(03-28-2022 06:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 06:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

What exactly is 'unrealized income'? Or, are you conflating 'income' with paper capital gains/losses (which, it specifically is not at all in the slightest....)

I know that you know that I am clearly talking about unrealized gains, which are supposed to be included in Biden’s tax…

I saved a few words and you’re jumping around like “I got him!”

Lol. Embarrassing.

Tanq speaks of unrealized capital gains, lad talks about unrealized gains.

Words matter - Joe Biden

Unrealized gains of any kind should never be taxed