Shrug. I’m definitely never going to be in the 1% or even the top 10%, so I don’t really care if the uber-rich get taxed like crazy. I think most reasonable people understand why they get taxed. At the same time, not many people like taxes, and just about everyone wants to minimize the amount they pay regardless of their political leanings.
ShivaX
2734
My understanding is that the loan is usually nearly zero interest.
I think at the end of the day, the problem is that the system is far more complex than it needs to be and it’s made that way by design. If we could simplify it so that it didn’t require a Masters Degree in the field to parse the nonsense going on then we could look at stuff like wealth taxes, but I also suspect simplifying it would solve a ton of the issues we had in the first place.
Banzai
2735
And that poll tax thing, where everyone pays a tax regardless of transactions? That is one of the oldest types of taxes around? Crazy that it can somehow be called a tax with all of the other self-respecting taxes.
Any transaction between two people is an exchange of things they own, and the tax is based on the value of the thing they own. So I don’t really see how ‘ownership’ is distinct from a transaction tax.
That aside, you’re just restating the premise, that taxation based on ownership is out of bounds. Why is it out of bounds?
And, again, we already know that taxation based on ownership is permissible, because we do it.
Instead of asking stupid questions like this, why don’t you defend the proposition that taxes based on ownership are somehow wrong. In what way are they wrong? Why are they wrong?
Depends on if you define “not getting a little off the top courtesy the national razor” a public facility.
Banzai
2738
I am happy to pay a reasonable rate of taxes in order for there to be services that benefit everyone. I am not happy about how some of that money gets spent, but that’s up to our elected officials to decide, and up to me to vote for the ones I want in office. Taxes are not only essential, but are our patriotic duty. It’s just one more way that the GOP is the party of ‘got mine, fuck you, and let’s get me some more’.
Maybe property taxes only fund certain things in Andy’s world, but here in Texas, they fund things like roads, schools, and hospitals, as well as going straight to the city coffers for general use.
The poll tax, which was historically used to disenfranchise African Americans and was eventually prohibited by the 24th Amendment? Thanks for providing such a specific example of how taxes that are not based on transactions can be abused and are not actually “taxes” as generally understood.
That’s kind of a tautological definition, isn’t it?
Person A: “I made no money this year, so I paid no taxes.”
Person B: “Oh, you didn’t get taxed this year? That’s considered a service. You should be taxed for that.”
My god, you’re arguing about what are ‘proper’ historical tax bases and you don’t know that ‘poll tax’ doesn’t always mean ‘a tax you pay in order to vote’? In fact, it doesn’t usually mean that?
Banzai
2742
Poll taxes were used going back to the 14th century as a tax on every person and had nothing to do with voting. They are regressive as hell and have been used for all sorts of evil in the world, but they are a tax that is not based on a transaction. You really should pay attention to the argument you are trying to make rather than trying to change subjects.
In the US the poll tax was a terribad thing - I’m not arguing that we should have a poll tax. I’m saying that there are lots of taxes, including one of the oldest, that have nothing to do with transactions. So come up with another argument, cause yours has been rebuked.
A wealth tax is in fact a tax, even if you don’t like that.
Now, why shouldn’t we tax wealth, as scott has so directly asked and you have so carefully avoided?
I’ll go one better. I think they’re essential to a functioning society.
That said, people hate taxes, if not in principle then in reality.
Yes, I’m aware of the historical use of the “poll tax”: They are regressive, terrible for the poor (and people in general), and are generally not used for those reasons.
I’m not changing the subject at all: I am asserting that a wealth tax is a bad thing because it goes against the general idea of taxes being levied on transactions, not on ownership. And then you bring up poll taxes, which as you point out are “regressive as hell and have been used for all sorts of evil in the world”. In other words, the poll tax is a perfect example of a tax which is bad because it is not based on a financial transaction.
Which means you’re ignoring that it isn’t true that taxes are ‘generally’ levied on transactions, and you’re still failing to explain why even if it were true that this would mean wealth taxes are bad.
@Andy_Bates , you’re making this argument:
Premise 1: only taxes based on transactions are good
Premise 2: a wealth tax isn’t based on transactions
Conclusion: therefore a wealth tax is bad
I’m asking you to defend the first premise, and you’re simply restating it over and over again.
You’re the one who said you can’t “begin the understand” the difference between taxing income and taxing wealth. If you can’t understand the difference between a financial transaction and passive ownership, I don’t know how to simplify it further.
Because people shouldn’t have to pay ongoing fees just to keep things.
Banzai
2748
So this is called picking apart your argument, Andy, and it involves showing why the bases of your argument aren’t true. One of your arguments is that wealth tax shouldn’t be allowed because taxes are always transactional. I have shown that they sometime are not transactional. You need another reason now for why wealth taxes aren’t ok. Glad I could be of help.
Banzai
2749
Why not? It won’t apply to people who have a net wealth of less than multiple millions. So why not? You want to continue to live in a great place, you need to contribute to that place. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Consider it a tax for the business environment that allowed them to be so prosperous, and to continue to be so prosperous, if that’ll make you feel less like they are being taxed for no reason.
Not to mince words, but this is a damned lie.
Here’s what I said:
It’s not that I don’t understand how they are different. I don’t understand why you think one is ‘right’ and one is ‘wrong’, and you still haven’t answered that question, and you’re back on ignore.
No, that’s not the argument I’m making at all. You said
My response to that is:
Premise 1: With a few very specific exceptions, taxes occur based on transactions, not ownership.
Premise 2: Property rights are considered important, so much so that they are outlined in the Constitution.
Premise 3: A wealth tax is based on ownership.
Conclusion: People hold the position “taxing wealth is wrong” because ownership is generally not taxed (Premise 1) and is generally considered to be protected (Premise 2).
You may not agree with that conclusion (and clearly you don’t), but you should at least be able to understand what it’s based on.
I don’t where you live, but in my state about 38% of all taxes collected are property taxes. That doesn’t seem like an exception to me.
I think you are way off base here.
