Should The Rich Be Taxed? 💸🚕

Home Forums Politics Should The Rich Be Taxed? 💸🚕

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1676368

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “The only way you can make such an extraordinary statement is if you believe in the premise that money I earn is not mine.”
    It’s how economists view it. I was a bit taken aback when I first head it too, but it makes perfect sense. You can get as trolled by it as you want, but tax cuts are within the definition of a stimulus package.

    It’s the difference between adding a positive and subtracting a negative (i.e. there is no difference). The government takes on a deficit of X dollars and you gain X dollars, either by not giving it up in taxes as you usual would or by absorbing it as a stimulus.

    The money you earn is your’s, and the money you use to pay for services with your taxes is not your’s. It is not “mine,” and I never claimed that it was.

    #1676393

    Ben L
    Participant

    Neville,
    First I think you have a distorted view of Keynsian Economics.
    Keynsian economics is pro-stimulus but anti tax cuts.
    Keynsian Ecnomics believes that the government must pro-activley stimulate the economy by spending money.
    Incidentally Keynes was proving wrong twice once by FDR & the New Deal.
    For a decade FDR more or less spent as much money as possible, yet the country remained mired in recession leading Henry Morgenthau (his Treasury Secretary) to admit it did not work.
    Next was Obama who spent over a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that was supposed to wok and grow the economy.
    Sadly it let to the slowest growth in 50 years and no wage growth at all.
    Trump took office passed tax cuts, the economy started growing and wages picked up in ways that most economists on the left had said was impossible.
    So now they say it was started under Obama, It just ended up happening under Trump after he passed a law that they said would “devastate” the country.
    Somehow record law unemployment and rising wages is terrible. If it means wealthy people can actually keep more of their own money.

    #1676390

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Using saved tax dollars for other projects does not mean higher taxes, it doesn’t change the amount of tax paid

    Semantics. Keeping taxes the same when they could have been lowered is the same as raising them. You seem to feel the government is somehow entitled to taxpayers’ money. They’re not, besides for what’s necessary to run the government efficiently.

    #1676402

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Neville, whining about taxes is a long-standing American tradition going back all the way to colonial times.

    #1676405

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Neville
    You are confusing money with people
    Absolutely
    From an economic monetary point at any given moment there is x dollars in the system and not taking from Peter what you were about to take or taking it and giving it to Paul will equal the same amount of dollars.
    That doesn’t mean from a human perspective it’s the same to give my money to him or to let me keep my money. That’s pure lunacy
    If you can’t understand the difference
    I’ll explain it this way
    You give me now all your money
    From an economic standpoint the amount of money in the economy is exactly the same so you should be OK with it.
    Thank you.
    You can contact the mods for the address to send the check

    #1676414

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    so what are we supposed to be arguing on

    You want to confiscate inherited wealth.

    #1676781

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “That doesn’t mean from a human perspective it’s the same to give my money to him or to let me keep my money.”
    OK, I’m fine with that. I agree with that interpretation. I think where we differ is on whether or not there’s any value to thinking about the “human perspective.”

    “You want to confiscate inherited wealth.”
    There’s already a tax on that. If you would like to abolish that tax, then yes, we have a disagreement there.

    #1676787

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    You’re misrepresenting your own viewpoint. You don’t just want inheritance taxed, you want it confiscated.

    #1676823

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “You’re misrepresenting your own viewpoint.”
    Lol. OK, please enlighten me on my own opinion.

    #1676831

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    “Let them work at a fast food chain if they have to.”

    #1676836

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Wow
    So when am I getting my check.
    After all
    Discounting the human respective, the money currently in your bank account is the same economically as when it’s in my account
    So I’m waiting

    #1676862

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Klugeryid, although that might be true from a macroeconomic perspective, in microeconomics it is false.

    #1676882

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    To be honest, I never really understood where he was going with the me writing him a check analogy. I was willing to just look at the decent point he made, but I see he’s going to insist going back to that. Kluger, I truly do not know what point your analogy is supposed to make. I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad; I just don’t understand. You can assume that’s because I have a weak understanding of economics if you would like, but, truthfully, I have no idea what you’re getting at.

    DY:
    You would consider the side-effect of causing people to have to work for a living to be a negative effect of inheritance taxation? I don’t think I’m in the minority considering that a positive. Maybe strictly within the confines of the YWN CR, I’m a minority opinion on that.

    #1676898

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    DY:
    You would consider the side-effect of causing people to have to work for a living to be a negative effect of inheritance taxation? I don’t think I’m in the minority considering that a positive. Maybe strictly within the confines of the YWN CR, I’m a minority opinion on that.

    That’s none of our business. We don’t have a right to decide that and confiscate someone’s wealth.

    #1676963

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Neville
    It’s not so complicated
    Your here spouting ”economists ” understanding that giving to Peter is the same as not taking away from Paul .
    You are willing to overlook the very real difference between an economist looking at the economy as a whole and a purely numbers game versus the discussion here that though it may make no difference to the economy but from a human perspective it’s not exactly fair to Peter to give his money to Paul, while leaving money that Peter earned by Peter and not giving it to Paul is much more equitable being as Peter is after all the one who earned it.
    You keep taking the position of the economists that it doesn’t make any difference.
    So I am simply asking you to put your money where your mouth is
    Since you hold that it makes no difference who earned it. It’s all just a question of the monetary pie, semantics if you will, I am very nicely asking you for all your money.
    I think it makes a difference but since you don’t so why won’t you give me all your money.
    Make believe your the rich one and the government is taking it from you to give to me.
    Makes no difference to you cause we don’t look at the human equation.
    To me that it makes a difference, it will make a huge difference to you it’s no difference.
    It’s a win win
    As I said
    I’m waiting for your check

    #1676946

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “That’s none of our business.”
    I’m fine with that opinion, but I don’t agree. Do you really even? If somebody didn’t inherent anything and chose to not work and live off welfare programs, do you think their choice to not work is “none of our business?” You “conservatives” love to talk about encouraging people to work and not rewarding unemployment… until you talk about trust fund babies. Then all bets are off and all of your views are flipped. I guess you’ll say the liberals have the same hypocrisy in the inverse, and I would agree. That’s why I cover my bases and just hate on everyone now.

    “We don’t have a right to decide that and confiscate someone’s wealth.”
    As I said, there’s already an inheritance tax. You think the government has no right to do this? Just because you change the word “tax” to “confiscate” doesn’t make any difference. Just say you want to abolish the inheritance tax. Why are you guys to afraid to be forward with your opinions? I think I’ve been pretty straight with my shittos here (at least I’ve tried to be). I must be getting some point across if you’re all so riled up.

    #1677029

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Neville
    No. We keep telling you
    There is a huge difference between keeping your own money and taking someone else’s
    So a trust fund baby who lives off his families money is none of anyone else’s business
    But a lazy bum who just sucks off society is a parasite and is taking other people’s money
    What’s not pointed straight and simple about that answer???

    #1677030

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Neville
    If someone makes a lot of money and retires, is that the shoe as living off welfare?

    #1677035

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I’m fine with that opinion, but I don’t agree. Do you really even?

    Yes. I believe in the principle of ownership. There is no comparison between someone living off of welfare, which means money which he doesn’t own, and earned or even inherited wealth, which he does.

    I have no problem with abolishing the inheritance tax, but it’s not so terrible if it’s a relatively low percentage. Higher percentages are referred to as “confiscatory”, and are basically stealing someone’s money. You seem to think once the government has the right to tax, it’s fine for them to tax at any rate. I strongly disagree. It has to be reasonable, not just taxing simply because the money is there.

    #1677034

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Is that the same as living off welfare

    #1677048

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “There is no comparison between someone living off of welfare, which means money which he doesn’t own”
    I’m not big into welfare either, but once a guy gets the check, it is legally his money, like it or not. I agree he didn’t do anything to earn it, but guess what, neither did the trustfund baby.

    I believe that your camp subconsciously (or maybe even consciously) believes that there is no tangible benefit from the taxes you pay. That’s not even a matter of opinion, it’s just factually wrong. We all get military protection and infrastructure like roads. Everyone should have to pay for that benefit. Someone living off inheritance should not have government protection and benefits paid for by people with less money than him who actually have to work for a living. If you think that system is fair, then I don’t know what to say to you.

    #1677083

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Neville
    I’m not big into welfare either, but once a guy gets the check, it is legally his money, like it or not. I

    You got me on that one
    Back to your check im waiting for.
    Once I get the money it will be my money so too bad on whoever it came from.
    Why don’t you just send it already??
    Cause your only free with other people’s money?

    You never answered my other question
    If someone makes a fortune one year, and after taxes puts the cash in a safe, no investment no interest, and lives off that the rest of his life, should the government tax him every year on what he has left?
    If yes, why shouldn’t they tax everyone on all their assets yearly?
    If not is he not entitled to police fire and emergency and roads because he is not paying in this year?

    #1677088

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I believe that your camp subconsciously (or maybe even consciously) believes that there is no tangible benefit from the taxes you pay.

    That’s just not true. We just don’t think the government should be taxing more than necessary just because they can.

    Everyone should have to pay for that benefit. Someone living off inheritance should not have government protection and benefits paid for by people with less money than him who actually have to work for a living.

    Income taxes were already paid in that money. Money made from investing that money is subject to taxation. If the heir buys taxable goods or owns property, he will be paying taxes for that.

    #1677132

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “You never answered my other question”
    Sorry, I guess I missed that post. If he made the fortune within his lifetime then he paid the income taxes on it. So, you’re wondering if I would support taking money out of his savings account every year? No, I don’t see how that could work. I’m not entirely sure that that’s the “wealth tax” that Elizabeth Warren just got into the news for proposing, but I didn’t really look into that much I admit; I have no plans on even considering voting for her. Anyway, no offense, but I’m not sure how much longer I can respond to the legitimate parts of your posts while ignoring the incomprehensible, seemingly tipsy parts. Whatever point you’re trying to make with the check-writing analogy is lost; I don’t think anyone here understands it.

    “We just don’t think the government should be taxing more than necessary just because they can.”
    Nor are we suggesting they should. Not overall anyway. Any tax hike on the rich or on inheritance would be balanced by a tax break for everyone else. I don’t think anyone here is supporting raising everyone’s taxes.

    “Income taxes were already paid in that money.”
    I thought you’d say that. I’m not sure if taxes paid 50+ years ago were still enough to pay off an heir’s burden today considering inflation and differing tax rates. Also, you could almost always say “taxes were already paid on that money.” The business pays taxes when it makes the money, then it gets taxed again when dispersed to it’s employees. If it gets taxed every time it changes hands, why should inheritance be any different?

    “If the heir buys taxable goods or owns property, he will be paying taxes for that.”
    Not federal, if I understand correctly, just state. I guess it causes someone else to pay income taxes when he spends it, so that’s a valid point.

    #1677141

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Any tax hike on the rich or on inheritance would be balanced by a tax break for everyone else.

    You don’t know how government works. You’re also talking about much higher rates when you’re talking about taxing wealthy people into being forced to work in McDonald’s.

    I thought you’d say that. I’m not sure if taxes paid 50+ years ago were still enough to pay off an heir’s burden today considering inflation and differing tax rates.

    Inflation has no bearing. The remaining money is now worth less as well.

    Tax rates might have been higher, depending on when the money was earned.

    If it gets taxed every time it changes hands, why should inheritance be any different?

    It’s not changing hands in the same way wages, purchases, etc. are. ברא כרעא דאבוה.

    #1677165

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “You’re also talking about much higher rates when you’re talking about taxing wealthy people into being forced to work in McDonald’s.”
    Eventually, they should have to work. You don’t have to agree, but you aren’t going to get my sympathy vote on the argument that the poor wittle rich man might have to actually work an honest day like the rest of us. That’s not a reason to oppose taxes, that’s a reason to support them.

    “It’s not changing hands in the same way wages”
    Right, because in this change of hands, nobody is actually doing anything to earn it like in the case of wages. Should a person not pay taxes on lottery winnings, since they also didn’t really earn it and it’s not changing hands “the same way as wages?”

    #1677179

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Neville
    I do not think that you get a very fundemental point.
    Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.
    No matter if they earned it or they inherited it.
    It’s pretty simple.

    #1677216

    klugeryid
    Participant

    You keep forgetting that someone already did work an honest day to make that money
    Where do you draw the line?
    While the old man is alive you agree not to tax him yearly on old money, even though he could be supporting many generations. So suddenly when he dies now we should force the kids and down to work? Why? What changed?
    (In case you think I’m not clear, yes I think all inheritance tax is double taxation and should be abolished)

    Leaving aside the Jewish idea /method of tax which BTW only taxes new money you earn,
    The only reason it’s equitable to tax is because when you make money, you are taking that money from the general populace. Legally and fairly, but that’s where it’s coming from. So the government says, you just profited from the public coffer, you need to give some back.
    Once that has been paid, now it’s just someone saying, look I’m in charge here. Either you fork some over or I’ll put you in jail.
    So you fork it over. But it’s not right.

    #1677300

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.”
    I’m not claiming it belongs to me, but I love that you guys keep robotically making that claim to show how few points you have in your tool box. I’m not on welfare, I don’t want your money, I don’t support redistribution.

    “Where do you draw the line?”
    That’s always the question. But, claiming relevance in the phrase “double taxation” is not the answer. Almost any time a tax is paid, the money has been taxed before. Individual income taxes are on money that the company was already taxed for, sales taxes are on money the person was already taxed for, gift taxes, etc.

    “So suddenly when he dies now we should force the kids and down to work? Why? What changed?”
    The same thing in literally every case of taxation: the money changed hands. As for why they should work, the same reason you think the “lazy bums” who are poor should work; it’s a matter of social conservatism more than economic. You guys will only use pejoratives for the unemployed when they’re poor, not when they’re rich. It’s hypocrisy.

    #1677339

    Mammele
    Participant

    Most rich people work. (I’m not talking about Kollel here.). Even hiring someone to manage your money, follow up on the profits, sometimes dusbursing charity funds, investing some of the profits in personal real estate, doing follow up construction/renovations — all of this takes time and effort, aka work.

    Of course there’s also the worrying aspect which Chazal talk about. Now of course there are lazy rich bums as well, but it’s almost impossible to draw the line of productivity.

    And if you think working a regular shift for someone else is the only way to be considering working, what do you say to regular stay at home parents, seasonal business owners etc.? Today’s economy is no longer 9-5, and not surprisingly increasing wealth that one didn’t earn as a hedge fund manager is one of the most highly paid jobs…

    #1677345

    klugeryid
    Participant

    So now we get some clarity
    I didn’t understand your constant vehement denials of not wanting someone else’s money.
    When posters write ”its not your money ”
    They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money
    They mean the government
    Meaning the ”you ” that’s trying to take the money by tax.
    So you Neville can stop protesting a semantic point, as we know semantics are not really meaningful to you anyway, and respond to the substance.
    When I engage in commerce in taking money away from everyone else.
    Imagine if you will there is a billion dollars a min getting spent. If I get all billion nobody else can. Even though everyone else was legitimately angling for that money. So since I won the pot thereby shutting everyone else out, I have a responsibility to the society in which that transaction took place to give back.
    When I give money which I already earned, to my offspring, nobody had a legitimate right to try to get that money as a gift, that can now say, I shut them out,. So I owe them nothing.

    As to not working, I have no issue if someone doesn’t want to work, as long as they are not asking me to support them.
    Are they a lazy bum if they sit and party all day? Absolutely. Some of the laziest most vile bums are the wealthiest people on the planet. That does not give me a right to tax them into slavery.

    #1677365

    Meno
    Participant

    When I engage in commerce in taking money away from everyone else.

    This is false

    #1677356

    Ben L
    Participant

    Neville

    I keep repeating that point because you fail to answer it.

    A Tax to lets say fund the military is not “redistribution” since a robust defense is needed by everyone and serves everyone about equally.

    On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.

    The stewardesses on the planes that went down were targeted the same as those in first calls.

    The same for an interstate highway system of roads and bridges.

    However most forms of welfare are in fact redistribution.

    It is taxing wealthy people in order to take their money from them and redistribute it to poor people.

    There is no argument that if one would eliminate the “re-distributive” policies from the Federal budget there is more then enough money already being taxed to enable funding the parts of the Federal government that serve everybody.

    It is simply the re-distributive parts that are up for debate.

    So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor, aside from the colossal waste that takes place (the most inefficient local Tzeddakah is far more efficient at this sort of the thing and make far better use of the money provided then the Federal government) then you are for redistribution.

    it does not help to say “I am against”.

    Call it what you wish.

    It’s semantics.

    You are pro-redistribution.

    #1677387

    Ben L
    Participant

    and I fully reject the insulting argument put forth by the left that if you are against government spending on these things then you are against “education” and “helping poor people “/.

    One of the reasons I wish the government would stay out of my pocket is precisely because I would love to help poor people and support education something the government is horribly bad at.

    #1677467

    benignuman
    Participant

    Neville,

    You wrote: “Semantics. The tax burden just gets shifted to the middle/lower classes. Same thing as taking their money and giving it away; it just sounds better on the surface.”

    “‘conservatives understand that money belongs to the one who earned it liberals feel all money belongs to the government’
    No liberal in the history of this country has ever claimed to believe that or said anything even close to it. There are virtually infinitely many options to chose from if you want to criticize liberals, you don’t need to go making up your own.”

    Those two statements are contradictory. The only way one can view the difference between the government giving me someone else’s money (that they took by force) and the government letting me keep more of my own money as semantic is if one believes that the government is entitled to all of everyone’s money.

    If the government is not entitled to all income, then a tax break is: the government stealing from me less. A subsidy is: the government stealing from someone else to give me money.

    If, on the other hand, government is entitled to take 100% of your income, there is no practical difference between a subsidy and a tax break.

    #1677465

    klugeryid
    Participant

    meno

    When I engage in commerce in taking money away from everyone else.

    This is false

    what i meant is
    say im selling shoes
    there are 100 people looking to buy shoes today in my area
    so if i sell to all of them no other shoe store in my area sells any today.
    so i won this round by beating out the competitors
    for that opportunity its fair to tax me

    #1677439

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor”
    I never said I supported giving it “to the poor.” You simply assume that every time someone has a view contrary to “lower taxes will solve everything” that it means they’re pro-redistribution. I tell you I don’t support welfare and you base your counterpoint on the assumption that I support welfare. Do you honestly even hear yourselves?

    “On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.”
    All of these points suggest you’re against the progressive tax code (what we currently have). Yet, when pressed, you will probably refuse to admit this as everyone has on this thread.

    “When posters write ”its not your money ” They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money They mean the government”
    As DY accused me earlier, you’re misrepresenting your own argument. There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person; I have never indicated that I work for the government. Plain and simple, they are automatically assuming I want welfare handouts and now that I’ve clarified it, you’re trying to retroactively change your point. Even if that were the point, it would not have worked out too well for your camp as the suggestion would be the government has no right to take anyone’s income. I’d love to see you try to make that argument and drag down all the other otherwise reasonable posters with you.

    “I wish the government would stay out of my pocket is precisely because I would love to help poor people”
    I think posters here (not necessarily you) on your side of this debate have given a very clear picture of how they view the poor, so I don’t think we need to even make that point…

    #1677504

    Meno
    Participant

    klugeryid,
    what i meant is
    say im selling shoes
    there are 100 people looking to buy shoes today in my area
    so if i sell to all of them no other shoe store in my area sells any today.
    so i won this round by beating out the competitors
    for that opportunity its fair to tax me

    By that logic, if there were two stores and each sold 50 pairs, neither one should be taxed.

    #1677517

    klugeryid
    Participant

    There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person;
    Sure there is
    It’s easier to type and that’s just how people speak

    I have said clearly many times in this thread that the government does have a right to take people’s money.
    Just the argument here is
    I say it’s the persons money that is being taken away from them by the government
    You seem to say
    It’s the governments money that the person somehow got a hold of and that person needs to find out how much the benevolent government allows him to keep

    For the record I also said that though I’m not a particularly big fan of the current taxation system, I don’t have any better idea.
    So I don’t know why you feel in not forthcoming and clear in what I feel about this issue
    Could it be you didn’t bother to read my posts?

    Meno
    Firstly I was trying to simplify my position for Neville with a parable as he seems to have cognition difficulties
    Secondly you’d be wrong an way
    Each one took 50 that the other an kid gave gotten
    You could have asked better
    What if I’m the only shoe store?
    But the answer would be every dollar spent on shoes is not spent on candy
    I was just illustrating competing for someone else’s dollar in an open market versus getting a gift
    And yes I think there should be no gift tax at all
    Don’t ask me about lottery
    Lottery r is an arbitrary game from the government who’s rules have been set by the same government
    You don’t like the rules, don’t play
    Everyone knows lottery winnings are 1/3 of advertised amount

    #1677518

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Actually Neville
    I do not think I have said I was against a progressive tax code in totality.
    It depends what it is used ofr
    a) The country’s saftey and fufullment og governmental roles as described by ie. military, roads & bridges etc..
    b) Government charity i.e the Welfare state and government sponsored cultural programs i.e the Arts.

    If all taxes were restricted to option a I would be pro a progressive tax code becuase I need the country to function and that means all must contribute.

    However the overwhelming majority of taxes since FDR’s failed attempt at halting the Great Depression go towards government sponsored charity which I am against because the Federal government has no right to take my money because they feel they others have more of a need for it.

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.