So, I work hard, my ass off, 5 days a week, 11 months a year, and I pay 1/3 or 1/4th of it so that pidophiles dont pay taxes.
Income tax, VAT, property selling tax are all theft. There is no logic behind it.
The taxes that should exist is: Wealth tax, nature tax for the businesses that damage nature, and that is it. And no tax should be over 5%.
Wealth tax: 0%, income tax: 30% this is unacceptable. You either pay no taxes or you pay everything as tax.
I actually calculated it, and yearly 2.5% of wealth tax should be enough. And also, countries have a lot of resources, that also can help their budget, like mines or rented lands that are owned by government etc.
If we taxed wealth, not work, we could buy our houses way easier, we could buy land way easier, we could find a job way easier because we are not gonna pay income and vat, businesses will be able to hire people freely, and everybody can own a business easily. Nowadays, if you are poor it is so hard to create a business. You have a lot of expenses.
Like, 75% of billionaires get it by inheritance. Wealth can increase without income, Elon Musk doesnt have an income, it has wealth. A person with a land that 100x’ed in 10 years doesnt have an income, but his wealth increases.
Elon buys Twitter without liqudating his wealth. Similarly, every rich does it. The taxes are mostly paid by the workers, while the rich pays near 0 tax.
You get me?
When you tax wealth, not work, a person with 30K a year income, now has 40K, while the house he wants to buy was 200K, now 150K because people dont want to pay this tax, and they sell their 100 houses.
That doesn’t answer my question.
A workers salary ≠ Income
It’s one form of it.
Stocks are income. Inheritance is income. Land appreciation is income. If you give me 50 bucks as a gift, that’s income.
How is your conceptual wealth tax, not just the same as what income tax should already be?
The problems you list are all loopholes in the applicable laws, not income tax as a concept.
You get me?
And would a “wealth” tax not have an inherent loophole in that the “rich” could avoid paying tax by simply spending faster than they earn, or even staying in debt, as many “milllionares” do?
And would it not punish poor people who try to save up, by taxing them more the more they save up?
Would it not make renting vs owning even more of a problem? Poor people would be encouraged to rent as much as possible in order to have as little “wealth” as possible? While the rich could continue to charge whatever they want to cover the costs.
They are already doing this. 'Spending faster than they earn" you are still thinking like income tax. They need to spend their wealth. Staying in debt, like they need to borrow money, what are they gonna do with the money? They still need to buy something which increases their wealth.
So, think about wealth, not income. If you think like this, we will never be able to tax the rich. If that’s what you want, Idk
Yea. I said that.
What do you mean by income tax? Because clearly you aren’t understanding what I mean.
I mean ALL income. Of any kind. No loopholes. The problem isn’t conceptual. It’s practical. The law hasn’t kept up with the bookkeeping shenanigans the rich get up to. In fact, the rich actively influence current legislation to their benefit.
You’re arguing for a complete conceptual shift for no reason, when the actual problem is corruption.
What’s really needed, is just look at how the rich are avoiding taxation, and closing the legal loopholes they use. Which your “wealth tax” won’t do. Especially as “wealth” doesn’t actually have a value until it’s bought or sold.
Wealth has a value, land can be valued easily, we have data for years all around websites and in government about the lands everywhere. The houses are also like this. You can value a company by the factories it has people it employs etc, money it earns etc. This three is more than enough. The rest of wealth may not count, it is not important.
You cant fix loopholes without taxing all billionaires until none exists, because they will constantly bribe government. Even if you fixed loopholes, they will create intentionally.
Exactly. How is your proposal a solution?
Of course assets have value. But to tax them fairly, that value needs to be defined! Impartially, too boot! And can you imagine the governmental overhead of constantly defining the values of shifting assets for tax purposes, regardless whether they are being bought or sold?
Your suggestion is as exploitable as the current system. Maybe worse!
Start by taxing everything above 10M dollars, then spread wealth control to all people, than start taxing wealth, not work because if you don’t tax wealth it will again cumulate and we will have to start over.
The fuck do you mean by “wealth control”?
Are you referring to UBI?
It sounds like what youre sctually arguing for, is an asset cap. Where any property above a certain cap goes to the government.
If the cap is 10M, how do we fund UBI, infrastructure and emergency services once everyone is below that cap?
Current economies are powered by the movement of money. So we tax the movement of money. No-one gets anything without spending their assets in some way, including the rich.
You are suggesting that taxes would somehow work better, if we taxed value that was sitting still. Which isn’t entirely false, but you are also claiming that taxation of moving money should be ended entirely. Which simply won’t work. That would eventually lead to the end of public funding.
Wealth control means giving them the wealth, and not owning by the government. Because when the government owns everything, that means the people in government become rich.
Why does, not taxing moving money end public funding? Okay, it can be 2%, and this is enough.