Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Ok so if you are old enough to hold a job then you should address the colossal gap in knowledge about finances unless you are immanently terminal.
Im not being snarky if you don’t know the difference between wealth and income you likely need to learn a bunch about finance so that retirement isn’t just a mythical dream for you.
No, you do not know the difference. If you did you would not make the comments you did.
We literally have a progressive tax system right now. Again you really don’t have the level of understanding you think you do regarding this subject. It is really obvious to those that do know the basics.
Im not making a semantic argument. It only seems that way because you have no idea what is being discussed here. Wealth taxes have never been proven to be effective.
Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
deleted by creator
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Are you old enough to work?
deleted by creator
Ok so if you are old enough to hold a job then you should address the colossal gap in knowledge about finances unless you are immanently terminal.
Im not being snarky if you don’t know the difference between wealth and income you likely need to learn a bunch about finance so that retirement isn’t just a mythical dream for you.
deleted by creator
No, you do not know the difference. If you did you would not make the comments you did.
We literally have a progressive tax system right now. Again you really don’t have the level of understanding you think you do regarding this subject. It is really obvious to those that do know the basics.
Im not making a semantic argument. It only seems that way because you have no idea what is being discussed here. Wealth taxes have never been proven to be effective.