4 ms·

> but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains You are completely missing the point of the conversation you started. Everything we're discussin

> but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains You are completely missing the point of the conversation you started. Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else. Anyway, I don't think that you're arguing in good faith and I'm moving on with my day. Cheers.

satvikpendem 4y ago
Okay, no worries. It seems you wanted to reply to me but then are unable to show anything regarding your viewpoint when I ask questions about it, even, yes, in the hypothetical, so it's not worth my time to ask any questions either.
johndunne 4y ago
I think you two peeps discussion illustrates the root problem with the whole issue to taxation and wealth. We start out with ideas for solving it, but quickly the scale of the mess that is the ‘wealth system’ quickly busts pretty much any solution. Trying to appreciate the true scale of the problem and any solutions becoming quickly impossible. And I think this is by design. It protects the system for the wealthiest…
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
Ironically I feel like you are the one not arguing in good faith. > Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else Your hypothetical is "the government taxes everything". Then someone asked, "how would that work?" and your response was "everything we're discussing is a hypothetical!". There are many obvious ideas around taxing wealth. The problem is that when you think about how they would work in reality things get very messy and difficult. Proposing the idea is not the hard part.
- OnlineGladiator 4y ago
  > Your hypothetical is "the government taxes everything". Then someone asked, "how would that work?" and your response was "everything we're discussing is a hypothetical!" Because he was mixing reality with the hypothetical. He was saying the IRS doesn't work that way in reality, which has no bearing to the discussions we were having which is a hypothetical. I explicitly stated in a previous comment that the IRS would also evaluate wealth and tax based on that wealth, and then he responds talking about how they don't tax unrealized capital gains. In this scenario they do, so why does that matter?
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    You have proposed an idea which does not actually provide any solution to the difficult part of your idea, which is this bit: "this wealth is determined by the IRS". "determined by the IRS" is passing the buck big time. > In this scenario they do, so why does that matter? Because you're skipping the most difficult and pertinent part of the solution. There's not much substance to proposing a wealth tax based on wealth brackets. All the difficulty and nuance of a wealth tax is in determining how to reasonably tax someone's wealth (E.g. assets and unrealized gains).
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      I wasn't even claiming my original idea had much substance because it is so obvious. I hardly think I've solved a real-world problem because the real problem is people and politics while we're discussing theory. But if you want a simple proposal to address wealth inequality that's one way to do it. And wealth evaluation isn't an impossible problem because wealth is regularly evaluated in every market - real estate, art, stocks, cash. No solution is ideal. But it's not an intractable problem because it's regularly solved every day around the world for all sorts of reasons. If we created a branch of government whose purpose was to do this I think they could figure it out. So in that sense I'm offloading the problem to people whose job it would be to figure out the problem. Anyway, I've spent way too much time arguing about something I don't even care about. Cheers.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    You're the one who brought the IRS, a concrete institution, into this hypothetical discussion, talking about "just [giving] them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation." Okay? So when I asked something like, how would this work, because this is such a hand-wavey answer as to be a non-answer entirely (how would they determine wealth evaluation? Sounds to me like you're saying, they just would), you couldn't answer. The reality is, like the sibling comment says, just proposing a simple solution doesn't work, that's not the hard part. The hard part is actually exploring and understanding the problem of what actually happens were an institution such as the IRS be assessing wealth for taxation.

satvikpendem 4y ago

Okay, no worries. It seems you wanted to reply to me but then are unable to show anything regarding your viewpoint when I ask questions about it, even, yes, in the hypothetical, so it's not worth my time to ask any questions either.

johndunne 4y ago

I think you two peeps discussion illustrates the root problem with the whole issue to taxation and wealth. We start out with ideas for solving it, but quickly the scale of the mess that is the ‘wealth system’ quickly busts pretty much any solution. Trying to appreciate the true scale of the problem and any solutions becoming quickly impossible. And I think this is by design. It protects the system for the wealthiest…

ZephyrBlu 4y ago

Ironically I feel like you are the one not arguing in good faith. > Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else Your hypothetical is "the government taxes everything". Then someone asked, "how would that work?" and your response was "everything we're discussing is a hypothetical!". There are many obvious ideas around taxing wealth. The problem is that when you think about how they would work in reality things get very messy and difficult. Proposing the idea is not the hard part.

OnlineGladiator 4y ago
> Your hypothetical is "the government taxes everything". Then someone asked, "how would that work?" and your response was "everything we're discussing is a hypothetical!" Because he was mixing reality with the hypothetical. He was saying the IRS doesn't work that way in reality, which has no bearing to the discussions we were having which is a hypothetical. I explicitly stated in a previous comment that the IRS would also evaluate wealth and tax based on that wealth, and then he responds talking about how they don't tax unrealized capital gains. In this scenario they do, so why does that matter?
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  You have proposed an idea which does not actually provide any solution to the difficult part of your idea, which is this bit: "this wealth is determined by the IRS". "determined by the IRS" is passing the buck big time. > In this scenario they do, so why does that matter? Because you're skipping the most difficult and pertinent part of the solution. There's not much substance to proposing a wealth tax based on wealth brackets. All the difficulty and nuance of a wealth tax is in determining how to reasonably tax someone's wealth (E.g. assets and unrealized gains).
  - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
    I wasn't even claiming my original idea had much substance because it is so obvious. I hardly think I've solved a real-world problem because the real problem is people and politics while we're discussing theory. But if you want a simple proposal to address wealth inequality that's one way to do it. And wealth evaluation isn't an impossible problem because wealth is regularly evaluated in every market - real estate, art, stocks, cash. No solution is ideal. But it's not an intractable problem because it's regularly solved every day around the world for all sorts of reasons. If we created a branch of government whose purpose was to do this I think they could figure it out. So in that sense I'm offloading the problem to people whose job it would be to figure out the problem. Anyway, I've spent way too much time arguing about something I don't even care about. Cheers.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  You're the one who brought the IRS, a concrete institution, into this hypothetical discussion, talking about "just [giving] them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation." Okay? So when I asked something like, how would this work, because this is such a hand-wavey answer as to be a non-answer entirely (how would they determine wealth evaluation? Sounds to me like you're saying, they just would), you couldn't answer. The reality is, like the sibling comment says, just proposing a simple solution doesn't work, that's not the hard part. The hard part is actually exploring and understanding the problem of what actually happens were an institution such as the IRS be assessing wealth for taxation.