How Wealth Inequality Spiraled Out of Control

No sir, you have literally proffered the textbook definition of social engineering. Rather than treating citizens impartially, your position utilizes the tax code not to fund the necessary functions of government -- which is all it should be used for -- but rather to impose some notion of what you call justice by confiscating wealth and giving it to people who didn't earn it. This is, again, the antithesis of fairness, your Orwellian fantasies notwithstanding.

Your wholly unsubstantiable mathematics aside, if you want to live under Marxism, there are plenty of countries that would be happy to have you. Venezuela is a lovely tropical clime where a loaf of bread will merely cost you one wheelbarrow... full of currency. Or Cuba! My goodness I think they now have flush toilets!

Frankly, if you are unwilling to make your contribution to the free market and are just going to stand there with your hand out waiting for Bernie Sanders to confiscate Brad Pitt's Malibu mansions and give you the proceeds, we don't need you: You are dead weight and we are tired of pulling you along. NB: Ubiquitous. I don't mean you personally.

The tax code was created by those who benefit most from it. Ironically due in whole to positions such as yours that suggest the tax code should be used for anything other than funding the necessary functions of government, out of mistaken notions of fairness.

 

Excise tax?

I thought you were talking about a flat tax on income.

An excise tax is a type of consumption tax.

And no, it doesn't treat everyone the same.

Well, that puts the argument in an entirely different space.

No, it doesn't treat everyone the same.

Okay, so let's say there is a flat excise tax on all goods and services.

Now, take Warren Buffet, he's a rather austere billionaire who doesn't spend more on goods and services than your average home owner, so if he is taxed, via the flat excise tax, he is spending far less, as a percentage of income, as you average homeowner who earns far less and spend a lot more of their income than Buffet does.


I don't see how a consumption tax is a good idea.

1. People who earn more do not spend all of their income on goods and services, so as a percentage of income, the will pay less than the poor.

2. Poor people will spend all of their income and thus will pay more, as a percentage of income, than the rich.

3. It penalizes consumption, and consumption is the engine of jobs

4. It penalizes the vendors of goods and services, in that they, now, have to collect the tax, account for it, and forward it to the IRS. This will be on top of sales taxes for states, so a double whammy for a lot of retailers.


From the net, there are some pros, but I don't think they outweigh the cons:

1. To replace traditional tax structures, it would need to be quite high.
Most estimates for the inclusion of a consumption tax in the United States peg the estimated rate to be at 23-34% on the purchases of all qualifying goods. If your $100 item suddenly costs $134, that might discourage people from making a purchase.

2. For a consumption tax to actually work, it must tax everything.
Nothing is off-limits for a consumption tax, with the exception of used goods. This means food, water, and other basic essentials also get that huge tax. Homeowners would be taxed on their mortgage interest. Students would be taxed on their student loans. People would get more money, but they’d have to spend more money as well.

3. It places a higher level of burden on the poor for tax revenues.
Poor households don’t typically have investments. This means their income is subjected to a higher overall percentage of taxation because they’re paying taxes on items they need. If a family making $20k per year pays $2,000 in taxes and so does a household making $200,000 per year, they might pay the same amount, but the poor family is paying 10% of their income in taxes and the wealthier family is paying just 1%.

4. The cost of used goods will explode.
This is a basic supply and demand principle. If new products are subjected to a tax of up to 34%, more people will look at purchasing used goods to avoid that tax. This will cause the price of used goods to rise because more people want them. In the end, more money winds up changing hands, but everyone ends up paying more to get the same things they need.


.

 

So who is giving these corporations the money which keeps them in business? Where do they get it from?

 

You are equating getting rid of the filibuster with 'unobstructed power'?

No, the opposition can still make a lot of noise.

The opposition, when bills are shaped, add amendments.

So, it's not 'unobstructed'.

We will still live in a democracy.

However, historically speaking, at the federal level, the hard statistics favor democrats.

It is why I joined the Democrats and ****-canned being a republican.

 

Nature isn't 'fair'. Most of us recognise 'fairness' is a fantasy, by the age of about 8.

It's those who never mature beyond that point, who end up creating more unfairness than nature could ever dish out.

 

You joined the Democrats because you have a kind heart and genuinely care about others. Results reveal that your kind nature was exploited by corrupt politicians and you are not getting what you voted for. You would never knowingly harm others.

 

Uhhh. Yes. I've only stated this six times in direct response to your posts.

Obviously you are responding to posts you don't bother to read.

Very good! You can define words!

Of course it does. One dollar, one rate. Period. You keep every penny you earn, you pay your taxes when you transact. Every transaction, no exceptions, no exemptions. There is no better definition of fairness.

Only for you because you didn't bother to read posts you were responding to.

It can do nothing but.

To be clear - it would replace all other taxes.

You state this as if it's a problem.

It is not just a good idea. It is the best idea.

What was your income for the last three years?

What was your income for the last three years?

Your argument assumes people won't buy groceries to save on taxes. Do you actually read this stuff before you post? But if you suggest that taxation is a punishment (it is not - it is the cost of civilization), then why is taxing income better than taxing consumption? You are taxing the same dollars. As my 7-yr-old nephew would say, "a-doyyyy."

Unmmmmmh.... you do realize every business that currently exists has to "forward taxes" to the IRS now, right? FFS is this thing on???

Ignoring the fact that taxpayers keep every penny they earn. Fail.

Yes. As I stated above, every transaction is taxed. No exceptions, no exemptions. You live in this society, you pay your fair share.

What was your income for the last three years?

All transactions are taxable - and subject to audit just like now.

Your argument fails on every front.

 

Why are you asking questions that have nothing to do with what is being discussed... We all know people buy things .. money going to corporations .. aka .. the economy .. .. Did you have a point beyond stating the obvious but irrelevant and without point ?

 

If the PEOPLE are keeping these corporations going (and doing all their evil etc), why are you blaming The System?

 

Blaming the system for what ?

 

For corporatism or whatever.

 

What does poeple purchasing goods and services have to do with corporatism .. Price Fixing for example.by Oligopoly ?

 

We'll just have to disagree on that point. We live by elections, and elections have consequence.
If the person or persons elected enact policies you don't like, welcome to the club. No goverment pleases everyone, ever.

But, that is democracy, love it leave it.

The top 50% had 98% of the nation's wealth, according to the wealth distribution tables (both charts) put out by the Federal Reserve, as of Q2 2020, and it's even worse now.

You really should look before you pull an arrow from your quiver.

Your propensity for hyperbole ( marxism, venezuela, etc ) greatly diminishes your credibility. Clearly, you do not grasp such concepts in their entirety, and are given to the right wing echo chamber of simplistic thinking.

Hyperbolic drivel.

This is democracy, and democracy IS not getting your way, all the time.

Love it or leave it.

 

Democracy and Governments do not exist in the wild.

They exist in civilization, and by that fact, we can strive to be fair.

As to what constitutes fairness, that is why we have elections.

Whatever we wind up with, that's democracy, love it or leave it.

 

I actually believed I had a kind heart as a republican, until I realized they were going in a neoliberal direction, which results in a dog eat dog world where no one cares about anyone but themselves in the false belief that greed is good.

 

I disagree. For the following more salient reasons.

The rich will pay less as a percentage of income than the poor given that the rich do not spend all of their disposable income, and the poor mostly do.

To make up for all other taxes, the excise tax will have to be huge, which will discourage purchases and that will be a job killer.

the pros do not outweigh these cons, in my view.

We'll just have to disagree

 

What was your income over the last three years?

 

The point of Constitutional Republic is to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority" aka "pure democracy" 50+1 takes the day .. love it or leave it.

You are correct about the "this is democracy" part not getting way not pleasing everyone .. and welcome to shill for the Commie/Fascist/Borg -Collective .. or what ever new ugly form "TOM" has taken or will take... but I Don't Like it .. and be careful what you wish for.

Yes .. and TOM is responsible Mate. Nail on the Head you have inadvertently hit .. but have things woefully backward in terms of cause.

any idea why this might be the case prior to me supporting claim "TOM" cause of increasing wealth inequality ?

Your chance to shine Mate .. correct your evil ways .. and repent to superior logic

 

Social economics 101-
In most western democracies, the wealthy set up rules for the wealthy because their wealth makes power which favour the wealthy more likely.

So while taxation for the poor is a one page tax return , taxation for the rich includes value of share holdings, value of annual investments, value of agricultural holdings, countered by tax relief on charitable donations, off shore holdings (not taxable), exemptions for refurbishment of your office, (which may be in your home), nad taking advantage of government schemes which are supposed to encourage better climate control (ie it is proposed in the UK to give tax relief to farmers who allow bogs to return to their land. Course many Lords/friends of the politicians etc own vast acreages and would profit greatly ).

It is a minefield only super accountants can get their heads around. But the end result is, I am afraid, the wealthy pay far less on their total wealth than the poor.

 

You just described both parties. You cannot look at results and make an honest claim that your party cares more. It is simply not true. I would still be a Democrat if high taxes created a healthy, thriving society. Your party has control and resources, but produces poverty, pollution, and illness. While some greed is good for society, combining greed with political power is far worse.

 

You're complaining about these oligopolies. WHO is keeping them functioning - in business? What is their lifeblood?

 

We are of nature. Our works are therefore of nature - our own.

 

You mean a world in which people are socially and personally responsible? How terrible.

 

The moronic question you keep circling back to was already answered - spending is the lifeblood of every economy. What does this have to do with price fixing by an Oligopoly - Corporatism .

What is your Point Lad ... speak up ..

 

I'm not a 'lad', and my point is that these businesses only exist because we want them to. We demand that they exist, and celebrate the corporatism which leads to us getting our shiny things cheaper.

Your problem is people, not corporations.