5 ms·

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brac

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brackets and see how millennials fare then?

war1025 8y ago
The rich don't make their money off of taxable income. They make their money off of appreciating assets. You can tax them all you want and it won't change a thing. You could try to create a wealth tax, but basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.
- normal_man 8y ago
  >basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution. Now you're getting it. Also, the "wealth tax" exists, it's called the capital gains tax, and it only goes up to 20%. It should be 100%.
  - war1025 8y ago
    The majority of my net worth is tied up in appreciating assets. I would be on the side of those fighting to keep that from happening.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - tfehring 8y ago
      But how does the level of that appreciation compare to your income? What level of wealth tax would you accept if it meant that you no longer have to pay income tax? Obviously I don't expect an answer to that - just something to consider.
      - war1025 8y ago
        Thanks to current tax policies, and how my family fits into them, I pay very little in income tax. Asset appreciation is exponential. Income is linear. The only way to get ahead financially is to use leftover income to build a portfolio of appreciating assets.
  - tfehring 8y ago
    Even a 100% capital gains tax would be regressive relative to a true wealth tax, since it never touches the starting asset base. Also, a wealth tax incentivizes productive investments, while a capital gains tax disincentivizes them.
war1025 8y ago
Replying to you again because I addressed your latter point, but not the first. I absolutely agree there are things that could be changed to make life better for many people. However, you live in the present, under the rules as they are. And from there you gain leverage to change the future. Living as if the rules were different when they aren't just sets you up for failure. It's the whole idea of "be so good they can't ignore you".

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brackets and see how millennials fare then?

war1025 8y ago

The rich don't make their money off of taxable income. They make their money off of appreciating assets. You can tax them all you want and it won't change a thing. You could try to create a wealth tax, but basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.

normal_man 8y ago
>basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution. Now you're getting it. Also, the "wealth tax" exists, it's called the capital gains tax, and it only goes up to 20%. It should be 100%.
- war1025 8y ago
  The majority of my net worth is tied up in appreciating assets. I would be on the side of those fighting to keep that from happening.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tfehring 8y ago
    But how does the level of that appreciation compare to your income? What level of wealth tax would you accept if it meant that you no longer have to pay income tax? Obviously I don't expect an answer to that - just something to consider.
    - war1025 8y ago
      Thanks to current tax policies, and how my family fits into them, I pay very little in income tax. Asset appreciation is exponential. Income is linear. The only way to get ahead financially is to use leftover income to build a portfolio of appreciating assets.
- tfehring 8y ago
  Even a 100% capital gains tax would be regressive relative to a true wealth tax, since it never touches the starting asset base. Also, a wealth tax incentivizes productive investments, while a capital gains tax disincentivizes them.

war1025 8y ago

Replying to you again because I addressed your latter point, but not the first. I absolutely agree there are things that could be changed to make life better for many people. However, you live in the present, under the rules as they are. And from there you gain leverage to change the future. Living as if the rules were different when they aren't just sets you up for failure. It's the whole idea of "be so good they can't ignore you".