>You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue.
How is it pedantic. It's completely relevant. I want to know if it was successful, where the money came from and how it got there...
Much in the same way people preach a wealth tax would bring in "billions" without realizing that probably wouldn't put a dent in anything considering the overall budget.
>If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years.
ahaha man, isn't that kinda ironic though? Maybe because the US/UK has seen the consequences of an FTT and realized that maybe its not a good idea. This is like saying "I don't want to see anything unless its from the last 50 years, since so much has changed since then"
>Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one.
Where did I ever say you were? I'm using FTT as an example of an "effort to tax the rich" that completely backfired because the people behind it assumed they were dealing with a vacuum.
>We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic.
Because it is a waste of energy at best and something that could have catastrophic consequences at worst.
>It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes.
I'm not a fan of those either for the most part. However, there's a big difference between property tax and trying to tax something worth $50b one day and then $100b a half a year later.
How is it pedantic. It's completely relevant. I want to know if it was successful, where the money came from and how it got there...
Much in the same way people preach a wealth tax would bring in "billions" without realizing that probably wouldn't put a dent in anything considering the overall budget.
>If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years.
ahaha man, isn't that kinda ironic though? Maybe because the US/UK has seen the consequences of an FTT and realized that maybe its not a good idea. This is like saying "I don't want to see anything unless its from the last 50 years, since so much has changed since then"
>Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one.
Where did I ever say you were? I'm using FTT as an example of an "effort to tax the rich" that completely backfired because the people behind it assumed they were dealing with a vacuum.
>We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic.
Because it is a waste of energy at best and something that could have catastrophic consequences at worst.
>It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes.
I'm not a fan of those either for the most part. However, there's a big difference between property tax and trying to tax something worth $50b one day and then $100b a half a year later.