Billionaires in space

[pondwater]

None of your smart arse answers reveal why you feel so helpless that you would want the government to tell you how to live.

Think of the children. It's for the children

[Dolphster]

Literally since 1913 and the 16th amendment to the constitution.

The above quote was your reply to ArtieChokePhin's question of "since when does our government have the right to tell us how much money we can and can't have?"  

I get where you are coming from with your response, but it isn't really accurate.  The 16th Amendment re-established federal income tax (One had been passed in the 1890s but tossed out in 1895 by the Supreme Court).  Specifically, the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to levy a tax on income from any source.  So the 16th Amendment was in no way telling anyone how much money they can or can't have.  The 16th Amendment was intended solely to make sure that the Government got their cut.  It definitely did not establish any kind of "income cap" on anyone.

[Dolphster]

Pretty safe to say that the founders never once considered the 21st century...or any of its problems, while they were doing all of that founding.

I agree 100%.  But then we in the 21st century are left with quite a dilemma.  Does the antiquity of founding principles (I'll just say the Constitution for example) mean the Constitution should be thrown out in it's entirety, some of it thrown out, some or all of it updated to reflect modern times (and who would be given that enormous responsibility and power), etc.?  Hell, Congress can't agree on the simplest of things, I can't even imagine the clusterfuk they would make out of doing a major rewrite of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court does some of the work for us in establishing modern interpretations on laws written over 200 years ago, but that is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the task that the US would be undertaking if they were to re-write the Constitution for modern days.  The antiquity of the Constitution definitely creates some problems for us today.  But I just don't see a realistic way around it that didn't have a very high risk of making things worse.  Personally, I will take the Constitution as it is (even with the problems that it's antiquity can create in the modern world) over changes that could very well make things worse. 

[pondwater]

I agree 100%.  But then we in the 21st century are left with quite a dilemma.  Does the antiquity of founding principles (I'll just say the Constitution for example) mean the Constitution should be thrown out in it's entirety, some of it thrown out, some or all of it updated to reflect modern times (and who would be given that enormous responsibility and power), etc.?  Hell, Congress can't agree on the simplest of things, I can't even imagine the clusterfuk they would make out of doing a major rewrite of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court does some of the work for us in establishing modern interpretations on laws written over 200 years ago, but that is just a drop in the button when compared to the task that the US would be undertaking if they were to re-write the Constitution for modern days.  The antiquity of the Constitution definitely creates some problems for us today.  But I just don't see a realistic way around it that didn't have a very high risk of making things worse. 

The most realistic way would be to keep the Constitution as written. It's made us the greatest country to ever exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise might find another country that fits their views better.

[Spider-Dan]

And since when does our government have the right to tell us how much money we can and can't have?   You like Socialism so much?  Pack your shit and move to Cuba.  Let's see how you feel after a year or two there.

If you hate socialism so much, why are you willingly living in a country with socialist roads, with socialist fire departments, with socialist public schools, with socialist Medicare, with socialist water infrastructure, etc.?

Maybe you should move to Somalia, where there is no socialism.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Literally since 1913 and the 16th amendment to the constitution.

That only allows the government to take a percentage of money earned.  And that needs to be amended as well because government taxes are so crazy.   You have to pay tax on money you earn, tax on money you gain, tax on money you win, tax on money you inherit (money that's already been taxed).  Hell, you have to pay taxes to buy, sell, and own property, businesses or vehicles.

[Tenshot13]

That only allows the government to take a percentage of money earned.  And that needs to be amended as well because government taxes are so crazy.   You have to pay tax on money you earn, tax on money you gain, tax on money you win, tax on money you inherit (money that's already been taxed).  Hell, you have to pay taxes to buy, sell, and own property, businesses or vehicles.

Taxation is theft

[Spider-Dan]

That only allows the government to take a percentage of money earned.  And that needs to be amended as well because government taxes are so crazy.   You have to pay tax on money you earn, tax on money you gain, tax on money you win, tax on money you inherit (money that's already been taxed).  Hell, you have to pay taxes to buy, sell, and own property, businesses or vehicles.

So in your view, what part of the Constitution allows property taxes?  Or do you think property taxes are unconstitutional?

I don't see how a wealth tax is any different than a property tax.

Just to clarify: when I said that the government "should not allow" a person to have billions of dollars, I was not talking about taking that money away from them after the fact (although I do support a wealth tax).  I was actually talking about preventing them from accumulating that much money to begin with, be it via regulations on executive pay ratios, or via confiscatory income tax rates.

[Spider-Dan]

Here is something no one is mentioning. For the people with children what about the environmental impact? If you really want to have a better life for your future generations these flights have no scientific value at all and have quite a footprint.

The Venn diagram of "people who are fine with billionaires accumulating enough wealth to take joyrides in space" and "people who think climate change concerns are all a hoax" is just a circle.

[pondwater]

So in your view, what part of the Constitution allows property taxes?  Or do you think property taxes are unconstitutional?

Well now that you bring it up. The federal government is generally prohibited from imposing direct taxes unless such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population. Thus, ad valorem property taxes have not been imposed at the federal level. That's exactly why property tax is implemented at the state level.

I don't see how a wealth tax is any different than a property tax.

Because

Courtesy of Google:
Does the federal government charge property taxes?

The federal government occupies the majority of the income tax base, receiving 87 percent of all income tax revenue in FY 2006. The federal government does not levy a general sales tax, nor does it tax property. Instead, it relies almost entirely on income levies for its collections.

You're trying to blur the line by trying to conflate a non existent federal wealth tax with state property tax. They are two totally different things on two different levels. The fact that the federal government classifies them as two different things actually means that they are two different things. You'll need a constitutional amendment since the 13th amendment only authorized an "Income Tax".  And if you ever see that constitutional amendment pass. You'll also see most of the billionaires leave and live another country that fits their views better.

Just to clarify: when I said that the government "should not allow" a person to have billions of dollars, I was not talking about taking that money away from them after the fact (although I do support a wealth tax).  I was actually talking about preventing them from accumulating that much money to begin with, be it via regulations on executive pay ratios, or via confiscatory income tax rates.

So you're talking about stealing confiscating people's money? I'd love to see what part of the constitution you think authorizes that kind of "radical" experiment in failure. Seems to me that's why this country even exists.

mod edit: restored original message

[Spider-Dan]

Well now that you bring it up. The federal government is generally prohibited from imposing direct taxes unless such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population. Thus, ad valorem property taxes have not been imposed at the federal level.

unless such taxes are then given to the states

unless

I accept your terms.

You'll also see most of the billionaires leave and live another country that fits their views better.

Name this fictional country.  It doesn't exist.

[Spider-Dan]

Dave, you clicked Modify instead of Quote.  I restored pondwater's original message from my cache.

[pondwater]

I accept your terms.

Again, a direct tax must be apportioned.

Such a tax must be apportioned. To be apportioned, a tax must be the same amount per person in every state, a very difficult burden to satisfy. For example, a dollar-per-acre tax would fail unless every state had the same acreage per capita. As a result, federal land taxes do not exist. States, unhampered by apportionment, routinely impose real property taxes. In contrast, a dollar-per-human tax (also known as a capitation) would be constitutional, as it would be the same amount per capita in every state. The United States, however, has never imposed such a tax, arguably the only form that a direct tax could constitutionally take.

You can't directly target billionaires if you have to tax everyone the same amount. That's the great part of this country. If you don't like California or New York. You can go to Florida, Texas, or Wyoming.

Name this fictional country.  It doesn't exist.

Neither does your fictional wealth tax. I thought we were playing make believe again. One day they might both exist.

[Spider-Dan]

You are arguing with yourself.  You just posted a link that said that direct taxes are unconstitutional UNLESS such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population.  So which one is it?

When composing your response, keep in mind that federal estate taxes exist.

Neither does your fictional wealth tax. I thought we were playing make believe again. One day they might both exist.

The threat being made is that if we increase taxes, billionaires will flee to some other country with more Freedom.
But this country doesn't exist.  So it's an empty threat.

[pondwater]

You are arguing with yourself.  You just posted a link that said that direct taxes are unconstitutional UNLESS such taxes are then given to the states in proportion to population.  So which one is it?

Again, a direct tax must be apportioned.

Such a tax must be apportioned. To be apportioned, a tax must be the same amount per person in every state, a very difficult burden to satisfy. For example, a dollar-per-acre tax would fail unless every state had the same acreage per capita. As a result, federal land taxes do not exist. States, unhampered by apportionment, routinely impose real property taxes. In contrast, a dollar-per-human tax (also known as a capitation) would be constitutional, as it would be the same amount per capita in every state. The United States, however, has never imposed such a tax, arguably the only form that a direct tax could constitutionally take.

Are you arguing this point? If so you're arguing with argue with constitutioncenter.org and all the other websites that say the same thing.

When composing your response, keep in mind that federal estate taxes exist.

That has nothing to do with the federal government's responsibility to apportion any direct tax on citizens.

The threat being made is that if we increase taxes, billionaires will flee to some other country with more Freedom.
But this country doesn't exist.  So it's an empty threat.

Actually, the threat being made is a wealth tax/confiscation/theft. And since direct taxes must be apportioned, that's not possible without a constitutional amendment. We can play make believe all day long. And since neither will happen in my lifetime, it's a moot point.