Socialism vs Capitalism

I haven't kept up with this thread so my first question is what would be the definition of wealth? What exactly would be subject to this tax?
 
You raise some good points about problems with a wealth tax. The other issue you have is the question of what constitutes confiscation of wealth. The idea of a wealth tax isn't to pauperize people. I've seen a formula something like wealth tax rate plus inflation/cpi must be less than a treasury benchmark like 10 or 30 year treasury bonds, so that the possibility of building wealth under a wealth tax exists. Maybe this would allay some your concern about the need for a constitutional amendment.
The amendment is to protect the taxed from future taxes being added back after a wealth tax is instituted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and jvol1
It was only a matter of time before women demanded “Equity” in the NIL.

this case should be dead on arrival.

"Though Division Street is a separate legal entity from Oregon, the plaintiffs are attempting to hold the school responsible for what they say are the disparate opportunities the for-profit entity provides female athletes as compared with the men."

"The rowing plaintiffs contend that the university, despite being out of Title IX compliance, refuses to sponsor their sport at the varsity level, thus depriving them of the ability to earn athletic aid and hindering their futures."

“We do not write to suggest that OCR stem this flow of cash to college athletes,” the letter stated, “but rather to alert OCR that this cash is, with the blessing and/or cooperation of the 1000+ universities in the NCAA, flowing predominantly to men.”

unless the schools are providing the money or setting exactly what athletes get I don't see how this is a Title IX issue.

and yes I realize that the case will have legs based on the PC culture, but I don't think there are any problems with the letter or even the spirit of the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
You raise some good points about problems with a wealth tax. The other issue you have is the question of what constitutes confiscation of wealth. The idea of a wealth tax isn't to pauperize people. I've seen a formula something like wealth tax rate plus inflation/cpi must be less than a treasury benchmark like 10 or 30 year treasury bonds, so that the possibility of building wealth under a wealth tax exists. Maybe this would allay some your concern about the need for a constitutional amendment.
to the full meaning of pauperize may not be the expressed intent for some, it has absolutely been stated as the goals for others. even in this forum, a very right leaning group in general, you have individuals saying people having "too much" is evil. like McDad said unless the rates are set as an Amendment its a non-starter, as it will start hitting the people below the line.

Just like Biden saying no one making 400k would face new taxes, then sends 87k IRS agents after anyone with more than $600 total of paypal/venmo movement.

and then you also have the fact that all of the rich will be able to disinvest themselves of what you and others are thinking of as wealth, and it won't change their lives one bit. they will either create separate entities, sell the assets to their company, or do something else to work around whatever definition of "wealth" is made.
 
Do you even know anything about it? Engage a little before running home to mama and calling everyone who thinks differently than you a marxist/nazi/idiot.
No son. You are a Marxist. Wealth tax is a penultimate Marxist play. Once you know how much everyone has, you can concoct a way to relieve them of it.
 
No son. You are a Marxist. Wealth tax is a penultimate Marxist play. Once you know how much everyone has, you can concoct a way to relieve them of it.
Too much stereotyping. You need to look deeper into things. The world doesnt simplify as easily as you want it to.
 

VN Store



Back
Top