3 ms·

I'm guessing the vast majority of "wealth" is in assets/stocks. That isn't money just sitting around. The value is only realized when those are selled off. They

I'm guessing the vast majority of "wealth" is in assets/stocks. That isn't money just sitting around. The value is only realized when those are selled off. They also would owe capital gains tax. So now they gets taxed twice? > The current system is also a redistribution of wealth, just from the bottom to the top. I think that capitalism/free markets has been the biggest driver in bringing people out of poverty. > That's what a wealth tax is supposed to change. This is also hugely immoral. Property is a fundamental human right. There is no "right" in having as much money as someone else. In the US at least, there is supposed to be equal protection of your rights. Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral. Besides, wealthy people are also people that donate enormous amounts of money. Let them figure out how they want to give it away. > Regarding the argument about companies, I'm sure the French king also employed a lot of people, we still got right of the system of absolutism. You will have to provide me some more evidence on how these are connected.

kaibee 7y ago
> So now they gets taxed twice? I don't understand this argument. I've seen it so many times among a certain crowd of people, but I still don't get it. Yes, we, mere mortal humans have to form our systems of government using a patchwork of heuristics as we try to approach a more perfect system. Sure, an omnipotent being that knew all outcomes in advance could set a perfect single-tax rate for each person's individual circumstance that only affected their income. Is this somehow more valid than trying to approximate this same outcome by taxing wealth as a correction on top of what income-tax and other taxes were supposed to accomplish?
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  >> So now they gets taxed twice? >I don't understand this argument. I've seen it so many times among a certain crowd of people, but I still don't get it. Wealth tax makes no sense because if you earned that money, then you have already paid taxes on it. Taxing assets/stocks makes no sense because the value is constantly changing. One day you could have millions and the next you could be broke. Plus, if you had zero cash on hand, you would have to liquidate an asset just to pay the taxes on it? > Sure, an omnipotent being that knew all outcomes in advance could set a perfect single-tax rate for each person's individual circumstance that only affected their income. A flat tax would work fine too, and be the most "fair". > taxing wealth as a correction I don't think the main purpose of taxation is redistribution. Who says there needs to be a correction in the first place? I don't think people really care about equality, because no one cares about the inequality of the rich vs. the super rich. They care about the lowest end, and if they have at least enough to support themselves. Which if you're making under a certain amount and have kids you pay basically zero taxes. In fact, you may even get money from the government.
ubercow13 7y ago
>Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? I think it is immoral not to do that, considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens.
- kuzimoto 7y ago
  > Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? The difference is taxes should be paying for public goods, to which everyone is equally entitled and able to use. Taking money from one person to give directly to another person is stealing, how is that not immoral? > considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens. It's impossible to guarantee that. Some people are born rich, some are born poor. What can be guaranteed is equal protection of your rights and your individual freedoms. There is no right to equality in the economic sense, because it requires infringing on the rights of others.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    Taxation is not stealing. In the ECHR for example your right to property is completely superseded by anything the government decides is in the best interest of society: >(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. >(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
    - kuzimoto 7y ago
      > No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest As I mentioned, taxes for public goods makes sense. If they are just going directly to someone else's pocket then it's not exactly for the "public" at that point. The ECHR is missing the freedom of speech, so I wouldn't look to that as a leader in individual rights.

kaibee 7y ago

> So now they gets taxed twice? I don't understand this argument. I've seen it so many times among a certain crowd of people, but I still don't get it. Yes, we, mere mortal humans have to form our systems of government using a patchwork of heuristics as we try to approach a more perfect system. Sure, an omnipotent being that knew all outcomes in advance could set a perfect single-tax rate for each person's individual circumstance that only affected their income. Is this somehow more valid than trying to approximate this same outcome by taxing wealth as a correction on top of what income-tax and other taxes were supposed to accomplish?

kuzimoto 7y ago
>> So now they gets taxed twice? >I don't understand this argument. I've seen it so many times among a certain crowd of people, but I still don't get it. Wealth tax makes no sense because if you earned that money, then you have already paid taxes on it. Taxing assets/stocks makes no sense because the value is constantly changing. One day you could have millions and the next you could be broke. Plus, if you had zero cash on hand, you would have to liquidate an asset just to pay the taxes on it? > Sure, an omnipotent being that knew all outcomes in advance could set a perfect single-tax rate for each person's individual circumstance that only affected their income. A flat tax would work fine too, and be the most "fair". > taxing wealth as a correction I don't think the main purpose of taxation is redistribution. Who says there needs to be a correction in the first place? I don't think people really care about equality, because no one cares about the inequality of the rich vs. the super rich. They care about the lowest end, and if they have at least enough to support themselves. Which if you're making under a certain amount and have kids you pay basically zero taxes. In fact, you may even get money from the government.

ubercow13 7y ago

>Taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? I think it is immoral not to do that, considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens.

kuzimoto 7y ago
> Basically every society in the world does this, how is it immoral? The difference is taxes should be paying for public goods, to which everyone is equally entitled and able to use. Taking money from one person to give directly to another person is stealing, how is that not immoral? > considering that there is no way that any society can guarantee absolute equality of opportunity for all citizens. It's impossible to guarantee that. Some people are born rich, some are born poor. What can be guaranteed is equal protection of your rights and your individual freedoms. There is no right to equality in the economic sense, because it requires infringing on the rights of others.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  Taxation is not stealing. In the ECHR for example your right to property is completely superseded by anything the government decides is in the best interest of society: >(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. >(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
  - kuzimoto 7y ago
    > No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest As I mentioned, taxes for public goods makes sense. If they are just going directly to someone else's pocket then it's not exactly for the "public" at that point. The ECHR is missing the freedom of speech, so I wouldn't look to that as a leader in individual rights.