Why is it so hard to tax the rich?

@AverageJoe1 said
The founding father George Washington owned about 4000 acres and a Mount Vernon Mansion , and no one ever asked him for any money, but look what the world of America has done in the last 250 years…………………………… they did not need his money..

Looks like they had Rich guys back there, but nobody was beating them to death for their success. Actually, they left them alone so t ...[text shortened]... w why it is important to you how much money someone else makes . you certainly have never told us.

Just because you have wealth does not disqualify you from office, obviously. But there should be no influence of an individual's wealth on political decision making.

That's what the founding fathers agreed on. The monarchy was problematic because it decision making was done among groups of wealthy people who didn't earn it and made decisions that entrenched their own interests.

Few people want to be wage earners only. All people can and should have a stake in the capitalist enterprise, but that has over time shrunk to a fewer and fewer percentage of the people. It has shrunk not because poor people are lazy and don't want to invest, it has shrunk because the rules have been set up to entrench wealth among those who already have it.

The founding fathers would be appalled and they would undoubtedly favor heavy taxes on the wealthy if they were to cast their eyes on our current situation.

@vivify said
The rich have those too but their wealth helps bury those snakes better than others could.

This is how Trump was able to bury cheating on his wife with a porn star during the campaign.

Post Citizens United, the 1 Percent's advantage in elections has grown exponentially.

Yeah. Trump did way worse than Platner. So did Matt Gaetz. So did Ken Paxton, who will likely become a senator this year. Part of that problem is that Democrats aren't willing to forgive someone's past life mistakes, and that Republicans are only willing to forgive someone for past life mistakes if they are running as a Republican.

@Metal-Brain said
Because we live in a plutocracy and an oligarchy. Both parties are controlled by the wealthy and serve the wealthy. Neither will raise taxes on the rich. Both are controlled by the rich.

You have been divided and conquered. You only blame one party. That is what the rich want. They want republicans and democrats fighting each other instead of them. Both are ignoring their common enemy, the super wealthy. See how well it works?

Technically, we live in a democracy. So the parts are in place to tax the rich and cast out the oligarchs. Those parts are not working.

Maybe a McCain style campaign finance reform effort would help.

Maybe a return to progressive taxation of income will help.

Maybe we see what happens in California with the wealth tax, that might help.

Maybe we just raise the capital gains tax to match regular income, that might help.

These are things that aren't being done, but certainly they can be done.

@Rajk999 said
Its hard for you to understand because you are in the minority. Very few Americans are that desperate and obsessed with the rich. Lazy people who think they are entitled to get live off others are not as common as you think. Americans are mostly happy with their life, so you wont get much support.

If two people are racing all-out towards a big-money prize, sprinting, flying, gritting, grinding, diving and dazing towards the finish line, both working as hard as they possibly can, with each one's competitive spirit buoying the performance of the other....

In the end one person wins. They get the Skittles. They did better than the other people who were competing in the same race.

No one in the race was lazy, no one was entitled, no one thought that they were being cheated, the majority just lost.

In a capitalist system, the winners make sure the losers still have food and can train and can continue to contribute, because if we do that then the competitive spirit remains alive. If we don't do that, the losers stop competing.

The system we have now rewards the winners by declaring that they no longer need to pay taxes anymore, and the rest of us have to foot their tax bill. It's backwards and counterproductive, while contributing to wealth disparity.

Nothing to do with laziness at all.

@wildgrass said
Technically, we live in a democracy. So the parts are in place to tax the rich and cast out the oligarchs. Those parts are not working.

Maybe a McCain style campaign finance reform effort would help.

Maybe a return to progressive taxation of income will help.

Maybe we see what happens in California with the wealth tax, that might help.

Maybe we just raise the ca ...[text shortened]... income, that might help.

These are things that aren't being done, but certainly they can be done.

Democracy here is a farce. People vote for who they hear the most about on the corporate news media. Owned by the elites. You vote for one of the 2. The 2 they gave you a choice for.

@wildgrass said
Warren Buffett once noted that he pays less in taxes than his own secretary, whic is morally wrong. Here's how it should work:
[quote]Let the engine of capitalism roar and then have the winners compensate the losers. By taking care of those who lose out in the free-market melee, the winners ensure the losers won’t want to destroy the system. What’s more, taxing the wealthy ...[text shortened]... mand almost all the power of influence but they still only get one vote.

RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!

vote them out?

Trump is trying to get fair elections but you libs are fighting against him tooth and nail.

which way do you want it?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
vote them out?

Trump is trying to get fair elections but you libs are fighting against him tooth and nail.

which way do you want it?

What are you talking about the SAVE act? People are against that because it's dumb and redundant, gums up a working system, and doesn't solve any existing problems.

Its stated goal is to make sure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections. That is already the law, and it is already being enforced. Noncitizen voting has been a federal crime since 1996, carrying serious penalties including fines, imprisonment, and deportation, and there is no evidence that voter fraud of this type has ever led to the wrong candidate being elected. What the SAVE Act would do is add a new layer of documentation requirements on top of a verification system that is already in place and working.

@Metal-Brain said
Democracy here is a farce. People vote for who they hear the most about on the corporate news media. Owned by the elites. You vote for one of the 2. The 2 they gave you a choice for.

My ballot always has a line for a write-in candidate.

I'm in favor of adding new political parties though. The more the merrier. It appears that the GOP is on its deathbed, maybe we can get a real conservative party to replace it.

@wildgrass said
Warren Buffett once noted that he pays less in taxes than his own secretary, whic is morally wrong. Here's how it should work:
[quote]Let the engine of capitalism roar and then have the winners compensate the losers. By taking care of those who lose out in the free-market melee, the winners ensure the losers won’t want to destroy the system. What’s more, taxing the wealthy ...[text shortened]... mand almost all the power of influence but they still only get one vote.

RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!

musk is set to spend like 250 million dollars in the midterms.


that's your answer.

@Phranny said
Taxing the rich is complex. Many, if not most or all, billionaires have no income and therefore pay no federal income tax. Their investments are difficult to tax because the money cannot actually be spent until they sell investments. Stocks swing throughout the day so it's difficult to tax stock investments. Plus, you don't want to hurt the run of the mill rich with just a fe ...[text shortened]... estments in this manner in order to avoid selling stocks which would incur income and thus taxation.

I don’t disagree with about anything you have said, as we all know that the Tax structure and the tax policies could use some changing. I guess the most egregious thing is that I could have a lot of Stock, and use the Stock as collateral, for Money that I would borrow, and with that borrowed money, I would invest and make myself richer. The problem is that No Tax is due on money that I receive as the loan. That just ain’t right!!!!
Maybe a way to solve that is to ban “collateralized” borrowing, level the field.

My suggestion: Challenge the idea that banning collateralized borrowing is a complete solution, rather than dismissing it outright. Should the weakness be addressed through capital gains reform, inheritance taxation, a wealth tax, or some combination of approaches.
Combination, I guess.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
vote them out?

Trump is trying to get fair elections but you libs are fighting against him tooth and nail.

which way do you want it?

I know Marauder, for one, wants the voting playing-field to NOT be level. That’s just great. An actual non-patriot in our midst.
We know which way Marauder wants it.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
vote them out?

Trump is trying to get fair elections but you libs are fighting against him tooth and nail.

which way do you want it?

" trump want's fair elections" funniest thing i've read 😆 😆 😆

@wildgrass said
Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are collected in order to carry out the legislative agenda set by Congress.

Think Medicare, Social Security and the Defense Department. That's the majority of the legislative agenda.

Someone needs to be taxed to pay for these things. It's not a punishment, just a reality.

Taxes aren't punishment; the definition would be how a society finances its collective obligations. The legitimate debate is how that burden should be distributed and whether people who derive most of their economic gains from appreciating assets should be taxed differently from people who earn wages.
. Your fellas never seem to respect how the successful have invested and risked so much to creating tremendous productivity and prosperity in the United States. .
Likewise, someone can reasonably oppose a particular tax because of concerns about investment, economic growth, fairness, or government spending without believing that taxation itself is punishment.
I would think that you would keep yourargument focused on tax design, effective tax rates, and the distribution of the tax burden, rather than on you’reresentment toward successful people.

@YEAH-BOY said
" trump want's fair elections" funniest thing i've read 😆 😆 😆

What do you think marauder is funny to say that he does not think people need to show a photo ID at a voting booth to prove who they are?
I don’t think that’s very funny at all.
Do you think that is funny.
You agree with him? It is time for you to stand up since you just jumped into this one.

@AverageJoe1 said
What do you think marauder is funny to say that he does not think people need to show a photo ID at a voting booth to prove who they are?
I don’t think that’s very funny at all.
Do you think that is funny.
You agree with him? It is time for you to stand up since you just jumped into this one.

Don't put words in my mouth. I mentioned nothing about showing an ID to vote. Your famous for twisting peoples words So STFU. i replied to muuts saying trump want fair elections. Get it straight. By the way the save act is DEAD as it should be and don't tell me what to do.