(01-25-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 04:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I was responding to lads defense that the tax will never make anyone poor. I found that to be a moralistic justification for such a wealth tax, and a kissing cousin to the 'their fair share argument' when applied to your first paragraph.

He says it was simply put forward to prove you wrong about a tax never making anyone poor. but, by god they have no issue taxing one down to what is a 'fair level' (whaever the fk that is at that point in time) (and again, nothing but a moralistic justification for a straight asset seizure)

Inherently all taxes, even consumption taxes, have the side effect of taxing someone down to one level.

Given that our form of government and society, funded by taxes, is what has allowed our country to prosper so greatly, what other way do you suggest we fund our government and society?

It seems like you have a moral objection to the idea of taxing someone, or is it just against the rationale of using taxation as a field leveler?

On a side note, I find it interesting that OO appears to be arguing that $50MM is a threshold for someone being poor.

I find some forms of taxation even more egregious.

Take for example the difference between an income tax and 'wealth' tax.

One is specifically a tax on an accession of wealth. i.e. taxed as earned. While painful (to the 40 per cent that actually pay it), one can live with that slice on the pinky, and the proverbial 'dipping of the beak' into the stream.

On the other hand, the proposed wealth tax is pretty much sickening to me. It is simply a pure asset forfeiture. And the other issue I have is the lengths that one side stretches itself to justify such asset forfeiture.

But, to be blunt, I am getting well beyond surprised that the ideals of more spending, and more government are promulgated by the side that has made class and identity politics, as well as redistribution, their raison d'etre.