Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

Shefwedfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You can't get blood from a stone and you can't get money from those who don't have it

So dont get it from the stone, take it from the source :P so the stone never gets it

Eric Cartman

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yeah and look at all the thanks it got. Strange, I bet most of them aren't in the wealthy bracket either, they just like to attack "the left"

like people on the left constantly pontificate about taxes on savings, property forfeiture, inheritance taxes and income tax increases that will never ever impact them.

Ive never once heard somebody on the left go 'yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet' plenty have said I should pay more tax on mine though.

Geuze

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no they don't , they absolutely don't . During the last recession nobody on JSA , the state pension , child benefit or lone parents suffered one iota. The middle class and high earners are always the sponge that gets squeezed more.

Please note that all welfare rates, excl. State Pensions, were cut twice during the financial crises 2008-2012.

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

like people on the left constantly pontificate about taxes on savings, property forfeiture, inheritance taxes and income tax increases that will never ever impact them.

Ive never once heard somebody on the left go 'yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet' plenty have said I should pay more tax on mine though.

Because they know their social welfare or 30k office job will never pay more tax

TheCitizen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

like people on the left constantly pontificate about taxes on savings, property forfeiture, inheritance taxes and income tax increases that will never ever impact them.

Ive never once heard somebody on the left go 'yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet' plenty have said I should pay more tax on mine though.

How do you know it won't impact them? Who is this "the left" you're talking about exactly?

LeinsterDub

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So dont get it from the stone, take it from the source :P so the stone never gets it

We cut the rates how much at source do you want?

LeinsterDub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

like people on the left constantly pontificate about taxes on savings, property forfeiture, inheritance taxes and income tax increases that will never ever impact them.

Ive never once heard somebody on the left go 'yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet' plenty have said I should pay more tax on mine though.

yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet

Now you can't say that anymore

TheCitizen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What has "the left" got to do with anything?

"the left" is what alt right types on here want to blame for everything.

When money is needed to be raised due to a recession, posters here like you come along and say start at the bottom, start with those who can pay it least. Ridiculous.

LeinsterDub

TheCitizen wrote: »

"the left" is what alt right types on here want to blame for everything.

When money is needed to be raised due to a recession, posters here like you come along and say start at the bottom, start with those who can pay it least. Ridiculous.

They're the types who won't have money for the poor but billions for bailouts

Shefwedfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We cut the rates how much at source do you want?

Im talking about rent.....:P

ELM327

Geuze wrote: »

Please note that all welfare rates, excl. State Pensions, were cut twice during the financial crises 2008-2012.

And are now higher than before...

na1

lawred2 wrote: »

There was a time I'd have disagreed with a wealth tax but wealth inequality is so out of control at this stage that something has to be done to rebalance the scales.

can you elaborate what "inequality" means here?
Is paying the different amount of money for the same work - inequality?

OR to reach the equality: should everyone receive the same paycheck regardless of work they do?

astrofool

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ive never once heard somebody on the left go 'yeah maybe I should pay more tax on my income to save the planet' plenty have said I should pay more tax on mine though.

That's usually when the "I do pay tax, VAT!" comes out.

LeinsterDub

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Im talking about rent.....:P

What has rent got to do with cuts during the recession?

Yellow_Fern

Geuze wrote: »

Please note that all welfare rates, excl. State Pensions, were cut twice during the financial crises 2008-2012.

Sure but higher earners saw some of the greatest reductions in wealth and incomes in absolute and percentage. See ESRI report Crisis, Austerity, Recovery: Income Distribution through the Great Recession in Ireland report

LeinsterDub

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Sure but higher earners saw some of the greatest reductions in wealth and incomes in absolute and percentage. See ESRI report Crisis, Austerity, Recovery: Income Distribution through the Great Recession in Ireland report

Because in general they had more disposable income. It's part of our progressive tax system

Yellow_Fern

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because in general they had more disposable income. It's part of our progressive tax system

Yes and it is the same in many recessions especially if ordinary people retain employment. Typically the value of assets drops faster than wages. I am not whining about it but it is a fact that the left would like buried.

KyussB

TheCitizen wrote: »

"the left" is what alt right types on here want to blame for everything.

When money is needed to be raised due to a recession, posters here like you come along and say start at the bottom, start with those who can pay it least. Ridiculous.

As long as 'the left' see government spending as coming exclusively from taxation, and not from gigantic eye-watering deficit spending and Public Debt (which is perfectly manageable and preferable to the alternative, btw) - then we're all fucked.

As long as you pay lip service (directly or indirectly) to balanced budgets, or a tendency towards them - you, and everyone else, are fucked.

The entire narrative of needing to pay for coronavirus measures, and the recovery, through taxes - is a losing narrative. You will always mathematically lose that argument.

The only alternative is arguments that justify massive massive deficit spending - and to make that the focus. Forget taxation as a method of funding altogether - you use taxes to disincentivize bad things (growing wealth inequality, pollution, consumption that is harmful to health etc.) - as soon as you argue about using taxes to fund things, you lose - and will continue to lose until you change the narrative.

TheCitizen

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They're the types who won't have money for the poor but billions for bailouts

And I'd safely say they're no where near the top bracket earners either :pac:. They argue on behalf of a cohort that they're not part of and that would laugh at them maybe cos they think their on the side that's winning, a bunch of saps.

Viscount Aggro

I expect a special budget mid-summer.
The majority of personal wealth is tied up in property assets.
They will target wealth via higher property tax.
Its too small a value, compared to other countries. Example of New Jersey, USA - its 2.5% of property value per anum.
Take an average property price in Dublin of 500K. Theres plenty of fat there.

Lets face it - this is an easy one. Revenue will collect it at source. People will not have a choice in the matter.

PhilOssophy

How much does the OP suggest such a tax would raise........????
"Tax wealth" is just lazy - how much, and how many people have the level of wealth suggested?
In the meantime, I will get some popcorn.

Geuze

lawred2 wrote: »

There was a time I'd have disagreed with a wealth tax but wealth inequality is so out of control at this stage that something has to be done to rebalance the scales.

I broadly agree with this.

In terms of incomes, CEO incomes in the USA are now 100x the average workers income, that ratio used to be 10x.

When I see CEO incomes in Ireland of 2m, something isn't right.

Does that person really do 100 times more work than somebody on 20k?


The same goes for wealth.

I disagree with MTR above 50%.

I feel wealth taxes have many practical implementation problems.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

As long as 'the left' see government spending as coming exclusively from taxation, and not from gigantic eye-watering deficit spending and Public Debt (which is perfectly manageable and preferable to the alternative, btw) - then we're all fucked.

As long as you pay lip service (directly or indirectly) to balanced budgets, or a tendency towards them - you, and everyone else, are fucked.

The entire narrative of needing to pay for coronavirus measures, and the recovery, through taxes - is a losing narrative. You will always mathematically lose that argument.

The only alternative is arguments that justify massive massive deficit spending - and to make that the focus. Forget taxation as a method of funding altogether - you use taxes to disincentivize bad things (growing wealth inequality, pollution, consumption that is harmful to health etc.) - as soon as you argue about using taxes to fund things, you lose - and will continue to lose until you change the narrative.

There is nothing wrong with running fiscal deficits, as long as fiscal surpluses and/or strong growth in nominal GDP happen afterwards to reduce the deficits and debt.

However, the evidence is that politics suffers from a deficit bias.

Politicians love running deficits, but don't like the difficult job of reducing deficits afterwards.

Thus the need for fiscal rules.

I don't want to pass on a mountain of public debt to my children.

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote:

In terms of incomes, CEO incomes in the USA are now 100x the average workers income, that ratio used to be 10x.

Average ceo pay in America is 200/300:1 now, 1,000:1 in extreme cases

Geuze wrote:

I don't want to pass on a mountain of public debt to my children.

Large amounts of public debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that debt has been used for good purposes, long term infrastructure spending etc. debts can be rolled over and principles paid, while economies grow, debt is a critical component of our money supply, without it, our economies cannot grow and expand. Reducing the ability of public balance sheets to expand forces the money supply elsewhere, particularly towards private debt, so the debt ends up there, this obviously puts a lot of pressure on the individual to survive, a good balance of public and private debt is required. I'd argue we ve gone too far towards private money creation, I.e. Private debt, we are actually screwing your kids and grandkids over by this approach, public debt can be spread out across society, private debt can't be

ELM327

Geuze wrote: »

I broadly agree with this.

In terms of incomes, CEO incomes in the USA are now 100x the average workers income, that ratio used to be 10x.

When I see CEO incomes in Ireland of 2m, something isn't right.

Does that person really do 100 times more work than somebody on 20k?


The same goes for wealth.

I disagree with MTR above 50%.

I feel wealth taxes have many practical implementation problems.

Sometimes it's embarrassing to see how little people on the left truly understand about employment.


The CEO on 2m (It's a free society so if the company decides he's not worth the salary and they decide to go with a guy for 1.8m then they can.) has a lot of responsibility. The company performance is tied directly to him, and he's accountable for it all. The monkey on 20k can call in sick, leave, doss etc but at the end of the day they can leave and get a different job or half arse this one while they are minding the kids or whatever.

ELM327

astrofool wrote: »

That's usually when the "I do pay tax, VAT!" comes out.

Although I usually temper that with, if you receive money from "de guvrnment" and pay VAT to "de guvrnment", did you really pay any tax at all... or just receive less "income"

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Average ceo pay in America is 200/300:1 now, 1,000:1 in extreme cases



Large amounts of public debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that debt has been used for good purposes, long term infrastructure spending etc. debts can be rolled over and principles paid, while economies grow, debt is a critical component of our money supply, without it, our economies cannot grow and expand. Reducing the ability of public balance sheets to expand forces the money supply elsewhere, particularly towards private debt, so the debt ends up there, this obviously puts a lot of pressure on the individual to survive, a good balance of public and private debt is required. I'd argue we ve gone too far towards private money creation, I.e. Private debt, we are actually screwing your kids and grandkids over by this approach, public debt can be spread out across society, private debt can't be

Private debt is in the hands of those creating it and is irrelevant to society thanks to personal responsibility.


Public debt is the sensible way to build infrastructure and in the cyclical boom bust economy we have, should be done more in the bust times than the boom times.

Pkiernan

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I expect a special budget mid-summer.
The majority of personal wealth is tied up in property assets.
They will target wealth via higher property tax.
Its too small a value, compared to other countries. Example of New Jersey, USA - its 2.5% of property value per anum.
Take an average property price in Dublin of 500K. Theres plenty of fat there.

Lets face it - this is an easy one. Revenue will collect it at source. People will not have a choice in the matter.

What should happen to people who cannot afford this insane tax you are proposing?

Should their homes be taken from them, and given to lazy welfare scroungers?

ELM327

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/news/2016-10-27-employment-gap.aspx

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/autistic-workers-talent-potential-specialisterne-inspirefest

So why is it ridiculous?

So.. a survey of a minute number (2000) showed that in the UK , 63% were not in employment, and one person commented that it was 80% and you want that as proof it's 80%.
Gimme a break.

ELM327

Pkiernan wrote: »

What should happen to people who cannot afford this insane tax you are proposing?

Should their homes be taken from them, and given to lazy welfare scroungers?

No... you see, in the eyes of the left, wealth is evil and everything should come for free to the neuveaux riche lifetime dolers