• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

What if we tie all gov. benefits to vote participation? Welfare, Medicaid, tax credits & deductions, national park access, etc all blocked if you fail to vote.

Obviously would have to make voting more accessible. Two or three day holiday, auto registration, etc.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
What if we tie all gov. benefits to vote participation? Welfare, Medicaid, tax credits & deductions, national park access, etc all blocked if you fail to vote.

Obviously would have to make voting more accessible. Two or three day holiday, auto registration, etc.
Click to expand...

I missed this horrible idea. You think voter suppression is bad now. Oh man.

WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

That’s only about $3 billion apiece in one year. Imagine if there was a 2% wealth tax. They would have only made $490 billion this year. That’s only $2.94 billion apiece. How do you expect them to survive?
 
DeaconSig said:
A wealth tax is just an awful idea. It’s insane to try and implement.
Click to expand...

Meh. I’ve seen plenty of articles making the case that it’s just too impossible to calculate someone’s wealth. Yet there are plenty of publications that estimate people’s wealth. The IRS can pick one and add 2% to their taxes. Let the wealthy person prove they’re poorer than the IRS thinks they are.
 
PhDeac said:
Meh. I’ve seen plenty of articles making the case that it’s just too impossible to calculate someone’s wealth. Yet there are plenty of publications that estimate people’s wealth. The IRS can pick one and add 2% to their taxes. Let the wealthy person prove they’re poorer than the IRS thinks they are.
Click to expand...
Lol. Stick to your continued uses of give and provide in situations where you clearly show that you don't understand context at all
 
DeaconSig said:
A wealth tax is just an awful idea. It’s insane to try and implement.
Click to expand...

The IRS manages to figure out what taxes every person in America owes every year, but they can't figure out who makes more then 50M in a year? Come on. Don't be lazy and play into Republican hands.
 
The irs figures out what you owe in taxes? I self report my income tax liability. Ph i can give a pass for being clueless in these matters. Aren't you a lawyer?
 
ChrisL68 said:
The irs figures out what you owe in taxes? I self report my income tax liability. Ph i can give a pass for being clueless in these matters. Aren't you a lawyer?
Click to expand...

You know what the fuck I mean. Stop being an obtuse asshole. I guess you've hit that age. Shame.

And I am assuming you are confirming we cannot trust any uber wealthy person to not falsely report. Which is sad and not a problem you seem to care to fix. Like any problem, really.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
The irs figures out what you owe in taxes? I self report my income. Ph i can give a pass for being clueless in these matters. Aren't you a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Can you specify what you disagree with in my post? I know you’re not an educator but try to teach me something.

This is what I’m saying:

Every year publications X, Y, and Z count how many beans people with a lot of beans have.

The IRS can just use those estimates. If the bean people claim to have fewer beans, they can provide evidence to make that case.

Explain what I got wrong.
 
PhDeac said:
Can you specify what you disagree with in my post? I know you’re not an educator but try to teach me something.

This is what I’m saying:

Every year publications X, Y, and Z count how many beans people with a lot of beans have.

The IRS can just use those estimates. If the bean people claim to have fewer beans, they can provide evidence to make that case.

Explain what I got wrong.
Click to expand...

Anybody who would could possibly be subject to a material tax would hire a team of valuation experts in order to provide them with the most beneficial valuation that could be argued under existing tax law and existing legal precedent. Taxes in this country are self-reported by the taxpayer and any assessment based on what Forbes Magazine says is somebody's net worth has absolutely no impact on changing the complexity of administering such a tax.

If Forbes Magazine happened to significantly under-report somebody's net worth should they be allowed to pay on that basis when it's clearly understating their net worth?

Does Forbes Magazine know all of the indirect ownerships of the person?

Etc etc etc
 
Say your net worth is estimated to be $45 million. Can you demonstrate this to the satisfaction of Auditors? Well you're probably going to have to get team of valuation experts too.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Not big issues. God forbid someone with a $50M net worth has to spend money to hire valuation "experts" who will get paid to say they are only worth $45M.
 
I mean it can be done it'll be a boon for professional service providers and a gigantic compliance headache like when a huge estate settles except on a yearly basis. Then you're also going to have to create some sort of regulations around what to do regarding estates that are mostly illiquid assets. Do you force sales to make people pay their tax burdens do you allow some sort of deferred payments?
 
Yeah that's clearly the case that you don't work in tax law.
 
What are you going to do about subsequent events you could have an event that occurred between the time of the valuation date and the time that the taxes due that could have dropped the estates value from $50 million to much less.
 
So it can be done but it's going to be incredibly complex and convoluted and if you don't realize this then you're just not operating at a college-level understanding of finances, taxes or law at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top