Tax ACCUMULATED super-wealth.

[Union Yes]

America's federal budget deficit for fiscal year '09 was near 1.8 Trillion dollars. With an escalating war and diminished tax base due to unemployment FY '10 could push the 2 Trillion Dollar budget deficit threshhold.

For 1 year.

We'll hit 20 Trillion in debt in what, 5 years if we stay on this pace? Perhaps even sooner.

What if China runs out of money and stops lending to us? America is bleeding the worlds economy dry by our nation's continued borrowing.

Fiscal irresponsibility and runaway deficit spending are partly to blame and are causing the devaluation of our dollar. Which by the way is hovering at near record all time lows. Our dollar is becoming more worthless.

Which is deepening our economic crisis. And that's exactly what our current economic situation is;
- AN EPIC CRISIS.

Trickle-down/Supply-Side Economics(SSE) has been an epic failure since Reagen's 1982 budget unleashed HELL on the working class that has left our nation in a state of a collapsing economy and a dieing middle class.

The most glaring effects of SSE
- its inability to balance America's federal annual budget.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy have shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class and working/unemployed poor.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy fueled explosive deficit growth.
- 95% of America's 12.5 Trillion dollar national debt has accumulated since Reagen's 1982 budget proving SSE's inability to fund our nation.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy have fueled the upward redistribution of wealth from the MC and poor to the wealthy few.
- result: 90% of all of America's vast wealth is owned by the wealthiest 15% of it's population.
- diminished earning and purchase power of the remaining 85% of us. How can an economy sustain when most of it's population is going broke?

When the super-wealthy hoard their wealth, they remove it from circulation and remove that wealth from our economy.
Meaning that most of America's wealth isn't circulating and is not working within our economy.

Meanwhile the super-wealthy sit on top of a mountain of wealth while our nation sits at the edge of fiscal collapse. Reforming our income tax code and raising taxes on the rich is a step in the right direction but only goes so far. Income taxes do little to address the hoarding of wealth.

It's time for a new tax on accumulation of super-wealth. As an example..

Levied annually, like the income tax.
Tax net worth annually on individuals worth 5 Million dollars or more. Taxed progressively in incremental brackets. Higher net worth moves into a higher bracket so that a person worth 5 million isn't hit so hard by this tax, but a billionaire would be. And rightfully so.

Net worth is determined through individual audits of wealthy people. Tough enforcement for any who evade these taxes or hide wealth.

Our Treasury is going broke. Our nation is going broke. Meanwhile, the wealthy sit on top of a mountain of super-wealth.

Poverty is exploding. The rich get richer. America goes deeper into debt.

The American economy works best when wealth is spread throughout its entire population rather than concentrated and hoarded by the wealthy few.

Taxing accumulated super-wealth could jump start our economy by funding New Deal level infrastructure rebuilding and improvement. Roads, highways, streets, water, sewer, electric power grid, cleaner power generation, cleaner energy, renewable energy, schools, public education, tuition assistance.

Taxing accumulated wealth could solve our deficit and debt crisis. It would address the growing wealth divide. The wealth divide, the gap between rich and poor is a national tragedy.

I want to add, may be meaningless but did you know..
In 2003, Bill Gates' father testified before congress on our governments need to tax accumulated super-wealth. Of course, that testimony fell on deaf ears.

What other alternative do we have? If you're opposed to this then give me your best idea as a an alternative.

Peace
UY

[HughBeaumont]

1. Yep

http://extremeinequality.org/
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

[rfranklin]

2. What about the billions sheltered in "charitable" foundations...

They only have to give away a fraction of the wealth stashed in these entities and yet they are sheltered from taxes and can be used to evade estate tax.

[Hannah Bell]

4. foundations = tax-free investment funds.

[Union Yes]

7. "Tough enforcement for any who evade these taxes or hide wealth."

That's of course only if they are breaking the law. But I'll bet my right foot that if these foundations were audited and investigated a lot of criminal tax evasion would be uncovered.

Many are audited and many are clean. But we both know that the super wealthy do indeed use these 'charitables' as tax shelters. In many cases they exploit loopholes so it appears to be legal.

Every wealthy charity should be audited and closely regulated. Charities that build a reputation of being clean and legal could earn incentives. Like not being audited as much in the future etc.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. You make some broad and silly assumptions

A huge portion of wealth is in the value of assets, not in hard currency sitting in a bank. And if you want to
start taxing wealth at $5MM, you'd be taxing things like unexercised stock options, which would force liquidity
events on a continuous basis, which would drive the demand for those assets down substantially, which would remove
a lot of the value you propose to tax in the first place.

[Hannah Bell]

5. good, since they're a bubble, but the bubble-ated assets can be used as collateral to buy

hard *real* assets.

[BeFree]

8. Yeah

Without my unexercised stock options I don't know how I could live.

------------------------

Y'know, most of us pay a real property tax, even renters do, indirectly.
So all were saying is if you have other property that can be turned into cash, pay a tax.

[Union Yes]

9. Right on!

:fistbump:

[BeFree]

10. yeah

The value of their holdings is totally dependent upon the full faith and credit of the US, so they should pay for what supports them.

Unequal socialism for the rich is the one kind of socialism I dislike.

[lonestarnot]

15. Unexercised stock option?

Oh certainly. :eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. Yes, unexercised stock options. Let me offer you a VERY realistic scenario.

Up-and-coming company gives young employees low salaries but stock option grants. The options vest 33% per year,
and suppose they strike at $1. Employee A has 100,000 shares, and the company has a promising innovation that
merits an IPO at $20/ share. After one year, the vested options are worth $(20-1)*33,333 = $633,000 pretax.
Tax isn't paid, however, unless vested options are actually exercised. Assuming the stock climbs to $25 over
the next two years, this employee is "worth" $2.4 million.

How much of that do you tax, and where exactly is this person supposed to get the money to pay the taxes on
this "wealth?"

Now suppose you really want to stick it to a guy worth $500 million. You are CRUSHED to learn that he doesn't
keep it all laying around the house in bundles of cash, but instead he has it invested in real estate, municipal
bonds, and other investments with varying degrees of liquidity.

This rich ASSHOLE would have to SELL stuff to pay his debt to society, but who's going to buy it? After all,
anyone with that kind of scratch is also on the hook for taxes, and THEY have to sell stuff, too.

The result is that all that NOTIONAL value you want to tax suddenly takes a HUGE dip in actual value.

The above conundrum is part of the logic for taxing income, rather than wealth. Read a little - you'll see.

[lonestarnot]

17. Just more bullshit.

You are using too much wealth excuse to avoid tax on too much wealth. circular. Now I'm too tired for any more of that bullshit tonight. Thanks though. :hi:

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. That's what I thought. You should read something other than Richie Rich comics

I presented the case of THOUSANDS of dotcom "millionaires" circa 1998-2000. Where would they get the cash to pay their "wealth tax?"

Oh well. I know someone gets it.

[Chemical Bill]

6. K&R. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I'm not opposed, but just not sure how to go about it...

since there are infinite ways to hide and shelter assets, as the states that tax assets have found out.

Problem #1, of course, is convincing the electorate that taxing billionaire fortunes won't hurt it-- one of the greatest disconnects is Joe Sixpack thinking he's in a much higher tax bracket than he really is, and not being able to take deductions on a $12 million Hamptons summer palace will somehow affect him in the wallet.

And then there's the question of just what is "accumulated wealth"? I've always liked the idea of an income tax on the heirs, rather than an estate tax. Unearned income has always been sacrosanct, and you pay far less in taxes on capital gains than you would if you worked for the money. That seems backwards, but the people who make the capital gains have louder voices and deeper pockets than most workers.

Wealth isn't just cash and securities, however, it's ownership stakes in businesses, real estate, and other things, and while real property can't be moved easily, it can be hidden in various ways, and a lot of the rest can be moved offshore to a tax haven-- one of the richest men in the world, the guy who started IKEA, moved to Switzerland to get away from Sweden's taxes.

How would you deal with the increased taxes on, say, a sports team someone bought for a paltry two or three million years ago and dies when it's worth $700 million, or more? The heirs don't have that kind of money to pay the taxes, and if sold it would be at a great discount. Or, the government could end up owning the team. It would be easy to say you don't give a shit about the heirs (personally, I don't either) but that's not a proper answer.

The one unvarying rule is that there are no easy answers.

[gorfle]

12. One glaring error:

When the super-wealthy hoard their wealth, they remove it from circulation and remove that wealth from our economy.
Meaning that most of America's wealth isn't circulating and is not working within our economy.

Rich people do not stick their money in a cookie jar or under their mattress. They invest it, which means loaning it out to other people for the potential reward of earning interest (with the risk of loosing money).

These investments are what drive future growth.

Now granted, rich people are diversified and they may not invest in American ventures, but they don't hoard their wealth.

[maryf]

13. I still like the tiny .o5% tax hike on stock transactions

the equivalent of $5 on $1000...some say it would hurt day traders, so do it for the first so many transactions...folks could even write it off, ...maybe mildly regressive, but poor folks don't do a lot of stock trading and everyone else can afford 500 on every million they spend...and it would generate billions

[lonestarnot]

14. 90% of all of America's vast wealth is owned by the wealthiest 15% of it's population.

I think the percentage (15) is much smaller. Where did you get that 15%?