4 ms·

> Then why would you bring up the Revenue Act? That is literally a "specific policy". You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue. Literally

> Then why would you bring up the Revenue Act? That is literally a "specific policy". You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue. Literally the only reason I linked it. > Do you want me to show dozens of examples of FTTs failing? Do you simply need more? If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years. Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one. We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic. It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes.

robswc 6y ago
>You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue. How is it pedantic. It's completely relevant. I want to know if it was successful, where the money came from and how it got there... Much in the same way people preach a wealth tax would bring in "billions" without realizing that probably wouldn't put a dent in anything considering the overall budget. >If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years. ahaha man, isn't that kinda ironic though? Maybe because the US/UK has seen the consequences of an FTT and realized that maybe its not a good idea. This is like saying "I don't want to see anything unless its from the last 50 years, since so much has changed since then" >Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one. Where did I ever say you were? I'm using FTT as an example of an "effort to tax the rich" that completely backfired because the people behind it assumed they were dealing with a vacuum. >We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic. Because it is a waste of energy at best and something that could have catastrophic consequences at worst. >It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes. I'm not a fan of those either for the most part. However, there's a big difference between property tax and trying to tax something worth $50b one day and then $100b a half a year later.

robswc 6y ago

>You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue. How is it pedantic. It's completely relevant. I want to know if it was successful, where the money came from and how it got there... Much in the same way people preach a wealth tax would bring in "billions" without realizing that probably wouldn't put a dent in anything considering the overall budget. >If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years. ahaha man, isn't that kinda ironic though? Maybe because the US/UK has seen the consequences of an FTT and realized that maybe its not a good idea. This is like saying "I don't want to see anything unless its from the last 50 years, since so much has changed since then" >Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one. Where did I ever say you were? I'm using FTT as an example of an "effort to tax the rich" that completely backfired because the people behind it assumed they were dealing with a vacuum. >We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic. Because it is a waste of energy at best and something that could have catastrophic consequences at worst. >It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes. I'm not a fan of those either for the most part. However, there's a big difference between property tax and trying to tax something worth $50b one day and then $100b a half a year later.