Well the thread title is a little loose with the language but in the original post it mention income taxes and transaction taxes To my knowledge there aren't general wealth taxes.
This talking point is almost never true, but the limbaugh wingnut crowd keeps repeating it like drunken lemurs. You know, it's an even worse argument now. After watching the economy collapse due to a bevy of horridly run private corporations, I can only laugh at the non-qualitative and borderline mythical rant of "government inefficiency".
Wealth taxes are in the form of propert taxes, and at least in the case of Georgia, corporations are subject to a net worth tax. So they do exist on the state/local level.
True there are things like property taxes that are essentially wealth taxes but I don't think there are any proposals on the Federal level for a wealth tax to deal with spending or the deficit.
I remember that too and there is a lot of truth to the aspirational nature of preserving the tax structure. At the sametime Marx also said that the bourgeois who were ruined by the market will become the leaders of the socialists.
Estate tax is a transactional tax as you are taxing the transfer of capital. That is different from something like a property tax where whether you do anything with the property you are taxed for its value yearly.
I don't think they would do wealth taxes at the corporate level. I hate those kind of taxes so much. Pay income tax on your money earned, pay sales tax when you buy something, then get taxed every year you own it. I'm glad the feds don't do any wealth taxing.
I was responding to the term "Wealth tax" which is what an estate tax generally is considering (for the most part) only those wealthy will (or may) be hit with it. I would argue that it is not a transactional tax as the transfer of capital is not taxed. The estate is taxed before any transfer is made. If an estate tax is to exist, I'd rather see the recipients have to pay tax (if any) than the estate.
Taking it that way I see what you mean. I was referring to "wealth" in terms of assets that isn't liquid but has a value, ie things like property and stocks. For Federal taxes I haven't seen those things taxed accept for income gained from them, such as renting and dividends, or income gained from liquidating them. Actually the recipients do pay since the person who the estate belonged to is dead. It is the heirs who bear the tax since they get less of the estate. This is a transactional tax since theoretically if you never died you would never have to pass on the estate and avoid the tax. I have never quite understood the argument against the estate tax that you (the one passing on) are being taxed since you're dead and as the saying goes "you can't take it with you."
Yeah, I agree it is enough, but depending on where you live it might not be rich. But you are making the argument easier for the opponents.
The main argument is that most folks have worked their entire lives for that money. They have paid their share of income taxes on that money and they would like to be able to pass that along to whatever heirs they choose without additional money being taxed. An argument that is used all too frequently (in comparison to how rarely it probably occurs) is the tax on property that you hand down. For example, the family farm. The estate has to come up with the cash to cover the tax on property.
I don't think so. If anything my breakdown of 10k cleared a month makes the actual planned tax increases look reasonable. And I think it's important to actually look at these income levels so people can't hide behind generalizations. But look at it this way - let's say we concede that 150-175k isn't rich, even though that's in the top 5% of all income levels. 250k isn't? Top 3%? I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that isn't rich. Yes, cost of living is different but income levels are also different. Someone making 70k in a rural area is rich because the cost of living is so low. So that evens out.
I understand what you are saying about it evening out, but the argument will always come up about home prices and cost of living and examples of why that isn't enough money to be considered wealthy.
I agree it is nice that you want to leave something for your heirs but you are dead so you aren't being taxed. Yes you're worked all your life and paid your taxes but once you're gone you're gone. Yes the money for paying the tax comes from the estate but again if you never die there will be no tax. Once you are dead though it is up to your heirs to pay that is predicated on the transfer of wealth from the deceased to the heirs.
Hayes, we don't need to "concede" that 150-175k isn't rich, because if you're living in San Francisco or New York, that salary range is chump change. In Texas, it is a very good living, but I still wouldn't call that rich. Upper middle class? Sure. Oh, and in case no one has mentioned it yet, they really need a permanent fix to the AMT. Some of us would be affected by the return of taxation based on data and reasons several decades old. Glad you're back!
Thanks. I already addressed the location argument. You can be materially wealthy with much less in low cost areas. It's also why salaries are adjusted. You don't make the same in Atlanta as you do in San Francisco. The question IS "what is rich?" I say if you clear 10k a month you can deal with whatever material needs you are confronted with. I call that rich. In any given month you could buy a nicer car or house if you don't have one yet, you can shop at wholefoods instead of heb (yes, some of the heb's are nice), you can pay your bills and put money aside for retirement, you can eat at the airport! without spending your whole vacation budget , you can buy your kid a car when they turn 16, send them to summer camp. You aren't uber-rich. You don't have a yacht, or an island. But you're rich IMO. btw: i'm in this category and i understand why taxes need to go up. I'd prefer it go on the 1% but i'll do my part if necessary. i just think if you're a true capitalist then you can just do both - make more and contribute more. Everybody wins.
