re: Would you be in favor of this wealth tax?

quote:

---

Would you be in favor of this wealth tax?

---

no.
If parents want to give thier kids a financial headstart, let them pay for themselves like the rest of us. If private donors want to supply the seed money then let them do it, taxpayers shouldnt be on the hook for this. At some point that money will end up anywhere and everywhere except for where it was destined, too much corruption in the govt. to even consider it.

quote:

---

All these people opposing your idea as if they are future billionaires.

---

I’ve been around long enough to know that a 1% tax on billionaires today will be a 25% tax on everybody in 50 years.

The answer is no.

If marxists provided an opt out, they’d see more ideas implemented. But they always have their plans forced on people and backed by threats. Evade SS withholding? Jailed and/or fined. Don’t sign up for health insurance? Fined, until the mandate was rightfully tossed.

quote:

---

I'll agree with you to the extent that trickle down economics is a joke

---

Right. A joke indeed. Yet, you continue to try to produce articles on "trickle down" which provide no definition, no economic construct, no rationale, nothing except a derisive name.

Try this, in your usage of the term "trickle down," differentiate "trickle down" with economic capitalism. Show your work.

The problem with the idiotic article you just linked is that it presumes incorrectly, a stagnation of income in lower wage groups, as upper wage groups capture more and more income. It is a mistaken equation in which any economic growth, including disproportionate growth in lower wage sets, perpetuates income inequality. The pretext holds that an increase of 20% in lower income wages with an increase of 5% in upper income wages creates inequity.

Example:
An individual making $50,000 a year has his income increased by 20% up to $60,000.
The second individual making $1 million a year as his income increase by 5% to $1,050,000.
The original income spread ($50,000 versus $1 million) was $950,000.

The new income spread is $60,000 versus $1,050,000. The resulting income spread worsens inequality with a new income spread of $990,000. So if lessening of inequality is the goal, policies increasing the lower income at 20% versus upper income at 5% is a failure.
By your measure, stagnation would be the better option, sticking the lower income individual with $50,000 a year. That's why those screaming "trickle down!" are ridiculous.

Further, such an economic premise holds investment and savings as anathema.

Example:
Two individuals begin a 10 year period with equal earnings at $100,000/yr. The first spends his money paycheck to paycheck with no savings. The second puts back $10,000 a year, and lives off the residual. At the end of the 10 years, the first fellow is still making his $100,000 a year. The second is making $120,000 a year. From there the spread will only continue creating more "income inequity" along with spastic conniptions about "trickle down"

Further still, savings and investment produce monetary fungibility. Fungibility means that assets can be moved to where they'll be most productive. Again worsening "income inequity."

In each of those instances, nitwits, like the ones that you've cited, lament the situations as "trickle down" effects, because they are either too lazy or too stupid or both to examine the actual economics at play.

quote:

---

I oppose capitalism

---

Res ipsa loquitur.

quote:

---

My only opposition to it, as it is with most tax proposals, is simply that I don't trust the government to use the money properly. In a vacuum, taxes are for the common good and get spent wisely and efficiently. However, the vacuum doesn't exist in a real life application.

---

This is my point.. the gov wouldn’t even have the chance to use it badly because it would go directly into these accts

quote:

---

BS. Pure bullshat.
---

Don't believe me.
But you should believe the study done by the London School of Economics.

---

Why should we believe the "BS. Pure bullshat." study done by the London School of Economics?

Look, this isn't that effing complicated for a thinking human. High GINI coefficient countries generally outperform socialistic lower GINI countries in terms of GDP and wage growth. PERIOD!