5 ms·

It still shows the point clearly enough, as 56% isn't the ultra rich. People who fear a wealth tax doing the same already have precedent. Now, maybe if the we

It still shows the point clearly enough, as 56% isn't the ultra rich. People who fear a wealth tax doing the same already have precedent. Now, maybe if the wealth tax was combined with a significant reduction in income tax, say 0 tax for the first $100,000 a year people make, then people might be a bit more willing to support the notion. But just a new tax, with the promise it won't impact you? Can't blame people for lacking any trust.

awb 6y ago
I suppose everyone's definition of ultra-rich is different. There are many people who feel that earning $60k/year is unattainable in their lifetime. For them, the income tax rates (and proposed wealth tax rates) probably seem too low. I agree that it's easy to tax people wealthier than you. When it might affect you, there's less support.
cycomanic 6y ago
It's ironic how now everyone is bringing out the slippery slope arguments, after years and years of tax cuts for the rich reduced social services and increasing wealth inequality, all based on the promise that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the average person. Well that was a lie, after several decades of increasing efficiency and economic growth the middle class can look back at essentially at no increase in wealth and the only reason that household disposible income has somwhat increased is because now both adults in the family are working (+plus often high school and college kids are working large proportions as well). If there was ever a slippery slope it was the slippery slope of cutting more and more taxes for the rich.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  Well given those taxes are passed on to the middle class, and the fear is that a new tax will also be passed on to a middle class, I don't see any irony. I even suggested that lowering taxes on the middle class and below while introducing a new tax on the rich would be the a method to prevent people from being concerned with the tax eventually impacting them. With all the 'tax the rich' rhetoric, why not include a 'and not the poor' as well?

awb 6y ago

I suppose everyone's definition of ultra-rich is different. There are many people who feel that earning $60k/year is unattainable in their lifetime. For them, the income tax rates (and proposed wealth tax rates) probably seem too low. I agree that it's easy to tax people wealthier than you. When it might affect you, there's less support.

cycomanic 6y ago

It's ironic how now everyone is bringing out the slippery slope arguments, after years and years of tax cuts for the rich reduced social services and increasing wealth inequality, all based on the promise that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the average person. Well that was a lie, after several decades of increasing efficiency and economic growth the middle class can look back at essentially at no increase in wealth and the only reason that household disposible income has somwhat increased is because now both adults in the family are working (+plus often high school and college kids are working large proportions as well). If there was ever a slippery slope it was the slippery slope of cutting more and more taxes for the rich.

SkyBelow 6y ago
Well given those taxes are passed on to the middle class, and the fear is that a new tax will also be passed on to a middle class, I don't see any irony. I even suggested that lowering taxes on the middle class and below while introducing a new tax on the rich would be the a method to prevent people from being concerned with the tax eventually impacting them. With all the 'tax the rich' rhetoric, why not include a 'and not the poor' as well?