Tax the 1%...

As long as one's individual beliefs line up with theirs. Authoritarians at their core.

 

Quote where the Constitution authorizes a direct property tax on the citizens. What property?

 

If you're uncomfortable with the word tax call it a "wealth fee."

Or if we can keep it in the "conservative" comfort zone...

Call it "asset forfeiture."

This has been used by every level of government. We just accuse the wealthy of a crime, no need to prove or even charge the crime. Take 10% of their assets and...

The method is not at issue, constitutionality is not the issue.

Let's face it. When Biden wins and the Dems take the senate they can increase SCOTUS to 15 and get whatever they want deemed "constitutional."

 

Unfortunately, you won't ever "see" any credible, factual or logical arguments to the contrary. It's not that they don't exist, or even that they lack authenticity, because they don't.
It's like this old oriental proverb-
"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear".
The teacher is always there- always has been, just as the truth is. The appearance is not magic; it is the willingness within a person to see and recognize it that changes what they think exists.
It's really quite basic. You can't see what you won't see- and you are the only person who can change that.

"Getting it" is probably never going to happen for you.

 

It would still be a tax, quote where the Constitution authorizes a direct property tax on the citizens. And the Constitution also says you must be justly compensated if the government confiscates your property. And how does the federal government even access the value of all their property?

Taxation based on greed and envy is quite ugly.

 

Can you see and acknowledge the difference between a product of labor like a house, a car, or food and something that would exist anyways, like land, the sun, atmospheric air, or the ocean?

The car has to be designed and manufactured. The car manufacturer creates something. He's the one that gives the car the qualities that make people willing to pay for it. His actions relieve scarcity.

Land, by contrast, would exist anyways. Its owner merely imposes a deprivation on other members of the community. Its qualities that make people willing to pay for it are a result of public investment in infrastructure and services around it, natural advantages, and the general community.

Land wouldn't disappear if parasites were no longer privileged to to demand its publicly created value for contributing nothing.

You seem to be unable to address the specific issues bringiton mentioned: land titles, intellectual property, bank licenses, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc. Why do you choose to make it personal?

Is whatever can be owned according to prevailing rules automatically justifiable? Is property always rightful? (not in the legal sense)

 

Look up forfeiture.

Then tell me about how people who had their money and property taken for government use without ever being charged with a crime, much less convicted, were "justly compensated."

The reason we go after wealth instead of income is because of accounting. The wealthy use accounting to hide income. Legally, mind you. For example, rich guy forms a corp, buys a jet using the corp, then rents the jet from himself. He will deduct the cost of the Jet along with the cost of operating the jet as business expenses.

If you don't want to discuss the viability of the proposal may I suggest a different thread?

 

I was entirely on point.

You, however, evidently do not wish to discuss my rebuttals.

And that is on you...

 

Just what the hell do you THINK the topic is?

Your post
"For openers, that seems to assume that the federal government is authoritatively superior to the citizenry. And that is a thought that I find...well, downright scary."

This topic is not about who is most qualified to manage the collection of taxes and use of tax monies

"Moreover, to claim that "[t]he average SS recipient gets $18,500 per year" is to assume that this is his (or her) only source of income. And that is an enormously gratuitous assumption."

A person can have one or 100 sources of income. This topic is not about sources of income.

"Oh, and the statement that some amorphous "they" would be left with "a paltry 22.5 TRILLION dollars to squeeze by on" is surely an appeal to class envy."

This topic is not an argument about "class envy."

Whatever your point is it is irrelevant to the topic. If you can't discuss the topic here there are other threads where you can be off topic.

 

Of course there are differences. They don't need to be addressed for most people, because the answers are obvious- and not of the malicious nature he like to think.

Start with land. Land is finite, there is only so much. However, raw land is nearly worthless. It's when we do something with it that it contributes to the quality of life. The question is- how do we do that?
NOT individually as measured by bringiton's pocket- but benefit overall to society. WHO is going to do something with land they cannot control the use of?

The car factory- may belong to Ford, but unless the land it sits on can be secure and controlled, there would be no car factory.... and no cars. Of course, we could walk. Cavemen did, so can we.
If the land a farmer plants to wheat or corn to feed the nation cannot be secured and controlled, there can be no cultivated crops. I guess we could become hunter-gatherers, collect roots and such.
Title to land does benefit all- including those who own none. You pay for the land you buy- a fixed price. But then you pay property taxes every year forever, which provide the schools, the police and fire services, the road maintenance, all the things that keep the families and children in the communities safe and secure. Services available to people who own nothing, and pay no taxes at all.
To pay those taxes, you have to be producing things of value for our economy too.

In effect- people that complain like this guy benefit everyday from the fees collected from the property owners he despises, and never consider what they do for him nor appreciate it.
That is tunnel vision. Short-sighted, self-serving, and self-deceptive.

You didn't notice that he does not have a better idea, did you?

Nature has always had a form of property ownership, as most animals are territorial. The stake out a range or territory, they mark the borders, and they defend it against invaders. Humans try to make that more orderly and more productive, so you don't have to defend your territory with physical force.... as you would if there were no titles or ownership, which would also mean no taxes or services. So his idea that we all own everything doesn't fit with the laws of nature or man- just with himself.

Bringiton fails to look beyond his own short-sighted convictions and see what he gains by some else that has the courage to build and make things happen taking the chances and paying for those benefits he enjoys. I think the idea that everything is free makes perfect sense to him- except that it's a one-way deal where he benefits but doesn't contribute. Why don't we all just do that?

I'll hope it's not necessary to explain why.

 

The biggest lie being told now. Is that you can't improve your circumstances.

 

Wealthy often do just that, at you describe- and legally.
On the other hand, if they just didn't buy the jet, all the jobs of the people who built it would not exist. Same is true for the people who maintain and store it. There would be so sales tax or property tax received as a result of it, no insurance business generated.... so it's not really such a bad thing. What we own is greatly regulated by the complications and costs of ownership, but governments always benefit from waht we own. When taxes take too big a piece of the pie- either people find a way to minimize them, or they don't do the things that generate them.

Government has difficulty recognizing that 10% of something is always more than 100% of nothing. More than one community or state had driven it's own revenue source out of town by becoming too greedy.

If your land is taken by public domain proceedings, the first step is an appraisal and offer of compensation. The property owner does not have to accept that, and the appeal process starts with a hearing. I provided expert testimony for such a hearing years ago, on the side of the landowner. This was over an easement for a big gas line, and the extent of loss in property value that would result. The lawyers were there for the other side; my client just had me, and I'm not a lawyer. However, a hearing is not a trial, and I did my homework- and I had experience as an expert witness several times before. The settlement set by the judge was a little over triple the offer- just based on a couple examples and knowledge of the land values in the area. I'm saying that while "justly compensated" is an arbitrary term, the process is not without recourse to make it just if needed. Seen it done on several occasions. Quite often they do make you fight for it, but it can be done.

 

off topic.

The point is not whatever you're talking about, it is that we are using wealth instead of income because it is harder to hide that 40,000 acre ranch in Wyoming or that 15 million dollar penthouse in Manhatten.

 

1) We are not that special - unless you're religious, and therefore attribute supernatural uniqueness to H sapiens. We're beasts with opposable thumbs.

2) The minute a society tries to dictate that stuff, is the minute that society waves goodbye to justice and equality. You give the non-contributor the same as the contributor, and you've decided against justice. You give the seeker and go-getter as little as the lazy and complacent, and you've decided against equality. Merit is the only fair model, and we already have that in our First World capitalist democracies. Don't like how much you're paid? Find a way to make yourself more valuable. Or find a way to torque what little money you earn, into more money. We're all free to do these things, and NO ONE is ever forced to remain renters or minimum wage earners for life. It's all free choice.

 

1) Alternatively, if you're not earning much money and are worried about 'belly ups', you could simply choose to live below your means and carefully plan long ahead for rainy days. Living as frugally as possible, no indulgences, saving as much as humanly possible short of starving. Do that for at least 5 years and you'll likely survive a belly up. Do it for 10 and you will survive. Do it for 20 and you'll be rich. Choices.

2) Socialised medicine is very important because it removes the last excuse for poverty from the lazy. They can't claim medical expenses bankrupted them. It's also very good to have in a pandemic, obviously.

3) Sure, why not. If they choose to destabilise their social support networks, and spend all their money, who are we to stop tell them they can't be homeless?

4) Yes, you do get to 'hoard' money. That's because we live in a first world capitalist democracy, where you can choose what you'll do with yours. Spend it on living beyond your means, or preserve it for a belly up (and for your kids' futures).

 

So.... you think people gain wealth without income?
You don't get rich by accident unless you win the lottery or inherit it; in which case you are likely to blow it all through poor management. Most people EARN wealth. First by their marketing of their skills, then by the wise management of the money they save so that money will work for them. Our constitution endorses the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee wealth or success, you have to be willing to use your life, liberty and pursuit to build what you want- and being mad because someone else did what you would not do has nothing to do with what they have done at all- It's just attitude.

IF you ask a wealthy person how they accomplished what they have- most will be happy to tell you. That is, if you approach and ask respectfully, and don't call them money-grubbing bloodsuckers before you get to the point. I realize that the viewpoint of some is that if someone else has what you think you need, it's fair to take it. They just don't want anyone to do that to them, because that would be different.

When the rich people come to your house and force you to take junk you don't want and take your money against your will, then you have a complaint.
So long as you buy the products they sell voluntarily, the argument that they should be cheaper and therefore you have been cheated- works both ways; those you sell to (your employer) probably feels the same way about the deal with you- but is smart enough to walk away when necessary.

 

Oh I don't know. Seems tough. Can they still afford to retire at 65 or will this make them hang around the Walmart, putting in 30 hours on their feet until they reach 67 or 70?

 

off topic.

If you cannot discuss the topic please leave.

 

mentioned nothing of retirement age.

A person making the federal minimum wage working full time earns $15000
The average SS recipient gets about $18,000
A person making twice the minimum earns about $30,000

All would receive an additional income to bring that income up to the median for their family size.

 

Since the topic is taking money from the rich- I'd say I was right on topic. Of course, I'm not in a meaningful conversation here, so it makes sense not to waste effort with obvious logic.

 

Is this in addition to the property taxes they already pay?

 

Yes it is in addition to the local property tax they pay.

 

Not gonna work.

 

Thanks for your input. It shows the level of thought placed therein.

 

Because I didn't agree with you? Or because I used less than 50 words.