(03-28-2022 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2022 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-27-2022 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2022 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  They way I read it, is that the tax is not on wealth. It says 'if you are worth over X, then your tax rate on whatever source of income shall be a minimum of 20%'.

I think Warren's idea is a huge disincentive to investment, tbh.

There is a very real reason why there is a differentiation between capital gains rates and normal income rates.

The entire issue is underpinned by that differentiation.

But Warren and the other morons who think the tax system is a big enabler to redistribution either dont understand that, or are so caught up in the redistribution process and the acceleration of class envy that they dont care.

That’s how I read it too - hence to connection to statements advocating that everyone have some skin in the game in terms of federal taxes. It’s the same principle, but it’s been scaled up.

Where do you see the disincentive to investment happening? Are you thinking it would encourage those above the specific bracket to move funds away from business and into liquid assets? Or something else? I just don’t immediately see what change in behavior this would have in respect to investment behavior.

How do you figure this is a 'everyone has skin in the game' issue?

Income tax always has been, and should be, an 'accession to wealth' issue. I dont think you have thought through the underlying issues when it comes to the interactions of capital gains, depreciation, pass through loss, or any number of very relevant issues in your blanket label there, tbh.

But please answer my question above. The issue isnt a 'everyone has skin in the game', the only issue is that progressives are continuously pissed off at the whole idea of distinction between income taxes on capital gains and income taxes on ordinary income.

The issue isnt 'everyone has skin in the game', currently everyone who has an accession to wealth already has 'skin in the game', notwithstanding your characterization above. That is everyone *except* the 57% who dont pay income taxes whatsoever.

So, with all due respect, please cut with the rhetoric, especially when it is not very accurate. The issue is singular -- in progressive minds people who have more assets should shoulder even more responsibility than they already do. Again, your characterization is inaccurate, and it might be best if you ditch it.

I very well haven't thought through all of those issues - hence why I asked the question and proactively said "I just don't immediately see..."

I related this to "everyone has skin in the game" because it's the same idea - setting a base level of skin that people must have in the game. For people making under $X it's >0%, for people making over $Y it's >20%. Hence the "it's the same principle, but it's been scaled up."

You clearly are misinterpreting my comment when you say I'm trying to characterize wealthy individuals as not having skin in the game - I didn't come close to doing that. I said this was the same principle. But don't let words get in the way of you doubling down on being rude when it's really not necessary, in the slightest. Hell, I even agree with you that progressive minds agree that people who have more assets should shoulder even more responsibility than they already do (which is completely in line with my comments above that you misunderstood). I've always taken issue with the liberal/progressive line of the wealthy "paying their fair share" because they already do foot a lot of the bill. But I don't personally have a problem with a policy that clearly asks them to shoulder more responsibility. Like Uncle Ben said, "with great power comes great responsibility."

But not unlimited responsibility. Left wing tax policy is to always tax the wealthier more, and more and more... (they need to pay their fair share!) At some point the goose stops laying the golden eggs.

Wen it comes to Federal tax policy, only people who pay Federal income taxes have skin in the game. You and me, for example. Not the guy who pays zero and complains because poor people making under $80K shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

Under the Fair tax, everybody has skin in the game. Some more than others, but even a .1% increase in the tax rate will provoke discussion and debate...from everybody, since everybody will be affected. Is that not preferable to only a limited few being concerned?

I agree that at some point the goose stops laying the golden eggs - the questions is where that is exactly. There is clearly a sweet spot between taxing the wealthiest individuals at 0% and 100% of their income (in this case, real or unrealized). I would argue that requiring a minimum % be paid that is equal to the same percent that others pay is unlikely to be the point at which the golden eggs stop being laid.