madhatter wrote:you said you want to use net worth, not income to decide who is "wealthy"...how do you apply that to income tax?
I already said it. Basically, don't set the top rates too high, because high earners aren't necessarily wealthy.
madhatter wrote: or do you only want an estate tax?
No, never said that.
madhatter wrote: what % of the population do you imagine actually has a taxable estate? or even a positive net worth from which to extract?
No idea, as I haven't done that research. Not sure why it's relevant.
madhatter wrote: you said you would rather pay out of your estate at the end of life than throughout life via income tax...in what fantasy world does that work?
I would, and I never said that's how it worked. But every dollar paid in estate tax for each budget year is a dollar less that has to come from other forms of taxation, right? Without an estate tax, we'd either have to cut the budget by the amount the estate tax brings in, or we'd have to increase other taxes to compensate. I mean it's just math. Estate taxes to me are preferable to income tax. Why is that a fantasy?
We can get into a long discussion about how people try to avoid the estate tax. There's an entire business built on it (estate planning attorneys, etc). But that's not really the subject of discussion. Yes, I agree, estate taxes aren't always very effective because people try to avoid them. So what? That means you just get rid of them? Or how about you try to figure out ways to make it more effective? (as the government already has, by imposing gift taxes, for example).
madhatter wrote:you tax income progressively. Three, you make sure the top rate is not so regressive that people are reluctant or unable to earn more than a certain amount.
a rate which you have placed at 50% or greater... Meanwhile people are bitching about 36% and finding any and every way around it, but somehow you think it won;t be regressive at 50%?
We can argue about where the top rate should be but I don't think 50% is necessarily regressive. As I said previously, the top rate used to be around 70% when Regan was around, and that was definitely regressive. But that's not really at issue, because the top rate right now before Trump lowered it was only 39.6%. I don't think that rate was regressive at all.
madhatter wrote:you want an estate tax that takes HALF of ones life savings and accumulation, yet you don't think that's politics of envy or that people will simply make sure they aren't in possession of ANYTHING when they die...
I don't really care what you want to label it. Call it politics of envy, call it theft, it doesn't really matter to me. I'd rather see a world where bill gates dies with 50 billion and half that money goes to finance the government, and his relatives can get half, than a world where his relatives get to keep the whole thing and we have to try to pay for government a different way. By the way, the current federal estate tax is 40%, so 50% really isn't that far off.
Remember, we're not talking about an estate tax applicable to people who have middle class estates. The federal estate tax excludes like the first $11 million of a person's estate. But I've already discussed at length how I feel about the estate tax and why. I'm not sure why you feel the need to regurgitate.
madhatter wrote:finally you start from the position that trump is an idiot barely capable of anything and that he was handed life on a silver platter otherwise he'd be a loser, but yer not envious...you simply make a lot of emotion based assumptions that have no basis in reality...
I think you're overstating my point, but again, questioning trump's qualifications for holding public office has nothing to do with envy. It has to do with whether I think he is qualified to hold office. I happen to think he's not qualified. But I don't see what is emotional about it.
madhatter wrote:you keep regurgitating the same unworkable points...it's like arguing with a child...
Yeah. What's that like.