2020 Presidential Election

[TheLeviathan]

 

A good start is taxing capital gains as income.

If you “make” millions of dollars every year by hoarding money in stocks and collecting dividends and cashing out gains, you’re not contributing to the economy and sure as hell shouldn’t pay a measly 15% on that money.

Money making more money doesn’t create jobs, doesn’t raise the GDP, and has no tangible impact beyond the individual. Tax the hell out of it.

 

Yup, it's money no longer facilitating the economy.  It's why I dig taxing wealth as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know. I care about creating generational wealth for my future children and hopefully their children too. And I don't really want uncle Sam to take half of my hard earned income when it was me who made the sacrifices.

I would have put more thought into it before I was accused of being a trust fund coaster. Funny how there's several posts on here asking for different opinions, but the different opinions have been driven out by personal attacks. Oh well, see ya.

 

I hope that's not the case.  I appreciate your input.  Just ignore those who can't separate from their tribe.  The rest of us are cool cats.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yup, it's money no longer facilitating the economy. It's why I dig taxing wealth as well.

Wealth gets a lot trickier. I’d have to hear more about it. My wife and I have collected a fairly considerable amount of assets but we’re hardly rich. Taxing those assets could do some real damage to us if handled badly.

 

After all, it hardly seems fair that we’d be punished for buying a cheaper house when the market bottomed, doing a lot of work to make it nicer, and paying it off in less than a decade. We now have ~$225k in equity in the place but that’s because we didn’t dive in over our heads and managed our money pretty effectively.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Wealth gets a lot trickier. I’d have to hear more about it. My wife and I have collected a fairly considerable amount of assets but we’re hardly rich. Taxing those assets could do some real damage to us if handled badly.

After all, it hardly seems fair that we’d be punished for buying a cheaper house when the market bottomed, doing a lot of work to make it nicer, and paying it off in less than a decade. We now have ~$225k in equity in the place but that’s because we didn’t dive in over our heads and managed our money pretty effectively.

 

I share Brock's general fear of taxing wealth.

 

Inheritance? I'm more down for that.......though even amount should be tax free (not sure where the line is, really). But I certainly don't care about people that have hundreds of millions because they were born into a rich family complaining that they'd only have tens of millions if we taxed them some.....

 

Wealth disparity leads to bad things happening in the world, first with the poor, then the middle, and eventually the wealthy when the others get fed up enough.....

[PseudoSABR]

 

Wealth gets a lot trickier. I’d have to hear more about it. My wife and I have collected a fairly considerable amount of assets but we’re hardly rich. Taxing those assets could do some real damage to us if handled badly.

After all, it hardly seems fair that we’d be punished for buying a cheaper house when the market bottomed, doing a lot of work to make it nicer, and paying it off in less than a decade. We now have ~$225k in equity in the place but that’s because we didn’t dive in over our heads and managed our money pretty effectively.

I'm not sure I'd be in favor of taxing assets, or at least things like real property, and tangibles, which tend to help the economy by being acquired.  Money sitting in the bank doing nothing, or mere ownership of stock doing nothing, I think that's fair game (though I'd want to have limitations on stock/money held for purposes of retirement being taxed; i.e., after a certain amount it's reasonable to tax that as well).

 

This would create incentives for people to spend their money to acquire assets that actually help the economy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I share Brock's general fear of taxing wealth.

 

Inheritance? I'm more down for that.......though even amount should be tax free (not sure where the line is, really). But I certainly don't care about people that have hundreds of millions because they were born into a rich family complaining that they'd only have tens of millions if we taxed them some.....

 

Wealth disparity leads to bad things happening in the world, first with the poor, then the middle, and eventually the wealthy when the others get fed up enough.....

 

I guess I'd ask how "inheritance" is any different than wealth in many situations?  

 

In Brock's example, I'm sure some of that equity he's saved up has a purpose for him.  At some point, when we talk about taxes, we are talking about taking the money people are creating for themselves for a purpose.  We like to think rich people should be immune to feeling hurt by that, but it's still something they worked for and we're taking it from them.  Whether that's 200k or 200 million, it has personal stake.  So I'm not sure how we avoid that whether we are taxing wealth or income.

 

But I know this, almost all income earned is done so by a contribution to the economy.  That is not the case for wealth.  At the end of the day, we want money being used to enhance the economy and taxing wealth might stimulate more of that to happen.  

 

And, to be totally up front, this is an idea I've started to latch on to so I'm by no means convinced of it myself.  I've started to warm to it because it feels more progressive as a tax form than income taxes.  I don't want to take Brock's equity, that feels misapplied, but I do want to nail people who sit on billions of dollars and use those billions of dollars to protect their billions against the rest of us.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I guess I'd ask how "inheritance" is any different than wealth in many situations?  

 

In Brock's example, I'm sure some of that equity he's saved up has a purpose for him.  At some point, when we talk about taxes, we are talking about taking the money people are creating for themselves for a purpose.  We like to think rich people should be immune to feeling hurt by that, but it's still something they worked for and we're taking it from them.  Whether that's 200k or 200 million, it has personal stake.  So I'm not sure how we avoid that whether we are taxing wealth or income.

 

But I know this, almost all income earned is done so by a contribution to the economy.  That is not the case for wealth.  At the end of the day, we want money being used to enhance the economy and taxing wealth might stimulate more of that to happen.  

 

And, to be totally up front, this is an idea I've started to latch on to so I'm by no means convinced of it myself.  I've started to warm to it because it feels more progressive as a tax form than income taxes.  I don't want to take Brock's equity, that feels misapplied, but I do want to nail people who sit on billions of dollars and use those billions of dollars to protect their billions against the rest of us.

 

What work did people that inherit money do for it? That's why it is different than taxing my savings, or Brock's. To me anyway. I'm not in love with taxing wealth, it was already taxed when earned. I'm cool with taxing realized gains at the same as other income, btw.

 

Did you know if you can keep your "income" under a certain level, there is ZERO tax on long term capital gains? 

[PseudoSABR]

 

What work did people that inherit money do for it? That's why it is different than taxing my savings, or Brock's. To me anyway. I'm not in love with taxing wealth, it was already taxed when earned. I'm cool with taxing realized gains at the same as other income, btw.

 

Did you know if you can keep your "income" under a certain level, there is ZERO tax on long term capital gains? 

Not all of it, it could have been inherited, gain through capital gains, etc.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not all of it, it could have been inherited, gain through capital gains, etc.

 

I have zero interest in taxing unrealized capital gains. Just as I have zero interest in taxing home values for an unsold home. Or business values for an unsold business.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What work did people that inherit money do for it? That's why it is different than taxing my savings, or Brock's. To me anyway. I'm not in love with taxing wealth, it was already taxed when earned. I'm cool with taxing realized gains at the same as other income, btw.

 

Did you know if you can keep your "income" under a certain level, there is ZERO tax on long term capital gains? 

 

What's to stop Brock from eventually turning his equity into someone else's inheritance?  We demonize inheritance, but at the end of the day it's not terribly different than other wealth.  Someone accumulated it with a purpose and probably with some degree of personal sacrifice.  

 

If I never spend my savings, it'll some day go to my boys.  The wealth my wife and I accumulate will pass on to them as well.  We consciously do less for ourselves now, to help them later.  

 

It should be noted, taxing wealth throughout one's life reduces some of that ungodly inheritance too.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What's to stop Brock from eventually turning his equity into someone else's inheritance?  We demonize inheritance, but at the end of the day it's not terribly different than other wealth.  Someone accumulated it with a purpose and probably with some degree of personal sacrifice.  

 

If I never spend my savings, it'll some day go to my boys.  The wealth my wife and I accumulate will pass on to them as well.  We consciously do less for ourselves now, to help them later.  

 

It should be noted, taxing wealth throughout one's life reduces some of that ungodly inheritance too.

 

Where did I demonize inheritance, exactly? I don't demonize income, but I still think it should be taxed. 

 

You were the one who brought up "how is inheritance" different, I answered how it is different than income I earn through my actions......

 

And, are you suggesting that we tax all inheritance? Because I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that's not what I'm suggesting.......

 

this should probably move to general politics, but in the end, it would be cool if you rebutted actual arguments I make, not other ones.

[LaBombo]

Inheritance tax is a very good example of a tax that is levied solely upon the most arbitrary and dangerously malleable justification of all: "Because we need it".

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I have zero interest in taxing unrealized capital gains. Just as I have zero interest in taxing home values for an unsold home. Or business values for an unsold business.

Well I don't want to tax non-liquid assets, perhaps beyond stock.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

Inheritance tax is a very good example of a tax that is levied solely upon the most arbitrary and dangerously malleable justification of all: "Because we need it".

Properly taxed inheritance helps prevent creating landed gentry, a subclass of families so rich it’s almost impossible for them to lose their wealth.

 

Historically, not an awesome thing. Also a cliff we’re driving at full speed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Inheritance tax is a very good example of a tax that is levied solely upon the most arbitrary and dangerously malleable justification of all: "Because we need it".

What is the basis of other taxes? Like sales tax, or income tax?  A society needs taxes to operate.

 

The basis of inheritance tax is that the person benefiting from influx of wealth didn't earn it, which seems like a better rationale than, say taxing income.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Properly taxed inheritance helps prevent creating landed gentry, a subclass of families so rich it’s almost impossible for them to lose their wealth.

Historically, not an awesome thing. Also a cliff we’re driving at full speed.

Right, inter-generational wealth is so far removed from the actual earners, that the basis it shouldn't be taxed loses all credibility.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Where did I demonize inheritance, exactly? I don't demonize income, but I still think it should be taxed. 

 

You were the one who brought up "how is inheritance" different, I answered how it is different than income I earn through my actions......

 

And, are you suggesting that we tax all inheritance? Because I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that's not what I'm suggesting.......

 

this should probably move to general politics, but in the end, it would be cool if you rebutted actual arguments I make, not other ones.

 

Whoa, I said "We" as in the national conversation.  I'll try again though, maybe I came off in a way I didn't intend.

 

I'm not sure you really did distinguish inheritance.  Wealthy people give their wealth away to colleges, charities, their children, etc.  All of it was earned at some point by someone and where it goes upon their death is typically orchestrated by the person who earned it.  In addition, studies I've read indicate that most all wealth is derived from wealth.

 

My wife and I work hard, but we had the privilege of some wealth to support our actions.  I'm sure you and Brock did as well.  It doesn't diminish our accomplishments, but we should recognize that the only thing that separates us from the super wealthy is our starting point and ending point.  Our motivations are largely similar.  

 

So my point is that distinguishing "inheritance" as some separate issue isn't as easy as presented.  We're still talking about wealth that was deliberately accumulated over a life time that the accumulator has a plan for.  And, likely, would rather not part with.  So let me ask differently - what is different about a constant tax on forms of wealth (we can debate which ones certainly) versus a one time tax on inherited money?  It seems to me we're pulling from the same pot, I'm just suggesting we do so more regularly.

[PseudoSABR]

I just want to say I think this is super productive conversation and hope others (non-super-regulars) chime in on how we should tax, what we should tax, and who we would should tax.  

 

It's just nice to play these out.  Whether your a fan of paying down the deficit or public works, taxes are (a) necessary (evil). 

[LaBombo]

 

What is the basis of other taxes? Like sales tax, or income tax?  A society needs taxes to operate.

 

The basis of inheritance tax is that the person benefiting from influx of wealth didn't earn it, which seems like a better rationale than, say taxing income.  

 

However shaky it can be at times, the rationale for income tax is at least partially based on the idea that our nation's infrastructure plays a pretty important part in most businesses' ability to function. The rationale for property tax is based at least in part on the idea that you should pay something for that street that hooks you up to the rest of the city. And so on.

 

That's not my assertion, it's Obama's. His party agreed wholeheartedly. And on some level, I agree.

 

And by that same standard, inheritance that is not earned should not be taxed because the government did NOTHING to facilitate the transfer of wealth.

[LaBombo]

 

Properly taxed inheritance helps prevent creating landed gentry, a subclass of families so rich it’s almost impossible for them to lose their wealth.

Historically, not an awesome thing. Also a cliff we’re driving at full speed.

 

I'm hoping that you're not saying that wealthy people losing that wealth is a good thing.

 

Because historically that was a notably unawesome thing called The Great Depression.

 

It's hard for me to tell for sure, but it feels like the case you're making in favor of financial disaster befalling those you deem unworthy of their wealth might be linked somehow to your empirically false notion that our nation's tens of trillions worth of private investment in corporations does nothing to contribute to the economy.

[Mike Sixel]

So you're saying that losing wealth is a good thing.

Having this level of inequality is bad for democracy, business, poor people, and probably the survival of the US, if history is to be believed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

And by that same standard, inheritance that is not earned should not be taxed because the government did NOTHING to facilitate the transfer of wealth.

Without a government entity, such a transfer post-death could never happen.  In the non-government utopia you conceive parents would have to donate such funds during their lives. And of course, the government fosters the economic system that allows for such wealth and the donation there of.  Not to speak of the governments involvement in the enforcement of the corporate form and shareholders rights.  But right, the government was totally outside that wealth accusation. Ha.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm hoping that you're not saying that wealthy people losing that wealth is a good thing.

 

Because historically that was a notably unawesome thing called The Great Depression.

 

It's hard for me to tell for sure, but it feels like the case you're making in favor of financial disaster befalling those you deem unworthy of their wealth might be linked somehow to your empirically false notion that our nation's tens of trillions worth of private investment in corporations does nothing to contribute to the economy.

Your Jump to Conclusions mat is broken, LaBombo. Family wealth being taxed through generational inheritance isn’t even in the same ballpark as what caused the Great Depression (a speculative market collapsing on itself, followed by environmental disaster largely caused by unfettered capitalism with no land management practices).

 

Economic mobility is an important part of a functioning economy. It maintains balance, is relatively stable and violence-free, and everyone gets to participate with an end goal in sight. Some will get there, some will not, but everyone got their shot.

 

But the Gilded Age, Redux we've entered since 1980 is very bad for a democracy in the long term. We either end up in economic disaster, we drift toward authoritarianism and scapegoating of marginalized groups, or we start building guillotines in town squares.

 

Hey, if we're really lucky, maybe we can go for the trifecta!

 

Concentrated, generational wealth that results in loss of economic mobility for others is bad for business. We literally have a couple of thousands of years of evidence backing up the idea.

[LaBombo]

 

Your Jump to Conclusions mat is broken, LaBombo. Family wealth being taxed through generational inheritance isn’t even in the same ballpark as what caused the Great Depression (a speculative market collapsing on itself, followed by environmental disaster largely caused by unfettered capitalism with no land management practices).

 

Economic mobility is an important part of a functioning economy. It maintains balance, is relatively stable and violence-free, and everyone gets to participate with an end goal in sight. Some will get there, some will not, but everyone got their shot.

 

But the Gilded Age, Redux we've entered since 1980 is very bad for a democracy in the long term. We either end up in economic disaster, we drift toward authoritarianism and scapegoating of marginalized groups, or we start building guillotines in town squares.

 

Hey, if we're really lucky, maybe we can go for the trifecta!

 

Concentrated, generational wealth that results in loss of economic mobility for others is bad for business. We literally have a couple of thousands of years of evidence backing up the idea.

 

1. I stated correctly, making no claim of causation, that universal loss of wealth among the wealthy was synonymous with the Great Depression.

2. You stated that I jumped to a conclusion, one which you graciously imagined and laid out for me, but which is utterly absent from what I wrote.

 

3. ?

 

Honestly, I have no idea what you expect to happen next.

[Mike Sixel]

I doubt anyone here is suggesting we take all the money from the wealthy.... How about more, on par with where taxes were when we had a middle class, or even close to other nations?

[LaBombo]

 

I doubt anyone here is suggesting we take all the money from the wealthy.... How about more, on par with where taxes were when we had a middle class, or even close to other nations?

 

I'm not only not averse to change, I would say that evolving culture, conditions, and technology virtually demand it.

 

But one of my concerns stems from isolating and focusing on individual factors as universal, virtually infallible indicators of good/bad or fair/unfair outcomes.

 

An example: If my annual income goes up 10% relative to the cost of living index, I probably had a good year, right? But if we're making income inequality a critical yardstick of prosperity, that same year was a disaster of biblical proportions if Bill Gates' income went up 20%.

 

For what it's worth, not only do I not claim to have all the answers, I would say that I have almost all questions and no answers at this point. But what I do have are concerns, and one of those is that when I hear "inequality" without strong context, I'm very, very worried that it's tied to outcome and not opportunity.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm not only not averse to change, I would say that evolving culture, conditions, and technology virtually demand it.

 

But one of my concerns stems from isolating and focusing on individual factors as universal, virtually infallible indicators of good/bad or fair/unfair outcomes.

 

An example: If my annual income goes up 10% relative to the cost of living index, I probably had a good year, right? But if we're making income inequality a critical yardstick of prosperity, that same year was a disaster of biblical proportions if Bill Gates' income went up 20%.

 

For what it's worth, not only do I not claim to have all the answers, I would say that I have almost all questions and no answers at this point. But what I do have are concerns, and one of those is that when I hear "inequality" without strong context, I'm very, very worried that it's tied to outcome and not opportunity.

 

I'm not sure what context you need, in addition to wealth is at concentration levels that has historically led to major societal upheavals. Do you need more context than that?

 

Also, I think we won't agree that percentages are the best measure.

 

Let's look at minor league players! Raising their income by 500% or 1000% would put them in a living wage, and other than owners, no one is going to cry foul if that happens. Well, some fans would, but not many........At the same time, if someone worth a billion dollars gets 10% more money, it does not change their lifestyle. 

 

Some people do demonize wealth. I demonize some approaches to gathering wealth, and to avoiding paying back to the society that allowed you to gather that wealth in the first place. But suggesting that we have progressive taxes is not demonization, it is not implying that wealth is evil.....it is acknowledging that we are all in this together, and that some people can better afford to help keep society functioning than others can......and in many cases, that help does not hinder their lifestyle at all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

1. I stated correctly, making no claim of causation, that universal loss of wealth among the wealthy was synonymous with the Great Depression.

2. You stated that I jumped to a conclusion, one which you graciously imagined and laid out for me, but which is utterly absent from what I wrote.

 

3. ?

 

Honestly, I have no idea what you expect to happen next.

It feels like you're intentionally missing my point but I'll break it down to be more clear:

 

1. This conversation originally started by talking about the wealthy, not wealth. Most people have wealth. Few are wealthy. In fact, just last page I questioned the intelligence of taxing wealth instead of income. That should have made my stance on the subject pretty clear.

 

2. Saying "loss of wealth caused the Great Depression" is akin to blaming gunpowder for a firearm death. While technically true, it requires ignoring/diminishing that the gunpowder was packed into a bullet, which was loaded into a gun, whose trigger was pulled by a human being. No one says "If only we had done something about gunpowder, little Billy would be alive today!"

 

3. Knowing the posters on this board as I do, no one is saying that if you inherit a $200,000 house, the government should just seize it or take 90% of the value. That's absurd. There's a massive grey area between "take virtually nothing" and "take virtually everything".

 

4. Loss of inherited wealth is a terrible comparison to loss of wealth, which is the crux of your Great Depression point, I think. If someone steals my bank account information, takes $50k from it, and then lights the cash on fire, that's a complete and total loss of wealth (which is basically the Great Depression but we shouldn't ignore that mess was largely caused by irresponsible banking practices, mostly driven by the super-wealthy). If my father dies, I receive $50k in inheritance, and the government takes all $50k (again, no one is arguing this), the wealth is not lost. It is distributed. The money exists, it simply is not mine... but, more to the point, it was never mine in the first place. It was my father's money. While I might lament not receiving $50k, it does not meaningfully impact my life, as I never had it in the first place.

 

Redistribution of a dead person's wealth isn't even in the same ballpark as loss of wealth on a societal scale.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Some people do demonize wealth. I demonize some approaches to gathering wealth, and to avoiding paying back to the society that allowed you to gather that wealth in the first place. But suggesting that we have progressive taxes is not demonization, it is not implying that wealth is evil.....it is acknowledging that we are all in this together, and that some people can better afford to help keep society functioning than others can......and in many cases, that help does not hinder their lifestyle at all.

 

Totally agree.  So can you elaborate on why you don't think a steady tax on wealth is worse than taxing inheritance when it is passed on?

 

I'd like to think we could go to a system where income taxes could be eliminated or greatly reduced in that world.  We want money in the system, not stagnant.  Right?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Totally agree.  So can you elaborate on why you don't think a steady tax on wealth is worse than taxing inheritance when it is passed on?

 

I'd like to think we could go to a system where income taxes could be eliminated or greatly reduced in that world.  We want money in the system, not stagnant.  Right?

 

Because the wealthy don't have money sitting around to pay it, if it is unrealized. I get what you are saying, but I just don't know how it works. Nor do I like it for some reason I can't put my finger on.

 

Inheritance is a transaction, and the people getting the money never had it. So, they can pull some cash out and pay taxes. That's different than someone just sitting on lots of stock.

 

What if you tax Bezos so much he doesn't have a controlling interest in the company he helped build? I don't like that idea.....