Is Elizabeth's wealth tax viable?

[crazytown]

By my calculations, a person owning a billion dollars would be liable to pay $19m under Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal. All things considered that doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

The wealth tax is supposed to bring in trillions in revenue. I’m sure Warren has good numbers people, but the end result looks more modest.

[BeyondGeography]

1. It's 3% for billionaires

Numbers explained here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/24/18196275/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax

The basic plan is to levy a 2 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on fortunes worth more than $1 billion. According to the post, Saez estimates this tax would hit approximately 75,000 families and raise $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period.

Most taxes hit a flow of money, taking X% of your income or adding Y% to the cost of a purchase. A wealth tax instead hits a stock.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is worth about $57 billion. A 3 percent tax on that fortune would cost $1.7 billion in the first year, and if applied year after year, could tax his fortune close to $0 over the course of several decades if the fortune did not accrue investment gains...

[PoliticAverse]

2. Without a constitutional amendment a wealth tax would likely be overturned by the courts.

There's a reason it was necessary to pass the 16th amendment in order to implement an income tax.

[crazytown]

4. It would be open to the Federal Covernment to have The States

collect it for them. Obviously no GOP State would rake up the Offer. But the vast majority of the wealthy live on the coasts.

[oldsoftie]

10. And they would move if this were enacted in that manner. Very simple.

[crazytown]

28. You own a billion. The tax bill is $19m

As a matter of economics you won’t be moving everything to another state. As a matter of ideology, maybe, but money? No.

[oldsoftie]

34. But it would be the person who got taxed, right? He could just change addresses.

Not to mention the easily available S-Corps, LLCs, etc, that would get property transferred to them.

Then you have to consider all those super rich who have most of their money in a company stock. You'd force them to sell to pay the tax? That would have an impact on share price. It would also have an impact on voting %. Feasibly a person who had over 50% of a company stock, and therefore control, could be forced to sell down to no longer having controlling interest.
I just dont see any state falling for it

[Hoyt]

3. It's not a lot. Her plan is projected to "raise" $100 Billion a year.

That’s barely 10% of the current annual Deficit, much less providing any money for healthcare, education, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, jobs, climate change, paying down debt, etc.

I think she’s proposing other taxes too, as are most candidates.

Voters know increasing taxes on just about everyone, but the poor, is going to be necessary to do all the things being promised. I’m afraid there are a lot of voters who won’t tolerate increased taxes, even for desirable/needed programs.

Hopefully, some candidate will lay out a comprehensive plan of programs and what it’s going to cost us, not just a bunch of tax the rich proposals.

Taxing the rich is certainly part of the solution, a big part, but it’s naive to promote it as the total solution.

[LibFarmer]

6. The fundamental problem is

that the billionaires (especially tech billionaires) are not very liquid and while they are stock rich, they don't have much cash.

Bezos, for example, has $125 billion in stock and he will have to sell it and pay capital gains tax on it in order to pay the wealth tax. That means he'll have to pay $450 million worth of stock to pay the wealth tax. This will depress the stock market and a lot of people's 401-K plans.

A better way is to reverse the Bush and Trump tax cuts. Those will be enough to fund a lot of things. Bill Clinton actually balanced the budget and created a surplus without a wealth tax.

[crazytown]

7. Bezos would be able to open a load wouldn't be?

In All seriousness Bezos would be no more likely to sell stock to pay a wealth tax bill, as he would be to pay any other bill, including regular income tax. A wealth tax is just another expense, funding will be found as per usual.

[Igel]

24. Where do you think liquidity comes from?

You sell investments as needed.

It's not like you'll have $200 million sitting, not doing anything, in a bank account unless you plan for it. That means selling something and keeping it as cash or holding dividend income.

Now, most people that do investments tend to have a cash fund sitting there, but it's transitional--you sell, and hold cash waiting for an opportunity, or waiting for a change in the market, or it's a place to put dividends until you decide how to invest them.

This would more than likely be a forced sale, more like what's necessary to cover a margin call. It would happen quarterly, in paying estimated tax.

It would have an upside/downside in that if it forced a sale, it might force a capital gains or capital loss, depending on the state of the market and a particular investment.

Of more concern would be those whose wealth is in real estate during a recession. Depressed real estate prices would just produce real estate prices that are more depressed.

[crazytown]

25. Credit. Liquify runs on credit.

Last edited Sat May 11, 2019, 06:23 PM - Edit history (2)

This has been Amazon’s business model from day one. Bezos would have a lines of credit for hundreds of millions of dollars interest free for s year. A well advised person runs their affairs like a business. The only reason you draw down liquid assets is if it makes sense to do so within your portfolio, not whether a big bill comes in. Those are paid on credit. Always.

Let’s leave it at that.

[customerserviceguy]

8. How do you expect she would get past

the Constitutional question of whether the Federal government can tax wealth? They needed the 16th Amendment to be able to legally charge an income tax. Either the SCOTUS would have to rule that the 16th Amendment can be construed to mean wealth as well as income, or we would have to have another amendment, which needs supermajorities in both houses of Congress, and a super-super-majority of states ratifying it.

I don't see that happening.

[crazytown]

9. I'd start with the States of California and New York

passing enabling legislation. The federal government may be constrained, but the States are not.

[customerserviceguy]

11. So

you would have CA and NY "go first" to try a wealth tax to see how that works? What happens when rich people move out of those states?

[crazytown]

12. That was an example.

It’s an easier sell than ACA Medicaid.

As for people moving out like property taxes it attaches to the Assets.

One more thing. If you own a billion, you would be billed $19m . Do you really think that’s enough to panic people into relocating assets and residences?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Well, then

if Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax in either CA or NY, she should run for governor of one of those states.

What I find appalling is all of the "big plans" that our candidates are offering that they know are going to be either incredibly difficult or absolutely impossible to enact.

[crazytown]

14. Your hostility is noted.

[oldsoftie]

16. But it sounds good, and thats what matters in a primary. Nobody wants to deal with reality.

That reality is the US will NEVER fund ANY of the proposed programs by simply taxing the rich. Thats a fact. Everyone eagerly ignores it, but thats the way it is.

[crazytown]

19. What matters in this primary

Is finding the candidate to get Trump out. I like talking policy, but yes, we are at war.

As who is the best candidate? I agree with DemocratSinceBirth ‘The only person who can beat Joe is, Joe’

[oldsoftie]

20. Yes! To me, winning is the ONLY thing that matters.

AFTER that we can worry about what can and cant be done.

[crazytown]

21. Yeah. The house is on fire.

We can talk about the best place to put the new sofa later on.

[oldsoftie]

22. You're killin' me!!

[oldsoftie]

15. NONE of the current proposals would bring in anywhere NEAR "trillions"

That figure only comes up when that "over 10 years" fantasy is mentioned

And if a campaign is going to talk about "soaking" and "eating" the rich, good luck with that

[crazytown]

17. I am capitalist who celebrates success.

The reference to soak / eat the rich anticipates the line of Republican attack. That’s the problem with anonymity: People fear the worst. I doubt if the people who knew me at college ever thought I would vote for a Democrat of any description.

[oldsoftie]

18. Ha! Wonder how THEY are voting now?

[crazytown]

23. Maybe they were confronted

by a moment when they had to decide whether to keep their souls and get off the gravy train, or travel further down the line of least resistance.

If the only difference between what you are doing at work and a crime is the fine print on an NDA, it’s time to move on.

[AncientGeezer]

26. Would be shot down in any Federal Court...SCOTUS would crush it

[crazytown]

27. Taxation by the states is sovereign.

[AncientGeezer]

29. Really....that has What to do with her plan? Wealth tax will die(as it should)

...SCOTUS will kill that 9-0.....

[crazytown]

30. If you had read through the thread you would know.

I’m not going to get into another argument whether a $19m charge on a billion bucks is enough incentive to leave California

[AncientGeezer]

31. I read it....and I know...a wealth tax is un Constitutional

[crazytown]

32. A State Government can levy taxes on property.

What is it about ‘State taxation is sovereign don’t you understand’?

Let me guess everything. play somewhere else.

[AncientGeezer]

35. State taxation..is that what she's advocating? I think not. Neither do you.

Last edited Mon May 13, 2019, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

It has nothing to do with Federal Revenue...which is what she would need to pay for her plans.

State taxation.. if punitive, would also be open to judicial review.

I do Taxes, Fed and State as a volunteer In NYS for Sr's and indigents.....shall we discuss what I know about taxes? Please.

[hughee99]

33. What happens when it's not a person who holds all those assets, but a limited liability company?

For example, a prominent and wealthy politician got in a little trouble a while ago (publicity trouble) for registering their yacht in a neighboring state because the excise tax was so much lower (about 50K vs. 500K in the state that they lived). Now although they had the yacht built just for them, and it's named for someone in the family, the yacht is actually owned by an LLC. The original PR defense that was floated was that it wasn't technically their yacht, but they quickly realized that the excuse was even worse than just fixing the issue and moving on.