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. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't think you're going to have a hard time winning over the majority of this board.
     
  2. mb

    mb Active Member

    My own damn possibly-not-that-informed opinion: Just as the cheats will nearly always be two steps ahead of the testers, the crazy rich will almost always be two steps ahead of the tax man.
     
  3. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    Exactly. I hope someday to have enough money to be able to hire people whose job it is to make sure I don't have to pay my fair share. The tax code, like history, is written by the winners.
     
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Just get it over with and monetize the debt.
     
  5. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Already taken care of.
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Fixed.
     
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I wonder who was responsible for dismantling the Estate Tax - or "Death Tax" as it's more popularly known these days.
     
  8. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    For all the people advocating a wealth tax, you realize there's no way in hell it gets limited to the super-rich, right? And the Feds never give back, they only take, so it'd likely be added to the existing income tax?
    For the sake of argument and easy math, let's say the Feds impose a 10 percent tax on wealth.
    That means your modest $80,000 home now lands you an $8,000 bill on April 15.
    The 3-year-old car that blue books for $10,000? That's another $1,000.
    Any kinds of savings, retirement accounts, investments? More, please.

    Anything that gives the federal government more permission to pick my pocket is not a good thing. They're a cross between your skeevy alcoholic cousin and the homeless guy at the gas station who asks for "gas money" when he hasn't owned a car in 20 years.
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    For the purposes of this discussion, I thought we were kicking around the idea of a wealth tax that begins after $5 million in assets -- the hypothetical was that a person with $5.7 million would pay an extra $7,000 as that is 1 percent of the portion over $5M. But yes, if your scenario plays out, that changes things pretty dramatically, mostly because that portion of assets isn't really "wealth" in the first place.
     
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Not to mention, the guy making $5.7 million isn't going to miss the $570K. The guy with the $80K home sure as hell is going to miss the $8K.
     
  11. Mr. Sluggo

    Mr. Sluggo Active Member

    I'm with those who propose eliminating income and payroll taxes and going with a Federal property tax instead.
     
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I just think a "wealth tax" is the logical conclusion to the idea that we should "tax the rich". It fulfills all of he slogans from, "the rich should pay their 'fair share,'" to, "to whom much is given, much is expected."

    And, if billionaires who support higher taxes for the rich and always tell us how they're willing to pay more were intellectually honest, this is what they'd be advocating for.

    But, they're like everyone else. They want to keep their money. And, they clearly think they can spend it better than the Federal Government.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page