Should The Rich Be Taxed? 💸🚕

“The only way you can make such an extraordinary statement is if you believe in the premise that money I earn is not mine.”
It’s how economists view it. I was a bit taken aback when I first head it too, but it makes perfect sense. You can get as trolled by it as you want, but tax cuts are within the definition of a stimulus package.

It’s the difference between adding a positive and subtracting a negative (i.e. there is no difference). The government takes on a deficit of X dollars and you gain X dollars, either by not giving it up in taxes as you usual would or by absorbing it as a stimulus.

The money you earn is your’s, and the money you use to pay for services with your taxes is not your’s. It is not “mine,” and I never claimed that it was.

Using saved tax dollars for other projects does not mean higher taxes, it doesn’t change the amount of tax paid

Semantics. Keeping taxes the same when they could have been lowered is the same as raising them. You seem to feel the government is somehow entitled to taxpayers’ money. They’re not, besides for what’s necessary to run the government efficiently.

Neville
You are confusing money with people
Absolutely
From an economic monetary point at any given moment there is x dollars in the system and not taking from Peter what you were about to take or taking it and giving it to Paul will equal the same amount of dollars.
That doesn’t mean from a human perspective it’s the same to give my money to him or to let me keep my money. That’s pure lunacy
If you can’t understand the difference
I’ll explain it this way
You give me now all your money
From an economic standpoint the amount of money in the economy is exactly the same so you should be OK with it.
Thank you.
You can contact the mods for the address to send the check

“That doesn’t mean from a human perspective it’s the same to give my money to him or to let me keep my money.”
OK, I’m fine with that. I agree with that interpretation. I think where we differ is on whether or not there’s any value to thinking about the “human perspective.”

“You want to confiscate inherited wealth.”
There’s already a tax on that. If you would like to abolish that tax, then yes, we have a disagreement there.

“You’re misrepresenting your own viewpoint.”
Lol. OK, please enlighten me on my own opinion.

Wow
So when am I getting my check.
After all
Discounting the human respective, the money currently in your bank account is the same economically as when it’s in my account
So I’m waiting

To be honest, I never really understood where he was going with the me writing him a check analogy. I was willing to just look at the decent point he made, but I see he’s going to insist going back to that. Kluger, I truly do not know what point your analogy is supposed to make. I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad; I just don’t understand. You can assume that’s because I have a weak understanding of economics if you would like, but, truthfully, I have no idea what you’re getting at.

DY:
You would consider the side-effect of causing people to have to work for a living to be a negative effect of inheritance taxation? I don’t think I’m in the minority considering that a positive. Maybe strictly within the confines of the YWN CR, I’m a minority opinion on that.

Neville
It’s not so complicated
Your here spouting ”economists ” understanding that giving to Peter is the same as not taking away from Paul .
You are willing to overlook the very real difference between an economist looking at the economy as a whole and a purely numbers game versus the discussion here that though it may make no difference to the economy but from a human perspective it’s not exactly fair to Peter to give his money to Paul, while leaving money that Peter earned by Peter and not giving it to Paul is much more equitable being as Peter is after all the one who earned it.
You keep taking the position of the economists that it doesn’t make any difference.
So I am simply asking you to put your money where your mouth is
Since you hold that it makes no difference who earned it. It’s all just a question of the monetary pie, semantics if you will, I am very nicely asking you for all your money.
I think it makes a difference but since you don’t so why won’t you give me all your money.
Make believe your the rich one and the government is taking it from you to give to me.
Makes no difference to you cause we don’t look at the human equation.
To me that it makes a difference, it will make a huge difference to you it’s no difference.
It’s a win win
As I said
I’m waiting for your check

Neville
No. We keep telling you
There is a huge difference between keeping your own money and taking someone else’s
So a trust fund baby who lives off his families money is none of anyone else’s business
But a lazy bum who just sucks off society is a parasite and is taking other people’s money
What’s not pointed straight and simple about that answer???

I’m fine with that opinion, but I don’t agree. Do you really even?

Yes. I believe in the principle of ownership. There is no comparison between someone living off of welfare, which means money which he doesn’t own, and earned or even inherited wealth, which he does.

I have no problem with abolishing the inheritance tax, but it’s not so terrible if it’s a relatively low percentage. Higher percentages are referred to as “confiscatory”, and are basically stealing someone’s money. You seem to think once the government has the right to tax, it’s fine for them to tax at any rate. I strongly disagree. It has to be reasonable, not just taxing simply because the money is there.

“There is no comparison between someone living off of welfare, which means money which he doesn’t own”
I’m not big into welfare either, but once a guy gets the check, it is legally his money, like it or not. I agree he didn’t do anything to earn it, but guess what, neither did the trustfund baby.

I believe that your camp subconsciously (or maybe even consciously) believes that there is no tangible benefit from the taxes you pay. That’s not even a matter of opinion, it’s just factually wrong. We all get military protection and infrastructure like roads. Everyone should have to pay for that benefit. Someone living off inheritance should not have government protection and benefits paid for by people with less money than him who actually have to work for a living. If you think that system is fair, then I don’t know what to say to you.

I believe that your camp subconsciously (or maybe even consciously) believes that there is no tangible benefit from the taxes you pay.

That’s just not true. We just don’t think the government should be taxing more than necessary just because they can.

Everyone should have to pay for that benefit. Someone living off inheritance should not have government protection and benefits paid for by people with less money than him who actually have to work for a living.

Income taxes were already paid in that money. Money made from investing that money is subject to taxation. If the heir buys taxable goods or owns property, he will be paying taxes for that.

Any tax hike on the rich or on inheritance would be balanced by a tax break for everyone else.

You don’t know how government works. You’re also talking about much higher rates when you’re talking about taxing wealthy people into being forced to work in McDonald’s.

I thought you’d say that. I’m not sure if taxes paid 50+ years ago were still enough to pay off an heir’s burden today considering inflation and differing tax rates.

Inflation has no bearing. The remaining money is now worth less as well.

Tax rates might have been higher, depending on when the money was earned.

If it gets taxed every time it changes hands, why should inheritance be any different?

It’s not changing hands in the same way wages, purchases, etc. are. ברא כרעא דאבוה.

Neville
I do not think that you get a very fundemental point.
Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.
No matter if they earned it or they inherited it.
It’s pretty simple.

“Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.”
I’m not claiming it belongs to me, but I love that you guys keep robotically making that claim to show how few points you have in your tool box. I’m not on welfare, I don’t want your money, I don’t support redistribution.

“Where do you draw the line?”
That’s always the question. But, claiming relevance in the phrase “double taxation” is not the answer. Almost any time a tax is paid, the money has been taxed before. Individual income taxes are on money that the company was already taxed for, sales taxes are on money the person was already taxed for, gift taxes, etc.

“So suddenly when he dies now we should force the kids and down to work? Why? What changed?”
The same thing in literally every case of taxation: the money changed hands. As for why they should work, the same reason you think the “lazy bums” who are poor should work; it’s a matter of social conservatism more than economic. You guys will only use pejoratives for the unemployed when they’re poor, not when they’re rich. It’s hypocrisy.

So now we get some clarity
I didn’t understand your constant vehement denials of not wanting someone else’s money.
When posters write ”its not your money ”
They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money
They mean the government
Meaning the ”you ” that’s trying to take the money by tax.
So you Neville can stop protesting a semantic point, as we know semantics are not really meaningful to you anyway, and respond to the substance.
When I engage in commerce in taking money away from everyone else.
Imagine if you will there is a billion dollars a min getting spent. If I get all billion nobody else can. Even though everyone else was legitimately angling for that money. So since I won the pot thereby shutting everyone else out, I have a responsibility to the society in which that transaction took place to give back.
When I give money which I already earned, to my offspring, nobody had a legitimate right to try to get that money as a gift, that can now say, I shut them out,. So I owe them nothing.

As to not working, I have no issue if someone doesn’t want to work, as long as they are not asking me to support them.
Are they a lazy bum if they sit and party all day? Absolutely. Some of the laziest most vile bums are the wealthiest people on the planet. That does not give me a right to tax them into slavery.

Neville

I keep repeating that point because you fail to answer it.

A Tax to lets say fund the military is not “redistribution” since a robust defense is needed by everyone and serves everyone about equally.

On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.

The stewardesses on the planes that went down were targeted the same as those in first calls.

The same for an interstate highway system of roads and bridges.

However most forms of welfare are in fact redistribution.

It is taxing wealthy people in order to take their money from them and redistribute it to poor people.

There is no argument that if one would eliminate the “re-distributive” policies from the Federal budget there is more then enough money already being taxed to enable funding the parts of the Federal government that serve everybody.

It is simply the re-distributive parts that are up for debate.

So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor, aside from the colossal waste that takes place (the most inefficient local Tzeddakah is far more efficient at this sort of the thing and make far better use of the money provided then the Federal government) then you are for redistribution.

it does not help to say “I am against”.

Call it what you wish.

It’s semantics.

You are pro-redistribution.

Neville,

You wrote: “Semantics. The tax burden just gets shifted to the middle/lower classes. Same thing as taking their money and giving it away; it just sounds better on the surface.”

“‘conservatives understand that money belongs to the one who earned it liberals feel all money belongs to the government’
No liberal in the history of this country has ever claimed to believe that or said anything even close to it. There are virtually infinitely many options to chose from if you want to criticize liberals, you don’t need to go making up your own.”

Those two statements are contradictory. The only way one can view the difference between the government giving me someone else’s money (that they took by force) and the government letting me keep more of my own money as semantic is if one believes that the government is entitled to all of everyone’s money.

If the government is not entitled to all income, then a tax break is: the government stealing from me less. A subsidy is: the government stealing from someone else to give me money.

If, on the other hand, government is entitled to take 100% of your income, there is no practical difference between a subsidy and a tax break.

“So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor”
I never said I supported giving it “to the poor.” You simply assume that every time someone has a view contrary to “lower taxes will solve everything” that it means they’re pro-redistribution. I tell you I don’t support welfare and you base your counterpoint on the assumption that I support welfare. Do you honestly even hear yourselves?

“On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.”
All of these points suggest you’re against the progressive tax code (what we currently have). Yet, when pressed, you will probably refuse to admit this as everyone has on this thread.

“When posters write ”its not your money ” They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money They mean the government”
As DY accused me earlier, you’re misrepresenting your own argument. There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person; I have never indicated that I work for the government. Plain and simple, they are automatically assuming I want welfare handouts and now that I’ve clarified it, you’re trying to retroactively change your point. Even if that were the point, it would not have worked out too well for your camp as the suggestion would be the government has no right to take anyone’s income. I’d love to see you try to make that argument and drag down all the other otherwise reasonable posters with you.

“I wish the government would stay out of my pocket is precisely because I would love to help poor people”
I think posters here (not necessarily you) on your side of this debate have given a very clear picture of how they view the poor, so I don’t think we need to even make that point…

There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person;
Sure there is
It’s easier to type and that’s just how people speak

I have said clearly many times in this thread that the government does have a right to take people’s money.
Just the argument here is
I say it’s the persons money that is being taken away from them by the government
You seem to say
It’s the governments money that the person somehow got a hold of and that person needs to find out how much the benevolent government allows him to keep

For the record I also said that though I’m not a particularly big fan of the current taxation system, I don’t have any better idea.
So I don’t know why you feel in not forthcoming and clear in what I feel about this issue
Could it be you didn’t bother to read my posts?

Meno
Firstly I was trying to simplify my position for Neville with a parable as he seems to have cognition difficulties
Secondly you’d be wrong an way
Each one took 50 that the other an kid gave gotten
You could have asked better
What if I’m the only shoe store?
But the answer would be every dollar spent on shoes is not spent on candy
I was just illustrating competing for someone else’s dollar in an open market versus getting a gift
And yes I think there should be no gift tax at all
Don’t ask me about lottery
Lottery r is an arbitrary game from the government who’s rules have been set by the same government
You don’t like the rules, don’t play
Everyone knows lottery winnings are 1/3 of advertised amount