Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pogglethrope

(60 posts)
56. No one seems to have picked up that the wealth tax I proposed
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 12:38 AM
Jun 2015

No one seems to have picked up that the wealth tax I proposed

was not on net wealth over $1 billion. My set-up was that each country would determine at which point the wealth tax kicked in, say $NUSA for the United States. Furthermore, it wouldn't have mattered that much in the long run whether the wealth tax rate was set at 90% or 95% or 100%. Since everyone in the country would share equally in the proceeds of the tax, everyone would be driven over time towards a net wealth of $NUSA -- with whoever was wealthiest at the end of a given tax year also remaining the wealthiest after taxes were collected and the proceeds distributed equally.

Everyone, in fact, would end up having the same rank wealthwise as she did to begin with. It's just that the wealthier would have ended up with less than they started with and the poorer more than they started with. All it is is a simple, straightforward wealth redistribution scheme.

And it's a boneheaded idea. I knew that when I dreamed it up, tweaking the notion as I went along. It’s a good enough outcome, but there have to be better ways of getting there. If ever there was anything that would disincentivize working to improve one's lot in life, this would do it. No matter how much ability one has or how creative, educated, smart, or talented one is and no matter how much effort one puts in, everyone ends up relatively close wealthwise.

Some here may think that's fine. I don't. I believe competition makes us both better and stronger -- and that most of us need incentives to do our very best. Growing up, I always tried to be the best at most things I did -- and I often was, in school and out. If I had always been an also-ran, I might not feel the way I do.

Not many of you posting at DU are going to remember the 1940s and 1950s. I do. When the highest marginal tax rate was 93%, I heard more than one local say something to this effect, "There's no point in me making any more money this year. If I did, Uncle Sam would just take it all." Of course, no one in the small town I grew up in came anywhere close to being in the highest tax bracket.

It was only in the last few years that one guy from my hometown became a multi-billionaire and several in his extended family became multi-multi-millionaires. The others bought stock in a company he started, a company that has >$10 billion in sales each year, even though its revenue has been down for the last several years.


Still, some people probably did tend to quit working when they reached a certain income level. The extra effort simply wasn't worth it for what might have effectively been half-pay. For someone who could draw unemployment benefits while she sat out, the inclination to do so was even stronger.

In fact, a plumber I knew in the late 1970s through the mid-1980s did just that. He didn't bother working between roughly the first of November and the first of April, even when he could could have. He preferred to be a couch potato and not go out in the cold winter weather in Minnesota. His wife, of course, worked year-round alongside my wife. He thought of himself as a "working man," but he worked nowhere near as hard or near as much as I did. Except for holidays, illnesses, and vacations, I averaged sixty hours a week or more all year long. The pay was good -- but, as I look back, I'm not sure it was worth the time it took me from my family. In particular I didn’t spend enough time with my kids. They turned out fine, fortunately, but it was mostly due to their mother’s influence. I provided some decent DNA, but that’s about all.

Foolishness or not, this discussion and another one I started have hopefully served my purpose: I wanted to get people to think about things in ways they might not have thought about them before. And, in the process, enlighten me and entertain themselves -- even if some folks got annoyed at my preposterous proposals. Perhaps only one person on the other thread figured out what I was doing was leg-pulling. I was -- with no intention of being an actual troll.

I signed up intending to post only enough to allow me to start a discussion. I thought the minimum number of posts for starting one was 30, but it turned out to be only 10. So I've made several times as many posts as I needed to. And I've started twice as many discussions as I had in mind starting out.

Regardless of what Janet Napolitano says, America remains The Land of Opportunity for many of us, if not for all of us. (It's OK to say that at Democratic Underground, isn't it?)

I think I hear a Rod McKuen song on my TV, so good night and good luck.

SYOTB

H.W, Beecher aka pogglethorpe
(Don't ask me where I came up with Pogglethorpe as a monicker. I don't even remember.)
Couldn't agree more. Coventina Jun 2015 #1
Do you realize those of means donate to different causes, a few which comes to mind is Warren Buffet Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #2
the one thing about foundations is that Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #13
And what would be wrong with them controlling the foundation? Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #39
I am unfamiliar with conrillong Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #42
Oh, those magnanimous rich folks. Always looking out for the little guy. I can almost feel the Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #23
which one of those rich folks can I count on to help me when I lose my job because it's been sent antigop Jun 2015 #29
It's a fair question. I hope one of those rich folks or rich folks supporters can clue us in. Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #30
Perhaps the foundations should be notified their money is not appreciated. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #40
Yeah, like the Walton family. progressoid Jun 2015 #57
Competition is a fundamental human compulsion... TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #3
And tax the living bejesus out of it above certain levels. hifiguy Jun 2015 #8
I go along with raising estate taxes... TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #36
There is a difference between wealth avebury Jun 2015 #12
I agree-- the way things are now, concentration of wealth is the real problem. TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #37
If and only if access to the basics of life are not distributed equitably. LanternWaste Jun 2015 #19
Wouldn't focus on directly regulating top-end individual net worth BeyondGeography Jun 2015 #4
I totally agree. What isn't well understood is how excess money corrupts. NRaleighLiberal Jun 2015 #5
Everyone should have a net worth of a billion dollars. Everyone. jtuck004 Jun 2015 #6
"Please deposit $100,000 for the next three minutes of your local call" DFW Jun 2015 #15
That's kinda what I was thinkin' n/t jtuck004 Jun 2015 #34
It should be the '50's tax rate: 93% top marginal. salib Jun 2015 #7
Yep, but close the loopholes. hifiguy Jun 2015 #10
One thing in particular about reichwingers puzzles and bemuses me. hifiguy Jun 2015 #9
you mean I have to give some back?? Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #11
It has been suggested that once one reaches a billion, that they pay 100% in taxes over that Cleita Jun 2015 #14
UNREC brooklynite Jun 2015 #16
-1 PETRUS Jun 2015 #43
Actually the argument is quite valid mythology Jun 2015 #45
No. PETRUS Jun 2015 #46
What if one person had *all* the money? Fumesucker Jun 2015 #49
We may find out. lonestarnot Jun 2015 #59
Well, it is written in stone... kentuck Jun 2015 #17
If you don't want them to have the money don't purchase their goods and services. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #60
The triumph of theory over practice DFW Jun 2015 #18
However, we had very had tax rates (redistribution) in the 1950's... kentuck Jun 2015 #21
yes the top marginal tax rate in the 1950's was melm00se Jun 2015 #26
There was no redistribution in the 50s. former9thward Jun 2015 #28
We have narcissists, sociopaths, and other greedheads that are determined that there will never be.. AZ Progressive Jun 2015 #20
Pitcairn actually does a pretty good job of income equality. KamaAina Jun 2015 #22
That "freedom" shit is so overarated. BKH70041 Jun 2015 #24
In a perfect world.... En Garde Jun 2015 #25
A big advantage of having a very high top marginal tax rate is investment in business. napi21 Jun 2015 #27
JFK significantly lowered the rate. former9thward Jun 2015 #31
Yes he did. BUT he also eliminated a number of loop holes to offset the reduction. napi21 Jun 2015 #47
Precisely. High taxes encourage investment and philanthropy. Clearly we need to strike a balance, Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #32
how to become a billionaire: KT2000 Jun 2015 #33
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2015 #35
I say it often: The uberwealthy ought to be taxed out of existence. hunter Jun 2015 #38
I got an idea, we will make one new billionaire each year and tha person would be taxed at Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #41
That doesn't make sense. What would you do with Bill Gates? LittleBlue Jun 2015 #44
We should tax and tax and tax them until they're only fabulously wealthy. Scuba Jun 2015 #48
True. PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #50
Cap inheritance. moondust Jun 2015 #51
High top marginal rates and a high inheritance tax Kennah Jun 2015 #52
Don't disagree. Though, I bet you would be surprised how little it is divided among 7 Billion peopl Hoyt Jun 2015 #53
I've posted this before. Half-Century Man Jun 2015 #54
This is your second OP with highly inflammatory language. (The other was locked.) X_Digger Jun 2015 #55
No one seems to have picked up that the wealth tax I proposed pogglethrope Jun 2015 #56
Ok, then give a person a billiondollars a year and tax them at 100%, now that is a good deal. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #58
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No one in the world shoul...»Reply #56