No, we have a capital gains tax.Ian wrote:CES - Would a capital gains tax be "something that is radically different and has never before existed in the US"?
What I said would be radical would be to tax "wealth." Someone could have a very high net worth and a very low income -- because, say, he or she worked his or her whole life, paid taxes and saved money, and lived in a house which appreciated greatly in value. Your reference to wealth is what I was referring to. We tax income.
Income and wealth are not the same thing. The tax rates DO go up for the people that make more money. Fuck the fuck off with this "I'll bet you're smart enough to realize it." I bet you're smart enough to know you're wrong when you say that tax rates aren't higher for people who make more money. They do. And, so do effective tax rates.Ian wrote:
Please, nothing about what I wrote is radical. Yes, we tax income - and what you wrote only emphasizes how disproportional wealth is really distributed in the US. Those tax rates should go up for everybody, especially those at the top. They're undertaxed now, and I'll bet you're smart enough to realize it.
Undertaxed? How so?
Now you not only want tax rates on the top earners to go up? You want the middle class to pay more too?
Well, I will say, in principle, I have no objection to adjusting tax rates up or down, depending on revenue needs. What I want is also real reform in entitlement spending and real spending reductions across the board. I would include in those reductions also military, defense, intelligence, and any other area of spending. Nothing is off the table. I think our government overspends, and I bet you're smart enough to realize it.
Actually, I wouldn't have to go back to pre-Civil War times, as we only had an income tax in the 1860s to pay for the Civil War, and it was done away with completely in 1868. It briefly came back about 25 years later and was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The 16th Amendment in 1913 changed that.Ian wrote:
Unless of course you're suggesting that progressive tax is a bad idea, in which case you would be the radical. You'd have to go back to the pre-Civil War days for an example of a time when we didn't have it.
But, I haven't suggested that a progressive tax is a bad idea. We HAVE a progressive income tax system. The question is, if it should be adjusted, what should it be adjusted to?
What I did suggest was that measuring income tax based on wealth is not appropriate. If I have a high net worth because my home value went up, I shouldn't have to pay more tax on my total income. I should have to pay tax when I realize the gain on my house. And, if I saved a lot of money over my life, and paid taxes on the money when I earned it, the fact that I'm in my 50s or 60s and save a million dollars shouldn't mean I have to pay a higher rate on income I earn. I already paid the taxes on the money I earned and saved.
The constant harangue of "pay their fair share" and all that is tiresome and juvenile. Fine. The tax rates need to be adjusted. Give us your proposed numbers and let's take a look at them. And, then let's ALSO take a look at what is going to be cut. And, if the answer is -- raise taxes now and we'll look at cutting later, then I'm against it. I know the cuts won't come. If the can gets kicked down the road even a little bit, the politicians will move on to something else in the interim.
Not a dime more in taxes until the fuckers stop wasting the money we already give them.
