You know we have it all wrong with insisting on Taxing Income.

[UndertheOcean]

to break the monopoly of the few we really need to tax ...gasp.... WEALTH !


If you are worth less than a million (or insert any number you think is appropriate) : No Wealth Tax

You are worth more than a million , you must pay 1% tax on it. Liquid wealth (Cash lying in the bank) may be taxed at a higher rate.

The symptom of the disease is the gross unbalance in the distribution of wealth . Maybe taxing that wealth is part of the cure.

The other part is what we do with those tax dollars ? We pump them back into social programs instead of corporate welfare programs and the Military Industrial Complex ? hey , one can dream.

[AngryAmish]

1. taxing wealth is a taking

same ole, same ole.

If we are to do it we need a constitutional amendment.

[bbinacan]

2. Today it's

not unusual for people to retire with a net worth of a million. But they are hardly "millionares". Would you tax them too?

[timeforpeace]

3. Darn. Simplistic solutions are so appealing.

[bbinacan]

4. And accurate. n/t

[slampoet]

15. Repeat after me ONE FRIKKIN PER CENT.

That's less than the tax on ANY purchase (even the hidden taxes in food)


And exactly what is holy about the retired?

A current retiree has gotten all the best bits of America that none of their decedents will EVER see the least they can do is contribute a measly ONE PER CENT.

[exboyfil]

5. One time only or every year?

We already have property taxes which can be around 1% (Prop 13 caps it at 1% in California). We also have state and federal taxes on earnings (income, capital, and dividend).

Will the tax be in kind payments (ie lop off 1% of each of your stocks and make the Fed the owner) or will they have to be liquidated to pay the tax (and if so will you also tax the profits related to that sale)? How will property assessments be done (especially for non-real property)? Who is going to do the bookkeeping on all this to determine whether you are above or below the line? Is the tax man going to come into everyone's home and do assessments to determine if you are above the line?

Does the tax apply to corporations or just the stockholders of corporations. How do you value individual businesses?

Is it only taxing assets held in the U.S. or all those assets held by U.S. citizens. Offshoring of assets to avoid paying taxes on income, dividends, and profits is already an issue. How much capital flight will be seen by such a law?

An article on this type of tax in France shown below. Many European countries which are far less complex have abandoned this approach.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010.html

Old Money, New Money Flee France and Its Wealth Tax

By Molly Moore

[DLnyc]

6. Good idea, but I would add:

1) Make the cutoff number larger, rather than smaller; the main attack on these kinds of ideas is appealing to the feeling that "hey, I might have that much myself someday." So a good cutoff is more like 5 or 10 million (if we are really try to stop the concentration of wealth, our target is those with hundreds of millions and billions, not really a couple million.
2) Along the same lines, tax the EXCESS wealth over the cutoff, not all wealth. I think most people are comfortable, even if they are deluded enough to believe they might amass 5 million dollars some day, with the idea that they could be generous with the excess OVER 5 mill. And this doesn't change the effect much on excessive fortunes in the hundreds of millions.
3) In response to the complaints of 'complicated new tax' -- not really. This is simply a variety of property tax, expanded to include other types of property besides real estate. I have heard this proposed before, I think by a well-known congressman from New York (I don't give his name because I don't want to attribute incorrectly).
4) This is a good way to deal with excessive corporate compensation. Instead of picking and choosing whose pay gets capped at what, just tax the hell out of the excess over, say, several million for all of them.
5) P.S. This was effectively the policy, starting I'm not sure when (New Deal?) and ending with Ronald Ray-gun: there was an 89% (I believe) top tax rate which effectively limited the growth of excessive fortunes by taxing away most interest and capital gains in the top brackets. On top of this, the estate tax, which was in place until the boy wonder came and fucked us all over, really served (and was designed, as I understand it) to prevent the passing on of excessive fortunes.

[robinlynne]

9. And double the tax for offshore money.

[Hannah Bell]

7. the rich don't have income? tax their profits, stocks, bond interest, etc.

then tax their property.

[dysfunctional press]

11. exactly- raise the top marginal rates, and treat investment income equally to wages.

capital gains need to be taxed at the same rates as any other income- and the top marginal rates need to be raised back to raygun levels AT LEAST. and NOW.

[Hannah Bell]

12. reagan? try carter or nixon.

[Toucano]

8. The income tax was never intended to be applied to working people, to wages.

It was for the Vanderbilts, Dukes, Mellons, Rockefellers.

There's nothing wrong with the income tax, per se.

Just stop applying it to working people, and set the rates correctly.

[dysfunctional press]

10. what happens to people who own property but don't have enough cash to pay the tax?

if people/companies are forced to liquidate assets- the values of those assets would fall.

[slampoet]

16. If you can't pay one per cent then you also can't ANYTHING.

Sounds like you fictional person would have needed to pawn a watch for food anyway.

[dysfunctional press]

19. "you also can't ANYTHING"...?

grammar much?
:shrug:

regardless- a wealth tax is an ignorant concept, which is why it isn't practiced.

[Jester Messiah]

13. Tax on consumption would be easier to implement.

Take a few measures so as not to hit the poor, but just slap a VAT on everything else. Those who can enjoy more consumer goods must necessarily have more disposable income.

[meow2u3]

18. Bring back luxury taxes

Tax the toys rich people like to play with, such as exotic cars, boats, etc. Levy a federal property tax on mansions and large estates, but do not tax family farms or ranches if their property is used for subsistence. Agribusinesses should be taxed heavily.

Put a provision in the tax code that would criminalize passing the extra cost of wealth taxes onto consumers and/or workers.

[Statistical]

14. Can you even imagine the complexities, and cost in taxing wealth.

Some wealth is easy to classify: stocks = stocks price * number of shares.

Property is assesed by the city for property taxes.

However what about stuff like:
patents? How much is a patent worth?
roaylties & licenses on songs, movies, screen plays, etc?
What about illiquid assets like antique furniture, art, collectibles, etc?

We do tax wealth ONE TIME at death. Probate is an insanely expensive process. There is a reason we tax it one time because the cost is huge.

Far simpler to have a more progressive tax structure and tax all income the same (dividends, interest, wages). Capital gains taxes should also be progressive. Currently they only have 2 "steps" in the tax structure.

[slampoet]

17. I see it as creating jobs for accountants funded by people who can afford to hire them.

[slackmaster]

20. A lot of family-owned farms are worth well over $1 million

Taxing people for assets is crazy talk.