wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

you are so out of touch of what property owners are responsible for...sad lil dude

jcboy3

You don’t seem to be thinking about the truly wealthy. But as Trump so clearly showed, it seems to be easy to manipulate how wealthy one actually is.

jcboy3

I own property. I’ve sold property because I didn’t want the hassle or expense of owning it. That includes second houses, development property, and ranch land. As I said, if you can’t afford to keep it, sell it.

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

i doubt that many decisions are made on "what you said"... tycoon, huh?

pendennis

I'm thinking in terms of the total picture. There are folks out there who aren't "truly wealthy" and own a classic Vette, etc.

And you haven't thought through the ability of the "truly wealthy" to create schemes both on- and off-shore to protect that wealth from taxation, Donald Trump excluded.

The Founders were truly visionary. They knew, from their studies of history, even in the 19th Century, that the tighter the government squeezed the wealth of the rich, the more they would be inclined to hide, or otherwise make that wealth unavailable for seizure.

The best tax policies are the most simple in design and execution, and the most likely to get the most bang for the buck. Consumption taxes work, and contrary to popular (and mistaken) opinion, everyone who pays them also ends up with skin in the game. There are various schemas out there which exempt a certain amount of income for everyone (usually the base poverty level). And implementing consumption taxes will put most of the IRS folks out on the street, where they'll have to find useful employment.

The guy who can afford to buy the 115 foot yacht is hardly going to worry about a sales/use tax. I'm far from being rich, but sales/use tax is never in my calculus when I buy anything.

jcboy3

I wasn't arguing in favor of the wealth tax. I was discussing the concept of how a state can tax someone that isn't a resident.