They ran so many ads. I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.
I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.
Honestly that is a very fair point. Federal income tax was initially passed as a wartime measure and only applied to the wealthiest people. Over time inflation and necessity lowered the threshold lower and lower until everyone had to file income tax.
I’m in favor of wealth taxes on billionaires, but you have to admit, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Someone with a few million in a 401k is fantastically wealthy by the standards of someone working paycheck to paycheck for minimum wage. Why wouldn’t they support a wealth tax on people’s 401k balances?
The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply. We have clear historical examples of taxes that were originally meant to only apply to the rich growing in scope until they were applied to the whole population. It’s actually a pretty likely outcome if wealth taxes became more common. Every other tax expanded to encompass the entire population, why not wealth taxes?
Wealth taxes kinda already have been applied to the entire population, except the ultra rich. You pay property taxes, and those definitely go up based on unrealized gains.
It is absolutely a fallacy to say we can’t possibly levy a tax on a billionaire lest it, ultimately becomes a tax on us.
Already they have a pretty sweet deal compared to most folks, most folks have most of their ‘wealth’ taxed as property. Since real property is a tiny sliver of their ‘wealth’, they get to keep more percentage wise than the random person, despite needing it less.
To say any tax might evolve into a tax on the common man is like saying we can’t regulate nuclear weapons, lest it becomes a regulation preventing people from having scissors. Yes, there is the example of income tax and a mistake was made at the time they went to expand it. The problem was not the initial tax, it was the point of expansion. There’s no reason the expansion of the tax should have any lower barrier than getting it levied in the first place.
Now if you argue that the measure was somehow flawed in that it failed to limit the scope and explicitly opened the door to things, but it was the opposite, a one-time, billionaire only scoped event.
In inflation adjusted dollars, the tax applied a 1% income tax to incomes over $100k and a 7% tax to incomes over $16 million. Yes, it was originally intended only for the wealthy. The upper middle class paid a tiny nominal 1%. The only people paying any substantial income tax were the extremely wealthy.
I get it. You want to tax the rich, so do I. But you’re letting that desire cloud your judgment and reason.
This is why I try to think hard about “temporary” sales taxes and fees and the like. There is about zero chance that tax meets the stated goal and is repealed, if not expanded.
They ran so many ads. I was visiting family in CA a few weeks ago and every second commercial was saying if the law passes they’ll use it to put a tax on everyone. Obviously bullshit but I can understand why some lower half of the bell curve people would believe it.
Honestly that is a very fair point. Federal income tax was initially passed as a wartime measure and only applied to the wealthiest people. Over time inflation and necessity lowered the threshold lower and lower until everyone had to file income tax.
I’m in favor of wealth taxes on billionaires, but you have to admit, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Someone with a few million in a 401k is fantastically wealthy by the standards of someone working paycheck to paycheck for minimum wage. Why wouldn’t they support a wealth tax on people’s 401k balances?
The slippery slope fallacy here does not apply. We have clear historical examples of taxes that were originally meant to only apply to the rich growing in scope until they were applied to the whole population. It’s actually a pretty likely outcome if wealth taxes became more common. Every other tax expanded to encompass the entire population, why not wealth taxes?
Wealth taxes kinda already have been applied to the entire population, except the ultra rich. You pay property taxes, and those definitely go up based on unrealized gains.
Not taking them is a worse precedent. Every year their wealth grows.
Nothing stopping us from voting people in who will raise income tax brackets so only the top 10% pays them.
Nothing but us and our lack of imagination. We can do the same with wealth taxes and the 1%.
Or we can surrender in advance and allow them to continue our March to poverty.
It is absolutely a fallacy to say we can’t possibly levy a tax on a billionaire lest it, ultimately becomes a tax on us.
Already they have a pretty sweet deal compared to most folks, most folks have most of their ‘wealth’ taxed as property. Since real property is a tiny sliver of their ‘wealth’, they get to keep more percentage wise than the random person, despite needing it less.
To say any tax might evolve into a tax on the common man is like saying we can’t regulate nuclear weapons, lest it becomes a regulation preventing people from having scissors. Yes, there is the example of income tax and a mistake was made at the time they went to expand it. The problem was not the initial tax, it was the point of expansion. There’s no reason the expansion of the tax should have any lower barrier than getting it levied in the first place.
Now if you argue that the measure was somehow flawed in that it failed to limit the scope and explicitly opened the door to things, but it was the opposite, a one-time, billionaire only scoped event.
Income taxes were added to the constitution in 1913 and weren’t limited to only the most wealthy people.
In inflation adjusted dollars, the tax applied a 1% income tax to incomes over $100k and a 7% tax to incomes over $16 million. Yes, it was originally intended only for the wealthy. The upper middle class paid a tiny nominal 1%. The only people paying any substantial income tax were the extremely wealthy.
I get it. You want to tax the rich, so do I. But you’re letting that desire cloud your judgment and reason.
This is why I try to think hard about “temporary” sales taxes and fees and the like. There is about zero chance that tax meets the stated goal and is repealed, if not expanded.