Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics

[CO. Hoosier]

All of that is why I said unearned income needs taxed at the same rate as earned. Including Social Security.

I think there is good policy to treat investment income differently. But I agree carried interest should not be allowed as a tax benefit. Trump campaigned on eliminating that and then the swamp fought back and the swamp won.

Taxing social security would be okay with me if we stopped taxing the payroll tax we pay into it.

 

[Thyrsis]

Simply put, to bring more money into the system. We know the fund has structural issues.

Would that effectively be a regressive tax?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Would that effectively be a regressive tax?

Why is that, they currently pay nothing into social security which seems more regressive?

 

[Thyrsis]

Why is that, they currently pay nothing into social security which seems more regressive?

I'm probably thinking of it the wrong way. Most of us paid into Social Security retirement benefits via paycheck deduction. That's a tax. (Maybe I need to understand who you mean by "they"; I paid into social security, why didn't "they"?) Now you're going to tax me on the payout of those benefits.

Plus, it's not like those social security benefits are going to make anybody rich, yet for some folks, those benefits are meaningful. Because those retirement benefits are capped at a modest number, you're imposing a tax that will likely have a greater impact on poorer recipients (who don't have much more income than those benefits) than big-401k individuals (who've got other funds readily accessible), no? Again, I'm probably thinking of this the wrong way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm probably thinking of it the wrong way. Most of us paid into Social Security retirement benefits via paycheck deduction. That's a tax. (Maybe I need to understand who you mean by "they"; I paid into social security, why didn't "they"?) Now you're going to tax me on the payout of those benefits.

Plus, it's not like those social security benefits are going to make anybody rich, yet for some folks, those benefits are meaningful. Because those retirement benefits are capped at a modest number, you're imposing a tax that will likely have a greater impact on poorer recipients (who don't have much more income than those benefits) than big-401k individuals (who've got other funds readily accessible), no? Again, I'm probably thinking of this the wrong way.

I am thinking of big investors. They pay no social security tax because unearned income is exempt. So I am not planning on taxing social security receivers. I think I would exempt 401k investments since that is sort of a circular problem.

 

[Thyrsis]

I am thinking of big investors. They pay no social security tax because unearned income is exempt. So I am not planning on taxing social security receivers. I think I would exempt 401k investments since that is sort of a circular problem.

Gotcha.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am thinking of big investors. They pay no social security tax because unearned income is exempt. So I am not planning on taxing social security receivers. I think I would exempt 401k investments since that is sort of a circular problem.

If social security is the bulk of a retiree’s income, they would probably owe no tax even if you counted the benefits as taxable income. I’m mostly okay with including SS as taxable income. That would only kick in at the higher income levels.

 

[Digressions]

If social security is the bulk of a retiree’s income, they would probably owe no tax even if you counted the benefits as taxable income. I’m mostly okay with including SS as taxable income. That would only kick in at the higher income levels.

I thought it was like that now, but I could be mistaken.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I thought it was like that now, but I could be mistaken.

It is—kinda. @stollcpa needs to weigh in

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Tech matters. What happens to truck drivers in 15 years when we have self-driving trucks? They don't need paid and can drive without rest breaks. Human drivers have no chance. The choices for human truck drivers will be to 1) quit driving 2) work for a whole lot less. Foreign competition has no impact on that.

I go to Wal*Mart, Krogers, Taco Bell, McDonalds, I see self-service systems. That isn't someone off-shore taking the job.

Even "Steve from Austin" who is actually sitting in Mumbai can't compete. More and more call centers are going to systems that automatically ask you to describe your problem then attempt to give you solutions in hopes your call can be solved without ever going to a person.

Look at the auto assembly lines. There is a YouTube video out there of an F150 being assembled. It goes through a lot of assembly without any human involvement. 30 years ago teams of humans would have been doing all that. Automation is the biggest issue on working class jobs.

I tried to find documentation in a quick search but couldn't. I will bet that it takes fewer workers today to build a mile of interstate highway then it did in 1960. That has nothing to do with foreign competition. We know it takes FAR fewer miners to pull out a ton of coal today than it did 30 years ago. That has nothing to do with foreign competition.

as i said before, and you totally ignored, tech advances have always been with us, and have always made it so you need less people to do more work.

just as much or more as today.

yet for the reasons i expressed above, and you totally ignored, workers prospered and gained thru tech advances until off shoring.

no doubt your ancestors thought the sky was falling when the printing press was invented, steam engines, railroads, motors, cars and trucks, heavy machinery, etc.

tech making workers more productive has gone on since the wheel was invented, has had a huge impact on productivity since the founding fathers in this country, yet worker's pay has gone up virtually throughout till we started exporting our industries and the associated jobs, and all the satellite jobs the plants and service centers created or enhanced, with them. (and the tax base with the industries and jobs).

tech has always increased productivity, and yet worker wages and benefits only got higher and better.

that is till Wall St decided what a great idea exporting industries and jobs instead of products would be, and bought the govt and politicians to make that happen.

it's the off shoring that's new the last 40 yrs, not tech advances making workers much more productive, so i suggest you get your sht together before you try to pull this BS argument again that tech, not off shoring, is the problem.

that said, don't bet the house self driving trucks will be dominating the trucking industry within 15 yrs.

if you insist, i'll gladly take that bet.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Right now we have a significant labor shortage.

of course we do. LMAO

 

[Marvin the Martian]

as i said before, and you totally ignored, tech advances have always been with us, and have always made it so you need less people to do more work.

just as much or more as today.

yet for the reasons i expressed above, and you totally ignored, workers prospered and gained thru tech advances until off shoring.

no doubt your ancestors thought the sky was falling when the printing press was invented, steam engines, railroads, motors, cars and trucks, heavy machinery, etc.

tech making workers more productive has gone on since the wheel was invented, has had a huge impact on productivity since the founding fathers in this country, yet worker's pay has gone up virtually throughout till we started exporting our industries and the associated jobs, and all the satellite jobs the plants and service centers created or enhanced, with them. (and the tax base with the industries and jobs).

tech has always increased productivity, and yet worker wages and benefits only got higher and better.

that is till Wall St decided what a great idea exporting industries and jobs instead of products would be, and bought the govt and politicians to make that happen.

it's the off shoring that's new the last 40 yrs, not tech advances making workers much more productive, so i suggest you get your sht together before you try to pull this BS argument again that tech, not off shoring, is the problem.

that said, don't bet the house self driving trucks will be dominating the trucking industry within 15 yrs.

if you insist, i'll gladly take that bet.

Yes, we have made workers more efficient. We have not had the technology to create with no workers until now. Google F150 assembly line and watch how much of the truck is assembled without a human even appearing. And 3D printer technology is going to get better. Some car companies are starting to 3D print components at the assembly plant. That means no workers making the part and no shipping of the part. Even into the 60s and 70s, factory work required expertise. Now many positions involve watching the machine work. Companies are not going to pay $30/hour for that.

15 years is a very very long time in technology. I have no idea why you think self driving is impossible in that time. Most companies are banking on LIDAR (not Tesla) and LIDAR has had issues. But as can be expected, new and improved LIDAR is on its way. I am not sure Tesla has the right idea with its passive system, but time will yell.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So what's your point? You want a wealth tax...that forces the wealthy to liquidate their capital positions to pay the govt?

Talk about a recipe for a market crash.

To be fair, we probably will need some kind of more robust wealth tax than what we currently have at some point. Accumulation of wealth by a very small handful eventually hits a tipping point where it can actually hold an economy hostage. This happened with the real estate market in Hawaii, which led to the famous SCOTUS case that endorsed Hawaii's use of eminent domain to redistribute land.

Of course, the Hawaii plan was neither punitive nor confiscatory. The original landowners were compensated for the condemned land, and the new owners had to pay fair market value to acquire the land from the state. But it's nevertheless a good example of the economic dangers of a small group of people essentially cornering the market on wealth itself.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

To be fair, we probably will need some kind of more robust wealth tax than what we currently have at some point.

I don't think we have ANY wealth tax now, do we?

If we extract a portion of one's wealth by calling it a "tax," wouldn't that be seizing property in violation of the due process clause?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think we have ANY wealth tax now, do we?

If we extract a portion of one's wealth by calling it a "tax," wouldn't that be seizing property in violation of the due process clause?

The estate and gift tax is a wealth tax. We don't legally define it as such, since it's supposedly a tax on an act (dying), but in reality, it's a wealth tax, which is why it can reach back in time and affect events (gifts) that happened several years before death.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The estate and gift tax is a wealth tax. We don't legally define it as such, since it's supposedly a tax on an act (dying), but in reality, it's a wealth tax, which is why it can reach back in time and affect events (gifts) that happened several years before death.

The estate tax operates like a tax. It is tied to an event--the transfer of property held at death. There is an exemption if the transfer is to a spouse or charity. The amount of the tax is determined by the value of the property held at death. There are deductions for certain activities in connection with the estate. All of this are indicia of a tax. On the other hand, a wealth tax is simply telling the owner of the wealth to turn over a certain percentage of the wealth to the government. There is no taxable event. Nor is there any behavioral trigger like C.J. Roberts found with the health care mandate.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The estate tax operates like a tax. It is tied to an event--the transfer of property held at death. There is an exemption if the transfer is to a spouse or charity. The amount of the tax is determined by the value of the property held at death. There are deductions for certain activities in connection with the estate. All of this are indicia of a tax. On the other hand, a wealth tax is simply telling the owner of the wealth to turn over a certain percentage of the wealth to the government. There is no taxable event. Nor is there any behavioral trigger like C.J. Roberts found with the health care mandate.

Like I said before, the estate and gift tax can reach back in time and grab gifts that happened years before. So it's not limited to just the supposed event. In effect, it's a type of wealth tax.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Like I said before, the estate and gift tax can reach back in time and grab gifts that happened years before. So it's not limited to just the supposed event. In effect, it's a type of wealth tax.

Right. The estate tax can reach back and and tax property transfers. Again there is a taxable event. The estate and gift tax does not apply to the "act" ownership as would a wealth tax. There are opinions holding that the E & G tax is not a confiscation of property. A wealth tax would not meet those tests.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Right. The estate tax can reach back and and tax property transfers. Again there is a taxable event. The estate and gift tax does not apply to the "act" ownership as would a wealth tax. There are opinions holding that the E & G tax is not a confiscation of property. A wealth tax would not meet those tests.

Semantics. The purpose of the estate and gift tax is to tax wealth. It's designed to find a "taxable event" to justify it, but the purpose is to tax wealth. Reaching back in time is evidence of that, as is, by the way, the generation skipping tax. It's not a wealth tax on its face, but it's a wealth tax in reality.

And it really isn't very robust. We'll probably need a stronger version at some point, to stave off societal and economic collapse.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's designed to find a "taxable event" to justify it,

And that “justification” is the point. A robust wealth tax would require a constitutional amendment as did the income tax—albeit for a different constitutional reason.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And that “justification” is the point. A robust wealth tax would require a constitutional amendment as did the income tax—albeit for a different constitutional reason.

It's legally the point. But as a matter of policy, the estate tax is a wealth tax.

A more robust version would require no more of a constitutional amendment than the current one requires, which is to say none. It just requires that it's designed in such a way to meet all current formal requirements.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's legally the point. But as a matter of policy, the estate tax is a wealth tax.

A more robust version would require no more of a constitutional amendment than the current one requires, which is to say none. It just requires that it's designed in such a way to meet all current formal requirements.

You are begging the question. I asked in my first post how you would immunize a wealth tax against a due process challenge. How could that be done?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are begging the question. I asked in my first post how you would immunize a wealth tax against a due process challenge. How could that be done?

I'm not begging any questions. But to answer your question, I refer to my previous post. We just disguise it as something else. We expand the estate tax. Increase the percentage and make it touch more estates. That's an easy solution that is already covered by current law. I'm sure smart people could come up with other ways. As long as you can invent a "taxable event," it's not difficult to do.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I don't think we have ANY wealth tax now, do we?

If we extract a portion of one's wealth by calling it a "tax," wouldn't that be seizing property in violation of the due process clause?

any tax is seizing one's property.

Indiana used to tax business inventory. don't know if they still do, but i don't recall that being declared unconstitutional.

and how is property tax not a tax on wealth?

a tax on wealth would be a boom to the economy, and could be done in such a way as to insulate the very well to do such that a decent portion of their wealth would be exempt before the tax kicks in on the rest.

the big obstacle would be that the wealthy own the politicians, which they paid good money for, and expect a return on that investment, which they get in spades.

enabling off shoring, ok'ing mergers that should never be oked, monopolization, killing open internet/title II designation, carried interest, collusion driven usurious consumer and small business interest rates, bail outs of the rich, etc, etc, the moneyed interest's get a fabulous return on their investment of buying govt.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yes, we have made workers more efficient. We have not had the technology to create with no workers until now. Google F150 assembly line and watch how much of the truck is assembled without a human even appearing. And 3D printer technology is going to get better. Some car companies are starting to 3D print components at the assembly plant. That means no workers making the part and no shipping of the part. Even into the 60s and 70s, factory work required expertise. Now many positions involve watching the machine work. Companies are not going to pay $30/hour for that.

15 years is a very very long time in technology. I have no idea why you think self driving is impossible in that time. Most companies are banking on LIDAR (not Tesla) and LIDAR has had issues. But as can be expected, new and improved LIDAR is on its way. I am not sure Tesla has the right idea with its passive system, but time will yell.

bulldozers, cars, trucks, motors, cranes, and many other things allow one man or woman to do the work of a hundred, and a zillion other things implemented before 1980 allow one person the do the work of 10 to 100 men.

a train did the work of how many?

or a giant cargo ship.

tv and radio enabled a a very few to market to millions, entertain millions, and educate millions.

sorry, the "this is all new and more pervasive" thing just isn't so, so just stop with the propaganda.

those 3d printers need manufactured and operated and serviced, and materials to shape and form.

the tech enabled drop in men needed to produce goods, is offset by the increase in number of goods produced.

robots need built and operated and maintained as well.

same with printers.

and if robots are so much more cost effective, why aren't the prices of cars and other goods dropping like a rock??

fast food will always employ workers. (remember when the automat was going to take over food service).

tech advances the equal of or greater than those you bring up have been a constant throughout history, and all have enabled one worker to do the work of many, to hundreds, to thousands, of workers, yet wages and jobs continued to rise.

then that near constant increase stopped, when the moneyed interests bought govt, the politicians, the regulators, and the courts, and moved the industries and jobs and tax bases off shore, and killed the worker's ability to bargain for a share of the productivity gains.

the new factor in the loss of jobs and real wages wasn't tech. tech advances were always a constant that previously created more jobs than it ate, and allowed workers to bargain for ever increasing wages without increasing the cost of production.

it was the purchase of govt and the subsequent off shoring that was the new factor that killed jobs and stagnated wages.

you can keep repeating the false propaganda lie that tech is the villain here, but the entire history of the world says differently.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm probably thinking of it the wrong way. Most of us paid into Social Security retirement benefits via paycheck deduction. That's a tax. (Maybe I need to understand who you mean by "they"; I paid into social security, why didn't "they"?) Now you're going to tax me on the payout of those benefits.

Plus, it's not like those social security benefits are going to make anybody rich, yet for some folks, those benefits are meaningful. Because those retirement benefits are capped at a modest number, you're imposing a tax that will likely have a greater impact on poorer recipients (who don't have much more income than those benefits) than big-401k individuals (who've got other funds readily accessible), no? Again, I'm probably thinking of this the wrong way.

No you are thinking of it the right way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

bulldozers, cars, trucks, motors, cranes, and many other things allow one man or woman to do the work of a hundred, and a zillion other things implemented before 1980 allow one person the do the work of 10 to 100 men.

a train did the work of how many?

or a giant cargo ship.

tv and radio enabled a a very few to market to millions, entertain millions, and educate millions.

sorry, the "this is all new and more pervasive" thing just isn't so, so just stop with the propaganda.

those 3d printers need manufactured and operated and serviced, and materials to shape and form.

the tech enabled drop in men needed to produce goods, is offset by the increase in number of goods produced.

robots need built and operated and maintained as well.

same with printers.

and if robots are so much more cost effective, why aren't the prices of cars and other goods dropping like a rock??

fast food will always employ workers. (remember when the automat was going to take over food service).

tech advances the equal of or greater than those you bring up have been a constant throughout history, and all have enabled one worker to do the work of many, to hundreds, to thousands, of workers, yet wages and jobs continued to rise.

then that near constant increase stopped, when the moneyed interests bought govt, the politicians, the regulators, and the courts, and moved the industries and jobs and tax bases off shore, and killed the worker's ability to bargain for a share of the productivity gains.

the new factor in the loss of jobs and real wages wasn't tech. tech advances were always a constant that previously created more jobs than it ate, and allowed workers to bargain for ever increasing wages without increasing the cost of production.

it was the purchase of govt and the subsequent off shoring that was the new factor that killed jobs and stagnated wages.

you can keep repeating the false propaganda lie that tech is the villain here, but the entire history of the world says differently.

Look up the phrase "tipping point" and get back to me. The number of jobs lost has to tech could not continue without eventually causing the problem. It just accelerated. You can eat the arsenic contained in an apple with no problem, but concentrate it and bad things happen. A virtually jobless future is coming. Let me ask this, in your post above you ask who makes the 3D printers. What if the answer is a 3D printer?

Every tech advance has left a person or two out of a hundred behind. We have just reached that point it has become very noticeable. In the past, especially in America, we were growing and this helped hide the problem. More people coming in meant more opportunities. We have stopped growing.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Look up the phrase "tipping point" and get back to me. The number of jobs lost has to tech could not continue without eventually causing the problem. It just accelerated. You can eat the arsenic contained in an apple with no problem, but concentrate it and bad things happen. A virtually jobless future is coming. Let me ask this, in your post above you ask who makes the 3D printers. What if the answer is a 3D printer?

Every tech advance has left a person or two out of a hundred behind. We have just reached that point it has become very noticeable. In the past, especially in America, we were growing and this helped hide the problem. More people coming in meant more opportunities. We have stopped growing.

Your point in bold, if that is true (I do not necessarily know it is), but if it is true, how do you square that with inviting in several million unskilled laborers? Is not the idea that we have stopped growing and that the left behind are going to increasingly be reliant on some form of welfare (like U.B.I.) a support for Trump's position to stop letting people in?

In a stop growing scenario, every new person let in merely makes a smaller serving for everyone else. I have always argued that the proponents of a "Super Safety Net" state almost have to be, if not anti-, at least a proponent of extremely and severely tight immigration rules.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Your point in bold, if that is true (I do not necessarily know it is), but if it is true, how do you square that with inviting in several million unskilled laborers? Is not the idea that we have stopped growing and that the left behind are going to increasingly be reliant on some form of welfare (like U.B.I.) a support for Trump's position to stop letting people in?

In a stop growing scenario, every new person let in merely makes a smaller serving for everyone else. I have always argued that the proponents of a "Super Safety Net" state almost have to be, if not anti-, at least a proponent of extremely and severely tight immigration rules.

There are plenty of graphs and stories about the US birthrate, but it is very low. Here is one:

What to note about that is 1937 was a very low year, I found one chart going back to 1900 where the rate was very high (above 1950) but that chart mixed birthrate with another factor and I know how CO hates that.

I think Japan shows us the opposite of what you suggest. Japan is at a real low birthrate, lower than us, and their economy has been stagnate for a very long time. I think we need immigration to boost the economy. New people coming in desperately wanting to buy what Madison Avenue wants to sell them. Normally that falls to teens, but our teen demographic isn't big enough

It can create a problem with jobs, but I don't think it is the problem you are quite describing. It is virtually impossible to get an American to want to be a migrant farm laborer. But we still desperately need those people. As I've suggested on coal country, Americans are deeply rooted in what they will and will not do. Coal miners are coal miners and refused to attend worker retraining to become something else. Yet we still need engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and the like. Come to Bloomington and sit in on an advanced math class, or an advanced physics class. There are Americans in them, but you will hear a lot of non-American accents as well. We just don't produce STEM no matter how hard we try. Either we do without, pay someone in a foreign country to do our STEM for us, or we invite them to come here and work. Option 3 seems best to me. Option 3 is what built the A bomb and the US space program.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not begging any questions. But to answer your question, I refer to my previous post. We just disguise it as something else. We expand the estate tax. Increase the percentage and make it touch more estates. That's an easy solution that is already covered by current law. I'm sure smart people could come up with other ways. As long as you can invent a "taxable event," it's not difficult to do.

Okay. Increase the impact of the estate tax. I get that. For most of us, the estate and gift tax is one thing, and the wealth tax is something else and different.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Look up the phrase "tipping point" and get back to me. The number of jobs lost has to tech could not continue without eventually causing the problem. It just accelerated. You can eat the arsenic contained in an apple with no problem, but concentrate it and bad things happen. A virtually jobless future is coming. Let me ask this, in your post above you ask who makes the 3D printers. What if the answer is a 3D printer?

Every tech advance has left a person or two out of a hundred behind. We have just reached that point it has become very noticeable. In the past, especially in America, we were growing and this helped hide the problem. More people coming in meant more opportunities. We have stopped growing.

Jobs have been lost to technological changes for as long as there have been technological changes. And jobs exist now that weren't even imagined a generation ago. I don't get the jobless future at all. We are in the midst of technological changes as I write this, yet we have significant labor shortages is scores of occupations. Some of those shortages are holding back entrepreneurship and job creation. I'm more concerned about the pitifully low number of American kids studying the STEM disciplines than I am about nobody being able to find work. Foreign students sit in many if not most of the STEM education seats in our universities and those graduates return to their homes to create jobs and advance technology there instead of here. Meanwhile our universities are expanding their grievance studies curriculums and turning out graduates who fight against the entrepreneurs and capitalists who want to create jobs and advance technology. Those seats are filed by American kids.

 

[Fro]

Jobs have been lost to technological changes for as long as there have been technological changes. And jobs exist now that weren't even imagined a generation ago. I don't get the jobless future at all. We are in the midst of technological changes as I write this, yet we have significant labor shortages is scores of occupations. Some of those shortages are holding back entrepreneurship and job creation. I'm more concerned about the pitifully low number of American kids studying the STEM disciplines than I am about nobody being able to find work. Foreign students sit in many if not most of the STEM education seats in our universities and those graduates return to their homes to create jobs and advance technology there instead of here. Meanwhile our universities are expanding their grievance studies curriculums and turning out graduates who fight against the entrepreneurs and capitalists who want to create jobs and advance technology. Those seats are filed by American kids.

That's an issue but there has to be options for people who may not be book-smart or come from a disadvantaged background to have a dignified career with a living wage/benefits.

Once AI replaces most of the truck/cab/heavy machinery/train/subway operator jobs in the next 20-30 years I think that will be the tipping point.

I think capitalism (with the proper social safety nets, access to health insurance and public education) is our best system for now but it's pretty much inevitable that the system will break down when machines can do most jobs. We're getting closer to that future every year.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

any tax is seizing one's property.

Indiana used to tax business inventory. don't know if they still do, but i don't recall that being declared unconstitutional.

and how is property tax not a tax on wealth?

a tax on wealth would be a boom to the economy, and could be done in such a way as to insulate the very well to do such that a decent portion of their wealth would be exempt before the tax kicks in on the rest.

the big obstacle would be that the wealthy own the politicians, which they paid good money for, and expect a return on that investment, which they get in spades.

enabling off shoring, ok'ing mergers that should never be oked, monopolization, killing open internet/title II designation, carried interest, collusion driven usurious consumer and small business interest rates, bail outs of the rich, etc, etc, the moneyed interest's get a fabulous return on their investment of buying govt.

Of course any tax is taking one's property. But there are volumes written in the legal literature about the differences among taxes, fees for government services, and confiscations of property. I happen to believe, and will argue, that a stand-alone wealth tax, with nothing more, is a confiscation of ones assets. I have a lot of good company in that argument. But like everything else, legal scholars disagree.

You raise a very interesting point by mentioning property tax. Ad valorem tax is a different animal and it is steeped in the history of it being one of the oldest known types of taxes in the world. In many, if not all states, there is no legal obligation to pay property taxes, so those are different. The authorities cannot sue you, or put you in jail if you don't pay real estate taxes.* But they can hold a tax sale to collect. Also, there is no dollar exemption for property taxes. All property is subject to tax, regardless of the economic status of the owner. The only exemptions are property held for charitable, religious, educational, or other purposes the authorities wish to exempt. Like goat's estate tax, I assume wealth tax will target only rich people, not all people.

If I were to design a "wealth" tax at the federal level, I'd make it some kind of a transaction tax on assets. That might require a constitutional amendment similar to the income tax amendment, but it wouldn't have a due process problem. Some state and local jurisdictions have those taxes now. Of course the down side is that commercial transactions are vital to a thriving economy and you don't want to drive that activity off shore.

Finally, taxes on business inventory, and equipment, is a personal property tax. It isn't really a wealth tax because there is no calculation about wealth. Like any property tax, if the owner of the property were insolvent and had no wealth, the property taxes are still levied and collected.

*personal property taxes are different.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Jobs have been lost to technological changes for as long as there have been technological changes. And jobs exist now that weren't even imagined a generation ago. I don't get the jobless future at all. We are in the midst of technological changes as I write this, yet we have significant labor shortages is scores of occupations. Some of those shortages are holding back entrepreneurship and job creation. I'm more concerned about the pitifully low number of American kids studying the STEM disciplines than I am about nobody being able to find work. Foreign students sit in many if not most of the STEM education seats in our universities and those graduates return to their homes to create jobs and advance technology there instead of here. Meanwhile our universities are expanding their grievance studies curriculums and turning out graduates who fight against the entrepreneurs and capitalists who want to create jobs and advance technology. Those seats are filed by American kids.

Find the videos online of car assembly. Companies are not going to pay $30/hour for someone to simply watch a machine do most of the work.

You speak of shortages of welders often, welding robots are on their way. A person watching a robot weld isn't going to make $50 an hour.

Look at the military, thousand plane raids in WW2 are replaced by 3 missiles.

Look at NASA, look at the old footage of Johnson Space Center during the moon launches, not nearly as many people needed for a launch today, if we still did them.

Those previous technological changes did cost jobs. But they were always people on the fringe anyway so society ignored them. They lived in the slums of London and NY, so we did not care. But the losses keep mounting and move up the food chain. A computer can beat you at chess easily, it is only a matter of time until it can easily beat you drawing up a contract (probably already) or in the courtroom. Our planes today are designed on the computer, and the computer is doing more and more of the work. If those jobs are being lost, what won't be? Heck, there is even sex robot prostitution now.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's an issue but there has to be options for people who may not be book-smart or come from a disadvantaged background to have a dignified career with a living wage/benefits.

Once AI replaces most of the truck/cab/heavy machinery/train/subway operator jobs in the next 20-30 years I think that will be the tipping point.

I think capitalism (with the proper social safety nets, access to health insurance and public education) is our best system for now but it's pretty much inevitable that the system will break down when machines can do most jobs. We're getting closer to that future every year.

I don't agree. Skilled labor in the construction trades is in very short supply now and it looks like it will stay that way. Technology and robotics might make the individual workers more productive. But the jobs will always be there, and the more we build the higher the demand for those jobs. So I don't see the system breaking down as machines enter the picture.

 

[hoot1]

Jobs have been lost to technological changes for as long as there have been technological changes. And jobs exist now that weren't even imagined a generation ago. I don't get the jobless future at all. We are in the midst of technological changes as I write this, yet we have significant labor shortages is scores of occupations. Some of those shortages are holding back entrepreneurship and job creation. I'm more concerned about the pitifully low number of American kids studying the STEM disciplines than I am about nobody being able to find work. Foreign students sit in many if not most of the STEM education seats in our universities and those graduates return to their homes to create jobs and advance technology there instead of here. Meanwhile our universities are expanding their grievance studies curriculums and turning out graduates who fight against the entrepreneurs and capitalists who want to create jobs and advance technology. Those seats are filed by American kids.

Speaking of education and training for jobs of the future and not the past, state and local governments compete to attract jobs with tax and other incentives. This money could be used for training and education for kids and adults in jobs which are needed.

Employers look for a qualified workforce which is considered a prime factor in locating a business.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Find the videos online of car assembly. Companies are not going to pay $30/hour for someone to simply watch a machine do most of the work.

You speak of shortages of welders often, welding robots are on their way. A person watching a robot weld isn't going to make $50 an hour.

Look at the military, thousand plane raids in WW2 are replaced by 3 missiles.

Look at NASA, look at the old footage of Johnson Space Center during the moon launches, not nearly as many people needed for a launch today, if we still did them.

Those previous technological changes did cost jobs. But they were always people on the fringe anyway so society ignored them. They lived in the slums of London and NY, so we did not care. But the losses keep mounting and move up the food chain. A computer can beat you at chess easily, it is only a matter of time until it can easily beat you drawing up a contract (probably already) or in the courtroom. Our planes today are designed on the computer, and the computer is doing more and more of the work. If those jobs are being lost, what won't be? Heck, there is even sex robot prostitution now.

Everything you say is of course true. We have robotic welders now, but those are stationary. We have a very high demand for mobile welders and that requires people. True, less people are needed to launch a single rocket, but we are launching significantly more rockets which requires more people. Once again, you are taking the status quo and looking backward. And that is correct but it isn't the total picture. We can't imagine the jobs that will come into being just as we couldn't imagine the biotech jobs of today 50 years ago.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Heck, there is even sex robot prostitution now.

Uh, do you have any further info on this? Asking for a friend.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Speaking of education and training for jobs of the future and not the past, state and local governments compete to attract jobs with tax and other incentives. This money could be used for training and education for kids and adults in jobs which are needed.

Employers look for a qualified workforce which is considered a prime factor in locating a business.

We have had that "education and training" stuff for decades now. It doesn't work. People don't want to do many of the jobs that are available. Somebody mentioned "dignified jobs" in this thread. What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean somebody would rather sit in a cubicle and not have to take a shower after their shift, instead of operating an automated trash truck (yes garbage men, and garbage cans are a thing of the past, but we have more garbage and recycling now.)

We are developing a mindset about labor and work that is more destructive than robotics and automation. Undignified dirty jobs and mundane jobs are not being filled and nobody is training to do those. I mentioned my new local grocery store. There are 15 scanners, and most of the day there are only two checkout lanes in use. And there is STILL a labor shortage in that store. This isn't just about technology.

Edited and made better.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Uh, do you have any further info on this? Asking for a friend.

I think it was Houston that turned down a permit to open up such a business, I am sure your friend can Google it.