# Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth? (Fox News oped) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337 "2019-08-27T21:21:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/161 "2019-09-03T06:20:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh, and about this, saying insipid things such as not “passing the smell test” are silly when one can find with little effort who else does smell it positively. > > [Bloomberg - Are you a robot?](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/warren-wealth-tax-would-cost-bezos-4-1-billion-in-first-year) Thanks for making my point for me. From Bloomberg: > [@](#): > > Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have to pay $4.1 billion in the first year under U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s soon-to-be proposed wealth tax > \ > Almost all of Bezos’s net worth is tied up in Amazon stock, and such a tax bill could force him to sell some. He currently has $2.5 billion of cash and other liquid assets, according to the Bloomberg wealth index’s net worth analysis. If Bezos wants to hold onto his stock, that should be his decision, not the government’s. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/162 "2019-09-03T06:53:47Z")
If your argument is just “his stock his decision” then does that mean you are against all taxes? Because we could say exactly the same thing about income. Otherwise the argument seems inherently flawed. Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/163 "2019-09-03T07:10:18Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > If your argument is just “his stock his decision” then does that mean you are against all taxes? Because we could say exactly the same thing about income. > > Otherwise the argument seems inherently flawed. > > Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk As stated before: > [@](#): > > Income is money that I earned this year. Wealth is the accumulation of money that I earned in the past that I haven’t spent, or that I’ve spent on assets such as shares or property. I believe income should be taxed and wealth shouldn’t be. Increases in cash wealth are income and should be taxed. If someone has $100 million sitting in the bank earning interest, the interest should be taxed. The $100 million shouldn’t be. And if it takes the form of property or shares, then someone shouldn’t be forced to sell the property or shares to pay a wealth tax. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/164 "2019-09-03T12:21:54Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Warren’s basically proposing taking 20% of a person’s wealth above $50 million over the course of 10 years. So if someone has built up a successful business worth $150 million which has plateaued, Warren will force them to sell off $20 million in that business over a decade to pay their taxes. So someone earning only their salary is losing massive amounts in tax because their business has peaked. At that point, the owner would seek to divest the business in whatever way would disperse the ownership. Which sounds great in communistic terms. However, changes in ownership are fraught with risk. Warren’s proposal would basically devalue any family owned business above $50 million unless it was undergoing growth above 2%/year after tax. One other point - I presume Warren wants the wealth tax paid in cash, correct? So in addition to forcing the wealthy to sell shares or property for the wealth tax, capital gains tax will apply. So that 3% will actually be 3.75%. Then again, many liberals want to get rid of the capital gains tax and treat capital gains as income. Is Warren one of them? That would bump the combined tax up to 4.76%. I just ran the numbers for someone with static wealth (excluding taxes) in shares of $2 billion using that rate. They would lose $752 million over ten years, 38% of their wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/165 "2019-09-03T12:31:06Z")
Oh my god, if we did that, they’d only have… _checks numbers_ … More money left over than I or most people will ever cumulatively earn over my entire life. And meanwhile, that obscene amount of money they “lost” would go towards the common good. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/166 "2019-09-03T14:23:15Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Thanks for making my point for me. From Bloomberg: > If Bezos wants to hold onto his stock, that should be his decision, not the government’s. Too bad that to make this silly point you are ignoring why he is singled out, he and his corporation paid little in taxes last year. A wealth tax is what happens when one notices that there is an abuse of the law so as not to pay taxes, or in simpler words: “This is why we can’t have nice things”. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/167 "2019-09-03T15:46:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Too bad that to make this silly point you are ignoring why he is singled out, he and his corporation paid little in taxes last year. > > A wealth tax is what happens when one notices that there is an abuse of the law so as not to pay taxes, or in simpler words: “This is why we can’t have nice things”. Abuse of the law, according to whom? Surely not the intellectual law makers that we the people elect. Surely not the government that we are told time and time again, to trust that they know best. This time, or at the very least, NEXT time. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/168 "2019-09-03T15:47:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Oh my god, if we did that, they’d only have… _checks numbers_ > > … More money left over than I or most people will ever cumulatively earn over my entire life. > > And meanwhile, that obscene amount of money they “lost” would go towards the common good. More money than ME is the key here. Those who have less, WANT more. Always ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/169 "2019-09-03T16:00:34Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > More money than ME is the key here. Those who have less, WANT more. > Always But those who have more also want more. Of those two, which are likely to _need_ more? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/170 "2019-09-03T16:04:31Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > More money than ME is the key here. Those who have less, WANT more. > Always Okay, let’s decentralize “me”. I chose myself as a subject because I’m a pretty typical millenial and that may make it possible to sympathize with, but fine, have it your way. As I said upthread, a million seconds is a little under two weeks; a billion seconds is 37 years. Once you have two billion dollars, you have more money the gross national product of about 20 different countries, many of which have millions of people living them. That is, you personally have more money than combined total value of the entire economy of the 4.5 million people living in the Central African Republic. Complaining about the well-being of a billionaire after any tax reform where they don’t have to carve out a pound of flesh from their body for every million dollars they’ve stashed away is like complaining about how dry and brightly-lit the Marianas Trench is. Tax a billionare at _99%_, and he’s still richer than the mean or median worker in the US will _ever_ be. Would you actually be interested in participating in this discussion, or just throwing out mildly offensive non-sequiturs? 🙂 [This isn’t about jealousy](https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1166686955565920257). It’s about the tangible harm caused by misallocation of resources, and the brazen evil necessary for billionaires to decide to keep most of their billions. Do try to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/171 "2019-09-03T16:37:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Too bad that to make this silly point you are ignoring why he is singled out, he and his corporation paid little in taxes last year. > > A wealth tax is what happens when one notices that there is an abuse of the law so as not to pay taxes, or in simpler words: “This is why we can’t have nice things”. Bezos isn’t singled out for Amazon’s low taxes in either of your cites. But since you’d like to throw that into the conversation here’s a Forbes take on Amazon’s federal income tax breaks: > [@](#): > > There are three main drivers of Amazon’s tax breaks: > > Investment in Research & Development. Amazon invests heavily in research and development and therefore benefits from the tax credit. In 2017, as Recode stated, Amazon topped the list of U.S. companies in R&D spend, at $22.6 billion. The next closest was Alphabet at $16.6 billion. Many of Amazon’s innovations have been birthed from this investment. > > Investment in Property, Plant, and Equipment. Amazon’s investment in property, plant, and equipment also makes it eligible for tax credits. Cities can benefit from Amazon’s investment in real estate and job creation (benefits New York City could have enjoyed). Amazon’s PPE expenditure has steadily increased over the last five years, netting to approximately $60 billion as of the end of last year. > > Employee Stock Compensation. A move away from cash compensation to stock-based compensation for employees is the third driver of its tax breaks. Tax deductions increase as the stock increases. While this can certainly create adverse incentives, it is important to assess the benefits it creates relative to the cost. While such a tax policy can introduce misaligned management incentives, it also generates incentives for management to drive the best possible return for investors. > **[Why Amazon Pays No Corporate Taxes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/#dafd68c54d5a)** > > Amazon is under scrutiny for paying no corporate taxes, but would the country benefit from an increased corporate tax? So a rich guy directs his company to invest heavily and provide employees with stock incentives which they benefit from when the stock price increases, and the company becomes more valuable as a result. This is a good thing. It’s how capitalism is supposed to work. As to my silly little point, what is the liberal position on taxing unrealised wealth? Are you in favour of it, or against it? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/172 "2019-09-03T18:45:02Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The question in the thread title is, “Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth?” > > The answer is that they do not understand and they put quite a lot of effort into not understanding. The real answer is that there’s no ONE liberal position on wealth for conservatives to understand. This thread alone demonstrates that pretty clearly. Just like there’s no one conservative position on wealth either for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/173 "2019-09-03T18:47:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But those who have more also want more. > Of those two, which are likely to _need_ more? Why does what I go out and make matter one whit what you ‘feel like you’ need? Now don’t get me wrong, I am not going to sit here and state categorically that I will not help you with your needs as I feel like government and it’s people should lend helping hands. What I am saying is that I don’t give 2 shits what you feel like you need if I don’t feel like you need it as well. The other bridge to cross is once we finally agree that there is a need, how do we provide for it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/174 "2019-09-03T18:53:22Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Why does what I go out and make matter one whit what you ‘feel like you’ need? > > Now don’t get me wrong, I am not going to sit here and state categorically that I will not help you with your needs as I feel like government and it’s people should lend helping hands. What I am saying is that I don’t give 2 shits what you feel like you need if I don’t feel like you need it as well. > > The other bridge to cross is once we finally agree that there is a need, how do we provide for it? I have not used the words “feel”, “feeling” or “feelings”, so I have no idea what you are talking about. This doesn’t have jack shit to do with “feelings” no matter how much you want to twist it. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/175 "2019-09-03T18:53:50Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Okay, let’s decentralize “me”. I chose myself as a subject because I’m a pretty typical millenial and that may make it possible to sympathize with, but fine, have it your way. > > As I said upthread, a million seconds is a little under two weeks; a billion seconds is 37 years. Once you have two billion dollars, you have more money the gross national product of about 20 different countries, many of which have millions of people living them. That is, you personally have more money than combined total value of the entire economy of the 4.5 million people living in the Central African Republic. > > Complaining about the well-being of a billionaire after any tax reform where they don’t have to carve out a pound of flesh from their body for every million dollars they’ve stashed away is like complaining about how dry and brightly-lit the Marianas Trench is. Tax a billionare at _99%_, and he’s still richer than the mean or median worker in the US will _ever_ be. > > Would you actually be interested in participating in this discussion, or just throwing out mildly offensive non-sequiturs? 🙂 [This isn’t about jealousy](https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1166686955565920257). It’s about the tangible harm caused by misallocation of resources, and the brazen evil necessary for billionaires to decide to keep most of their billions. Do try to keep up. I am keeping up just fine. What you are failing to comprehend is that it doesn’t matter what THEY make, not one single bit. It could be 10 x’s the US GDP and I wouldn’t care and neither should you. That IS jealousy. What we both should care about is that we have government spending more than they take in (and some in government wanting to spend a whole lot more). I do not claim to be Republican or a Democrat, what I am is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think a lot of people might identify with my position (just not that many on this board). Until we get spending under control, I don’t want you taxing me, my kids inheritance, or my kids any more than absolutely necessary. My name is not Jeff Bezos ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/176 "2019-09-03T19:08:30Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Until we get spending under control, I don’t want you taxing me, my kids inheritance, or my kids any more than absolutely necessary. My name is not Jeff Bezos Are you in the 1%, or the 0.1%? If not, you don’t have to worry about anyone taxing your inheritance - or your wealth. Do you favor rolling back the tax cut, maybe the part for the rich? If not, don’t talk as if spending creates the growth in the deficit. That’s crap. The reason for this discussion is that the very richest have sucked up most of the gains in the economy, way, way out of proportion to their numbers. A wealth tax is one way of dealing with this. Or do you think this was a result of merit, and the rich didn’t do anything to make the playing field anything but level? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/177 "2019-09-03T19:16:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you in the 1%, or the 0.1%? If not, you don’t have to worry about anyone taxing your inheritance - or your wealth. > > Do you favor rolling back the tax cut, maybe the part for the rich? If not, don’t talk as if spending creates the growth in the deficit. That’s crap. > > The reason for this discussion is that the very richest have sucked up most of the gains in the economy, way, way out of proportion to their numbers. A wealth tax is one way of dealing with this. Or do you think this was a result of merit, and the rich didn’t do anything to make the playing field anything but level? I am not inherently against anything like rolling back the tax cuts, especially if they are only beneficial to the rich. I am not against the rich paying more, but every time these discussions come up, it is always about taxing more instead of spending less. Goring oxen and all that stuff. The cut off for taxing the ‘rich’ is close enough to me that it opens my eyes to what the government wants versus what I want for my and my children’s futures. As to who did what, I don’t think of the rich as evil corporate monsters. I see them as highly intelligent people using what the government allows of them to create riches. The loopholes such as they are , are created for JUST THAT REASON. Why do you think that is? Politicians are the immoral creatures bought and paid for by the rich. But I do not blame the rich. Taxing wealth just seems wrong. If you don’t get it right the first grab, you shouldn’t get a second just because someone used what you gave them. As with the Amazon tax structure earlier. Stock options, R & D, all beneficial to US ALL, yet if you listen to some, “They still make too much” That reeks of jealousy. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/178 "2019-09-03T20:40:25Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Okay, let’s decentralize “me”. I chose myself as a subject because I’m a pretty typical millenial and that may make it possible to sympathize with, but fine, have it your way. > > As I said upthread, a million seconds is a little under two weeks; a billion seconds is 37 years. Once you have two billion dollars, you have more money the gross national product of about 20 different countries, many of which have millions of people living them. That is, you personally have more money than combined total value of the entire economy of the 4.5 million people living in the Central African Republic. > > Complaining about the well-being of a billionaire after any tax reform where they don’t have to carve out a pound of flesh from their body for every million dollars they’ve stashed away is like complaining about how dry and brightly-lit the Marianas Trench is. Tax a billionare at _99%_, and he’s still richer than the mean or median worker in the US will _ever_ be. > > Would you actually be interested in participating in this discussion, or just throwing out mildly offensive non-sequiturs? 🙂 [This isn’t about jealousy](https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1166686955565920257). It’s about the tangible harm caused by misallocation of resources, and the brazen evil necessary for billionaires to decide to keep most of their billions. Do try to keep up. It’s not evil to keep what you earn. It’s not evil to want to enrich your family with what you earn instead of providing for random people who don’t do anything productive. Or are actually counterproductive and/or antisocial. Just because someone exists does not mean they are owed any of someone else’s productivity or time. Now in a society where there is a surplus, sure, mechanism of redistribution can be created. But if the government was so efficient at the creation and distribution of wealth why is it that the largest death tolls of ANY system on earth has been communism? Even fascism can’t keep up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/179 "2019-09-03T23:18:43Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Bezos isn’t singled out for Amazon’s low taxes in either of your cites. But since you’d like to throw that into the conversation here’s a Forbes take on Amazon’s federal income tax breaks: > > [Why Amazon Pays No Corporate Taxes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/#dafd68c54d5a) > > So a rich guy directs his company to invest heavily and provide employees with stock incentives which they benefit from when the stock price increases, and the company becomes more valuable as a result. This is a good thing. It’s how capitalism is supposed to work. And… that is not a problem, otherwise no tax base would be available, so not what I was talking about; and my cat’s breath smells like cat food… > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > As to my silly little point, what is the liberal position on taxing unrealised wealth? Are you in favour of it, or against it? Well, as an economist at Bloomberg reports it, you are too late: [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-05/elizabeth-warren-has-a-point-about-taxing-wealth](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-05/elizabeth-warren-has-a-point-about-taxing-wealth) > [@](#): > > The U.S. already has various wealth taxes that go by other names, but they work badly. Federal taxes on income from capital — in the form of profits, dividends and capital gains — and taxes on inheritance are varieties of wealth tax. Many state and local governments tax houses and other property as well. > > The federal taxes are poorly designed and riddled with loopholes. One big channel of avoidance is the so-called step-up basis for capital gains at death. This lets assets pass to heirs at current market values, with any previous unrealized gains simply erased for tax purposes. That means huge accumulations of unrealized capital income escape capital-gains tax altogether. Combine this with a leaky inheritance tax, and wealth can be passed from generation to generation with little or no tax owed. > > A theoretical case, based on restrictive assumptions, can be made for not taxing capital at all — but as a practical matter, on grounds of fairness and efficiency, it’s hard to deny that wealth and the income it generates are under taxed in the U.S. relative to income from labor. The question is whether a wealth tax like the one Warren is suggesting is a better remedy for these defects than fixing the taxes the U.S. already has — say, by taxing capital income at the same rate as labor income, taxing unrealized capital gains at death, and/or making the inheritance tax harder to avoid. Mind you, the economist there points out that the Warren idea has issues and there are other ways to do what amounts to a wealth tax that I’m in favor of, loopholes for the extra wealth and other items need to be taken care of while a more targeted wealth tax is implemented. In any case, the point that inequality is growing and something needs to be done to make the whole thing more sustainable in the long run remains. > **[Ending Special Tax Treatment for the Very Wealthy](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ending-special-tax-treatment-wealthy/)** > > The U.S. tax system has played a significant role in the growth of economic inequality by failing to tax those with extreme wealth—but there are ways to rebalance the tax code and put the economy on a better track. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/180 "2019-09-03T23:24:12Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It’s not evil to keep what you earn. It’s not evil to want to enrich your family with what you earn instead of providing for random people who don’t do anything productive. Or are actually counterproductive and/or antisocial. Just because someone exists does not mean they are owed any of someone else’s productivity or time. > > Now in a society where there is a surplus, sure, mechanism of redistribution can be created. But if the government was so efficient at the creation and distribution of wealth why is it that the largest death tolls of ANY system on earth has been communism? Even fascism can’t keep up. Why is that some think that the ‘best’ arguments must include Red baiting fallacies? > **[Red-baiting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting)** > > Red-baiting, also known as reductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/) and red-tagging (in the Philippines), is an intention to discredit the validity of a political opponent and the opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting the target individual or group as anarchist, communist, Marxist, socialist, Stalinist, or fellow travelers towards these ideologies. In the phrase, red refers to the color that traditionally symbolized left-wing politics worldwide since Communis... > [@](#): > > Red-baiting, also referred to as reductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/), is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of an opponent’s logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting an individual or group as anarchist, communist,[1] Marxist, socialist, Stalinist, or sympathetic towards these ideologies.[2] In the United States the term red-baiting dates from at least 1927. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=10)