Laughably, if they get the money, it's just going to make healthcare cost skyrocket more. Throwing money at an already disrupted system isnt a solution.
Wealth Tax in CA: Billionaires Plan to Flee
9,380 Views |
135 Replies |
Last: 9 hrs ago by YouBet
94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
Tom Fox said:one safe place said:
I prefer paying tax on income to paying tax on wealth, such as with a property tax. Your income is measurable and if you have income, you have the funds to pay the tax. Property taxes are owed regardless of your income. If your property is valued at $300,000 one year and taxed, and is valued at $300,000 the next year it is taxed again. You have had no transaction, nothing has changed, you have realized no income, your wealth is the same as the year before (as far as the asset subject to property tax), but you get to pay a tax solely because you own property.
I want the lowest possible regardless of taxing mechanism.
I pay $10k in property taxes annually but make right at $1mm in income. What system do you think would replace property taxes and keep my state tax rate at 1%?
Flat income and consumption. I don't care about your or anyone else's individual situation. I don't want my wealth taxed any more than you want yours. The problem is we want to hold our wealth differently. It's a sick mindset that you and I both suffer from in the graduated income tax system that allows 50% of the country to not pay federal income tax at all
SMM48 said:
He will get or has a Line of credit. Stock won't be sold in one fell swoope. Thats not how it works.
The fact this post got 4 stars is interesting.
Gonna be a LOT of those lines of credit since he's not the only one...
But, I'm sure the investors will totally ignore that and the stock will stay stable...
And there definitely won't be any vultures swooping in to "get a good deal" because they KNOW the stock will have to be sold at some time.
And this will further warp the economy.
I mean, even a bunch of the semi-socialist countries realized it was a **** show after THEY implemented one...
But, you do you...
Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Tom Fox said:one safe place said:
I prefer paying tax on income to paying tax on wealth, such as with a property tax. Your income is measurable and if you have income, you have the funds to pay the tax. Property taxes are owed regardless of your income. If your property is valued at $300,000 one year and taxed, and is valued at $300,000 the next year it is taxed again. You have had no transaction, nothing has changed, you have realized no income, your wealth is the same as the year before (as far as the asset subject to property tax), but you get to pay a tax solely because you own property.
I want the lowest possible regardless of taxing mechanism.
I pay $10k in property taxes annually but make right at $1mm in income. What system do you think would replace property taxes and keep my state tax rate at 1%?
You choose to live in a lower valued home, as you indicated earlier. The amount of property tax you pay has nothing to do with your level of income. You could live in a pup tent and pay no property tax at all. Would your question then be what system would replace property taxes and you owe no tax at all?
And for many, it is more than their home involved. They own additional real estate which adds to the total property tax paid. They choose to invest in real estate, or inherited it, whereas you may choose to invest in stocks, bonds, gold or silver, and/or mutual funds. While you may be ok with them paying an annual tax on unrealized gains on what they have invested in, I bet you would object to paying tax on unrealized gains in what you have invested in.
I am opposed to any wealth tax, a tax triggered by some value, year in and year out, when you have realized no gain. If you sell a property, or investment, then tax should be due, but not just because you hold it.
If a criminal robbed a store of millions,
and got away with it,
of course they would do it again when they felt the need for more money.
HunterAggie
The Elko Era is in Action
The Elko Era is in Action
Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
And none of these wealthy Californian liberal donors thought it would come and bite them in the ass?
Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
SMM48 said:
He will get or has a Line of credit. Stock won't be sold in one fell swoope. Thats not how it works.
The fact this post got 4 stars is interesting.
BTW, 5% of the wealth of just the top 10 Californians is $63B.
That would be a LOT of lines of credit to extend.
YouBet said:
The top 1% cover 40% of federal income taxes.
In California, the top 1% cover 50% of the state's tax receipts. California's spending hinges on about 175K households in the entire state to run itself.
It's really smart of them to further incentivize the top of that top 1% to leave the state.
That Rho Kanna dude in CA said the rich BigTech guys don't care about this tax and will pay it because all of the talent is in California. As if there is no talent anywhere else in the US. It would be cheaper for these billionaires to leave California and pay for their top talent to simply move where they are going rather than staying in CA.
If the talent is in California why do they keep adding H1Bs to their companies?
Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I am against wealth tax primarily because it is shifting goalposts. People planned their lives with the rules being no wealth tax. Now you cannot suddenly say there is a wealth tax and screw up people's finances. It will impact me considerably if I have to pay it. If they want to grandfather people in, it is less of a problem.
FIDO*98* said:94chem said:deddog said:Quote:
The proposal calls for California residents worth more than $1 billion to pay a one-time tax equivalent to 5% of their assets.
Wow.
Absolute insanity.
I have 2 houses worth over $1million. I pay about 2.7% tax on them every year. I only have about 50% equity. So the tax rate on my "wealth" is effectively over 5%, and I pay it every single year. I pay about 2.7% on the part I own, and 2.7% on the part I don't own. Funny how Texans bury their heads in the sand and act like we don't already have a wealth tax, except that it's charged on assets you don't even own.
100%. This is the biggest issue for us as we plan for retirement. Income will decrease while property taxes increase annually in perpetuity. Our vacation home is about 60% of the value of our primary home but taxes are 180% because we can't homestead it and tax rates are higher when you're on the water. Wealth taxes are immoral and should be eliminated completely starting with property tax
And don't discount insurance. Our home insurance costs about the same as our property taxes. We paid a full-time salary just in property taxes and insurance in 2025. Now factor in all house bills. Our annual costs just to live in this house are astronomical. We did well in life and it's a badass house on the water. However, I've also been gently telling my wife we can't live here forever because we are eventually going to get our annual spending budget out of whack just because of the house. Or, her business needs to kill it or I need to go back to work. Over Christmas, she brought it up on her own that she doesn't see us staying here long haul. I was happy to hear this.
Don't get me wrong - I love living here but we can get the same level of house almost anywhere else with half the tax impact and probably 1/10 of the insurance impact. And to think almost everyone around us has an equivalent house or more and they are second homes. They are paying more than what we are paying for a non-homesteaded house on top of their primary. We have some extremely rich m'fers as neighbors and I'm sure some extremely house poor folks as well. Our challenge will be selling the house when it comes time.
Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If they get out and gather the signatures needed, it will pass by a large margin. There are more than enough ignorant, envious "have-nots" to make this fly.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Then we will continue to watch the country implode and die as we know it. The bottom half has no incentive to correct anything in a system where they are not held accountable.
infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
That is a far-fetched hypothetical that has very little chance of becoming true.
What is true today is that 50% of people with an income don't pay net income tax. And they vote in favor of higher taxes upon the other 50% to fund "free stuff" for them. That is a real problem, here today. Not a hypothetical. Those who don't pay net tax should have no say in voting tax increases on others. Very simple.
infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
You know I agree with you on most things but just not this. You cannot have representation without taxation. The incentives to vote yourself largess from the treasury are just too great and the founders understood this dynamic.
I am not worried about a slippery slope bogeyman. Now, I do think entitlements will be gutted if only net fed income tax payers can vote, but that is a feature not a bug.
I have no issue exempting the bottom earners from taxation as long as they cannot vote.
The only viable alternative if everyone can vote is to term limit politicians to a single term so they are not buying votes with tax dollars.
I consider this a gentlemen's disagreement between us and I always enjoy the debate.
Tom Fox said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
You know I agree with you on most things but just not this. You cannot have representation without taxation. The invectives to vote yourself largess from the treasury are just too great and the founders understood this dynamic.
I'm going to echo the bolded part of your post.
We learned in history class that one of the drivers for the US Revolution was unfair taxes imposed by the British which led to the Americans demanding "no taxation without representation."
Your statement is simply the corollary of that... there should also be "no representation without taxation."
Skin in the game must be a requirement to vote on taxes.
YouBet said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Then we will continue to watch the country implode and die as we know it. The bottom half has no incentive to correct anything in a system where they are not held accountable.
The country is imploding and dying for the last 25 years and more. The reason is all jobs are sent overseas and 3rd world is brought in and we are slowly becoming 3rd world ourselves. But that is a different topic so I won't elaborate.
How is paying tax anything to do with being accountable? Maybe they were too poor or too ill to get an education and so all they can do is get minimum wage jobs which barely keeps their head over water. Why tax them? You and I? We are doing well, we got a good A&M education and did something with it. Not everyone is as fortunate as we are. So if someone can barely survive and buy the basic necessities of food and house and clothes, then taxing them is not humane when it won't make any dent in the country's finances. We waste 100 times more money on hare-brained schemes for illegals and foreigners. More money leaves the country every day. You cannot have a healthy country where only rich people vote and have a say in the future. At some point, everything will skew towards laws for making the rich even richer.
Tom Fox said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
You know I agree with you on most things but just not this. You cannot have representation without taxation. The incentives to vote yourself largess from the treasury are just too great and the founders understood this dynamic.
I am not worried about a slippery slope bogeyman. Now, I do think entitlements will be gutted if only net fed income tax payers can vote, but that is a feature not a bug.
I have no issue exempting the bottom earners from taxation as long as they cannot vote.
The only viable alternative if everyone can vote is to term limit politicians to a single term so they are not buying votes with tax dollars.
I consider this a gentlemen's disagreement between us and I always enjoy the debate.
What I see is the upper class continuing to print money in order to prop up the stock market. This results in inflation, with the result being enormous wealth transfer from the middle-class to the wealthy. I am basically on the coat-tails of this, where my income is eroded by inflation but my wealth is increasing. The current middle class is destined for lives of lifestyle curtailment, and eventually will join the have-nots. It is not the poor, but the middle class that will eventually kill the golden goose. When this happens, only the extremely wealthy will be insulated (see Venezuela).
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Then we will continue to watch the country implode and die as we know it. The bottom half has no incentive to correct anything in a system where they are not held accountable.
The country is imploding and dying for the last 25 years and more. The reason is all jobs are sent overseas and 3rd world is brought in and we are slowly becoming 3rd world ourselves. But that is a different topic so I won't elaborate.
How is paying tax anything to do with being accountable? Maybe they were too poor or too ill to get an education and so all they can do is get minimum wage jobs which barely keeps their head over water. Why tax them? You and I? We are doing well, we got a good A&M education and did something with it. Not everyone is as fortunate as we are. So if someone can barely survive and buy the basic necessities of food and house and clothes, then taxing them is not humane when it won't make any dent in the country's finances. We waste 100 times more money on hare-brained schemes for illegals and foreigners. More money leaves the country every day. You cannot have a healthy country where only rich people vote and have a say in the future. At some point, everything will skew towards laws for making the rich even richer.
And don't forget that the poor already pay a lot of taxes. Social security, gasoline, property, groceries...
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
94chem said:Tom Fox said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
You know I agree with you on most things but just not this. You cannot have representation without taxation. The incentives to vote yourself largess from the treasury are just too great and the founders understood this dynamic.
I am not worried about a slippery slope bogeyman. Now, I do think entitlements will be gutted if only net fed income tax payers can vote, but that is a feature not a bug.
I have no issue exempting the bottom earners from taxation as long as they cannot vote.
The only viable alternative if everyone can vote is to term limit politicians to a single term so they are not buying votes with tax dollars.
I consider this a gentlemen's disagreement between us and I always enjoy the debate.
What I see is the upper class continuing to print money in order to prop up the stock market. This results in inflation, with the result being enormous wealth transfer from the middle-class to the wealthy. I am basically on the coat-tails of this, where my income is eroded by inflation but my wealth is increasing. The current middle class is destined for lives of lifestyle curtailment, and eventually will join the have-nots. It is not the poor, but the middle class that will eventually kill the golden goose. When this happens, only the extremely wealthy will be insulated (see Venezuela).
How do you see the middle class ending it? Just curious.
And the primary driver of inflation is money printing to fund entitlement spending to buy off the lower and lower middle classes. It has the added benefit of ossifying the class structure and making it harder for the middle class to advance to the wealthy class.
The wealthy are largely funding this through progressive income taxation from which they are largely immune because they do not make their money that way and is primarily paid for by the upper middle class and lower upper class (Your professional class and business owners.)
The bottom 50% do not care about the progressive income taxation because they are largely immune from it as well and are largely the recipients of the entitlement spending. Plus they are largely too stupid to understand the true drivers of inflation or simply do not care.
That is why taking away their ability to vote will leave the overwhelming majority of the electorate as the upper middle and lower upper classes. The truly wealthy are a tiny percentage. The upper middle class and lower upper classes will vote to eliminate entitlement spending which will dramatically reduce inflation.
This is the only way out.
infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Then we will continue to watch the country implode and die as we know it. The bottom half has no incentive to correct anything in a system where they are not held accountable.
The country is imploding and dying for the last 25 years and more. The reason is all jobs are sent overseas and 3rd world is brought in and we are slowly becoming 3rd world ourselves. But that is a different topic so I won't elaborate.
How is paying tax anything to do with being accountable? Maybe they were too poor or too ill to get an education and so all they can do is get minimum wage jobs which barely keeps their head over water. Why tax them? You and I? We are doing well, we got a good A&M education and did something with it. Not everyone is as fortunate as we are. So if someone can barely survive and buy the basic necessities of food and house and clothes, then taxing them is not humane when it won't make any dent in the country's finances. We waste 100 times more money on hare-brained schemes for illegals and foreigners. More money leaves the country every day. You cannot have a healthy country where only rich people vote and have a say in the future. At some point, everything will skew towards laws for making the rich even richer.
You are only looking at this from one side of the equation. Because they don't pay any taxes, they have no incentive to be responsible with the money from those of that do. I have incentive to keep my taxes low, so I try to vote accordingly. They do not so their incentive is to vote for people who will continue taxing the producers so that free stuff can be given to them, in turn.
Building upon that, it would/could absolutely make a dent in the country's finances because once you have skin in the game then you are motivated to vote for people who do not want to continue with never ending entitlement spending. We would be more successful with cutting spending if half the country had incentive to push for it, but they don't because they are the primary consumers of that very spending by not paying taxes.
Furthermore, our laws right now are heavily skewed towards either end if we want to be honest about it. Those in the middle bear the burden. The non-payers have our entire progressive tax system engineered in their favor along with too many laws to count that give them free rides throughout daily living. The rich work the loopholes and the system to mitigate their financial impact but even after doing that they still have to cover 40% of the nation's bill.
If everyone had to pay something, it would be a fairer system overall.
To extrapolate on the idea.
What about H1Bs and Green Card holders. They pay taxes so have "skin in the game". But they are not citizens so legally have no stake in the country.
What about H1Bs and Green Card holders. They pay taxes so have "skin in the game". But they are not citizens so legally have no stake in the country.
Let's say there are 200 billionaires in Cali.
And their average net worth is $11.25B (which is admittedly high).
A 5% net worth tax nets them $112.5B.
Cali's '26 budget is $321B.
So that "one time" tax covers ~4 months worth of state expenditures.
Idiots.
And their average net worth is $11.25B (which is admittedly high).
A 5% net worth tax nets them $112.5B.
Cali's '26 budget is $321B.
So that "one time" tax covers ~4 months worth of state expenditures.
Idiots.
Tom Fox said:94chem said:Tom Fox said:infinity ag said:YouBet said:infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
If you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get to vote. It's inherently unfair that they get to determine the direction of the country with no skin in the game. Get yourself out of the income level that doesn't pay tax and then you can start voting.
All of those foreigners you complain about being here that shouldn't are usually in these lowest income levels. Do you want them voting themselves the treasury?
If you make poverty a reason to take away voting rights, then in some time it will get skewed so that only the super rich will vote. Maybe just 1000 people deciding things for 400M people. How is this different from a monarchy? In my opinion, if you are a citizen, you get to vote.
Foreigner? No vote. Other than human rights, you don't get a whole lot more. You don't get rights to jobs. Or even entry. So your example does not apply. No citizenship, no vote, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
You know I agree with you on most things but just not this. You cannot have representation without taxation. The incentives to vote yourself largess from the treasury are just too great and the founders understood this dynamic.
I am not worried about a slippery slope bogeyman. Now, I do think entitlements will be gutted if only net fed income tax payers can vote, but that is a feature not a bug.
I have no issue exempting the bottom earners from taxation as long as they cannot vote.
The only viable alternative if everyone can vote is to term limit politicians to a single term so they are not buying votes with tax dollars.
I consider this a gentlemen's disagreement between us and I always enjoy the debate.
What I see is the upper class continuing to print money in order to prop up the stock market. This results in inflation, with the result being enormous wealth transfer from the middle-class to the wealthy. I am basically on the coat-tails of this, where my income is eroded by inflation but my wealth is increasing. The current middle class is destined for lives of lifestyle curtailment, and eventually will join the have-nots. It is not the poor, but the middle class that will eventually kill the golden goose. When this happens, only the extremely wealthy will be insulated (see Venezuela).
How do you see the middle class ending it? Just curious.
I mean there won't be one.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
dmart90 said:
Let's say there are 200 billionaires in Cali.
And they're average net worth is $11.25B (which is admittedly high).
A 5% net worth tax nets them $112.5B.
Cali's '26 budget is $321B.
So that "one time" tax covers ~4 months worth of state expenditures.
Idiots.
You pretty much nailed it. There look to be about ~200 in state with an average net worth of ~$9B.
Your math is exactly why this won't remain a one-time event. This is merely getting their foot in the door to make it permanent so they can cover 30-45% of their annual spend from billionaires. Granted, if they make it permanent most of those people will leave, assuming they are smart.
Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Which is why inheritance taxes should not be confiscatory. About 15-16 years ago there was a year when Congress dropped the ball and the tax rate on inheritances was dramatically cut. George Steinbrenner died that year and his considerable estate was not subject to the much higher rate.
Did the world end? Nope.
infinity ag said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:94chem said:
Wealth taxes are no more or less moral than any other tax. Taxes come from what you have, what you make, or what you consume. Those are the 3 options. One isn't more "moral" than the others.
Property tax is a tax on money you owe. It makes no sense. We already pay interest.
Taxing unrealized gains IS immoral.
You can only pay the taxes by divesting yourself of a portion of your assets...
Not if the tax rate is low enough and your earnings high enough. If you are house poor, certainly. That is an idiotic life choice.
It's a wealth tax.
Doesn't matter if all that money you make is in your house, your bank account, Hunter's paintings, etc.
Unless you piss away all those earnings every month, they will accumulate SOMEWHERE. Voila...WEALTH.
Now you have to divest a portion of that wealth.
Or get a big line of credit...
Mine accumulates in my investment portfolio which is taxed lower than my income. I don't store my wealth in my home because Texas punishes that.
I don't have to divest dick. My income covers my property taxes easily. If I want low property taxes, there are plenty of states that do that outside of Texas.
I want the lowest collective taxes period regardless of mechanism or I want everyone paying the same rate at both the Fed or state level.
FWIW, I'm only discussing the subject of this thread - the Wealth Tax.
I agree that your method of investment in TX works to minimize your taxes.
I brought up the concept of taxing unrealized gains as being immoral...because that is what a wealth tax does.
But, the wealth tax doesn't just look at your house value, it looks at ALL your assets' value. So, you would have to come up with 5% of the value of that at tax time. So, you'd have to divest a portion of your assets, because most people don't keep THAT much cash on hand.
That was my point. My point was not to discuss Texas tax law or how to minimize taxes for you or anyone (other than not having a wealth tax).
Oh yeah, then I agree it should be unconstitutional to directly tax wealth and all taxation should be either a flat income or consumption tax.
And anyone not paying should not get to vote.
But I do not support a change mid stream that raises my taxes in the middle of my high earning years unless it includes everything that I listed above. Primarily how the feds tax needs to be fixed then we can adjust our state taxation.
I disagree from Tom Fox in a few ways.
I believe that people at the lowest income level must not pay any income tax. What the level is can be negotiated, maybe it is $30k for married. No income tax on unemployment, it is ridiculous to tax people when they lost their jobs and are in difficulty. The country won't reduce any debt or gain anything significant by taxing unemployment and extremely poor people.
Everyone gets to vote if they are a citizen. You cannot have only rich people deciding things, we already have them framing rules on how they can get richer.
Here is where I agree with him.
No wealth tax. Everyone planned their finances around there being no wealth tax, you cannot just add it and trash everyone's finances so you can pay for illegals from Venezuela or Somalia.
Look at this differently.
It is critically important that the lowest income earners pay tax precisely because they have the most to lose. That is how you get accountability.
When your are poor, and having to pay tax, you are a lot more diligent about how money is being spent. Also, lower income earners tend to use more services. Use more services, you need more skin in the game, not less
This is the model Sweden uses. Its why the Bernie Bros stopped using Sweden as their European tax model.
Featured Stories
See All
Validity of A&M's 10-3 record to be tested in Saturday's SEC opener
by Olin Buchanan
23:58
5h ago
1.3k
30:49
1d ago
3.1k
Reed Report: Fair expectations for McMillan's Ags as SEC action arrives
by Luke Evangelist
Three Things: Transfer portal season officially begins on Friday
by Jason Howell
ReturnOfTheAg
Marcel Reed chatter from outside sources (positive)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
198