US is about to tax "wealth" (generations, worker, Presidents)
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.
My point in all this is the left has embraced neoliberalism as well as the right.
“The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers.”
Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?
The zombie is still walking around. If anything, the left is more responsible for failing to come up with a living reality-based alternative to counter the zombified one.
Wealth has always been taxed and by most Governments on the planet. Nothing new.
Ironically, as working people have become poorer & the wealthiest have become wealthier, the way in which the wealthiest have become wealthier is by “unearned income” i.e. by not working.
the Federal Government has accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. In other words, a complete waste of money.
And a massive welfare state has never, does not, and will never, have any place in this country's values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I think it is unreasonable to say “we really have little to show for it”. According to that site, we are average.
That we expect ‘exceptional’ results from essentially average demonstrates our magical thinking & devotion to our sacred cows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Re: underlined: this is sometimes referred to as ‘the free rider problem’ & occurs when some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource.
It is also related to the concept of externalities; Joseph Stiglitz explains well here:
Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research.
(The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.)
But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations). Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.[29]
Social spending reflects a Country’s values, according to that chart we are average yet expect ‘exceptional’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
what are France's?
you made the assertion that "social spending reflects a Country’s values". What are our values?
this line of questioning seems to have no relevance to the topic, yet you persist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Starting with the premise that “social spending reflects a Country’s values”, I asked what then are our values? & this is how you responded:
What specifically do we value? Why avoid the question?
this is the problem that I for one have sometimes - skipping forward in a topic. So, I probably completely misunderstand the question
What I inferred - you were saying that countries with more social spending were the "exceptional" ones. And the chart, for some, would show our PUBLIC social spending was near the bottom, even though ouir total is right at the top.
What I now see you saying (I think) is "spending more by itself doesn't make you exceptional, it only reflects your values."
Or, any better explanation you have, and then I'll gladly respond.
If you feel that way, then it would be acceptable for all taxes to be abolished and the Government funded entirely by user fees for the infrastructure and services it provides? As you said, those who benefit more from the infrastructure ought to pay more. User pays accomplishes that. Amazon with its 300,000 delivery vans pays per van for road usage, and you pay per van for your 30 vans. Amazon uses more, Amazon pays more. Why should I pay school taxes for schools I never use, for Medicare or SS "insurance" coverage that I don't want, and all sorts of pork spending that I never wanted and derive no benefit from?
And if I'm paying for something, where is the explicit, written guarantee of that thing, and what are my remedies when the Government, as always, fails to deliver? If Apple sells me a defective iPhone, Apple must replace it or refund the purchase at its expense. If Amazon fails to deliver something as promised when I paid for expedited shipping, Amazon gives me my money back. Without such guarantees, and penalties for failure to perform, taxation is theft. No ifs, ands or buts.
If you feel that way, how do you feel about a ‘pay as you go’ system?
President’s Budget Rewards Work, Not Wealth with new Billionaire Minimum Income Tax
It is worth noting the world is not like a blank slate on which each of us gets the opportunity to paint our own picture of what we want the world to be.
It is worth noting the world is not like a blank slate on which each of us gets the opportunity to paint our own picture of what we want the world to be.
Biden's proposal of a 20% tax rate is unnecessary. According to the IRS, the top 0.001% already pay an average effective federal income tax rate of 22.93%.
this is the problem that I for one have sometimes - skipping forward in a topic. So, I probably completely misunderstand the question
What I inferred - you were saying that countries with more social spending were the "exceptional" ones. And the chart, for some, would show our PUBLIC social spending was near the bottom, even though ouir total is right at the top.
What I now see you saying (I think) is "spending more by itself doesn't make you exceptional, it only reflects your values."
Or, any better explanation you have, and then I'll gladly respond.
The best thing I can come up with, off the cuff, is to say that common words no longer have common meanings.
To some folks, ‘exceptional’ means we are the best, to others ‘exceptional’ does not mean that we are exceptional compared to other people & places.
I think one can feel our country is great however there are things about it that, if improved, would make our country better or greater.
If the word ‘exceptional’ is just another way we divide ourselves against ourselves, it is probably not helpful to use it.
It is worth noting the world is not like a blank slate on which each of us gets the opportunity to paint our own picture of what we want the world to be.
From the President's proposed tyranny article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Brandon the Tyrannical
The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax will ensure that the very wealthiest Americans pay a tax rate of at least 20 percent on their full income, including unrealized appreciation.
...
In effect, the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax payments are a prepayment of tax obligations these households will owe when they later realize their gains.
Unrealized gains that the government just figures you WILL realize at some point, thus why not tax you now for predicted future behavior? OK, why not have them pay sales tax on things they are probably going to buy in the future but haven't actually bought yet? Why not have them pay a dividend tax on stocks that they don't own yet, but might own in the future, assuming those stocks pay a dividend at some future point? Why not simply jail them for embezzlement and seize all their wealth outright, since they'll probably embezzle in the future and why wait when we can just take all their crap now?
No matter you dress it up, it is the government simply inventing a tax bill out of thin air and deciding you owe it. Taxes are already theft, but this is going all the freaking way with the concept of arbitrary taking. Abject tyranny, thy name is Brandon.
Biden's proposal of a 20% tax rate is unnecessary. According to the IRS, the top 0.001% already pay an average effective federal income tax rate of 22.93%.
I have noted your veto, you are content with the status quo however others are not.
I have noted your veto, you are content with the status quo however others are not.
Actually, I'm not happy with the status quo. The top 1% are paying TWICE their fair share. The bottom 90% are UNDERPAYING their fair share. That shouldn't be happening. Everyone should be paying their fair share. Each income group's percent of income = percent of individual income tax paid. Period.
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.
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.
