DUmmies Discuss Their Envy Of Wealth

[GOBUCKS]

DUmmy Hugabear has a brainstorm on how to confiscate wealth. He isn't satisfied that income tax, capital gains taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, and the death tax penalize success severely enough:

Hugabear (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:10 PM
Original message
Income tax is not enough, we need to tax the assets of the wealthy
We all know that there are all sorts of methods that the wealthy and large corporations have of lowering their tax burden, plenty of loopholes that exist to shelter their massive wealth. How about, rather than merely going after their income, taxing their overall wealth? Tax what they're worth, not just how much they've made in any given year. Technically, a billionaire could stop earning money and not have to pay any more taxes for the rest of his life, simply living on what he's already accumulated. Set an arbitrary amount - could be ten million, fifty million, hundred million - and then anybody who is worth that much and over, pays a tax based on their overall worth. That includes their monetary wealth, properties, stock holdings, etc.

 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7497982
We could call it the confiscation tax. The mulattassiah could make it the centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.


A few of his fellow DUmmies have also not heard of property nor death taxes:

slackmaster  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Please cite the Constitutional basis for your suggestion
What part of the Constitution do you believe gives the federal government the power to do that?

 

DrDan  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. ridiculous 
so you support the continued taxing of the same assets year over year over year.

Don't you think that is a bit over-the-top?
Tax their new wealth - once. That is fair.

 


Existing taxes just aren't enough to satisfy DUmmy Hugabear's envy and jealousy:

Hugabear (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. For the richest of the rich, sure.
I don't have a problem with it.

DUmmy DJnumbers is obviously a deadbeat who doesn't understand the difference between capital gains and investment income:

DJ13 (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. No, most pay capital gains taxes on investment income
That is (still) only 15%.

Not one DUmmy chimes in to explain that capital gains and investment income are as different as cats and dogs. Probably because almost no DUmmies have either.


A lousy freeper troll:

treestar  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-18-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. There is a capital gains tax
Not to sound too much like a right winger, but no worries. They don't keep it under a mattress. If they invest it in stocks then the companies are running and paying their workers.

DUmmy sharesunited gets down to brass tacks - the heart of the democrat party - communism:

sharesunited (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, the answer is government owned enterprise. Profits are taxed at 100 per cent.
Start new businesses. Employ people. Give the private sector some real competition.

 

[Texacon]

Gawd those people hate success.  I wish a multimillion dollar job on each and every one.

KC

[Chris_]

The problem with the DUmbasses is their definition of wealthy changes by the week.  They just want.  Greedy shits.

 mulattassiah

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!   OMG, I peed my pants !!!

[JohnnyReb]

If the government took all the wealth in the country and divided it up equally amongst everyone, in 6 months the DUmmies would be broke again and the rich on their way to rich again.

[Texacon]

If the government took all the wealth in the country and divided it up equally amongst everyone, in 6 months the DUmmies would be broke again and the rich on their way to rich again.

Damn straight.

KC

[Karin]

I went over to see the stupid.  They also don't know the difference between estate tax and property taxes. 

Every now and then, somebody floats this shit balloon.  What sticks in my craw is how the OP starts out, sneering "Income taxes are not enough."  Makes you want to come at him with a baseball bat. 

[The Village Idiot]

sharesunited (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, the answer is government owned enterprise. Profits are taxed at 100 per cent.
Start new businesses. Employ people. Give the private sector some real competition.

OK. What profits?

If it doesn't get heavily subsidized it'll go bankrupt within days.

[YupItsMe]

Gawd those people hate success.  I wish a multimillion dollar job on each and every one.

KC

  Wait, would I actually have to work for it. Ummm, No thanks. \dummie mode

[Texacon]

  Wait, would I actually have to work for it. Ummm, No thanks. \dummie mode

Wait until one of them gets a real job and figures out they are paying taxes on the tax money they have to mail off!  That pisses me off.

KC

[LadyLiberty]

They are too stupid to realize that when and if they get to this extreme, there won't be anyone left to subsidize their lifestyle 

[GOBUCKS]

I went over to see the stupid.  They also don't know the difference between estate tax and property taxes.

Well, like, when a rich guy has a big house with, you know, an acre or even more of grass and bushes and stuff, don't they, like, call that an estate?

[DefiantSix]

Well, like, when a rich guy has a big house with, you know, an acre or even more of grass and bushes and stuff, don't they, like, call that an estate?

Only if he has cops to jump out of said bushes. 

[delilahmused]

If we had a flat tax there would be no loopholes. Just the same percentage for everyone. Besides, the IRS is going to be too busy regulating health insurance fines.

Cindie

[USA4ME]

Talk about itching for a tax revolt and a bullet in your head, go for it, primitive.

.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There's a bit of a Fifth Amendment problem with Federal taxation of such assets, it borders on confiscation of private property without due process of law (Actually crosses right over the border, applies for citizenship, and runs for public office, as the idea is described by some of the zealots in that thread).

[LadyLiberty]

Every now and then, somebody floats this shit balloon.  What sticks in my craw is how the OP starts out, sneering "Income taxes are not enough."  Makes you want to come at him with a baseball bat. 

Yeah, really. And they say that Republicans are greedy? This is the epitome of greed, seizing from the successful to give to the unsuccessful.

[vlad335]

Talk about itching for a tax revolt and a bullet in your head, go for it, primitive.

That bullet very well could come from their beloved government while they kneel at the edge of the ditch. Why can't these idiots understand?!? This is the natural outcome of any government that has the power to do what the DUmmies are discussing.

READ HISTORY DUmmies! READ our nation's documents and what the founding fathers feared most!
Try not thinking of filling your bellies like locusts and realise what you are really asking for!

[Oceander]

If we had a flat tax there would be no loopholes. Just the same percentage for everyone. Besides, the IRS is going to be too busy regulating health insurance fines.

Cindie

Oh yes there would!  Trust me, there is no such thing as a loophole-free tax system, period.

[Karin]

I went back over to see more stupid.  Xithras patiently explains the math:

Xithras (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-18-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. In the short term, it would be great. In the long, a disaster. 

Taxing assets has long been recognized as the easiest way to completely destroy the upper classes in this country. While that may sound good on the surface, it begs the question: Who pays for those services once the upper class is gone? And lest you think this is a theoretical question or a question for our descentants, there have already been analyses by various socialist groups to determine how long the U.S. could be funded solely on the backs of the wealthy. The median was eight years.

And then we become Somalia.

Besides, as others have pointed out, there's no legal basis to do so. The 16th Amendment, which is the basis of all U.S. tax law, only permits federal taxes on incomes. It's theoretically possible for a state to do this, but it would require a constitutional amendment to attempt it at the federal level. An amendment along these lines wouldn't stand a chance. 

To which the commie pig replies:

blindpig (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-18-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
 
It's a start. Then we expropriate the means of production.

**** them, we have endured a class society too long.

Then Maryf chimes in with a perfect encapsulation of DUmmyhood: 

maryf  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-18-10 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
33. Something to equalize would be nice
 No one should be living so well as some do, until all people at least have their needs met, not just their basic survival needs, but enough to allow all the relax, create, enjoy life to an extent...this is an idea, luxury tax, so that others aren't suffering... K&R

And she doused the bonfire with that. 

[The Village Idiot]

They still won't get it.

[dandi]

Hugabear (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-18-10 03:10 PM
Original message
Income tax is not enough, we need to tax the assets of the wealthy
We all know that there are all sorts of methods that the wealthy and large corporations have of lowering their tax burden, plenty of loopholes that exist to shelter their massive wealth. How about, rather than merely going after their income, taxing their overall wealth? Tax what they're worth, not just how much they've made in any given year. Technically, a billionaire could stop earning money and not have to pay any more taxes for the rest of his life, simply living on what he's already accumulated. Set an arbitrary amount - could be ten million, fifty million, hundred million - and then anybody who is worth that much and over, pays a tax based on their overall worth. That includes their monetary wealth, properties, stock holdings, etc.

You know, I actually agree with this DUmbass but not for the reasons he wants.

If this were enacted, the rich liberals would have their come to Jesus moments within seconds.  Then these DUmbasses and their causes would dry up.

[The Village Idiot]

You know, I actually agree with this DUmbass but not for the reasons he wants.

If this were enacted, the rich liberals would have their come to Jesus moments within seconds.  Then these DUmbasses and their causes would dry up.

They would make exemptions, somehow.

[thundley4]

They would make exemptions, somehow.

Just like the exemptions the unions are getting for taxing Cadillac plans?

[Oceander]

maryf  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-18-10 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
33. Something to equalize would be nice
 No one should be living so well as some do, until all people at least have their needs met, not just their basic survival needs, but enough to allow all the relax, create, enjoy life to an extent...this is an idea, luxury tax, so that others aren't suffering... K&R

That is the stupidest idea, period, because it has been tried ad infinitum and each and every time it has failed, miserably.  Just go ask the North Koreans.

[Chris_]

That is the stupidest idea, period, because it has been tried ad infinitum and each and every time it has failed, miserably.  Just go ask the North Koreans.

Even closer to home, I believe that Clinton tried it back in the early ninetys with stuff like luxury yachts, etc........end result........the US recreational boat business shed 100,000 jobs, and the rich folks just went to Norway to buy them, and essentially told BJ to stuff it.........

Funny thing about money......it seems to work just about anywhere, and can be moved really easily.....

doc