Why not wealth redistribution?

We don't have a "natural rate of unemployment" in the United States because the Federal Reserve monetary policies are designed to maintain unemployment at a rate high enough to counteract it's inflationary monetary policies by forcing down compensation. Basically the Fed's policy it to ensure low wages that results in poverty to counteract inflation for the benefit of the wealthy.

 

So now you want to tax on "appreciation" heh? That's fine.

What about when I have a "depreciation"? Should I get a tax refund?

 

Not even close to accurate.

 

Solving for market inefficiencies is one function of government. Any rate of unemployment is an inefficiency in that market.

 

Wealth redistribution is inevitable. It is the economy.

The Constitution applies:

The increasing concentration of the nation's wealth into the pockets of a miniscule elite via its policies, including taxation, is an expression of that inevitable wealth redistribution by means of government regulation.

Nor would that moneyed elite opt for the abandonment of the state-run monetary system that controls redistribution in favour of barter or acquisition via theft and/or threat of force. Obviously, the current state redistribution is working well for them, if not for most.

 

Since Bill and Hillary are now worth over $100,000,000 isnt it time they redistribute?????

 

Good point. They, like everyone worth over $100 million, should be having to pay higher taxes.

 

No disagreement.

What is *not* inevitable is the richest getting a bigger and bigger portion of our nation's income and wealth.

 

It's the other way around.

The nation has no income to share. A nations income is the sum of it's citizen's personal income. No one is getting a share of their nations income, they are providing it. Yes it is inevitable that, in general, those who are responsible for more of that income will accumulate more wealth.





​

 

The nation produced $14 trillion in gross income.

The facts belie your position.

​

 

No it didn't. Some people of the nation produced value, which added up to $14 trillion.


​

I don't think they do, folks still accumulated it. You just took it away from them after. Kind of like paying one neighbor kid mow your lawn for a month, then taking his piggy bank and sharing it equally with the rest of the kids in the neighborhood.




​

 

You want to tax wealth?




​

 

I would have to disagree. Rich peoples wealth is skyrocketing at an unprecedented rate. They have gotten a VERY good return on their money.

 

The money you make is a function of the value you provide. The government doesn't control that. What government controls is how much you pay for your citizenship. And that price has skyrocketed. Well, for some of us.




​

 

Not a bad idea. The 1% was able to accumulate more to the nation's wealth because of tax cuts and other trickle down policies that helped them get more of the nation's income. Given we ran up trillions of debt and are now mired in a slow recovery because of it, it makes sense. More effective than taxing poverty.​

 

Quaint.

Money made is also a factor of how much wealth you have and how much you were able to leverage the work of others.

Skyrocketed from what, the 91% top tax rate in the 1940s and 50s? The 70% top tax rate of the 60s and 70s? Or the 50% top tax rate during the first 6 years of the Reagan administration?

- - - Updated - - -

Those people make up the nation. Hence the nation's income.

I don't think they do, folks still accumulated it. You just took it away from them after. Kind of like paying one neighbor kid mow your lawn for a month, then taking his piggy bank and sharing it equally with the rest of the kids in the neighborhood.

I just took what away from whom after?​

 

True. The extreme concentration of increasing wealth in the pockets of the elite few is the result of specific government policies enacted by politicians increasingly dependent on the financial support of that elite who invest a portion of their windfall into political contributions to perpetuate it - frequently hiding their identities whilst doing so.

Their very loud money is "free speech" that expresses convictions apparently devoid of courage. One could postulate a conspiracy by a cabal of illegal immigrant billionaires perverting elections to serve their foreign interests since they don't have to provide identification to manipulate them.


.

 

Because I'm a citizen of this nation, my work and my wealth belong to the nation? Wouldn't that mean I don't really own anything?




​

 

I said price, not percent of income. If I paid a price equal to 91% of my body weight in gold when I was three and 50% today, the price would have gone up.

Billing folks a percentage of their income for the equal citizenship we all receive might be a necessity, given the ridiculous level of spending we've come to, but it also hides the simple fact that each year we shift the cost of this country onto an increasingly small minority of it's citizens.




​

 

Your skill or luck in finding investors and then convincing folks to trust in your vision enough to participate; your talent at utilizing simple human or machine labor to address complex problems can certainly be useful in generating wealth... if more folks with that value chose to build wealth in the U.S. we might all have a brighter future here. Unfortunately, we're increasingly driving those folks away from American markets and businesses.




​

 

It's part of the nation's income.

No.​

 

You said price in the context of the price of citizenship, which I inferred meant taxes you pay.

"The money you make is a function of the value you provide. The government doesn't control that. What government controls is how much you pay for your citizenship. And that price has skyrocketed."

If you didn't mean that, what prices were you talking about?

As would be both expected and appropriate when an increasingly small minority of its citizens are getting a larger and larger portion of the nation's income and wealth.

But really, relative to their income the are paying lower effective rates of taxes.

 

To build wealth, you need income.

Given we have redistributed the nation's income so that the top 10% are getting 65% of the nations' income as opposed to 50% 30 years ago, it's no surprise that the richest have dramatically increased their wealth while the rest have seen their wealth stagnate or decline.​

 

You are correct, however, when the beneficiaries try to sell any of that stock, they will pay capital gains taxes on any gains. And the cash used to buy the stock in the first place was after-tax cash.

Who cares if anyone is 'vested' or not...this is political speak? If I want to give 'my' after-tax cash to my kids who cares if they are 'vested' or not?

All assets have been taxed, or will be taxed, appropriately assuming someone is not in violation of the law...

 

I didn't pay my taxes in percentages, I paid it in dollars. If I paid more dollars this year than last, the price went up.



​