4 ms·

"As with any tax increase, the middle class is always the ones that bear the brunt of it" because we continually keep talking about taxing income instead of wea

• JonFish85 11y ago
  Huh? As I said, it would take the combined wealth of the top 1000 wealthiest Americans to pay for the federal budget for one year. Pretty quickly you run out of people whose money you can take without getting to the middle class. No matter how you slice it, the real money is in the middle class.
  • jrs235 11y ago
    When people talk about raising or lowering taxes they are usually talking about income taxes (not property taxes). I'm suggesting we tax all property (assets/wealth).
    • JonFish85 11y ago
      What does that change? As I said, the combined net worth (everything that they own: cash, property, stock, etc) of the top 1000 richest Americans pays for the federal budget for one year. The only way to raise enough money to pay for things is to make the middle class pay the bulk of it. Whether it's via income tax, net-worth tax, etc, there simply isn't enough in "the 1%" to pay for things. And that's not to mention that you're essentially taxing the same assets multiple times. The stock that, say, Zuckerberg owns was already taxed when he received it. You're asking to re-tax the same thing over and over and over again. This sort of taxing already exists (property tax & excise tax come to mind), but I'm not really sure what sort of gain you think would come of it. No matter how you run the numbers, the money comes from the middle class.