1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mark Zuckerberg and the case for a wealth tax

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Feb 10, 2012.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Someone else realizes that if you want to "tax the rich" you have to go after wealth, not income:

    Can't wait to see how many limousine liberals jump on board with this proposal.
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    There might be more support for that than you think. (My limousine is in the shop, I should note.) The drawback is that it sounds like a good way to add another 500 pages to the tax code on how to assess homes and other property, retirement (tax-deferred) accounts vs. regular brokerage, and a million other considerations for unrealized income.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I don't drive a limousine, I drive a Bentley. Just ask Alma.

    YGBFKM Guest

    I'm all for punishing people who make more money than I do. It makes me feel good, and that's what's really important.
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Baron just got a woody.
  6. Bamadog

    Bamadog Well-Known Member

    It always starts out as just a little off the top and then the skimmers start skimming off more and more and more. Once you let that camel under the tent...

    All of this is rooted in envy. Nothing more. News flash: some rich guy making less doesn't suddenly mean you make more. If the government stole all of the wealth of the one-percenters, it wouldn't move the debt meter a quarter of an inch. Entitlement reform is a must. Means testing. Private accounts. Market-based reforms.
  7. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    Yes, privatizing Social Security is the answer to this country's woes.

    Jesus, I figured you 29 percenters would shut up eventually. I guess you have no shame.
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Never disturb the rich. They are better than you and me.
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Now this I do agree with -- to a point. To get out of this debt picture, everyone's taxes will eventually go up. OTOH the tax cuts of 2001 blew a hole in our federal budget, and the benefits of those went overwhelmingly to the rich, and there is still a fight to preserve those benefits for the rich under the lie of job creation.
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    There's no rate high enough to tax income and get out of this mess.

    Now, if you taxed "wealth" you could raise all the money needed.

    And, if we're always framing the argument in terms of the "rich" should pay more, then shouldn't we be going after the generational wealth that's been piling up?
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Isn't that what the Estate Tax was for? And to a lesser extent, the Capital Gains tax?
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    And yet, Steve Jobs was able to pass along billions of dollars worth of stock without any tax being assessed.

    And, Warren Buffett has spent decades ensuring the federal government doesn't get its mitts on his wealth when he passes.

    No Kennedy as earned a dime in three generations, yet they are all worth 100's of millions of dollars.

    I'm just surprised more people aren't gravitating to a wealth tax -- even some sort of "one time" wealth tax. There was a lot of clamoring for "windfall profits taxes" on oil companies and the like.

    They just made too much money. They don't need it all.

    Well, if the "rich" have too much money, go and get it.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page