Posted on 08/01/2018 12:06:00 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
Ok, if you defend the income tax over the tariff you are both wrong and a progressive. A twofer.
[ In a way, wealth tax is another form of taxing one’s labor.
What do the left-wing politicians do with it but redistribute, after all? Naught else that I see. ]
Right now all we can do is stop the bleeding dry of the economy. I think that a hard cap of 10% totally of the GDP being sent to Washington would be a good start. Let the politicians debate what areas that 10% is taken from. That should keep them busy for a while.
Sadly the left will never recognize that taxation is government theft because they view all citizens as “wards of the government and part of government property” Where as conservatives see government as fire, something that can be used ward off animals, and in war to kill your enemy but too much will burn you house down to ashes.
I see government as fire, the question is how to we build some damned fire breaks around it to keep it from burning everything down?
Why would it be my job to pay off the national debt?
Stop! If this was intended to troll FReepers, you win. I now have to review your history of posting here at FR. No FReeper portends to assume another person is wrong about what they think of their financial status. Only a liberal makes outlandish statements like the one above. "You may think you have 'wealth'...(but you don't)"?
I have to believe you are a deep liberal sleeper here to infiltrate Free Republic.
The $1.7T descretionary part of the budget could be covered by a tariff and a NRST. The other part ( the socialist part) by payroll taxes until that problem can be dealt with directly..
[
The rates might be:
1% on the equity in real property habitually resided in by the filer(s),
2% on the equity in agricultural land, less .05% for each year owned & habitually worked personally, up to 20,
2% on the equity in other real property not habitually resided in by the filer(s),
2% on the net worth in personal property financial holdings, other than common stock, and
4% on the net worth in common stock.
]
What’s to stop corrupt Washington politicians from bribing/extorting the local officials to overvalue local property in order to send washington more money?
NOTHING! YUGE HOLE IN THERE!
Leave property taxes to the states to decide if they want them or not. State capitals are easier to drive to with a pitchforks and torches hanging out the car window...
What a totally horrid idea.
IF a special tax is needed to buy down the debt, it should be the same - per capita - for everybody. if it hurts some people. those people are the same ones who benefit disproportionally from government services. $100/per person per year until the debt zeroes out. at 350 million people, that’s 35 billion per year to retire the debt. it’ll take a while, but it is a pack of cigarettes per month, and an incentive to keep spending down for everybody
[ What a totally horrid idea. ]
I have a hard enough time with the sate and local government over-valuing my damned property in order to squeeze more monies from me... I shudder to think what FEDGOV would do with those levers of power...
“Ok, if you defend the income tax over the tariff you are both wrong and a progressive. A twofer.”
Don’t put words in my mouth.
I simply described the motivation for the change from tariff to income tax. I didn’t express a preference for either.
IBTZ
Oh, I donno, how about we do a wealth tax on elected and appointed officials. They can earn up to their salary and any excess earnings from any source are taxed at 100%. This tax is adjusted downward or entirely negated if the budget is balanced. The margin being the calculated total tax liability vs the federal deficit. Example, if the taxes from all elected and appointed officials equals $250 billion, and they reduce the deficit to only $200 billion, then the effective tax rate on all other sources of income is only 80%.
Figure we can experiment with the people who have the largest effect on the deficit and ultimately, are the ones who should be punished for failing to perform their duties.
[ IF a special tax is needed to buy down the debt, it should be the same - per capita - for everybody. if it hurts some people. those people are the same ones who benefit disproportionally from government services. $100/per person per year until the debt zeroes out. at 350 million people, that’s 35 billion per year to retire the debt. it’ll take a while, but it is a pack of cigarettes per month, and an incentive to keep spending down for everybody ]
What incentive do the takers who don’t own crap in terms of property have to payoff the debt, the same debt they directly benefit from in the form of uncle sugar money.
If you wanna control the debt just make it so that if you get more money from the government than you pay in... you cannot vote.
Wanna vote, get a job, don’t wanna vote, fine, be a slob!
“Seems to me that everybody will end up with less and less every year.”
Warren Buffett probably gets a 12% annual return, so after paying 4% wealth tax, he’ll be up 8% a year.
“everybody”
Hardly, this is a tax on the equity in assets of wealthy people.
Are you wealthy? If not, no wealth tax on you.
Excellent point. And imagine the incredible hassle in evaluating that wealth. That Picasso painting, what is it worth on today's market? And what about that rare coin? And what about that autographed cowboy hat once worn by Tom Mix?
Oh, my.
You haven’t a clue about wealth, the dynamics of it, or money supply. Your numbers are typical liberal static wishful thinking.
Your numbers show that you think a stock that has $100,000 in paper value can be sold for $100,000, and that everyone can do it. The actual dynamics of that is the instant everyone tries to sell 10% of the stock, the stock price plummets in price. That $100,000 might only $50,000 instantly.
Also, property taxes are theft. You don’t own what the government can take from you.
I didn’t borrow $21 trillion. Tax the poor. They’re the ones that got the majority of that money illegally. Take it back from them! “Welfare” is not in the US Constitution!
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
“Debt gets paid off by keeping tax revenue low (enough to fund the Constitutional duties of the federal government) and not spending on socialism.”
True in principle, and the best possible course forward anyway, but it’s too late for that to work. The debt we have already built up is too big to ever really be paid back. Too great a percentage of current workers earnings would have to be confiscated for generations. Maybe if we financed it over a thousand years. What is most likely to happen is that the debt that cannot be really paid will not be paid. We could have a debt crisis and a resolution in the form of an honest repudiation. Those who relied on “the full faith and credit” would lose what they had risked and the consequences would fall primarily on them. Since almost all of us have some exposure at least indirectly to the value of government debt, we would all be part of the “them” that bore the consequences. The world economic system would be severely disrupted, to say the least, and we would have to start over with a new form of money, but the debt would be liquidated. Another good effect would be we would be unable to borrow any more, at least for a while. But such an “honest” outcome is highly unlikely. The easiest path is to reduce the size of the debt by inflating it away. Reduce the value of the “dollar” enough and you can make any nominal debt payoff manageable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.