How would you go about taxing wealth?

[1-Old-Man]

How do you tax wealth, not income, wealth. Other than an aggressive inheritance tax I'm not sure what would work. I'd love to hear ideas.

[RegieRocker]

1. Never tax wealth that is insane

tax the income made from the wealth at 36% over 250 k a year. Any questions.

[bbgrunt]

50. why insane? do you think that the property tax is insane?

[RegieRocker]

64. Damn straight!!!

You can't be free if you must pay tax on money, items etc that you already paid taxes on. End of discussion on that topic. However, rich entities (anyone making over 250k yr 30%, anyone making 1,000,000 yr and up 50%) should be paying a whopping tax on all gains (except money already been taxed and paid by them or their family) period.

[Animal Chin]

2. Why would you tax wealth?

You can't just "tax wealth," as long as the wealth was obtained by paying a fair tax rate. Income really, not wealth.

Nothing wrong with being rich, so long as you pay your (fair) taxes and pass some along in charity. IMO.

[Honeycombe8]

19. That's what I was wondering. nt

[Enrique]

29. to raise money

supposedly we are in a fiscal emergency, so the reason to raise revenue seems clear.

[bemildred]

138. To prevent accumulation over generations.

Each new generation deserves an fair and equitable start.

[n2doc]

3. Inheritance tax is probably easiest

So long as loopholes are closed. 50% over time will do the trick. Also tax all capital gains and other investment income at a high level, higher than wages. There is no evidence that lowering capital gains taxes did anything good for the economy.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Did lowering cg taxes encourage and increase investing, which helped the stock market?

Seems like it would, but I'm not sure.

[H2O Man]

4. Aggressively.

[panader0]

16. Yes

[reformist2]

5. Just 2% of household net worth, less a $100K per household deduction = $1 trillion tax rev.

I'm even OK with it being the same rate for everyone.... let's call it the Democratic flat tax!

[zipplewrath]

9. Could even tax wealth growth

Every year one has to establish their "net worth". Each year, one is taxed on the growth of that wealth If you are getting poorer, no tax. If you are getting richer, there's a tax.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. That already happens.

It's called "Capital Gains"

If the growth is through either interest or dividends, those are taxed too.

[joeglow3]

119. The reason it is elementary is because the concept is elementary

You want to create shit tons of volatility, enact this idiotic idea. Stock shot up in year and you don't have cash to pay taxes? Sorry, sell some of your long term investment. In year 2, stock plummets, does the government offer a refund check for your losses? There is absolutely no way this could work.

[Wounded Bear]

6. 1% of the value on the annual report. nt

[annabanana]

7. Tax capital gains like any other income, for starters.. . .

On edit.. If all you have to do is sit around to make the money, I'd tax it higher than wages that are, you know, EARNED.

[Missycim]

22. Why are you punishing someone

who is investing in other companies to create jobs? I understand they have to pay taxes on investment returns, but they are risking money they ALREADY payed income tax on. If they lose that money should the be able to write off 100% on their returns?

[annabanana]

24. If they have the spare to invest

rather than using it to live.. They can risk it wherever they like. Jobs in Vegas casinos, whatever.

[Missycim]

25. Don't you think that money HELPS people when someone invests it?

Companies take that money and expand or pay off debt etc. Taxes aren't the only avenue of help there is.

[Missycim]

48. Then whats the difference if businesses use that

2 trillion dollar pile they are supposedly sitting on?

[Liberal Gramma]

54. 100%???

If you lose money on an investment you should be able to write off ALL of it? Why? Does that mean if I make a bad choice, I should be reimbursed by the government? In essence, that's what you're saying. If you make a bad investment, you lose. If you make a good one, you win. There's not much risk if you are simply exchanging your loss $$ for tax $$--it's gone either way.

[Missycim]

56. I am being facetious

But you want a part of the pile if someone does good, shouldn't they be able to write off a small part if things go bad?

[Liberal Gramma]

101. My opinion: no

This type of a loss isn't available to non-investors. Buy a house. Sell it at a profit, pay capital gains tax. Sell it at a loss--no write off.
We can deduct casualty losses over a certain (rather high) amount, but there are no deductions for bad decisions, though gambling losses are deductible to the amount of gambling wins. I guess that only holds true because Wall Street rules apply.

[Oregonian]

126. Why do we punish workers

with a high tax rate while throwing a bone to those who don't work for their money? Makes zero sense. You'd think someone with the Army symbol as their avatar would know the value of hard work exceeds the value of pressing a button that tells a broker to dump $30k into a stock.

[True Earthling]

118. If you lose money on an investment you are allowed to apply that loss to future gains

it's called a capital loss carry forward...

i.e. if you lost $1000 on company A in 2011 you can apply that loss to a gain on company B in 2012 resulting in no taxed owed for 2012.

You are allowed to deduct a maximum of only $3K against personal income in any given year but capital losses can offset capital gains without limit.

[TBF]

61. This entire thread is like troll fly paper. nt

[RegieRocker]

66. Roflmao you got that right

[Missycim]

68. Or people who don't like the OP's

idea's. That could be it?

[TBF]

69. "People" who don't like it are ruling class apologists -

like I said, troll fly-paper.

[Missycim]

70. ok in other words people who don't agree with you, ok got that.

nt

[TBF]

71. Right, I am not a republican or an apologist for the ruling class.

And I will vote to re-distribute your "wealth" every single time.

I'm glad we understand each other.

[Missycim]

72. No you don't understand me

but I sure as heck understand you lol Have a nice day.!!!!

[Kingofalldems]

74. I understand you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. A) NO ONE invests to create jobs. They invest to create income FOR THEMSELVES.

There is less than zero public policy reason to tax unearned income less than wages.

B) Taxes aren't punishment. They are the funding that society needs to function in an orderly fashion.

[Missycim]

110. I think you missed my point

a) I am not against taxes on income and capital gains

b) what I am against is confiscation of wealth if its not being invested or spent as someone said on this thread. Sorry if someone paid taxes on the money he/she earned he/she can stuff it in a bank and sit on it for all I care.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. The only relevant wealth for the purpose of this argument is the income producing kind

When someone sells a mansion, art, a business, property, collectible cars, gold, stocks or dancing ponies, the gains should be taxed at a high rate. The same is true for interest and dividends.

There's no need to force people to sell stuff to pay taxes. Simply collect taxes on the transfer (including inheritance) based on the capital gains.

[Missycim]

130. The Op suggested wealth be taxed

not income or capital gains but just money sitting there at least thats what I got.

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. It's unnecessary to force the liquidation of assets

That liquidation occurs naturally. Tax the profits of those sales, and prohibit offshore banking.

[WCGreen]

8. Get rid of Capital Gains and to redo the Estate Rules...

[bluestate10]

10. Tax Capital Gains and Interest Income. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. That already happens. n/t

[bluestate10]

87. No it doesn't happen to the right extent.

When a worker on Wall Street, one of the people that don't make millions, gets a bonus check at the end of the year, that check is taxed at a rate slightly higher than the person's tax rate. For example, if a worker's tax rate is 20%, the bonus may get taxed at 23-25%. The bonus money was taxed once as company income. Once the bonus became a distribution to employees, it gets taxed a second time as personal income of the worker the bonus is paid to.

Capital gains get taxed at 15%, regardless of how large the gains are. As the size of a Wall Street worker's bonus grow, so does the tax rate on that bonus, up to 35%.

I mis-spoke on interest. Normal passbook interest gets taxed at a person's personal tax rate, up to 35%. What doesn't get taxed the same way is interest income that is masked as partnership distributions, because those distributions can be masked in a number of ways.

[dkf]

11. As if income taxes weren't difficult enough...

You are asking the equivalent of an estate tax every year. Can you imagine trying to value everything you own? House, car, jewelry, wow that sounds awful

[Canuckistanian]

12. Taxing wealth once it's aquired seems punitive

The focus should be on the time of acquisition itself.

A progressive tax that FAIRLY extracts taxes as a share of income that exceeds the MOST OBVIOUS definition of "comfort"

Is this too much to ask?

[reformist2]

13. A flat tax on wealth is actually more progressive than a progressive income tax - and simpler.

And there's nothing at all wrong asking a billionaire to pay a wealth tax every year. What if he doesn't work? Then he might not have any income to tax at all!

[bluestate10]

88. I am confused on your claim.

If I have a million dollars sitting in CDs in a bank, I will have to report interest earned on that money and pay taxes on it. Are you saying that on top of that, the million dollars should also be taxed because I have it? If you wrote that if I took the million dollars and made 9 million more dollars using that million, then the 9 million should be taxed at a maximum rate higher than 35%.

[reformist2]

97. A person worth $1 billion pays peanuts in income taxes, but would pay $20 million a year..

...with a 2% flat tax.

In other words, the government can raise a LOT more money with a low wealth tax than it can even with 50%, 70% or even 90% income tax rates.

[Egalitarian Thug]

26. Not punitive, essential to a healthy national economy. Vast individual/familial wealth

is non-productive, a store of uncirculated currency that is withdrawn from the overall economy and therefore does not fuel overall economic activity. Kind of like the jar of pennies that most households have, just much bigger.

[Missycim]

30. Ya and so?

If someone pays income and capital gains taxes on that wealth who are you to punish them for what they do with whats left over? You justify any crime if you use "essential to a healthy national economy" Line.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. So taxation is now a crime? Are you sure you're in the right place? n/t

[Missycim]

36. poor deflection atempt

No, I am for income and capital gains taxes but once those are paid why do you think you must force others to do what you want with their money? So if i earned a million dollars and paid taxes on it and decided not to invest it what gives you the right to tax me because I decided to save it?

[Egalitarian Thug]

63. Ah, my bad. I'm/we're talking about inheritance tax and I never made that clear.

In the most common plans the inheritors are still going to inherit a ton of money. Nobody's going to be dispossessed, but returning the greatest portion of accumulation into the overall economy is better for society in general. everybody's taxes on actual production go down (i.e. income taxes) and the economy retains sufficient lubricant to keep the cycle of prosperity strong and widespread.

[Missycim]

67. Sorry I thought

you meant that if someone isn't spending their money they should have it taken away from them. I don't like that idea one bit.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. I wouldn't either. Sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers can and I tend to skip

important steps.

Happy to kick this thread again, though.

[RB TexLa]

17. I wouldn't

[BanTheGOP]

18. Rates are easy to do

Basic premise...NO man or woman should ever have more than $10 million. Period.

1. All wealth above $10 Million... 100%
2. Wealth $5 to $10 Million... 50%
3. Wealth $3 to $5 Million... 40%
4. Wealth $1 to $3 Million... 20%

Less than $1 Million: No reduction, but income tax rates should be brought back to Eisenhower era with NO loopholes.

With that, we have no problem whatsoever advancing our progressive agenda for the US, integrating us into the world community of civilized countries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. How often would you levy that tax? (nt)

[mick063]

21. My proposals.

Increase capital gains to 25%

A tax on every stock transaction at .05% of the total amount of that transaction.

A streamlined, modern, more automated means for the IRS to audit a larger sampling of tax returns. This would require simplification of our current income tax laws. Build a better infrastructure to collect unpaid income taxes to include an elimination of fines for unpaid income tax, but otherwise, very strict adherence (no forgiveness) for enforcing repayment to include a reasonably small fixed interest rate. This would include automatic deductions from income and/or immediate auction of luxuries. An increasing interest penalty for successive occurrences.

All military "adventures" to be accounted for in a "stand alone" budget (except for immediate, dire, "Pearl Harbor like", emergencies) using a regressive War Sales Tax, to fully fund the war, and to be imposed on all Americans equally so that the politics (positive or negative) of such actions would be impactive and loud. In other words, if all citizens feel the pain directly, they would collectively balance military "adventures" against military "necessity" at the ballot box. All would have a stake in the decision to wage war and finally, the wars would be funded via a majority of willing participants. If the Commander in Chief presents a solid case to the people, he should find solid backing. This wouldn't be a referendum on directly funding the war itself, but a referendum on the Commander that made the decision or proposes the action at the time he seeks election.


Those four things would quickly put us on track toward a balanced budget given the US government eliminates unwarranted expenditures (ie. corporate welfare, etc.).

[bbgrunt]

55. good ideas. I like.

[hifiguy]

23. Confiscatory inheritance taxes on large piles of cash.

No inheritance tax on things like ongoing family businesses or farms as long as the heir holds it and operates it for at least ten years. Tax any sale of such assets as normal income after that.

[Missycim]

31. Why should farms or family businesses escapee taxes?

Is there wealth better then someone else's?

[hifiguy]

39. Social utility and equity.

It is a good thing, socially and economically, to have businesses legitimately in the hands of "regular people" rather than in the hands of the plutocracy. It takes some brains and actual work to keep a farm or a legitimate small business running profitably. Trust-fund Tommy doesn't need to have the brains doG gave a potted plant to sit around doing nothing and piss away the capital gains on a big pile of cash he inherited while remaining stinking rich. See Paris Hilton for a perfect example of the phenomenon.

[JoeyT]

57. As far as farms go,

keeping smaller farms alive is in our best interest as a country and a world. There are lots of reasons for it, but the most compelling one is to ensure diversity of seed genetics. We really don't want something like the blight that's wiping out bananas or blue agave to hit corn or wheat. The best way to prevent that is to have some people that are saving their seeds from one year to the next. That way there's at least a chance there will be a resistant strain somewhere.

Small businesses I don't have any super compelling arguments for, or at least not compelling on the same level as "Insurance against starvation" but I'll have a stab at it.

They're more likely to put their money back into the local economy. As it ripples outward it helps everyone it comes across. Versus a company like Wal-Mart where the money spent there immediately leaves the local economy. The more hands the money passes through before hitting a hoarder, the more it helps people and the more it helps the country.

[hifiguy]

58. Yep. Well said.

[upaloopa]

27. I remember back in the 80's when I did tax returns there

was a personal property tax paid each year.

[slackmaster]

96. I believe every state taxes ownership of registered motor vehicles and boats

It's called a "registration fee" but if you don't pay it you aren't allowed to drive on public roads, or cruise on public waterways.

[Enrique]

28. they just did it in France

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/35a28e78-c5c8-11e1-a5d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz27aj0PATn

[Missycim]

32. I really love these threads

You don't tax wealth, if its income tax it, if you make money on investments tax it. After that what people do with their money isn't anyone's bidness. (short of breaking the law) If they want to keep it in a vault like scrounge mcduck that's on them.

[TBF]

62. lolol

That is the difference between the 2 sides.

The ruling class want to accumulate as much money as they can via any means possible and never be taxed.

The workers would like to have a shot at all this "opportunity" the ruling class blathers on about while they are counting their piles of $$$.

Which side are you on?

[gopiscrap]

33. I would tax

income above 250K at 30% 500K at 40% 600K at 50% 700K at 60% 800K at 70% 900K at 80% and a million and above at 90%

[kestrel91316]

40. Tax INCOME from all sources. The greater the income bracket, the higher the rate.

You know, like they did back in the 50s.

[bluestate10]

89. I agree. nt

[kestrel91316]

42. As far as taxing wealth, make sure we have an ironclad inheritance tax.

[L0oniX]

44. Remove the SS cap ...for one.

[yends21012]

49. Taxing wealth is complicated I think

Anybody who has retirement savings in mutual funds, stocks, or bonds certainly doesn't want their savings taxed ever higher. After all, that money IS invested in companies. However there is a big difference in simply investing in funds, stocks, or bonds for retirement and savings and gaming the system (tax and finance) to take unfair advantage of loopholes or other investors to increase one's own profit. It is the latter that should be more highly taxed.

[progressivebydesign]

51. Um. the way they USED to when Reagan was President?

The 1% splurge at the expense of everyone else, started in the 80s. Frankly, if we simply brought back the tax rates from Reagan's era, we could fix America.

And.. give the average spender BACK the consumer interest deduction. God.. that could make a huge difference.

[bamacrat]

52. Other than inheritance and property tax you can't really tax "wealth" but we should

The best way to get the wealthy to pay is to a.) Raise top tax rate obviously, but more importantly raise the limit for SS taxes. Right now only the first $108,000 of a person's income is taxed. So a person who make that or less is paying SS taxes on 100% of their income. Whereas RMoney was taxed for SS on less that 1% of his income (actual number is .007%). This would ensure solvency for SS for ever.

We could have an actual luxury tax. Not just on expensive things but when people have 4 or 5 houses, they should pay more to have those. Or people with car elevators or private jets. There are too many things that rewards people who have already been monetarily rewarded more than any one person could ever need.

[loli phabay]

75. this i would fight against. what if i want yo send money to family abroad

Or to buy something from abroad or pay taxes on property in another country. What about people who retire abroad do tbey lose tbeir savings and pension.

[loli phabay]

80. yup this i would vote against. you do realise that people have interactions everyday

With other countries not everyone confines themselves to their immediate area.

[loli phabay]

90. yyup but do you pay it at a hundred percent

You are welcome to vote for this inwould vote against it. The whole point of this is to make it prohibitive to do business abroad. Heck even tourism would crash if you had to pay this high of a tax america would become insular and only the wealthy would have any chance of going abroad. Then there is the reciprocal effect of other countries doind the same with money coming into the us.

[cherokeeprogressive]

84. Yeah. Build a wall around the country and prohibit doing business w/anyone outside the border.

That sounds about right.

[oldhippie]

94. Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?

"Tax all transfers of money outside of the country at 100%" means no money would be transferred. No trade? No tourism? That sounds kinda like building a wall to me.

I have to wonder where you got this completely absurd idea? Where did you say you went to Economics school?

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. So how does my company, which employs nothing but American Citizens, do business outside

of the US if I can't transfer them money to buy local resources to complete our product? If my CFO says we need to wire the Belize office $20 million dollars for whatever, it's going to cost me $40 million dollars?

That pretty much looks like a 400 foot wall to me.

[MiniMe]

91. And if you had a child who was traveling outside of the country, and had a problem?

You think that should be taxed at 100%?

[MiniMe]

135. Of course I would help

But I don't think that everything you send your child in that case should be taxed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. So that's a 100% tax on all imports, including oil

It's a major change in economic thinking, certainly. Good news for domestic oil producers, who get to nearly double their prices in the short term, until the economy has crashed enough for the USA to produce all the oil it consumes - I'd hope you'd nationalise them first.

The isolation of the US economy from the world that would inevitably happen would also have far reaching effects. It'd be an interesting experiment - I'd guess only North Korea is as isolated as this would make the USA.

[TBF]

60. Repeal all the tax cuts to capital gains made over the past 30

years by multiple administrations.

Should be taxed at the same rate as income - as it used to be before Reagan was elected.

[hughee99]

65. Come on, let's just admit it...

the goal isn't really to balance the budget or raise revenue. If it was, we'd just talk about raising the current income tax rates, cap gains rates, or cutting spending to raise the specific amount of money needed to address specific needs.

The problem is, a few people have a lot of money, and it's often not the people we like (Oprah being rich is good, Romney being rich is bad). Regardless of how they got the money, at some point down the line, workers, consumers and/or the government got screwed on that fortune, so we are justified in taking it from them because they haven't really earned it.

These proposals aren't really about what we need the money for, it's about "fairness".

[limpyhobbler]

76. It is about fairness but we also do need the money. So it's both, nt.

[hughee99]

85. If it were just a matter of needing the money,

We could raise that through a marginal income tax increase or cap gains tax increase (or both). If you increased the top marginal rate to, say 50% and the cap gains to 30%, there would still be the incentive to invest since the cap gains would still be lower than income, but you'd also need to remove many of the upper end loopholes. This should fund whatever you need to, without having to try to figure out a "wealth tax" or implement one. The idea of taxing wealth, is, IMHO, strictly about fairness rather than money since there are other established ways to do that sufficiently.

[rock]

73. Well, since you ask

I've created what I call the true progressive buyers tax. The concept is simple: the government is responsible for keeping currency intact/viable/effective. Therefore they a deserve a portion (a small portion) of every monetary exchange that everyone in the buyers role would have to pay. So, let the buyer (the one putting up the money) pay a tax. I imagine around 1% would be about right. Image the poor and lower income people who spend their money only once, 1% tax. While the rich who are constantly moving their money around and re-investing it would end up paying a whopping load! Notice also that in a bartering situation, no money exchanges hands so no buyers tax is involved.

P.S. Just to clarify what I mean by everyone see -->

[limpyhobbler]

77. 1 percent tax per year on all wealth over a certain amount.

Say maybe all wealth over $5 million?

[slackmaster]

79. I'm strongly opposed to wealth confiscation

Tax income, transfers of money, purchases, tax interest, dividends, gambling winnings, etc. Tax property to pay for local services.

Taking money away from people who have saved it is just plain wrong.

[reformist2]

81. Every wealthy person should pay taxes every year, no matter what.

[slackmaster]

82. Why? How would you define "wealthy?" Would it be indexed annually for inflation?

What would you want to see done with that money?

I see no rational reason for eroding a person's savings.

[leftstreet]

92. I'm strongly opposed to wealth accumulation

Capital belongs in the hands of the people, not the rich fucking few

[slackmaster]

95. Do you believe the amount of money that can exist is finite? That the economy is a zero-sum game?

That may have been true when wealth was measured in terms of minerals mined and crops produced, but much of our wealth is now derived from intellectual capital.

That is the only kind of valuable product that I have produced during more than 30 years in the work force - English language and math lessons, then on to technical documentation, then I became a systems analyst, then a systems administrator.

Right now I am working as a software developer. The software that I write adds considerable value to the software product that my employer sells. More and more people are creating intellectual property in this country, and IMO there is no absolute limit to the amount of wealth that can be created through invention and ingenuity.

In short, a few rich people sitting on a bunch of money doesn't necessarily make you or me less wealthy. The wealth of a person is limited mostly by the person's own abilities, motivation, and sometimes access to education.

[TBF]

99. This statement is complete nonsense -

"The wealth of a person is limited mostly by the person's own abilities, motivation, and sometimes access to education"

False. In this country one family - ONE FAMILY - owns more wealth than 40% of the rest of the country. When just a few people control all the assets it is nearly impossible to rise to that level without being born into the family. I guess you could marry in - which would involve own abilities & motivation - but that would be about it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

108. Just out of curiosity, which family are you referring to? n/t

[TBF]

120. Walton family (link in message)

Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

The Walmart home office in Bentonville, Ark. (AP photo)

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." ...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/

[slackmaster]

111. Does the Walton family or the Pritzkers or whoever having a lot of money make you poor?

Why do you covet their wealth? Are you not capable of producing your own wealth, using your strength, skill, or intellect?

ETA Would you feel good about yourself if the government took money from the Hiltons and gave it to you? Would you have a sense of accomplishment?

[TBF]

121. Oh come on -

This is not about jealousy (my own situation is quite alright thanks very much) - this is about class.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

It is not right for folks to be billionaires while others are homeless. If you can't understand that simple concept, nothing I say is going to make sense anyway.

[slackmaster]

123. You got one thing right

Nothing you've said makes any sense.

[TBF]

132. Nothing I say will make sense to YOU is correct -

you may have a lot of posts here but I have yet to see support for workers.

Which side are you on?

[slackmaster]

134. I'll tell you what makes even less sense to me than what you wrote

The fact that our government is wasting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars each year on stupid, pointless wars.

Yet there are people who actually believe that if we only give it MORE MONEY that it will solve problems like poverty and homelessness.

Talk to me about wealth confiscation when the wars have ended once and for all.

[TBF]

139. I have no problem with ending the wars -

and closing at least 90% of overseas bases. No argument from here on that. The only thing that's going to solve poverty/homelessness is getting rid of the capitalism but most folks on this site don't want to talk about that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. It was true then. It is still true today. It will be true tomorrow.

Money=debt. There is no money except to the extent that someone owes it - it is a claim on someone else's future earnings.

Humanities debt carrying capacity is finite, therefore the supply of money that can exist is finite too.

A very small number of people own most of this debt, and I'm disinclined to accept the idea that concentrating more wealth (debt) into their hands is advisable.

[slackmaster]

113. That is nonsense. There are economies in this world in which there is no debt at all,

But there is still money. There are people in OUR economy who have no debts at all.

Going into debt is a CHOICE. For most people, there are times in their lives where the circumstances make it a good choice.

I plan to be debt-free in about six years. At that time I will own my house outright, and have a decent amount of money saved and invested in assets that produce income. I've worked my ass off for 33 years and counting, but it's very satisfying knowing that I am going to succeed.

[Kindly Refrain]

116. Keep tellling yourself that.

Maybe one day you'll convince yourself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. Watch "money as debt"

http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/Where_does_Money_Come_From.pdf

[Kindly Refrain]

115. Then you are just assigning numbers to nonexistent things.

Guess who assigns the numbers? The already rich and powerful. At that point it becomes about access. Essentially people walking around who have been assigned access to transportation, food, goods and property have been assigned that access because a few on a computer monitor says that they have that access. There is nothing tangible to back that up. It's oppression of the lower classes clear and simple.

[slackmaster]

117. I have something tangible to show as a reward for 33 years of hard work

A decent house in a good neighborhood, and nobody can take it away from me.

[TBF]

98. Finally - a sane comment in this thread. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. Fine. Tax 85% of the dividends/interest/gains that this sacred wealth throws off. n/t

[slackmaster]

114. If you think you can get Congress to do that, by all means go for it

If that happens, I will shift my capital investments entirely to tax-free bonds or to commodities like my gun collection.

I suspect that a few other people might do that as well.

[OmahaBlueDog]

100. 100% tax on profits on stock sold less than one year from purchase

Not my idea -- Warren Buffett's

Basically, it encourages long term investment and the idea that purchasing stock is buying and investing in a piece of a business -- not a gambling venture.


Another idea that is mine: I think of it as the "Truly Fair Tax." A national tax on personal property holdings. Land, buildings, vehicles in excess of $2,500, jewelry in excess of $2,500, boats in excess of $2,500, aircraft -- you get the idea.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. A tax on unearned income.

Raise taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest.

The only value of wealth is the unearned income it throws off.

[brazil]

109. What to do

Truly progressive property taxes. Not just at the state level but the federal as well. This is probably the easiest way to tax acquired wealth, since systems for valuing property exist already. The federal property tax should take into account the cost of living in various areas, though.

Much higher inheritance taxes. It will not hurt "small businesses" - an LLC or corporation lives on indefinitely and so do its assets.

Get rid of the sales tax. It affects the poor much more than other types of taxes do. It punishes people for stimulating the economy, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Treat capital gains the same as any other kind of income. Someone who inherits wealth should not get to pay 15% while I pay 28%. I work for a living. That should be rewarded in the tax code, not punished.

Have a much higher gasoline tax. This will spur innovations in fuel efficiency and get us off the addiction to foreign oil. Offset this by a progressive tax credit based on income.

[Kindly Refrain]

112. All income above 5 million dollars taxed 100%

And that's being generous. Nobody needs more than that.

[hughee99]

127. Exactly! What we should have is a government that determines what people NEED

and then takes away the rest. Knowing how in touch our elected officials are, I'm confident they'll be able to effectively determine what our needs are and how to ensure we don't exceed them. This is good for the country too, because while there's a clear limit on how much any individual "needs" there's absolutely NO limit on how much government needs.

[reformist2]

137. You'll raise more revenue with just a 2% flat tax on wealth...

[Egalitariat]

125. Would you accept wealth as payment of the wealth tax? Or would you require cash?

They are not the same thing. And converting wealth to cash - in order to pay the tax - can be a very expensive proposition depending on the nature of the wealth.

Those conversion costs would represent a one-sided loss of wealth that didn't include someone gaining on the other side of the transaction.

[kurt_cagle]

129. What about a VAT or sales tax?

VATs encourage saving and discourage spending. Sales taxes vary by category - groceries have relatively low taxes, electronics, more, cars and homes increasing upward based upon sales price. Equity purchases are taxed at a fairly high rate. Taxes apply at corporate and individual level. Eliminate income taxes.

[slackmaster]

136. How about ENDING THE STUPID, POINTLESS WARS?

[Yo_Mama]

142. Bad idea

I'm okay with some estate tax, but just taxing money sends it away and makes the country poorer.