Taxes

Democratic Wealth Tax Proposals Demonstrate Economic Ignorance

Bashing the rich may be good politics, but it’s terrible economics.

|

It's open season on wealth and those who create it. Candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), for instance, say that "Billionaires should not exist" and the wealth disparity in America is "a moral and economic outrage." California businessman Tom Steyer—who happens to be a billionaire—says that "Senator Sanders is right," while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) laments the "extreme concentration of wealth" in America.

They all call for both a wealth tax and a massive increase in government spending in order to fix this inequality and restore "social justice" in America. In doing so, they demonstrate how little they understand economics.

For starters, wealth inequality is a very poor measure of unfairness in our society. Speaking at the Peterson Institute recently, economist and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers correctly made the case that a change in wealth inequality would have little impact on the concentration of political power.

Reducing inequality is also a poor means to fix whatever these candidates think ails America. In a 2013 paper published by the Brookings Institution, economist Scott Winship reviewed claims made about inequality and their negative impact on various aspects of our lives. In a summary of that paper for National Affairs, he writes that there's "little basis for thinking that inequality is at the root of our economic challenges, and therefore for believing that reducing inequality would meaningfully address our lagging growth, enable greater mobility, avert future financial crises, or secure America's democratic institutions."

A forthcoming paper by Cato Institute scholars Chris Edwards and Ryan Bourne confirms Winship's and Summers' findings. They also thoroughly debunk the claim that a more progressive welfare state is imperative to reduce wealth inequality. The truth is that more often than not, increases in welfare spending reduce the need for savings and cause wealth inequality to increase as a result. As Bourne writes at Cato: "Evidence from both here and abroad shows major social programs, not least Social Security, increase measured wealth inequality because they leave the non-rich with 'proportionately less to save, less reason to save, and a larger share of their old-age resources in a nonbequeathable form than the lifetime rich.' Economists Baris Kaymak and Markus Poschke estimate that the expansion of Social Security and Medicare caused about one-quarter of the rise in the top one percent wealth share over recent decades."

How about a wealth tax? Depending on its design, it could certainly hurt wealth accumulation. However, the negative impact of the wealth tax wouldn't be concentrated on wealthy people. Everyone, regardless of their income and wealth level, would take a hit. That's because, contrary to what American progressives believe, most wealth isn't devoted to extravagant consumption. Instead, it's invested in companies; it's used to fund research and development that will create better goods and services for consumers; it serves as the capital that innovators and producers borrow from banks to grow their businesses. In other words, most wealth is used to fuel other wealth-producing activities that improve well-being.

So whether a wealth tax will create a real disincentive to accumulate capital or force rich taxpayers to send a larger share of their money to the IRS, less capital will be available for everyone in the economy to use for their own businesses and training. That means that many Americans beyond the super wealthy will get burned by the tax.

This negative consequence is a reason why so many countries that had wealth taxes in the 1990s have since abandoned them. The cost of implementing a wealth tax and annually assessing assets often costs more than the tax actually raises in revenue. In France, for instance, the administration cost was double the revenue raised. As such, it's not surprising that the country dropped its wealth tax in 2018.

It may feel good for some candidates to bash wealth accumulation and threaten to use taxes to punish the very rich. It may also feel good to call for more spending as a means of reducing inequality. While neither of these policies would do much to achieve those goals, calling for such policies goes a long way toward demonstrating economic ignorance and an ugly dislike for a group of people by candidates who would use their power to destroy those they despise. That should scare all of us greatly.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Congress Asked Mark Zuckerberg a Bunch of Really, Really Stupid Questions at the Libra Hearing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Its terrible politics which is why Democrats lose and lose and will lose Election 2020.

    MAGA!

      1. I’ll agree all taxes are immoral, because they take money from people via force which makes it immoral, even if a democratic vote of two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner occurred. But we do need taxes to fund the government to investigate, indict, prosecute and fine/jail people who harm others (it’s an evil process by a necessarily evil institution to create incentives for people to not harm others). We collectively give the government this power, to protect our lives, our liberty and our property.

        The difference between Democrats and RINOs, vs the libertarians, is that libertarians don’t support redistributing government money among individuals. And doing that is immoral.

        1. You obviously haven’t read libertarian giants like Shikha Dalmia, who want to redistribute the income of high income US tax payers to every third world migrant who wants to come to the US.

          1. Nothing says apple-pie American like the name Shikha Dalmia.

        2. And just to add…

          At the federal level – Only national crimes (usually of a foreign nature) do we need federal tax.

          One of the biggest “swamp” problems with today’s federal government is their hoarding (enslaving) of the entire nations citizenry which they were never granted (actually restricted) that authority by the founders. The path that made this country great from the get go was LOCAL government for LOCAL problems.

          The truth of the situation is LOCAL taxes should be about 10x the price of federal taxes — not the other way around.

          1. TJJ2000
            October.24.2019 at 6:40 pm
            “And just to add…
            At the federal level – Only national crimes (usually of a foreign nature) do we need federal tax.
            One of the biggest “swamp” problems with today’s federal government is their hoarding (enslaving) of the entire nations citizenry which they were never granted (actually restricted) that authority by the founders. The path that made this country great from the get go was LOCAL government for LOCAL problems.
            The truth of the situation is LOCAL taxes should be about 10x the price of federal taxes — not the other way around.”

            And just to add:
            WIH did that pile of shit intend to convey?

        3. It’s not government money, it belongs to all of us as individuals. The whole premise of “redistribution of wealth” is silly and exposes a lack of basic economics. Wealth is created and destroyed every day. The people who are wealthy have figured out how to either create and sell some product that others want and are willing to pay for. As demand increases so does the value of the product. The fact that that person gets wealthy doesn’t mean that the new wealth is somehow “taken” from someone who doesn’t develop an in-demand product is crazy. To argue that you would have to believe that there are poor people because there are rich people.

          Finally, weren’t these same people some years back telling us that “trickle down economics” don’t work? If they are right, then what difference would it make if wealth attempts to trickle-down from the private sector or from government? And we know that government will not do it efficiently, they will of course skim off their “handling fee” of 50% to fund their vacation homes and retirement plans.

        4. In Libertopia because only initiating force is illegal there is so little crime that government could be funded non coercively or perhaps even run on a volunteer basis.

          1. Problem is; Libertarians don’t believe they’re entitled to the goods and services offered and created by others because they’re breathing and so special and compulsively needy.

            In Leftopia because the good and services generated by others isn’t considered (KEY-PHRASE: “theirs” but actually “ours”) then the personal negotiation of the cost of any created goods or service is “extortion” and a “crime”.

            To pretend that Libertarians don’t support personal crimes of stealing, killing and enslaving would be a complete and utter contradiction being that Left Justice (POWER(Force)=WEALTH) is exactly what they are against.

            1. Should rephrase that —
              “To pretend that Libertarians don’t support” to “To pretend that Libertarians don’t acknowledge”

          2. Obama really let the Lefty cat out of the bag when he spouted, “You didn’t build that”. The left has constantly been trying to manipulatively blur the lines of ownership – ownership of property, ownership of work, wealth, creation and YES, even ownership of self.

            What was really in his mind was, “You don’t own you – [[WE]] own you.”

      2. Only if you value the life of an individual as some sort of objective standard is egalitarianism-by-force a bad thing. But try to see it their way. The mass graves of collectivist societies are full of individuals reduced to the absolutely consistent equality of outcome the principles of altruism demand. Look at it as abnegation in action–at someone else’s expense, of course, but abnegation all the same.

    1. Yes because it was great politics to give the wealthy tax breaks and incur 2 trillion more in debt that won it for the Republicans.

      Eye roll.

      1. It’s the complete unwillingness to cut any spending that is the problem there, much more than the tax cuts.

        1. Yes, look at a graph of federal revenues and federal government spending, and this becomes obvious even to ignorant leftists, though they’ll still continue to blame tax cuts for the debt and deficit.

          1. Exactly the same ramblings of a lifelong thief who just ran across their first “unbreakable” safe.

            “WTF!”, They scream, “Some “great thinking” in giving these people a way to secure their wealth…”

            ….. Eye roll ….

      2. it was great politics to give the wealthy tax breaks

        Using the level of intellect you bring to the conversations as a proxy for your income it is very reasonable to assume Bill Gates pays more in property taxes in a month than you will pay in income taxes in your lifetime. Allowing him and others to keep more of the money they earn does not harm you in the slightest, it was never yours in the first place. If you are unhappy with your financial standing do something about it.

        1. do you know Gates property tax rate and how much is exempt?

          do you know how much Microsoft pdts government buys? they have an entire division for government sales. how many grants does MS get from various govt. agencies?

          Amazon wants the $10B contract to provide cloud services to DoD. It paid no tax in 2018.

          DARPA funded internet development, $100B over the years.

          Most tech co’s would have 20% less sale if they didn’t trade with governments.

          What is Seattle or SiCo Valley cost to provide police and fire to business and individuals?

          1. Yes
            Bill Gates Microsoft and I assume the government gets something of superior value in return for the purchases.
            Bill Gates Amazon and companies don’t pay taxes, people pay taxes. I assume again the DoD considers AWS a superior value.
            Bill Gates DARPA
            If the Government spent less on tech co’s tax burdens go down and the government will need to confiscate even less of Bill Gates’s money.
            Bill Gates does not use the local police, fire department, local library, public schools or much of anything else his property tax is paying for.
            None of your rebuttal has anything to do with the original point which is that someone such as yourself or wearingit claiming the fruits of Bill Gates’s labor and risk-taking is immoral.

            1. Visualize a “does not equal” sign between Bill Gates and Microsoft, Bill Gates and Amazon and Bill Gates and DARPA .

              That is all.

          2. “Amazon wants the $10B contract to provide cloud services to DoD. It paid no tax in 2018.”

            Some fucking idiot posted this.

            1. what is the correlation between paying no tax on $1T in sales and the stock price? I would guess it would cause the stock price to be a little higher than Penny’s or Sears or Office Max. A quick check on the old stock ticker shows that to be a fact, jack

              1. “”what is the correlation between paying no tax on $1T in sales and the stock price? “”

                Probably none. $1T in sales would, but the fact that no taxes was paid would probably have no affect.

              2. We don’t tax sales at the corporate level, we tax profits, something you leftist ignoramuses cannot seem to get into your spacious heads. Since you will never be able to comprehend this, I wont get into the tax loss carryforwards that are the reason Amazon did not pay taxes in 2018.

                1. what part of the reason in reason.com don’t you guys get.

                  $1T in sales suggests a lot of cash profit otherwise and of course you wouldn’t be selling anything for very long

                  so $1T in sales suggests maybe 1B or 2B in profit. maybe less, maybe more.

                  now if I make $1B in cash and I pay zero % on this profit, I think the value of a peace of paper which proves I own some of this profit is worth more that taxes lowerd that number by $200M>
                  correct?

                  1. In the years prior to 2018, the profit was much less. In fact, they operated at a loss. That’s why they paid no taxes on their 2018 profits. If you don’t understand tax loss carryforwards, you are not qualified to comment on their taxes paid.

                    “now (sic) if I make $1B in cash and I pay zero % on this profit, I think the value of a peace (sic) of paper which proves I own some of this profit is worth more that taxes lowerd (sic) that number by $200M>
                    correct?”

                    No. Learn some accounting and tax law.

                    1. so you are saying lowering the taxes on profits does not make the price of the stock of that company more valuable?

              3. tim koss
                October.24.2019 at 12:08 pm
                “what is the correlation between paying no tax on $1T in sales and the stock price?’

                Translation from mom’s basement:
                “If it moves, tax it.”
                Thanks, Tim. We often for get how stoooooooooopid people can be.

        2. Anyone who thinks that taking less is “giving” is starting on the wrong side of possession and clearly an idiot. And ugly.

          Haha.

        3. Deserves a Caps Repeat — Swillfredo, “IT WAS NEVER YOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you are unhappy with your financial standing do something about it.”

          1. if DoD give Amazon $10B to set up a cloud network, it was my money to begin with.

            so Amazon gets tax money which it pays 0% tax on in 2018 and so their stock price rises. I as a M/C taxpayer seems to get screwed coming and going.

            1. So what the point in bothering to tax Amazon to get your tax-money back? Just go right to the source of the problem. The Government that took it to begin with.

      3. Correct. The budget of a social welfare state can only be balanced with much higher taxes on the middle class and lower taxes on high income earners. Any other policy leads to massive deficits, both for political and economic reasons.

        To function like Bernie’s and Warren’s “all other advanced nations”, middle class taxes have to nearly double.

        1. Depending on how we define “the middle class,” taxes for this group would more than double if we operated under a European tax regime.

      4. wearingit
        October.24.2019 at 9:15 am
        “Yes because it was great politics to give the wealthy tax breaks…”
        Correct. It is alway great to allow people to keep the money they earned.

        “…and incur 2 trillion more in debt that won it for the Republicans.”
        Scumbags like you would scream bloody murder if congress did what it should and gut every wlefare scheme on the books.

        “Eye roll.”
        Fuck off, slaver.

      5. The wealthy (I think you mean businesses) weren’t the only ones that received a tax break. My only complaint with Congress and POTUS was that my tax bracket wasn’t lowered by 20 points instead of 3 or 4 points. You leftists must either make so much money or pay no taxes at all to be oblivious that most Americans, if not all Americans, had their tax bracket reduced. That means we (we being those not living in a state that has an income tax) are able to save money by having less taken out of our paychecks (unless you live in a hipster area that was formerly a blighted area).

    2. “Its terrible politics which is why Democrats lose and lose”

      I think you are removed from reality.

      They don’t lose and lose and lose.

      Obama, Clinton, all the times Congress switches who is in the majority, Billary getting the popular vote, etc.

      The democrats are irrational as most are far left progressive / dictator wanna be’s and people keep voting for them. I mean explain Maxine Waters being in a power position for decades. Pelosi? And now California has the half-tard Gavin Newdork running the state.

  2. These people graduated from college and law school so they’re not dumb. Therefore the only conclusion possible is they’re evil and evil is scary. They will do anything for power. It’s funny how for decades people have called Ayn Rand’s villians ridiculously over the top but here we are.

    1. It’s funny how for decades people have called Ayn Rand’s villians ridiculously over the top but here we are.

      Yes, isn’t it? 🙂

    2. I went to law school, and I am quite familiar with many LS graduates. Being a LS graduate and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

    3. Right, they are not dumb, but they aren’t necessarily evil either, they just aren’t wise. The story of Socrates points to this, the Oracle said there is no one wiser than Socrates. He wanted to prove this was not true and sought out those who were supposed to have wisdom. What he found was that these supposed wise people were experts and had great knowledge in some areas, and so felt that because of that knowledge they had insight into things that they did not have any knowledge about, and hence were not wise. “I do not think that I know what I do not know.”

  3. However, the negative impact of the wealth tax wouldn’t be concentrated on wealthy people. Everyone, regardless of their income and wealth level, would take a hit.

    Cite needed. Assertions made by pop-Austrian economists don’t count.

      1. Sloganeering by free market fetishists doesn’t seem to affect the GDP either, comrade.

        1. “…contrary to what American progressives believe, most wealth isn’t devoted to extravagant consumption. Instead, it’s invested in companies; it’s used to fund research and development that will create better goods and services for consumers…”

          Did you read that part? Or can ye not comprehend it? Examples abound… Elon Musk used his Pal-Pal-derived wealth to start SpaceX. Had most of his money been diverted to Government Almighty instead, all we’d have for that money, now, instead of SpaceX cheaper-better re-usable rockets, would be… IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT of don’t-you-DARE-blow-on-a -cheap-plastic-flute -without-permission laws!!!! AND the punishments that go with these kinds of laws!

          To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

          1. “That’s because, contrary to what American progressives believe, most wealth isn’t devoted to extravagant consumption.”

            Progressives believe all the rich have huge vaults of loose cash in their basements, and frequently go swimming in them, a la Scrooge McDuck.

          2. They have no idea that there is a difference between wealth and money. They think billionaires just have billions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent by someone when in fact those billions are out in the economy doing stuff.

            1. those billions are out in the economy doing stuff.

              Mostly not even that. They own an asset that is worth billions, as perceived by other market participants at the moment. Bill Gates doesn’t have billions of dollars. He has an ownership stake in Microsoft. Jeff Bezos doesn’t have billions of dollars. He has an ownership stake in Amazon.

              1. I have no idea what you’re trying to say. As someone that works as a boring accountant, it’s like trying to understand the verbal language of drunk person.

                A part of me thinks I know what you’re saying about liabilities minus and asset, but then I think to myself everyone knows this. Is there anyone that doesn’t? Why does it need to be explained to us like we don’t? If we didn’t know, what did we learn from that?

                1. The only reasonable answer to the question of, “Why do liberals think the most useful corporations are going to support the world for free.” — Must be that they never acknowledge the liabilities.

                  Same way many people think Mr. New Pickup, RV, and House must be loaded until they find out Mr. New Pickup is about $1 away from bankruptcy.

          3. 80% of Trump’s tax cut went to stock buy back, increasing the wealth of stock holders whilst lowering their tax burden and doing nothing for the 50% of americans who own no stock.

            1. So the increased wealth of stockholders was ALL spent by stockholders on hookers, cocaine, and sailboats? Even if that is true, then their money went to the wallets of hookers, cocaine growers, refiners, and smugglers, and to builders and sellers of sailboats!

              Or, perhaps, was a significant fraction of the wealth of stockholders invested in productive activities that provide jobs, new “tech”, and benefits for consumers?

              Compare and contrast those benefits with the results of Government Almighty spending, a large fraction of which goes to PUNISHING those who DARE to defy the ever-growing “sphere of influence” (commandments) of Government Almighty! Put DOWN those plastic straws, and come out with your hands UP!!!

              1. tax cuts went to corps whose directors order their co’s to buy back their stocks, immdeiaty increasing their wealth which is now taxed at a lower rate.

                meanwhile joe the plumber looks at his $1200 refund getting eaten alive by his companies reducing their contribution to HI,

                I am sure they can find a way to tax exempt hookers and blow. and blow buy the way is not a domestic product and is usually not subject to tariffs. we however spend trillions trying to interdict.

                1. You are very, very, very stupid.

                2. Except you’re missing something. That stock buyback? It was from other investors. What do you think they do with that money? Mostly put it into other investments, including for the real estate developer who actually hired Joe.

                3. “meanwhile (sic) joe the plumber (sic) looks at his $1200 refund getting eaten alive by his companies (sic) reducing their contribution to HI,(sic)”

                  Cite please.

                4. You must think that only wealthy people hold stocks. Or it just tells that you have zero invested in your 401(k)/Roth IRA, or just born so rich you don’t need to invest something to obtain an ROI.

                5. What is “HI” in “contribution to HI”? I’m not sure how you equate “buy” back to “increasing wealth”. Doesn’t “buy” require spending? What if stock prices are decreasing? Don’t people who have stock get $$ when corporations “buy back”?

                  1. I surmised that the HI his abbreviation of “health insurance.” He’s too ignorant to understand that you need to predefine these when using them out-of-the-blue, especially when it’s a common abbreviation for something else. When I first read it, I was wondering why Joe the Plummer was contributing to Hawaii.

                    As for your questions to him; he is way too ignorant of financial matters to understand what he’s commenting on, but, like most leftists, doesn’t think his ignorance is disqualifying..

            2. “”doing nothing for the 50% of americans who own no stock.””

              Are you counting stock in people’s retirement plans?

              1. 50% of American’s own no stock meaning they have SS and maybe a home.

              2. to clarify, the 50% don’t have 401k’s . those that do, about 40% , thats likely you and certainly me, we are subject to the vagaries of the market, good now, bad in 2008.

                1. tim koss
                  October.24.2019 at 11:05 am
                  “to clarify, the 50% don’t have 401k’s . those that do, about 40% , thats likely you and certainly me, we are subject to the vagaries of the market, good now, bad in 2008.”

                  You probably ought to take care of that; I won’t do it for you, slaver.

                2. There is also 403B for the non-profit sector.

                3. I always find it difficult to take anyone serious that can’t properly format their message or properly use punctuation.

                  1. “I always find it difficult to take anyone serious that can’t properly format their message or properly use punctuation.”

                    Not to mention the ones who hope that things are always tending toward positive!
                    Mommy told them they are special, and they world should always provide wonderful things for them, and if not, it must be some nasty business.

            3. re: “the 50% of americans who own no stock”

              That is simply not true. According to multiple independent surveys (Gallup, the Federal Reserve Board, etc), over half of US families own stock either directly or through ownership of a mutual fund. Many more have indirect ownership through their pensions and retirement accounts. The fraction of the population with no stake in the stock market is limited to a) the young who have not started saving yet, b) the truly desperate with no savings whatsoever and c) those who chose to invest their savings in real estate or other physical assets instead. Both b and c are small minorities of the total population.

              1. from Gallup.com

                headline
                Just Over Half of Americans Own Stocks, Matching Record Low

                1. Which is precisely what I said. And if you read the methodology behind that study, you’ll see that it also matches the rest of what I said. Despite that headline, the fraction of the population with no stake in the stock market is quite low.

                  1. tim koss; the Greta of US socialist promotion. And equally stooooopid.

                  2. i went and reread the story, not a study, and the story on Gallup’s home page it that stock ownership for the middle class is way down to historic lows.

        2. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          October.24.2019 at 1:59 am
          “Sloganeering by free market fetishists doesn’t seem to affect the GDP either, comrade.”

          Fuck off, slaver.

    1. No, a cite is not needed. It’s basic economics and there are hundreds of studies verifying this empirically. Use a search engine.

    2. along with Trumps tax cut, 1 million children lost health insurance from Medicaid or CHIPS.

      that’s kids who can’t vote and don’t have tax deductible lobbyists.

      1. Please provide a credible citation for… WHO gets to tax-deduct their lobbying expenses?

        1. its an expense for any corporation or business . like legal or paperclips.

          taxpayer subsidize lobbyists who try to lower taxes for their biz clients. they were extremely successful, ask Amazon.

          1. You been busted for lying, slaver; see below.

      2. “An expense is typically deductible if it’s not associated with lobbying efforts or any type of bid to influence legislation. This rule means that money spent on monitoring and reviewing government affairs and complying with legislation, either current or proposed, is acceptable, and these expenses can be deducted.”

        What Are Political or Lobbying Expenses?
        https://www.thebalancesmb.com › can-i-deduct-political-and-lobbying-expe…

        1. I did a little research and you are right, however there are many ways to hide lobbying expenses as pre-tax expenses.

          at least I got you guys thinking. There are a zillion ways biz game the tax code that you and I can’t. hence I remind you of Amazon’s 0 taxes last year. my city tried to give Amazon incentive to locat HQ2, incentive not available to any bricks and mortar retailer.

          IOW the only way to get much needed and if you care about fairness much owed taxes would be some kind of tax on assets that cannot be gamed.

          its hard to hide your tax portfolio or bond holdings or real estate from the IRS. wine collections and yachts and art could be hidden but that would be miniscule

          also don’t forget vanity. guys wanting on Forune 100 or 500 or 1000 would want to declare to the world how much wealth tax they pay.

          heh Jeff you say your worth $40B. how much wealth tax did you pay? well Zucker I paid much more than you. Trump would claim he owes $100M in wealth tax and the IRS could bill him.

          1. tim koss
            October.24.2019 at 11:26 am
            “I did a little research and you are right, however there are many ways to hide lobbying expenses as pre-tax expenses.”

            Which is irrelevant.
            Fuck off, slaver

      3. In other words, if my company and I spend butt-loads of money to make sure that we comply with ten zillion laws spelling out when and where we will EVER (if ever) be allowed to use plastic straws, etc., then that money is tax-deductible. Note that too many laws and rules from Government Almighty are a root cause of wasted money here.

        If, on the other hand, we spend lobbying money to try and reduce the regulatory burden from Government Almighty, then THAT money is NOT tax deductible!

        1. I owned a 10 million dollar company

          year in and year out we spent about 20 minutes on regs.

          lots of time and money on taxes, tons of time an money sorting thru health insurance options, very little time on safety or equal oppty or HR issues. Once you address those your really good to go for a long time. Usually a safety review once a year by fire department and insurance co’s. Nothing on Equal Oppty. or HR. Nothing on OSHA or EPA even though we dealt with industrial waste.

          Nope regs not the problem. Problem I had was offering an excellent HI when my competitors offered less quality plan and of course had lower costs. If we could equalize or flatten out HI then that would not longer be a factor in the equation of competitive advantage.

          1. BS. You did not own a $10 million company. You have made it obvious from everything you’ve written that you are way to ignorant of matters of accounting and finance for this to be true. Nice try throwing in all of those buzzwords you heard somewhere, but your ignorance has resulted in you writing pure gibberish above.

      4. “that’s kids who can’t vote and don’t have tax deductible lobbyists.”

        The whine of every slaver:
        ‘It’s for the childrenzzzzzzzzz!’

        1. The Los Angeles School District as exhibit A.

      5. along with Trumps tax cut, 1 million children lost health insurance from Medicaid or CHIPS.

        Yes, they lost it because they don’t actually need it; their families can (and should) pay for it themselves.

      6. tenant health care and texas health spent $1M lobbying against medicare for all.

        they aren’t doing this to save your taxes

        but hey if u think massive HI companies represent ur best interests enjoy.

        1. First, learn to write. Second, cite please.

          1. I read it in my local paper.

            so I guess any Texas paper.

        2. tim koss
          “…but hey if u think massive HI companies represent ur best interests enjoy.”

          Note the ‘spelling’ and the implied juvenile (gov’t school) fantasy that the alternative is better.
          13? Maybe 15. Certainly not out of gov’t high-school.

          1. I was thinking he’s a humanities or social sciences undergrad and he heard all of this from some professor who is equally ignorant of financial matters. That’s why he keeps trying to respond to people who are obviously more knowledgeable about these matters. He thinks this (or these) professor(s) actually knows about finance. Plus, undergrads often write at an elementary school level these days.

  4. GDP growth rate increases with high tax rates on the rich.

    http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gdp-growth-vs-tax-rate

    1. “First, it does not suggest that taxing the high earners in and of itself boosts the economy.”
      Did you not read the description?

      1. I’m just saying that assertions that we’re going to fall off the cliff if we tax high earners more don’t seem to be borne out of any evidence.

        1. The fact you resorted to a strawman of “fall of the cliff” to try to make a point touts your ignorance. Look to the countries, such as France, that have implemented wealth taxes. Also look at which countries weathered the 2009 recession better. There was a reason Krugman had to attack Estonia for 3 years.

        2. Moving the goal posts, I see; you implied in your OP that high tax rates lead to higher GDP growth. You were caught. Admit your blunder.

          1. “…Admit your blunder.”

            That’s not a blunder; that’s typical commie kid, lying in the hopes of not getting caught.

        3. Your graph shows short term correlations. But for capital investments, the effects On growth are long term and delayed, so your graph doesn’t show anything.

    2. First, people who pay high income taxes are not “the rich”.

      Second, your graph doesn’t show the causal relationship you postulate.

      1. Trying to explain the difference between wealth and income to a leftist is an exercise in frustration.

    3. You realize that’s showing top marginal income tax rate, not a wealth tax, right? And that those things are distinctly different?

  5. The graph is also top marginal income tax rate not a wealth tax.

  6. In doing so, they demonstrate how little they understand economics.

    Or how little they feel their voters understand economics.

    1. Appealing to the ignorance of the electorate is basic politics, but attacking the rich, the one percent, always seems tinged with Antisemitism. It’s like, and we know who’s got all the money, wink, wink.

      1. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is quite antisemitic…

  7. In doing so, they demonstrate how little they understand economics.

    To this, I would add human behavior. What do you think the uber-wealthy will do in response to a wealth tax. They will leave. The mental calculation they will make is pretty straightforward: Do I stay here and let these government assholes piss away my money….or just pick up my shit and leave. Pretty easy choice.

    Don’t believe me? The stats on wealthy Americans leaving and renouncing their citizenship would be something to look at. Every year, a couple of thousand Americans leave, renounce their citizenship, and enjoy their lives elsewhere. They are not all uber-wealthy – but many are.

    An example from the People’s Republic of NJ is illuminating. David Tepper used to live here. The Team D NJ Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, passed a ‘Millionaires Tax’, which was veto’ed by the Governor (Team R). This happened multiple times. Power to the people and all that Team D nonsense. It was political grandstanding. Mr. Tepper decided he had had enough. He sold his home in NJ and moved to FL. By himself, that was 140MM of state tax revenue that left the People’s Republic – poof!

    So…How many middle class taxpayers does it take to fill that 140MM annual void. Well, if you assume the average NJ People’s Republic state income tax burden is 3K, the math is: 140MM/3K = 46,667. I have news for you….there ain’t no 47K people moving to the People’s Republic anytime soon. Given we have a total moron now as governor (Phailing Phil Murphy – another Goldman Sachs reject), the wealthy (and middle class) will definitely not come here.

    We should not delude ourselves. The uber-wealthy can (and will) pick up their shit and leave. For them, it is an inconvenience, not calamity. Don’t think an exit tax will do the trick – they’ll get around it, or just pay it. But they will be gone. And so will their tax revenue.

    1. And pray tell us; where will they go? Will you list the countries with LOWER overall taxes than the US?

      1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

        Also remember very few countries tax wealth. Warren’s plan would exacerbate the moves.

      2. Long….There are many places you can go. Singapore is a very favorable destination, as an example.

      3. There are many places that have lower taxes on the rich than the US, including much of Europe.

        Europe finances its social welfare states with much higher taxes on the middle class.

      4. I always suggest those that like less government move to Mexico.

        so far no takers.

        and BTW who cares if they move. they don’t pay taxes here but their businesses sure do like our deficit funded marketplace.

        1. tim koss
          October.24.2019 at 10:40 am
          “I always suggest those that like less government move to Mexico.”
          I always suggest slavers like you move the Venezuela.

          “and BTW who cares if they move. they don’t pay taxes here but their businesses sure do like our deficit funded marketplace.”
          The vintage whine of envy politics.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        2. “I always suggest those that like less government move to Mexico.”

          LOL… What separates the U.S. and Mexico is that Mexico’s national government is instructed to supply every citizen with a house, job and education.

          Seems like a Democrats “Heaven on Earth”.

          http://banderasnews.com/0802/edat-constitutionday.htm

  8. You know, I’ve listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and a lot of other politicians for years and I used to think they were really smart because they seemed to know everything, but now that I’ve read this piece about their proposed wealth tax I’m starting to have my doubts. This has really opened my mind to the possibility that perhaps I have been mistaken in believing that politicians are our best and brightest and that we should trust our moral and intellectual superiors in Washington, DC to know what’s best for us ignorant slobs. Yes sir, this sure has given me something to think about. Maybe eating the seed corn isn’t a great idea? Seems so counter-intuitive.

    1. “You know, I’ve listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren…”

      My sympathies.

  9. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

    ― Thomas Sowell

  10. I wonder how a wealth tax will be structured to measure a person’s wealth. I have the ugly feeling that sooner or later middle-class citizens would have to kiss their 401(k) nest egg goodbye. I’m not just talking about the indirect damage caused by wealthy people having to dump stock to pay the tax; I can see lefties going right after retirement accounts.

    1. Which to go after first: 401(k)’s or AK-47’s?

    2. I want to see the progs treat pensions at net present value the same as personally held savings. A cop/teacher/firefighter retiring now at age 50 has the wealth equivalent of an annuity bought with 2 million dollars, to generate a 30 year income of 50,000 dollars.

    3. Already happening..Repeal prop 13 in California is along those lines. Eventually push a federal level property (wealth) tax. A dream of central authoritarian planners–old soviet union land reform.

  11. Steyer—who happens to be a billionaire—says that “Senator Sanders is right” [“Billionaires should not exist”]

    So, which did ol’ Tom then do: sell all he has and give it to the poor, or kill himself?

  12. It won’t work. However, it’s egregious that only 2% Hold more than 78% of all the wealth. Income gap is widening.

    1. Then don’t line their pockets with your money. Hang up on Zuckerberg’s facebook, or Job’s Apple, or Musk’s Teslas.
      Unless you find that what they offered is so valuable that you cannot bear to live without these things. In which case, grant them the rewards of having provided industries and jobs worth literally trillions to the economy. I would be surprised if your contribution to society were worth even one millionth of theirs.

      1. Unfortunately, many people got rich through rent seeking, not in a free market.

        Bernie and Warren are correct that there is a problem, they just misdiagnose the cause and purpose policies that make the problem worse.

      2. “”Then don’t line their pockets with your money.””

        This.

        I have not bought anything from Amazon. Bezos has enough cash.
        I don’t complain about how rich he is. I do my part not to enrich him further.

        1. Why on earth would you boycott amazon? It’s done more to enhance my life thus far than all of government combined.

    2. The global income gap is shrinking. Why post facts from ignorance?

    3. Wealth and income are not the same thing.
      Wealth and money are not the same thing.

      You do realize that the poor are getting richer, don’t you?

      Stealing capital from the wealthy and handing it out to politically favored people doesn’t create wealth. It destroy wealth. It destroys the engine that creates wealth. It will make everyone poorer.

      But that’s OK as long as the rich are taken down a notch, eh? It’s acceptable to make poor people poorer as long as the rich are made poorer as well, right?

      Envy is not a pleasant smell, and you reek of it.

    4. Would you feel better if you owned a fractional interest (along with 300 million others) in, say, an iPhone factory? Productive assets make up most of that wealth. Consumption goods are a tiny sliver of what the rich own.

    5. How much of that wealth only exists in paper?

      wealth ‘inequality’ is necessary when so much wealth is accounting nonsense and financial voodoo.

    6. “It won’t work. However, it’s egregious that only 2% Hold more than 78% of all the wealth. Income gap is widening.”

      Don’t give a shit.

    7. “it’s egregious that only 2% Hold more than 78% of all the wealth”

      Time to throw your hat in and go for the 2% then; It’s pointless for a rabbit to complain about how the turtle didn’t deserve to win the race from comfort of the stands. If the win was undeserving; its time for the rabbit to join the race and either prove it was undeserving or accept that the turtle is really that much faster than the rabbit.

      Unless of course the SJW have eliminated all rabbits from competing out of some sort of “equality” claim — Then you have nothing left to do but watch and complain incessantly.

  13. People on the left don’t understand the difference between money and wealth. They assume rich people are like Scrooge McDuck, with swimming pools full of money that just sits there doing nothing. So they imagine they can take that money away and use it to hand out free stuff to people. They truly do not understand the nature of wealth and capital.

    1. the problem is not that the rich live large, its that their lifestyles make it harder for the MC. so what we have now an elaborate DoD , gold plated building $100 M planes, funded by trillion dollar. a few short years ago we were schooled that this is bad, really , really bad. Meanwhile school are falling apart and some schools fail educationally.

      we have 1M kids not covered by any health in insurance at all. period. none. Kids!
      flint has lead. we can’t fix it .
      the air Is getting worse.

      and the most direct result of the 1 or 2%. Restrictive zoning (NIMBY) causing low cost housing to decline.

      its not that he wealthy get more, its that their agenda crowds out everyone elses.

      1. I send my taxes to the federal government for national (foreign affairs) security. I send my taxes to the state for justice. I send my taxes to the city for infrastructure.

        If I want to learn something — I pay a teacher. If I need dental work – I pay a dentist. If I need medical assistance – I pay the doctor.

        If I’m about to die and have no money (because it paid for socialistic systems that !!forced!! my money were I didn’t need it and probably into some politicians yhat) I’ll either visit my LOCAL welfare office or die.

        Your entire thinking is based on the assumption that you not only “own” me and my wealth but can also spend it more wisely than I can.
        slaver!

  14. “That’s because, contrary to what American progressives believe, most wealth isn’t devoted to extravagant consumption. Instead, it’s invested in companies; …”
    So what if wealth does happen to be devoted to extravagant consumption. It takes thousands of jobs from hundreds of industries to build mega-yachts, from production of steel and aluminum, building mega-diesel engines, helicopters for the owner to reach their yacht, secret bases where their private armies are harbored…
    Really, isn’t the economy and society better off when money is spent for goods and labor, rather than as simple government transfer payments that encourage sloth an undermine self reliance?

  15. “a change in wealth inequality would have little impact on the concentration of political power”

    Well you don’t really expect those people with power to give up their political capital do you. Those politicians and power brokers worked hard for years kissing the right asses and stabbing the right backs to get where they are today… for the people of course. It takes hard work and fortitude to pander and bribe enough people with other people’s money to be able to attain a position where you can pander and bribe even more people with even more of other people’s money… for the greater good, naturally.

    Those people in power have our best intentions at heart… nothing like those greedy, self-serving, money-hoarding, wealthy pigs.

  16. Amazing how Reason can criticize everything the Dems come up with but can’t offer any actual solutions of their own.

    1. Amazing how fucking stupid you are.

    2. Sometimes (often) the best move for government is not to act at all.

      There is one solution that libertarians consistently advocate: fuck you, cut spending.

    3. Beyond your stupidity, your real problem is that you believe Dems should do anything at all. They should do less. Much less.

      “Wearingit” – you mean that white stuff on your chin?

    4. Solutions for what?

      1. Eating the rich.

    5. actual solution: stop already poor people from breeding

    6. “Amazing how Reason can criticize everything the Dems come up with but can’t offer any actual solutions of their own.”

      If you’re trying top demonstrate exactly how stupid someone can be, well, you got the gold, slaver.

    7. That’s simple, apply the NAP to government by prohibiting it from initiating force.

  17. We are less than a year away from watching Reason support these wannabe dictators because Orange Man Bad.

    If you think that won’t happen, you must’ve missed the articles about giving welfare to illegal immigrants and how legit this whole impeachment nonsense really is. Bureaucracy FTW!

    Roll on clown show, roll on

    1. “giving welfare to illegal immigrants”

      We open borders advocates prefer to call them “undocumented Americans.”

      #ImmigrationAboveAll
      #LibertariansForBigGovernment
      #(AsLongAsItBenefitsImmigrants)

    2. I’ll take that bet. I predict the coverage will be “a pox on both their houses” the same as 2016.

  18. We Koch / Reason libertarians have nothing to fear from Democrats. Sure, they have this silly little quirk where they say they’ll go after “the rich.” But they don’t really mean it. As proof, look no further than their embrace of open borders — which is literally the most important item on the billionaire agenda.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. “Sure, they have this silly little quirk where they say they’ll go after “the rich.” But they don’t really mean it.”

      Yeah, just like the Nazis said they’d go after the Jews, but they really didn’t mean it.

  19. Benjamin Tucker’s critique of Herbert Spencer in 1884 applies to most all of Reason’s articles on economics.

    It will be noticed that in these later articles, amid his multitudinous illustrations (of which he is as prodigal as ever) of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed, ostensibly at least, to protect labor, alleviate suffering, or promote the people’s welfare. He demonstrates beyond dispute the lamentable failure in this direction. But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly. You must not protect the weak against the strong, he seems to say, but freely supply all the weapons needed by the strong to oppress the weak. He is greatly shocked that the rich should be directly taxed to support the poor, but that the poor should be indirectly taxed and bled to make the rich richer does not outrage his delicate sensibilities in the least. Poverty is increased by the poor laws, says Mr. Spencer. Granted; but what about the rich laws that caused and still cause the poverty to which the poor laws add? That is by far the more important question; yet Mr. Spencer tries to blink it out of sight.

    Whether immigration, foreign trade, or tax policy, Reason is against American workers and for foreigners and wealthy Americans.

    It’s a sin to tax goods from Slave Emperor Xi, but ok to tax American workers.
    It’s a sin to tax American Wealth, but not American Labor.
    It’s a sin for immigration policy to benefit the mass of Americans, but a sacrament if it transfers wealth from Labor to the US ruling class and foreigners.

    1. Looks like Tony has competition for the title of World Champion Strawman Slayer.

      1. Which one of those policies do you disagree with?

        1. There’s nothing to agree or disagree with because nobody is endorsing those policies. That’s what strawman means. Derp.

      2. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

  20. Forced equality settles on the lowest common denominator. As in everyone is dirt poor. But I guess that’s better than everyone being wealthier, because there isn’t any inequality.

  21. “”As in everyone is dirt poor.””

    Nope, the ruling class usually spares themselves.

    1. I figured that was a given.

  22. I agree that much of the wealth is tied up in company equity. But wouldn’t it be better if more people owned equity in companies instead of a few? You know, have retirement accounts? That’s a no-brainer.

    And btw, plenty of luxury goods and mansions exist that could otherwise have been public transit infrastructure, more housing for everyone, and other infrastructure projects. Instead of construction workers building yachts they could be building trains.

    This article is one big cover for the wealthy. An excuse for them to pass on money to their heirs. A bunch of Eric and Don Jr.s will get their Daddy’s companies and continue to tell us how they “earned” their wealth. What a joke.

    1. “I agree that much of the wealth is tied up in company equity. But wouldn’t it be better if more people owned equity in companies instead of a few? You know, have retirement accounts? That’s a no-brainer.”
      Good. Buy equities.

      “And btw, plenty of luxury goods and mansions exist that could otherwise have been public transit infrastructure, more housing for everyone, and other infrastructure projects. Instead of construction workers building yachts they could be building trains.”
      Fuck off, slaver.

      “This article is one big cover for the wealthy. An excuse for them to pass on money to their heirs. A bunch of Eric and Don Jr.s will get their Daddy’s companies and continue to tell us how they “earned” their wealth. What a joke.”
      Fuck off and die, slaver.

    2. “Instead of construction workers building yachts they could be building trains.”

      Why don’t you wave a hammer and sickle around?

    3. “Instead of construction workers building yachts they could be building trains.”

      What is it with you leftists and the f’ing trains?

      1. “It didn’t work the last 47 times we tried this, and that’s why it’ll work now!” *uproarious cheering*

        1. +1000 – Perfectly put…

  23. I wonder what it must feel like to wake up every morning knowing that it’s your job to defend the plutocracy.

    If you’re imbued with a certain amount of sociopathy, I imagine it’s rather amusing that the people who cheer you on are the uneducated, unwashed, unkempt dregs who are so fully distracted by gay wedding cakes that they’re willing to let the wealth of our shared planet go to ten people, because that’s what they’ve been told is fair.

    1. Tony
      October.24.2019 at 11:10 am
      “I wonder what it must feel like to wake up every morning knowing that it’s your job to defend the plutocracy.”

      I wonder what it’s like to wake up every morning and know you’re one of the world’s dumb fucks.
      Tell us shitbag; how does it feel?

    2. Dude, you’ve got it backwards. The sociopaths are those of you who will cheerfully use violence to punish success and reward failure.

      1. Where’s Sevo to chime in on his charming definition of a straw man? Hellooo?

        1. Tony
          October.24.2019 at 5:13 pm
          “Where’s Sevo to chime in on his charming definition of a straw man? Hellooo?”

          Right here to point out that there was no strawman in sarcasmic’s post.
          You seem to have a real problem with that definition.

    3. Careful there, Tony. Your political party is moving toward the immigration position advocated by the richest 10 people on the planet. Personally I think that’s a positive development, but you seem to be implying otherwise. Which makes you sound alt-right.

      #DemocratsAreThePartyOfTheRich
      #(AndThatsAGoodThing)

      1. Immigration is a real issue, but it’s not talked about that way by you, other racists, and the selfsame politicians I referred to above who pick Culture War distractions out of a hat whenever they need to distract the rubes from their anti-poor, anti-middle-class, anti-human policy aims for which they are paid to assume office.

    4. I wonder what it must feel like to wake up every morning green with envy, not knowing that the change that needs to happen is within yourself, not elsewhere.

      1. Envy, yes, another facet of the lame distraction game played on people like you by politicians who never want you to actually think about whether our tax policy is remotely sensible or fair: utterly stupid fucking psychobabble.

        1. Fair? You realize that the top 5% of earners in 2018 paid a bit over 58% of the total income taxes paid, right? That’s not their marginal rate, sparky, that’s all other americans (the 95%) paying in less combined than these folks did. And yet somehow you feel they’re the ones taking us for a ride? You can’t possibly be serious.

          1. That’s… because…they….have…so….much….more….income.

            Slow enough?

            1. Tony
              October.24.2019 at 7:45 pm
              “That’s… because…they….have…so….much….more….income.
              Slow enough?”

              Absoluely!
              Slow enough to show you promote nothing other than the politics of envy, shitbag.

  24. I do not agree that wealth inequality has no effect on mobility and on our democratic institutions. Wealth inequality certainly sets up barriers to mobility. Poverty means your children’s school will not be as good, you will likely spend more of your money on food, shelter and transportation that a wealthier person. All will make it harder for a person to advance. We also see huge amount of money being spent on election, with significant amounts spend to insure the wealthy stay wealthy. Democracy is best served by having a broad and deep middle class.

    1. Wealth inequality certainly sets up barriers to mobility. Poverty means your children’s school will not be as good, you will likely spend more of your money on food, shelter and transportation that a wealthier person.

      You switch from wealth inequality (relative poverty) to absolute poverty almost immediately. Are you saying that some people are poor because others are rich? That is nonsense. Or are you just trying to muddy the waters, subtly implying that becoming rich makes others poor without explicitly saying it?

      1. It literally does not know the difference. When you live in a world of envy, it’s only about how much one has COMPARED TO others.

      2. I am not so much talking about absolute poverty as the working poor. The articles author suggested that wealth inequality does not affect mobility, but for these people it really does. I think you could also see this for the middleclass but it would be subtler. Think of a young person with aspirations to have their own business. But need for health care forces them to work for a company. I am not so foolish to think we can solve all the problems or create a perfectly equitable system, but I do think that we need to always we forcing the curve towards wealth equality.

        1. “I am not so much talking about absolute poverty as the working poor.”

          Who do you think employs them, though it’s not always “the wealthy.”

          “Think of a young person with aspirations to have their own business. But need for health care forces them to work for a company.”

          You mean the need to buy things forces them to work for a living? The horror…the horror.

          1. My original comment was that wealth equality does in fact inhibit mobility. Who employs the working poor does not enter into this. As for the middle class person. My point was they might wish to open their own business as a move up. They may not feel they can do this because they need the health care a large company provides. Both working poor and the middle class do work for a living. Are you suggesting only the wealth work?

            1. We’re pretty much suggesting that you are not real bright (as shown by that word salad) and that you are a slaver and need to fuck off.

        2. I am not so much talking about absolute poverty as the working poor.

          I mean absolute poverty as opposed to relative poverty. I am not referring to abject poverty or destitution.

    2. “Poverty means your children’s school will not be as good, you will likely spend more of your money on food, shelter and transportation that a wealthier person. All will make it harder for a person to advance.”

      No shit, Sherlock. Now explain how others’ wealth causes poverty.

  25. “I do not agree that wealth inequality has no effect on mobility and on our democratic institutions. Wealth inequality certainly sets up barriers to mobility.”
    You are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to my wealth.
    Fuck off, slaver

    1. Who says its yours? You? The other guy over there who says its his?

      How do you resolve that dispute? You expect everyone else to go along with whatever the fuck you babble – without paying them to agree with whatever you babble? Hell in my opinion as a bystander to that dispute – I personally am inclined to just get out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.

      Of course if you want me to go along with some ‘philosophy’ re ownership of property, some sets of rules for adjudicating that, some sorts of punishments inflicted by bystanders for violating those rules – so you can enjoy ‘your’ wealth rather than spend 24/7 fighting against everyone else who thinks its ‘their’ wealth. Well that’s gonna cost you something. That’s actually not even a tax. It’s payment for services rendered. And like any good competitive market that price will be based on whatever the market will bear not whatever you unilaterally think is appropriate to impose.

      1. “Who says its yours? You? The other guy over there who says its his?”

        THAT’S the best you got? Asserting the money I earned and turned into wealth might be claimed by someone else?
        Is that a serious statement? It sounds like some five-year-old who what caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

        1. Oh it WILL be claimed the nanosecond bystanders (society) withdraw 100% of the free services provided to existing wealth – recognition of ‘title’; adjudication of contracts in event of dispute; laws that create expectations re one side v other; laws that punish anyone; laws that force bystanders to pay for punishing anyone; military that ensures you don’t have to deal with multiple concerted attacks from others intent on stealing what you think is yours; etc etc etc.

          The actual wealthy need friendly bystanders (society) to protect them and ‘their’ wealth far more than society needs the actual wealthy. Best insight of Henry George was not his stuff re land but the real simple idea that labor finances itself. Capital (accumulation) is just not that important. It’s not evil as Marxists/socialists assert. It’s not the center of the universe as ‘capitalists’/neoclassicals assert. It’s basically – not important. Therefore, it needs no special protections or free rides either. Course he lived when there was still a distinction between a ‘quitrent’ and a ‘tax’.

          1. So there was no such thing as property until government came along? I suppose you’re one of those who thinks fire and the wheel came from caveman committees or something.

            1. So there was no such thing as property until government came along?

              I’m pretty flexible re my beliefs. You want me to believe something specific ? PAY me!

              1. “I’m pretty flexible re my beliefs.”

                IOWs, JFree’s brains fell out some time ago.
                Fuck off, you pathetic excuse for a human.

            2. It’s sad that you can’t understand what he’s talking about when it’s pretty goddamn simple and it’s been explained to you thousands of times.

              Here’s another shot: Just because you want it to be true that property rights can exist without enforcement (i.e., public money to pay for a complex system of laws and enforcement mechanisms), doesn’t make it so. It’s sort of like children and Santa Claus.

              1. Tony
                October.24.2019 at 5:19 pm
                “It’s sad that you can’t understand what he’s talking about when it’s pretty goddamn simple and it’s been explained to you thousands of times.
                Here’s another shot: Just because you want it to be true that property rights can exist without enforcement (i.e., public money to pay for a complex system of laws and enforcement mechanisms), doesn’t make it so. It’s sort of like children and Santa Claus.”

                It is sad that your mommy didn’t opt for an abortion to make the world more intelligent.
                No, my property did not require government approval, and you are entirely too stupid to understand that.

                1. But it did. Otherwise the fact that I have more guns than you would make it my property. It’s like you didn’t even go to kindergarten. Did you go to kindergarten?

          2. “Oh it WILL be claimed the nanosecond bystanders (society) withdraw 100% of the free services provided to existing wealth – recognition of ‘title’;”

            You
            Are
            Full
            Of
            Shit.
            I take it back; a 5-year-old makes better arguments.
            Every pay to, oh, get title to real estate? I guess to a 3-year-old, that’s a mystery.

          3. “Oh it WILL be claimed the nanosecond bystanders (society) withdraw 100% of the free services provided to existing wealth – recognition of ‘title’; adjudication of contracts in event of dispute; laws that create expectations re one side v other; laws that punish anyone; laws that force bystanders to pay for punishing anyone; military that ensures you don’t have to deal with multiple concerted attacks from others intent on stealing what you think is yours; etc etc etc.”

            You aren’t capable of proving that there are any “free” services being provided. The legal system protects everyone equally as does the military defend everyone equally and rich and even just the well off are paying more than enough in taxes to pay for their pro rata share of the legal system and the military.

            The majority of federal spending is merely redistribution from higher income people to lower income people. That activity is not a “service” at all.

          4. What’s funny is is suspect ‘JFree’ stands for Job Free of which would make his/her own wealth 100% of others “free services”.

            But JFree certainly and abruptly spouts the leftist religion of — “You don’t own you… [[WE]] own you.” and in such cannot comprehend the idea that anyone owns or creates anything let along actually working to create goods.

            So wise pin-view [[WE]] member — what “free” service is the ditch digger getting? what “free” service is the gardener getting? what “free” service did technology get? etc… etc… etc…

      2. Why don’t you just say “Might makes right, and I’m on the side of the takers. We’ve got violence on our side, and that makes us right. Now hand over your wealth or we’ll cheerfully kill you.”

        1. I have no interest in killing anyone or taking anything. I’m sitting on the sidelines enjoying the show.

          Someone else stealing ‘your’ stuff ain’t my fucking problem. You want me to make it my problem too? Then PAY ME!

          1. When it’s the government taking my stuff, it ain’t your problem yet. Me today, you tomorrow.

            1. You do not remotely comprehend what I’m saying.

              And even in your delusion – so what?
              28% of Americans have less than 10k in wealth. Probably the majority have only one asset – their house – which they in fact don’t really own free-and-clear but are rent-to-owning from a bank. That is the universe of people who ‘ain’t got nothing so ain’t got nothing to lose’ either. That’s the universe of people who will likely take your stuff in the absence of govt stopping them. Esp since you don’t like sharing or playing nice with the other kids. They are also the universe amenable to a message of ‘all of us should take this stuff together’ (eg Warren/Sanders).

              Switzerland with its tax system (including wealth tax) has less than 2% with wealth less than 10k. IOW – the wealth tax is what actually helps eliminate both the poverty trap and enables the accumulation of wealth. Totally separate from the ‘revenue’ function of that. Which in turn nearly eliminates the ‘natural world’ quitrent threat to the wealthy AND the political inclinations to expand safety net, suck on the public teat, punish the wealthy, etc. A very boring predictable world which is exactly why it is attractive to wealth.

              1. “28% of Americans have less than 10k in wealth.”

                Your argument is that 28% of Americans are financially irresponsible, and a tax on wealth is going to fix it.

                Mmmm, okay.

                And I’m the delusional one?

                1. You’re right. I have a nephew. He’s 1. He is the most financially irresponsible motherfucker I’ve ever met. Not a goddamn dime to his name. Tell me in your infinite wisdom, how do I get the little parasite to get a job?

                  1. Tony
                    October.24.2019 at 5:22 pm
                    “You’re right. I have a nephew. He’s 1. He is the most financially irresponsible motherfucker I’ve ever met. Not a goddamn dime to his name. Tell me in your infinite wisdom, how do I get the little parasite to get a job?”

                    And after that delusional pile of shit, you’re asking how you’re seen as delusional?
                    Quite amusing.

              2. Switzerland, along with Germany, has an excellent apprenticeship system. As a result, the country has one of the lowest unemployment rates for young people on the planet. In addition, it’s extremely easy to fire people in Switzerland. As a result, companies are more willing to hire workers knowing that if it doesn’t work out they can let the worker go, no questions asked. Meanwhile, generations of young people being educated in U.S. cities never develop the skills or acquire the education needed to give them a chance of making a decent living. Sweden, probably the most egalitarian minded country, adopted a national school voucher system while leftists in the U.S. are doing everything possible to kill off charter schools and voucher programs wherever they exist. But all we need is a good wealth tax and all will be well.

              3. JFree
                October.24.2019 at 2:07 pm
                “You do not remotely comprehend what I’m saying….”
                You
                Are
                Full
                Of
                Shit.

              4. 28% of Americans spent ALL their time complaining they cannot steal more (oh wait, its actually higher than that) than actually TRYING to be an asset to anyone but themselves. (supply & demand). Because …. the thoughts of, “You don’t own you — [[WE]] own you” keeps rattling through their sheeple brains anytime they think about creating anything.

                You want other to “PAY ME”… Well, If you were selling an asset worth buying you just might be surprised. First, you have to have the right frame of mind (not to just scam money) and the ability to actually pull some weight by caring. Then, believe it or not, you may get paid just for caring enough to defend people being threatened by a mob of thieves.

          2. If you’re just sitting on the sidelines enjoying the show, then shut up and fuck off.

            1. PAY me and I’ll consider doing that.

              1. JFree
                October.24.2019 at 2:07 pm
                “PAY me and I’ll consider doing that.”

                No one has to pay to ignore a fucking scumbag slaver; I do it all day long.

          3. JFree
            October.24.2019 at 1:20 pm
            “I have no interest in killing anyone or taking anything…”

            As proven by your constant posts:
            You
            Are
            Full
            Of
            Shit.
            And stupid enough to admit it.

  26. I really think Warren’s specific proposal is awful and her intentions are basically dishonest.

    But the more articles and panic I see here re ‘wealth tax’, the more I realize that this is exactly what is needed – to be put on the table and discussed – as part of an overall tax reform. Because what is very clear – and has been clear to anyone who understands this stuff for a long time – is that no amount of fiddling with marginal income tax rates affects the wealthy at all. Marginal income tax rates in the highest brackets are only relevant to the ‘trying to become wealthy via income’ (like Mike Trout or PewDiePie) and those can only become massively punitive and distorting if the goal is to raise revenue.

    I would love to see a debate between one of these ‘trickle down’ libertarians v an actual classical liberal (not a fucking free lunch pol like warren) advocating a wealth tax along the lines that Switzerland has. Where it is viewed as simply a way to broaden the tax base so that marginal rates on any specific part of that are not as distorting of behavior – and to charge the wealthy for the boatload of govt services they currently get for free. Because it is those distortions – that tilted playing field – that creates the demand for govt to tilt the playing field back via spending. The working poor don’t need as big a safety net if they aren’t caught in a tax-driven poverty trap. The upper-middle can accumulate wealth (and thus start competing with the existing wealthy behind their rent-seeking moats) if they aren’t facing punitive marginal rates at the top.

    Absent that debate – I personally am ok with Warren getting elected and implementing that tax. Because at least that will then allow the subsequent debate to include that concept as part of ‘reforming the tax system’.

    1. Goodie for you; no one here expects lefty fucking ignoramuses to do anything other than promote the politics of envy.
      Green compliments your slime quite well.

    2. Like you I don’t see Warren’s plans as really workable. What her election might bring is a real discussion about economics in this country. I do think the Republicans have lost their way on this topic. It is sad that Paul Ryan as Speaker could not do more to articulate a real Republican economic philosophy.

      1. “What her election might bring is a real discussion about economics in this country. I do think the Republicans have lost their way on this topic. It is sad that Paul Ryan as Speaker could not do more to articulate a real Republican economic philosophy.”

        We’ve had that discussion; what’s mine is mine and Warren and the rest of the slavers can fuck off.

    3. How do you tax wealth? How do you tax my 401K? Must I sell a percentage every year in order to come up with the money for the tax? Does government take ownership of my stock? What about art? Must a collector sell one of their treasures every year to pay the tax? Who do they sell it to? Another rich person?

      A wealth tax would mean no privacy at all. You want all your possessions and transactions to be reported so the government can decide how much of your property you are allowed to keep?

      Think about it. Is a complete loss of privacy a price you will be willing to pay so you can satiate your envy and hatred of those who are more successful than you?

      1. “”A wealth tax would mean no privacy at all. You want all your possessions and transactions to be reported so the government can decide how much of your property you are allowed to keep?””

        Feature, not a bug.

      2. A wealth tax would mean no privacy at all. You want all your possessions and transactions to be reported so the government can decide how much of your property you are allowed to keep?

        Your transactions are already reported. That’s why an income tax system also always creates some sort of a tax farming or banking system to channel all transaction thru that.

        A no – a classical liberal wealth tax is more like a wealth quitrent. Not as good as a land quitrent but we long ago apparently decided not to go down that path. And we no longer even understand what a quitrent actually is so we use the word/concept ‘tax’ instead. Which is what allows know-nothings to serve as useful idiots for those who know exactly how valuable paying that quitrent is

        1. Oh – and why shouldn’t possessions that are expected to potentially need adjudication by a court be known to that court ahead of time? This again is something you can’t remotely understand if you don’t understand quitrent v tax.

          1. Oh, look. You can pull out a word that you admit isn’t used anymore, and then say I’m doopid because I’m not familiar with it. That’s what is otherwise known as a cheap dodge.

            1. Agreed and apologies for that.

              Nevertheless – that notion of quitrent (and specifically the concept that failure to pay quitrent does not result in a forfeiture of the asset but a reversion back to a condition where the state/court no longer recognizes that asset as ‘yours’) is important.

              Actually a bit similar to the original notion around the same time of an ‘outlaw’. Courts didn’t often punish serious crimes themselves (except against the king who was paying for those courts). They merely declared someone ‘outside the protections of the law‘. So if anyone had a grudge – or just a foul temper – they could kill that outlaw and it would incur the same penalty from the court as killing a chipmunk. Outlaws usually didn’t live long. And the ones who did – who became ‘folk heroes’ -survived in large part by those actions that win friends/support/protection.

        2. My transactions are not reported. My income is, but not my wealth accumulation. I don’t report my home, vehicle, guns, electronics, furniture, investments, and everything else that I purchase. That’s wealth, dude. Wealth isn’t money, it’s stuff. To tax it effectively the government has to know what you’ve got before they can tell you how much of it to sell in order to pay your wealth tax.

          1. It doesn’t understand. It never will understand.

          2. I don’t report my home, vehicle, guns, electronics, furniture, investments, and everything else that I purchase.

            OK. So if they get stolen, on what basis does the insurance company compensate you? You give them some random inventory after the fact? And why then should the govt punish someone else for that theft – with bystanders paying for that – free of charge to you? I can assure you that absent that obligation of govt to publicize/punish ‘theft’ – and pay for that punishment — that that insurance would cost a fuckload more than it does.

            1. “So if they get stolen, on what basis does the insurance company compensate you?”

              That’s up to what’s in the policy detailing the agreement between the insured party and the insurance company.

              “And why then should the govt punish someone else for that theft – with bystanders paying for that – free of charge to you?”

              Why are you assuming that bystanders are paying for government police and court services, but the victim of the crime is not?

              1. That’s up to what’s in the policy detailing the agreement between the insured party and the insurance company.

                And why then should the govt (a third party) believe any of that – and punish other third-parties based solely on what two parties agree to? Why should the govt have its courts accept anything in that contract if the contract itself needs to be adjudicated when – say – the insurance company reneges on its coverage after ‘your’ stuff gets stolen?

                Why are you assuming that bystanders are paying for government police and court services, but the victim of the crime is not?

                Because those services are paid for by ‘everyone’. People who don’t have anything, people who don’t have any insurance on anything, etc. The FACT is that this perpetual attempt to get ‘someone else’ to pay for that service by trying to pretend that the sole issue is about the costs of providing that service is socialism for the wealthy. You don’t buy bread by dickering over the cost of the ingredients. You either pay the price – or you don’t. You don’t control the profits of the baker.

                And these two are also exactly how the notion of quitrent differs subtly from taxes.

                1. “And why then should the govt (a third party) believe any of that – and punish other third-parties based solely on what two parties agree to?”

                  Everybody is being taxed to provide a court system. Are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with using a service you’re forced to pay for?

                  “Because those services are paid for by ‘everyone’.”

                  Nice to see you’ve come around to understanding that using the court system is not free of charge.

                  Baby steps.

            2. OK. So if they get stolen, on what basis does the insurance company compensate you? You give them some random inventory after the fact?

              I can only assume you don’t have insurance, or you’d know how it works.

              free of charge to you?

              You saying I don’t pay taxes?

              Don’t you ever get tired of moving the goalposts?

              My point was that an income tax is intrusive enough, and a tax on wealth would make that intrusiveness look like nothing.

              Whatever.

            3. OK. So if they get stolen, on what basis does the insurance company compensate you? You give them some random inventory after the fact?

              Yes, that’s generally how insurance works.

              And why then should the govt punish someone else for that theft – with bystanders paying for that – free of charge to you? I can assure you that absent that obligation of govt to publicize/punish ‘theft’ – and pay for that punishment — that that insurance would cost a fuckload more than it does.

              My income tax doesn’t go towards law enforcement or punishment. And punishment is not an effective deterrent to burglaries since the vast majority of burglars are never caught. So to claim that my income tax lowers my insurance rates is absurd.

              Insurance companies don’t give discounts for nearby police; you know what they give discounts for? Private security systems and private security monitoring, stuff I have to pay for privately because government wastes my tax dollars on diversity programs and social engineering.

              1. Yes, that’s generally how insurance works.

                Sure it does. Why I’ve always enjoyed paying car insurance rates based on telling them I have a 30 yr old beater box and then when an accident happens presenting them with my real car a Bugatti Chiron.

                And hell I’m almost looking forward to having my Mona Lisa stolen cuz I’d really like to see a new painting on my wall and I’m sure the generic cheapest homeowners insurance company that I bought online will pay whatever I tell them to pay.

                1. Is it that you are too confused that you can’t keep track of your own comments, or are you deliberately shifting goalposts and think people are too stupid to notice? You were talking about home insurance and burglaries, in the context of a wealth tax and estimating total wealth. Your assumption was that people need to know their wealth in order to get insurance, and that’s just wrong.

                  Insurance companies don’t care about either your wealth or your inventory when you sign the contract. What they care about is the amount you want to insure for and the risk. Insurance companies are happy to write a $1M insurance contract for your “30yr old beater box” just like they are happy to write a $1000 insurance contract for your Bugatti Chiron. Insurance companies are also happy to write “replacement cost” contracts for either of those cars, in which case they don’t care about your inventory; all they care about is you being able to establish the loss after a loss occurs and the replacement cost after a loss occurs.

                  You really know nothing about insurance, home ownership, wealth, or personal property, do you?

        3. Still trying to peddle Georgist nonsense about land taxes I see.

    4. I would love to see a debate between one of these ‘trickle down’ libertarians

      “Trickle down” is an invention of the left; it doesn’t exist in economic theory.

      Libertarians don’t care about how money is trickling; we object to taxation as a matter of property rights and principle. The fact that libertarian policies also happens to enrich rich and poor alike is a nice side effect, not a justification.

      an actual classical liberal (not a fucking free lunch pol like warren) advocating a wealth tax along the lines that Switzerland has

      Classical liberals don’t advocate “wealth taxes”, and classical liberals don’t advocate taxes to feed the kind of massive redistribution scam that is called the US federal government.

      and to charge the wealthy for the boatload of govt services they currently get for free.

      What “boatload of government services”? High income earners and the wealthy pay absurd amounts of money for essentially no government services.

      The upper-middle can accumulate wealth (and thus start competing with the existing wealthy behind their rent-seeking moats) if they aren’t facing punitive marginal rates at the top.

      If you think that that’s the objective of Warren’s tax plan, you’re a fool.

      Absent that debate – I personally am ok with Warren getting elected and implementing that tax. Because at least that will then allow the subsequent debate to include that concept as part of ‘reforming the tax system’.

      If Warren gets elected, the stock market will crash. If she then persists in implementing her “wealth tax”, US companies will get snapped up by foreigners as US citizens have to sell more and more of their companies in order to comply with the tax. Many will not wait that long and simply leave. Many will probably simply not even pay the exit tax and leave for good, never to return.

      1. Classical liberals don’t advocate “wealth taxes”

        I would suggest you read Adam Smith. Or Ricardo. Or pretty much every classical economist. eg here’s Adam Smith

        Funding the judicial system:
        That fund might arise from the rent of landed estates,

        Funding public works (the model he prefers is China – or what he thinks he knows about China):
        In China, besides, in Indostan, and in several other governments of Asia, the revenue of the sovereign arises almost altogether from a land-tax or land-rent

        Funding military:
        The first duty of the sovereign, therefore, that of defending the society from the violence and injustice of other independent societies, grows gradually more and more expensive as the society advances in civilization. (he is using civilization as a combo of ‘opulence’, ‘wealth/surplus’ and ‘technology’). But it is the opulence/wealth that attracts bad guys to want to ransack it.

        1. The passages you quote have nothing to do with Warren’s wealth tax proposal. Adam Smith advocated a simple, predictable, flat rate on revenue.

          1. No he did not advocate a tax on ‘revenue’. He advocated a land-rent – with tolls/fees/etc covering a portion of the maintenance costs that depend on direct usage. Every other classical economist also preferred a tax on land or property as the primary ‘public finance’. Just as the better economists now will admit – when pushed to admit – that that sort of tax distorts behavior far less than taxes on consumption or income.

            EVERYTHING about our move to an income tax instead – including imo the elimination of land from neoclassical/marginalist economics – was done to ensure they could collect rent from their wealth and spread the burdens of taxes to others who can’t collect rent from what they do/own. Pure cronyist crap by the wealthy – which is exactly the economic concept that Reason peddles and calls ‘free markets’.

            1. He did advocate a tax on revenue; you need to actually read him. You are correct that he also believed that land taxes might be a good idea for funding government.

              None of that has anything to do with Warren’s wealth tax, which is what we are talking about here. We already have land taxes and they pay for government. Warren is advocating a tax on wealth other than land.

              So, stop lying and misrepresenting people. Either show where Adam Smith advocates a Warren-style wealth tax or stop claiming that he did so.

        2. JFree
          October.24.2019 at 6:40 pm
          “I would suggest you read Adam Smith. Or Ricardo. Or pretty much every classical economist….”

          I would suggest that you READ them also.

      2. If you think that that’s the objective of Warren’s tax plan, you’re a fool.

        What part of I really think Warren’s specific proposal is awful and her intentions are basically dishonest. confuses you as to what I think of Warren’s plan?

        1. What part of I really think Warren’s specific proposal is awful and her intentions are basically dishonest. confuses you as to what I think of Warren’s plan?

          Not at all. You have made it clear that your intentions are basically dishonest as well.

  27. How much ‘wealth’ is really just the present value of expected future cash flows?

    I can reasonably expect to make about $1M in the next decade. Should i pay taxes now as if i already have it (ignoring discounting)…even though i’m going to pay income taxes annually as it comes it?

  28. There already is a wealth tax: it is called property taxes. Everybody who owns a home or real estate, who owns a car or motorcycle, etc pays it.

    1. And those are assessed only at the local/state level, because the feds are not granted the power to enact a wealth tax.

      Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

      No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    2. Yes, the property tax is a type of wealth tax, as the latter is currently being discussed. It is why the huge mansions of the gilded age (vanderbilt, etc) had to be sold in the early part of the 20th century.

      However, property taxes are assessed on physical improvements to land, and are collected and spent by the local city or county government. The proposal of Warren is to tax paper wealth, which is easy to hide for the wealthy, not so for the middle class.

      1. Bare land with no improvements is also taxed.

  29. They do not mention the real issue, which is wages have been stagnant since the 80s, while the Billionaires have flourished since 1980. The middle class being strong in the 60s and 70s was what made this country great. And wage stagnation is the biggest reason that the middle class is rotting, while the wealthy have skyrocketed to astronomical proportions.

    1. And wage stagnation is the biggest reason that the middle class is rotting,

      The middle class isn’t rotting. The middle class is shrinking because many of its former members became upper class. Only the left believes this is a problem.

    2. Wage stagnation is a pointless measure. What matters is what the wages can buy. I don’t know about you, but from what I can see the poor and middle class are doing a lot better today than forty years ago. Technology is better and cheaper, food choices have dramatically expanded, air conditioning is the norm instead of a luxury, entertainment choices abound that weren’t even imagined decades ago, I could go on.
      You can always be nostalgic and throw away your phone, computer, flat screen, satellite dish, cheap air conditioner, cheap microwave, your healthy frozen dinners and produce from around the world, and live like those grand days before wage stagnation. Nobody’s stopping you.

    3. “They do not mention the real issue, which is wages have been stagnant since the 80s, while the Billionaires have flourished since 1980.”

      More bullshit ‘politics of envy’.
      Fuck off.

    4. They do not mention the real issue, which is wages have been stagnant since the 80s

      To the degree that that’s true, it’s the result of non-wage labor costs and inflationary policies, both the result of progressive policies.

      You want the middle class to succeed? Reduce the size of government, reduce taxation, reduce regulation.

  30. billionaires who decry billionaires should be desert-islanded on principle.

  31. Shocker! In related news, water is still wet. . . .

  32. “Bashing the rich may be good politics, but it’s terrible economics.”

    Bashing the rich is always a good idea.
    Just ask any progressive.
    Envy politics attracts economic illiterates like catnip does to felines.
    Just look how many morons follow Comrade Bernie.

    1. “Envy” Yep. That’s all it is alright. +1000

      1. ““Envy” Yep. That’s all it is alright.”

        And you proved it; thanks.
        Fuck off, slaver.

  33. Hey Democrats — I’ll support abolishing corporate tax write offs…

    I’ve never quite understood how it was fair that corporations could write-off everything they use but the working man cannot write off his house, food, car and everything else he “uses” to become a working man. After all; He has to pay for and “use” all those things to go to work. And we all know a lot of “corporate” write offs are used regularly and often purchased on a personal whim.

    If any corporation is buying $100B to do something how is that any different than working people buying things to do something?

    We should abolish corporate tax write-offs so those who spend $100 are taxed the same as those who spend $100M.

    Plus; I’m thinking individual taxes would become 1/100 of what they are today even though goods pricing will probably go up. At least it would be FAIR.

    1. TJJ2000
      October.24.2019 at 7:04 pm
      “Hey Democrats — I’ll support abolishing corporate tax write offs…
      I’ve never quite understood how it was fair that corporations could write-off everything they use but the working man cannot write off his house, food, car and everything else he “uses” to become a working man. After all; He has to pay for and “use” all those things to go to work. And we all know a lot of “corporate” write offs are used regularly and often purchased on a personal whim.”

      Did you show up to prove how stupid you are? Doing a good job, if so.
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Don’t you have anything better to do than JUST troll today?? Usually – you make some decent point. Now your just trolling.

    2. “I’ve never quite understood how it was fair that corporations could write-off everything they use but the working man cannot write off his house, food, car and everything else he “uses” to become a working man.”

      What do you think the personal exemption is for? It’s to compensate for the minimum cost of living. Once your income is higher than this exemption and you are spending above the minimum, you pay.

      1. Oh yeah… Excellent point which honestly I had totally overlooked.

        But… What’s the “minimum cost of operation” for corporations & business? No one knows for sure so everyone just dumps the total spending ledger on the sheet and calls it a “minimum”?

        Seems like a good incentive for businesses to purchase well beyond “minimum” business needs. It just doesn’t seem to be fair if individuals cannot do the same. Think the IRS would start indicting if everyone filed as a sole-proprietor and started writing off the TV, Cable, etc.. (dumping the spending ledger) as a “minimum” personal exemption?

  34. The way Antifa-Dem collectivists rehearsing as LP infiltrators hammer constantly on equality–never freedom v coercion–but always the collectivized equality one only finds in a cemetery. That and the methods they choose, that invariably require men with guns following orders from politicians to shoot any who defy those orders. That death is their standard of value seemed so horrible and ugly that Americans recoiled from the thought–and from the NAP formulated during Nuremberg sentencing. But the people in Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Ukraine remembered, understood, and acted. Even American voters are beginning to understand.

    1. Do you Inforwars morons feel a slight sizzle in your brains whenever you spew this alien, nonsensical horseshit? Antifa? How a person can spend his days reading right-wing conspiracy bullshit is beyond me. It must make you absolutely fucking crazy. The world must seem like a very strange place to you.

      1. It’s pretty obvious that there is a widespread efforts by leftists to destroy liberalism and libertarianism, among other things by simply (and falsely) claiming that they are “liberal” and giving people freedom.

        You’re doing it. I don’t think you’re part of a conspiracy, I think you and others really are stupid enough to fall for that mass delusion called “socialism” and “social justice”.

        1. I thought the mass delusion we believed in was science.

          1. leftist science = mass delusion…

            OMG!! The butt hole needs a poke. The temperature changed by 0.0003F this year and satin worshiping humans did it. Stealing is a human right; not a crime. The U.S. Constitution is worthless.

            See, see LOOK!!! Regionally Cherry-picked statistics (epidemiological) “guessing science” proves it!!!

  35. Of course if you raise taxes cost of living goes up. Who do they think it hurts the most at the cash register? But not one ever talks of making government crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payers money. So screw them!!!!

Please to post comments