• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Economics, politics and the election

Slavery is s thing that societies have always done. Taxing wealth is taboo because it's a bad way for states to increase revenue. It's far too easy to hid and obscure or even move wealth. Which is why they never really raise as much money as they are projected too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

There is probably a reason that only 5 countries currently have a wealth tax.

Utter nonsense.
It doesn't matter how the tax is raised, it's who is paying it and why that matters.

Head tax, inheritance tax, property tax are all awesome for the State, because it can't be evaded easily.
 
Last edited:
Slavery is s thing that societies have always done. Taxing wealth is taboo because it's a bad way for states to increase revenue. It's far too easy to hid and obscure or even move wealth. Which is why they never really raise as much money as they are projected too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

There is probably a reason that only 5 countries currently have a wealth tax.

Property taxes are wealth taxes.
 
Utter nonsense.
It doesn't matter how the tax is raised, it's who is paying it and why that matters.

Head tax, inheritance tax, property tax are all awesome for the State, because it can't be evaded easily.
This is why we don't agree on what taxes are for, I think they are to raise revenue in order to fund the state, so they should be the most efficient and capable form of taxes for doing so. I'll make some allowance for certain sin taxes meant to discourage particular activity, I like a carbon tax for instance. I don't see wealth as a sin though. And, as I said, with rare exceptions, its too easy to avoid a wealth tax to make it worth while.



Property taxes are wealth taxes.
Fair point but property is about the easiest wealth to tax. You can't move it and its relatively easy to evaluate, just compare it to nearby property.

From wiki:
Opponents of wealth taxes have argued that there is "an undercurrent of envy in the campaign against extremes of wealth."[78] Two Yale University/London School of Economics studies (2006, 2008) on relative income yielded results asserting that 50 percent of the public would prefer to earn less money, as long as they earned as much or more than their neighbor.[79][80]

Many analysts and scholars[who?] assert that since wealth taxes are a form of direct asset collection, as well as double-taxation, they are antithetical to personal freedom and individual liberty. They further contend that free nations should have no business helping themselves arbitrarily to the personal belongings of any group of its citizens.[81] Further, these opponents may say wealth taxes place the authority of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, and ultimately undermine the concept of personal sovereignty. The Daily Telegraph editor Allister Heath critically described wealth taxes as Marxian in concept and ethically destructive to the values of democracies, "Taxing already acquired property drastically alters the relationship between citizen and state: we become leaseholders, rather than freeholders, with accumulated taxes over long periods of time eventually "returning" our wealth to the state. It breaches a key principle that has made this country great: the gradual expansion of property ownership and the democratisation of wealth."[82]

Past repeals
In 2004, a study by the Institut de l'enterprise investigated why several European countries were eliminating wealth taxes and made the following observations: 1. Wealth taxes contributed to capital drain, promoting the flight of capital as well as discouraging investors from coming in. 2. Wealth taxes had high management cost and relatively low returns. 3. Wealth taxes distorted resource allocation, particularly involving certain exemptions and unequal valuation of assets. In its summary, the institute found that the "wealth taxes were not as equitable as they appeared".[83]

In a 2011 study, the London School of Economics examined wealth taxes that were being considered by the Labour party in the United Kingdom between 1974 and 1976 but were ultimately abandoned. The findings of the study revealed that the British evaluated similar programs in other countries and determined that the Spanish wealth tax may have contributed to a banking crisis and the French wealth tax had been undergoing review by its government for being unpopular and overly complex. As efforts progressed, concerns were developing over the practicality and implementation of wealth taxes as well as worry that they would undermine confidence in the British economy. Eventually, plans were dropped. Former British Chancellor Denis Healey concluded that attempting to implement wealth taxes was a mistake, "We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle." The conclusion of the study stated that there were lingering questions, such as the impacts on personal saving and small business investment, consequences of capital flight, complexity of implementation, and ability to raise predicted revenues that must be adequately addressed before further consideration of wealth taxes.[84]
Really, its only use is to punish wealthy people and it doesn't actually seem to do that well, they just take their toys somewhere else or hide them in the attic.
 
How can it be a punishment if the punished don't even realize???

Seriously, there is no way a billionaire feels the loss of tens of millions in any real sense.

When you have infinite wealth, a Fine becomes a price, nothing more.

Why does the State have to take money only from those who can't afford tax lawyers?
 
Last edited:
What is absurd is that they can sometimes write off legal fees as a loss.

As far as taxes, wealth should be taxed. It is income inequality that is destroying the economy.
 
Last edited:
Fair point but property is about the easiest wealth to tax. You can't move it and its relatively easy to evaluate, just compare it to nearby property.
Are you trying to tell me that it would be difficult to calculate the value of a stock or option? Funny, my broker does it on my portfolio easily.
From wiki:
Really, its only use is to punish wealthy people and it doesn't actually seem to do that well, they just take their toys somewhere else or hide them in the attic.

You do understand this is an opinion and not at all authoritative?
 
He seems to be talking about a tax on *transactions* specifically. Doesn't sound anything like the above.

It's a Tobin tax. It would have little impact on long term investors but would dampen speculation.
 
What is absurd is that they can sometimes write off legal fees as a loss.

As far as taxes, wealth should be taxed. It is income inequality that is destroying the economy.

This. It's not hard to come to this conclusion. Mass market production has decreased whereas companies that manufacture luxury products has skyrocketed. Why is that? Simple, it's the same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks. "Because that is where the money is."
 
What is absurd is that they can sometimes write off legal fees as a loss.

As far as taxes, wealth should be taxed. It is income inequality that is destroying the economy.

They write off almost everything. They buy businesses, write off carrying interest and everything else. Then when the law says they can't do it any more they shut it down and write it all off as a loss.
 
They write off almost everything. They buy businesses, write off carrying interest and everything else. Then when the law says they can't do it any more they shut it down and write it all off as a loss.

Without any regard for the lives they destroy in the process.
 
Wonder if anyone here has put numbers to the impulse of 'tax the rich more'. Like, what level is rich? How much more? The top 10% pay 75% of total income taxes. Is that the cut off and what % of the total should they be expected to pay? Expanded in the US, the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes.
 
Wonder if anyone here has put numbers to the impulse of 'tax the rich more'. Like, what level is rich? How much more? The top 10% pay 75% of total income taxes. Is that the cut off and what % of the total should they be expected to pay? Expanded in the US, the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes.

And yet they pay less in percentage of their total income. Add sales taxes, gas taxes, Federal excise taxes, property taxes,, FICA, other government fees, etc.

Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest human beings on the planet says our tax structure is grossly out of whack. He pays less in the percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. A lot less.

But thanks for making my point. As Willie Sutton said, "they are the ones with all the money."
 
That's total income. Anybody making 44K total income isn't taxed on whatever percentage of that happens to be from capital gains. Somebody bringing in $44K from investments and nothing else doesn't pay tax on that. Somebody bringing in a million a year doesn't get the first $44k of their capital gains exempted from tax.

Spent a fun few minutes pouring over Schedule D on that one, I can tell you!

I'm on €44,600* gross annual pay and so far this year my tax and national insurance payments are:


Code:
 F'night       Annual
USC       40.48       679.00
PAYE     169.97     2,848.94
PRSI      67.22     1,133.68

If I dug back a few years to when my gross was roughly equivalent to $44,000 my tax payments wouldn't look much smaller.

I am frankly surprised that taxes aren't paid on income at that level.

*A bit over $49,000.
 
Are you trying to tell me that it would be difficult to calculate the value of a stock or option? Funny, my broker does it on my portfolio easily.
Goes to the mobility thing then. If Stock is easy to evaluate and wealth taxes are high, the wealthy will take there money out of stocks the country that taxes wealth and move it to some form that isn't taxed, is harder to evaluate, or is somewhere else.

Property rarely decreases in value and can't be moved but otherwise it has all the same problems as any other wealth tax. If the tax is high enough, the owner will just move.

This has been studied and generally the evidence suggests they just don't work well as taxes if your goal in taxes is to raise revenue. Which ought to be the primary goal of taxes, granted that's like just my opinion man. This is also why only five countries have them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Criticisms
In 2004, a study by the Institut de l'enterprise investigated why several European countries were eliminating wealth taxes and made the following observations: 1. Wealth taxes contributed to capital drain, promoting the flight of capital as well as discouraging investors from coming in. 2. Wealth taxes had high management cost and relatively low returns. 3. Wealth taxes distorted resource allocation, particularly involving certain exemptions and unequal valuation of assets. In its summary, the institute found that the "wealth taxes were not as equitable as they appeared".[83]

In a 2011 study, the London School of Economics examined wealth taxes that were being considered by the Labour party in the United Kingdom between 1974 and 1976 but were ultimately abandoned. The findings of the study revealed that the British evaluated similar programs in other countries and determined that the Spanish wealth tax may have contributed to a banking crisis and the French wealth tax had been undergoing review by its government for being unpopular and overly complex. As efforts progressed, concerns were developing over the practicality and implementation of wealth taxes as well as worry that they would undermine confidence in the British economy. Eventually, plans were dropped. Former British Chancellor Denis Healey concluded that attempting to implement wealth taxes was a mistake, "We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle." The conclusion of the study stated that there were lingering questions, such as the impacts on personal saving and small business investment, consequences of capital flight, complexity of implementation, and ability to raise predicted revenues that must be adequately addressed before further consideration of wealth taxes.[84]

You do understand this is an opinion and not at all authoritative?

Yes I do.
 
Slavery is s thing that societies have always done. Taxing wealth is taboo because it's a bad way for states to increase revenue. It's far too easy to hid and obscure or even move wealth. Which is why they never really raise as much money as they are projected too. Then there's theres the issue of valuation, is that painting worth 50 dollars or 50000 IDK, you don't know, at least not until I sell it. And with stocks its even worse. If I own stock that I'm sitting on and today its worth $100 but next year its worth 50 on account of a crash, does the government then owe me a refund or something? Do I get taxed last year on the value of 100 and this year on the value of 50, that's fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

There is probably a reason that only 5 countries currently have a wealth tax.

Yeah, corruption.
 
Wonder if anyone here has put numbers to the impulse of 'tax the rich more'. Like, what level is rich? How much more? The top 10% pay 75% of total income taxes. Is that the cut off and what % of the total should they be expected to pay? Expanded in the US, the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes.

Yes, won't someone think of the rich?!

I'm right there with you buddy, I too like the taste of shoes.
 

Back
Top Bottom