this guy is a lawyer and actually put his sedition in writing.
Dr. Birx tells Congress the 2020 election ‘distracted’ Trump from the pandemic
Last Updated: Oct. 27, 2021 at 2:43 p.m. ETFirst Published: Oct. 27, 2021 at 1:36 p.m. ETBy Weston Blasi
She believes that certain measures like mask mandates, indoor dining restrictions and increased testing could have saved thousands of lives in the first wave of the pandemic
Today, I want to evaluate the most common objections to wealth taxes. Some are stronger than others.
1. They’ll destroy the economy
This is probably the weakest empirical argument against a wealth tax. It’s a version of the same case that opponents of tax increases on the rich always make. And it has a very poor historical record.
When taxes on the rich were much higher than today, in the decades just after World War II, the economy boomed. Since the 1980s, high-end taxes have plummeted, and the U.S. economy has struggled: Economic growth, incomes for most people and other measures of well-being (like life expectancy) have stagnated since the 1980s. One exception was the 1990s — after Bill Clinton had raised income taxes on the rich as well as the corporate tax.
Teasing out cause and effect on these issues is difficult. But there is no good evidence that low taxes on the wealthy help the larger economy.
Income tax and Wealth tax are two different things, but done together it's pretty much double taxation in my mind. You're first taxed on the money you make and then taxed again on whatever wealth you've been able to accumulate over time after income and all other taxes have been paid. Trying to come up with these creative new taxes is like someone in debt opening up a new credit card to pay off more debt - it's never enough. The real solution is trying to do more with less and cut out unnecessary spending. If your neighbor has a nicer house or car than you, does he owe you anything? He paid his income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and was still able to afford nice things by saving his money and investing it wisely. Is it necessary to tax him again on his accumulated wealth to the point where the for sale sign goes on the car and you go "well now we're even because we're all driving the same car"?
There are a lot of holes in your argument. If the very wealthy were honest and paid the taxes on their actual income the wealth tax would be unnecessary. But when you have people that make hundreds of millions per year and pay only $750 in income tax it's not right. So, since this happens, it becomes necessary to make them honest. I realise there are loopholes that have been added for the purpose of allowing the very wealthy to hide their income and these need to be removed first.
Most of the low information voters believe this. Those that know, know this. Rich people are smart. Especially when it comes to their money.
Let me give you an example. Lets say a person (not copier addict, because he's not a sharp person) owns a power company and he makes billions. Now lets say that we raise his taxes by 25%?
I'm gonna give you a couple of guesses as to what happens next:
a.) the billionaire will be more than happy to pay an additional 25%.
or
b.) the billionaire will raise you electric bill by 25% to pay for the money he just lost.
Point of emphasis: Liberals say that the rich are greedy and avoid paying taxes. When you chose between answer a or b, keep that in mind.
Have a nice day.
Growth is found only in adversity.
Apples and oranges Billy boy. You keep talking about corporations when everyone else is talking about individuals. Please, mr "Sharp", try to keep up. Okay?
Get rid of the purposely created loopholes and then the very wealthy will pay the appropriate amount of taxes.
Here the question do you think Amazon a Billion dollar company should pay ZERO taxes?
a simple Yes or No
Bookmarks