[skellington]

It's been proven in the past that this does not increase revenue in the long run.

If you want to significantly increase revenue, you'd have to tax the middle class harder.

I'm not automatically against taxing high income people, but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes.

[dhc02]

The top 50% of earners in my household pay 100% of the bills. How is this fair?!

[teaearlgraycold]

I’m talking about the top 1%. And they’ve got most of the money. They should pay most of the taxes.

[consteval]

> but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes

Right, which comes out to, oh I don't know... say, 0 dollars if you're a billionaire?

These people have no income, they have wealth. The wealth is completely untaxable so long as it remains wealth. Which you can do, because the benefit of having wealth is you're given liquid money just by virtue of having that wealth. Meaning, you can infinitely take out loans and use said wealth as collateral. Probably your wealth is growing faster than the interest rate, too, so win-win: you also get free money.

Of course, OUR wealth, meaning the wealth most commonly held by the middle and upper middle class, single family homes, are taxable. We tax the unrealized gains on home equity all the time, it's called a property tax.

We have convinced the general population that the property tax is somehow not a wealth tax, and that it's actually good and they should be against wealth taxes. I mean, it's absolutely genius.

[hmmokidk]

I refuse to believe you’re actually this clueless

[skellington]

You guys just prove over and over again you don't know how anything works.