This is something that is going to get a lot of air play in the next two years.
Here is the basic plan:
Now I know usual fits folks throw out; stymying competition, why would people work to just be taxed, jealousy, folks would go elsewhere, yada, yada, yada.
I know that the idea of a 14% one time tax has been thrown out, don’t know much about it.
Now the thinking behind it is this, near as I can tell: much of that wealth has not been taxed. Much of it has occurred due to gains on assets. These gains, when held in the family are never taxed. Especially with the most likely disappearance of the estate tax.
How do you propose to tax these gains that are never subject to tax ? Surely a case can’t be made that wealth derived from capital gains should not be taxed while gains made from labor and saving are ?
So we can move past the usual arguments and go to the nut, should those gains be subject to taxation ?
Why or why not ?
1st, explain to me the need for the tax. The purpose of taxes is to fund essential government functions. It's not to take money away from people who you feel have too much. So, your argument that this money needs to be taxed is based on the wrong premise.
When you can show that government has eliminated most of the waste, which amounts to billions, at the least, and that they are providing essential services, as defined in the constitution, and they don't have enough, then I'll listen to ideas for additional revenue sources.
The problem is not that people are taxed too little. The problem is the government spends too much
“1st, explain to me the need for the tax.”
OK, what about drastically reducing the tax paid by fruits of labor and saving ? Those folks would spend that money, helping the economy.
Let’s confine government efficiency to another discussion, we all know taxes are going to be collected.
Unless that’s the only argument you have, then fine. It’s been made.
"Unless that’s the only argument you have, then fine. It’s been made."
The idea that the government should collect taxes for the purpose of funding essential/authorized services is not an argument. It's a founding principle of this nation. Its about as debatable as the concept of gravity. Government is a necasary evil and should be treated as such.
But we have a segment of the population that feels taxes should be a means of taking money from people who just have too gosh darn much and giving it to those "more deserving".
Guys like me did debate mainly for the girls. Those smart chicks really dug the “bad boy” vibe.
Couple things however I did pick up.
First, if you can’t defend then deflect. That’s been a staple of political debate for since forever. We see it everyday.
Second, if for whatever reason you can’t debate then start a parallel argument that you feel you are able discuss. Of course the closer to the original question the better but debate judges see through this and coaches discourage it. One can speculate on the reasons a person might have to derail the question, but I’ll leave that to others.
So, to the question. Should untaxed wealth be subject to taxation ?
There is one aurgument I find compelling to not tax it.
Oh, and don’t start with the founding of our nation. We don’t need to discuss Jefferson’s ideas of the yeoman farmer.
“Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score.” Donald Trump
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett contribute billions to charities. Wonder if they, and other billionaires, would consider setting up a non-profit company for the purpose of providing subsidies and over-sight to the lowest bidder on infrastructure jobs. That would stimulate the economy for job growth and get the job done for the lowest price.
“Bill Gates and Warren Buffett contribute billions to charities. Wonder if they, and other billionaires, would consider setting up a non-profit company for the purpose of providing subsidies and over-sight to the lowest bidder on infrastructure jobs. That would stimulate the economy for job growth and get the job done for the lowest price. ”
See, now that’s an original thought, at least for me it is.
I guess I would want some assurance the lowest bidder is able to do the job.
As to the charitable donations. Many times these donations go to foundations the donors themselves set up. This enables the donor to control what the money is spent on. Not a bad thing in and of itself but will leave less “photogenic” needs unmet.
You feel my debate is a deflection? That's what I feel I am reading here.
Your premise is that wealth should be taxed. Tell me why. And if your argument is that they have too much and there are others more deserving, take a pause and think about how that sounds and what you are really saying.
My premise is that taxes can only be justified by a defined need. The government should take what it needs, and not a dime more. That's not a deflection, and it completely cuts your argument off at the knees, unless of course, you can demonstrate a need. And you can't until you can demonstrate the government is not wasting billions (or more) on programs that are not justified in the constitution.
The fact that you want to dismiss founding principles is very telling, but the fact that the US has become the most successful nation in the history of mankind is no accident, and ignoring the reasons for that is why our time as a successful nation is drawing to a close... Thanks, largely, to people who prefer to ignore founding principles.
So Tim isn’t going to discuss the issue, for his own reasons.
I imagine he can start a thread of his own on why tax, but again that’s not the question here.