521,464, but the median is only $221,300.
That shows inequality. A few rich push up the average.

Elon Musk owns $1,300,000,000,000, that is as much as 6 million median Americans. There can be some inequality by working harder or smarter, but this is outrageous.

@clousems 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.

Thing is, more 'wealth' these days is simply redistribution. It's not creating better quality of life.

I grew up in a conservative household where my folks would say 'you get rich by creating value' but if you look at the modern world you can see that's mostly false. Student loan companies? Creating value? Crypto pushers? Creating value? I could go on.

When you think of the richest types of folks (bankers for instance) they often create negative value.

A company that created the highest possible value for those it served will lose power vs. one that aims for monopoly (or near monopoly) and fosters dependency in customers with focus solely on shareholder value.

@Noflaps said ^

But when we start getting confiscatory and trying to seize their already-taxed net worth with something like a silly -- and I MEAN silly -- "wealth tax" then we not only violate human nature and fairness

Human fairness would require the richest to pay their fair share. It's crazy to see the unpaid supplication you engage in thread after thread, with no sense of embarassment whatsoever.

, but we also create an accounting nightmare that becomes one more haven for appraisers, accountants, lawyers, manipulation, endless new government employees and the consequent expense and inevitable legal conflicts created by all this new apparatus.

What are you on about? That's already the situation. The richest will pay (lawyers, lobbyists, etc) to avoid paying taxes

@Noflaps said ^

But I am but a lone voice with a small reach, and there's a LOT of propaganda out there now that seems bent on exactly the opposite approach and seems to be trying to portray America's traditional institutions and capitalism as some sort of evil. Gee, I wonder where THAT'S all coming from? Ironically, I'd say: follow the money

You're not a lone voice, you're a copypaste of the right-wing propaganda that's been fed into the vulnerable American mind over decades.