Your first source states that it does not impact entrepreneurship which is not a point I addressed but does not support or refute your claim.
Your second source are non-experts as lawyers are not economists and this is a question of economics not law.
So again what is going on is that you do not have the level of understanding you think you do. Rather than recognizing that lack of understanding and taking a chance to learn you have decided to double down on the idea that you are correct when you have made it abundantly clear that you have no education in macroeconomics.
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
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.
deleted by creator
Your first source states that it does not impact entrepreneurship which is not a point I addressed but does not support or refute your claim.
Your second source are non-experts as lawyers are not economists and this is a question of economics not law.
So again what is going on is that you do not have the level of understanding you think you do. Rather than recognizing that lack of understanding and taking a chance to learn you have decided to double down on the idea that you are correct when you have made it abundantly clear that you have no education in macroeconomics.
deleted by creator
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
deleted by creator
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