Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:31 AM
Status: "America for Americans" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Annandale, VA
6,890 posts, read 2,636,242 times
Reputation: 7075

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Then make a law that they can no longer take out loans against unrealized capital gains (which is what the ultra wealthy currently do)
That means no one could get a home equity loan on their property to pay for improvement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,523,941 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annandale_Man View Post
That means no one could get a home equity loan on their property to pay for improvement.
Good. Renters can't get a home equity loan already
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:33 AM
 
8,181 posts, read 2,771,041 times
Reputation: 6016
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Good. Renters can't get a home equity loan already
Renters can't pledge something they don't own as collateral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:35 AM
Status: "America for Americans" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Annandale, VA
6,890 posts, read 2,636,242 times
Reputation: 7075
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
What makes you deserving of money that I made?

Why are you entitled to the fruits of my labor simply by virtue of your existence on this Earth?
People pay taxes for shared services that benefit everyone. They don't pay taxes to be redistributed to others. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "Citizen A can be taxed to pay Citizen B".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,768 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13621
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
I earn almost twice that $50k figure and I'm a Democrat, so there goes your poll, whoops
One person does not change poll results. All it tells us is that you continue to have the same mentality as the group who are largely incapable of supporting themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 10:58 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,768 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13621
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Hint, it's not 1787 anymore, and besides the Constitution has been amended constantly
There has been no Amendment making health care a responsibility or power of the Fed Gov. As such, due to Article I Section 8 and the 10th Amendment, health care remains the purview of each of the States, respectively, not that of the Fed Gov
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,415 posts, read 7,048,342 times
Reputation: 11669
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Hint, it's not 1787 anymore, and besides the Constitution has been amended constantly


Hint:

That would make you thinking YOU'RE the arbiter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,415 posts, read 7,048,342 times
Reputation: 11669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annandale_Man View Post
People pay taxes for shared services that benefit everyone. They don't pay taxes to be redistributed to others. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "Citizen A can be taxed to pay Citizen B".



Just because I agree to A, B and C doesn't mean that I must agree in perpetuity to D, E and F etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,415 posts, read 7,048,342 times
Reputation: 11669
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
One person does not change poll results. All it tells us is that you continue to have the same mentality as the group who are largely incapable of supporting themselves.


Take it easy on him, he belongs to a group which is increasingly incapable of looking between their legs and telling whether they're a boy or a girl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2021, 11:42 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 622,477 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic View Post
But you do know that wealth is not the same as income, right? Elon Musk is estimated at $250 bils does not mean he has literally that much in cash. I doubt that any of the billionaires have literally billions in cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii View Post
Yes, I understand there's a difference. That's why I explicitly said we should tax the wealth of the ultra-rich, not the income.
But you also should know that ESTIMATED wealth is essentially an opinion, right?

An estimated wealth is essentially an opinion. It maybe an informed opinion backed up by some data from somewhere, but it is an opinion.

If my land is guesstimated at $100 value, that mean my wealth is worth $100. Not that I have $100 in hand. But what if MY opinion is that my land is worthless? Why would you believe someone else's opinion over mine?

If the government want to tax that $100 estimation, that is cash out of my pocket, in other words, the government made something out of nothing. Or more accurately, the government EXTRACTED something from me out of nothing. It does not matter if the amount is $100 or $100 billions of opinionated wealth, you are still extracting something out of nothing.

For now, you are targeting the 'ultra-rich', but what prevents you from lowering the threshold to 'rich', then to the 'not-so-rich', then down to my level? Nothing.

If I sell my land for $100, that would be actual cash, likewise, if the 'ultra-rich' turned their intangible wealth into tangible cash, then tax. But let us say that the 'ultra-rich' gave you permission to tax their intangible wealth, would you seek our permission in the future? Why would you seek our permission in the first place? Why not just take?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top