HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We should tax wealth apar...

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:57 AM

We should tax wealth apart from income...and put a backstop to prevent capital flight

an annual wealth tax of 1.5% above assets of over a million should go a long way in reducing deficit

In addition, to prevent assholes who have made their money here from taking their wealth and going to Monaco ... a punitive tax of 75% of their wealth created in USA, should be levied against those renounce US citizenship.


Obama should bring this up at the debt limit negotiations...

Wealth disparity is much worse than income disparity in this country ...

165 replies, 9230 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 165 replies Author Time Post
Reply We should tax wealth apart from income...and put a backstop to prevent capital flight (Original post)
srican69 Jan 2013 OP
dkf Jan 2013 #1
Cirque du So-What Jan 2013 #9
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #10
Cirque du So-What Jan 2013 #12
dkf Jan 2013 #17
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #30
dawg Jan 2013 #39
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #74
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #103
leveymg Jan 2013 #128
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #130
leveymg Jan 2013 #135
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #136
leveymg Jan 2013 #141
dkf Jan 2013 #40
pnwmom Jan 2013 #94
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #120
pnwmom Jan 2013 #92
dawg Jan 2013 #41
oldhippie Jan 2013 #51
Fla_Democrat Jan 2013 #117
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #69
dkf Jan 2013 #15
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #21
dawg Jan 2013 #26
srican69 Jan 2013 #32
dawg Jan 2013 #34
dballance Jan 2013 #2
AngryAmish Jan 2013 #3
srican69 Jan 2013 #14
TexasBushwhacker Jan 2013 #149
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #4
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #5
mainer Jan 2013 #7
srican69 Jan 2013 #13
dawg Jan 2013 #42
spinbaby Jan 2013 #16
srican69 Jan 2013 #19
mainer Jan 2013 #24
CE5 Jan 2013 #50
starroute Jan 2013 #54
mainer Jan 2013 #56
GreenPartyVoter Jan 2013 #127
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #35
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #23
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #36
srican69 Jan 2013 #37
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #46
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #105
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #106
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #108
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #6
Scuba Jan 2013 #43
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #125
Scuba Jan 2013 #126
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #129
Scuba Jan 2013 #131
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #132
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #138
RKP5637 Jan 2013 #8
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #11
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #18
srican69 Jan 2013 #20
Wednesdays Jan 2013 #57
dawg Jan 2013 #22
mainer Jan 2013 #25
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #27
dawg Jan 2013 #28
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #31
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #29
srican69 Jan 2013 #33
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #38
dawg Jan 2013 #44
Wednesdays Jan 2013 #59
dawg Jan 2013 #62
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #73
dawg Jan 2013 #82
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #75
bemildred Jan 2013 #45
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #47
srican69 Jan 2013 #48
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #52
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #66
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #70
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #79
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #81
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #83
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #86
bemildred Jan 2013 #159
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #49
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #53
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #63
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #68
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #88
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #72
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #90
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #95
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #98
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #99
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #111
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #112
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #114
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #116
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #121
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #124
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #134
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #139
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #144
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #143
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #150
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #154
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #156
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #157
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #152
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #155
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #158
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #160
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #164
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #165
Wednesdays Jan 2013 #55
Xithras Jan 2013 #58
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #91
mainer Jan 2013 #163
Taverner Jan 2013 #60
Wednesdays Jan 2013 #65
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #84
Undaunted Jan 2013 #61
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #64
Wednesdays Jan 2013 #67
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #89
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #71
mainer Jan 2013 #76
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #107
Downwinder Jan 2013 #146
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #77
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #78
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #80
bigapple1963 Jan 2013 #85
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #87
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #93
pnwmom Jan 2013 #96
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #97
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #100
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #102
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #104
Deep13 Jan 2013 #101
indepat Jan 2013 #109
mainer Jan 2013 #110
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #115
mainer Jan 2013 #118
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #147
mainer Jan 2013 #162
Fla_Democrat Jan 2013 #133
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #148
OutNow Jan 2013 #113
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #119
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #122
mainer Jan 2013 #123
a geek named Bob Jan 2013 #140
OutNow Jan 2013 #142
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #145
mainer Jan 2013 #161
FreeJoe Jan 2013 #137
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #151
tama Jan 2013 #153

Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:04 AM

1. How are you going to get every person in the US to file an asset listing yearly?

 

Do you know what a nightmare that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:19 AM

9. If it's such an onerous task

perhaps you own too damn much already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:24 AM

10. what if you own

 

a sole proprietorship? Art work? Antiques? How do you value these? Will you even have enough cash flow to pay the wealth tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:32 AM

12. I don't know & I don't care

I don't even agree with the premise in the OP. My comment was for an individual who responds like Pavlov's dog whenever a perceived slight against the rich is detected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:38 AM

17. Try cleaning up someone's estate. It's a huge pain.

 

Having to do it yearly would be a horror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:54 AM

30. For gods sake, it's in their insurance records!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:02 AM

39. Because people insure everything they own.

And they never overestimate or underestimate the value they use for insurance purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:15 PM

74. They overestimate, because they are dishonest, which is how

They hoard the foods in the first place, I'm sure they don't even consider lying on insurance to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:49 PM

103. "hoard the foods???" n't

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #103)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:09 PM

128. goods. There's plenty of gov't computing power to record insurance, real estate taxes, stock gains

and other valuations of assets.

I think this is a great idea, and a workable one, particularly if you make the penalties for evading this tax steep enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #128)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:14 PM

130. I disagree... You're simply penalizing savers...

 

Personally, I think we should just go back to the pre reagan taxes.

On edit: Who are you to decide how someone deals with their own money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #130)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:37 PM

135. We agree! Let's go back to the FDR taxes - 90 percent on $1 million or above.

Who are you to get in the way of federal functions, more efficient revenue collection, and shifting the burden off the middle-class and back on the rich, where it belongs? Hmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #135)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:03 PM

136. that's not even a half-arsed try at a redirect...

 

Personally, I think we have a case of too much and too little government. How about if we start the "efficient revenue collection" at ending corporate welfare first?

Some folks here seem to think there shouldn't be any such thing as private property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #136)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:35 PM

141. What do you know about half-arsed tries? ;-)

We'll agree to disagree about the nature, origins and definition of theft.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 AM

40. No it isn't. All the financial stuff is who knows where.

 

And you have to list the current value of liabilities. The credit cards alone would drive some people batty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:18 PM

94. Uh, no. Most people have not kept insurance valuations current

because it can be difficult and costly to figure out what old items are worth. Most get less valuable over time but some get more valuable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #94)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:07 AM

120. OMG. No one knows the value of their toys more than the hoarding class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:17 PM

92. That's what I immediately thought of, too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:06 AM

41. It's not supporting the rich. It's supporting savers versus spenders.

Under a wealth tax, the amount of money I set aside to provide for my children's future might be taxable, while the amount an equally wealthy person uses for a trip to Europe is exempt. That is unfair. It rewards the very people who are whining and moaning about barely scraping by on $400K a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:31 AM

51. "I don't know & I don't care"

 

That's the spirit! We need a lot more of that around here.

Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:56 PM

117. I'll take punchlines for $800, Alex

Uhm, "What is the difference between ignorance, and apathy?"












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:39 PM

69. "I don't know and I don't care"

 

Gee that's a great basis for making policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:37 AM

15. Try documenting and valuing everything you own.

 

Diamond rings, gold jewelry, cars, guns, your house, your retirement accounts, whole life and universal insurance, bank accounts, and on and on.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:41 AM

21. and

 

how to you value it? At cost price (could be purchased many decades ago), appraised value (would you need to appraise all your jewelry yearly?), using assumed depreciation? How do you factor in improvements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:49 AM

26. It would be an administrative nightmare.

And it would be terribly unfair. Only impeccably honest people would pay the full amount of this tax.

Plus, it encourages people to spend their last dime and accumulate nothing for the future.

It'd be great for me personally though. I could double the size of my practice. Maybe they could make the wealth tax returns due a different time of year from the income tax returns and I could get premium billings all year long. (I'd better spend all the extra money I made, though. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:55 AM

32. the wealthy have tons on money locked up in paintings ... but imagine the industry such a law will

create .. tons of people will be employed in valuing monet's and crystal chandeliers ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:57 AM

34. You got one word wrong there.

You said "valuing" when you should have said "undervaluing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:05 AM

2. While I'm Not Going to Disagree With You But, How Would That Work?

We certainly shouldn't tax the same wealth more once. I think that would be unfair. Would there be some way to measure the change in wealth from year to year? What happens when it inevitably goes down for someone rather than up? Do they get a refund? Those are just the first questions that come to mind.

I'm all for the punitive tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:05 AM

3. every time wealth tax proposed here, every time cite 5th Amendment...

If someone owns a 1.2 million dollar house and lives on social security, do you seize house and sell it?

When government takes things it needs to pay compensation.

That is why income tax needed a constitutional amendment...

yadda

yadda

yadda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:36 AM

14. How about a 10 million threshold or a 100 million ..

they wouldnt be living off SS - would they - they will have enough liquid assets to dispose off their tax liability - trust me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:20 PM

149. There's really no reason to not plan for inheritance taxes

If you have a spouse, your estate, regardless of size, passes to your spouse tax free. If you died together in a car crash or something, your estate would pass to your heirs. Smart people have life insurance policies making their heirs as secondary beneficiaries so that they can use the proceeds to pay inheritance taxes rather than sell the family home, business or farm. Someone who is very wealthy would certainly have assets that have no sentimental value that could be liquidated. Even Jackie Kennedy Onassis expected her children to auction off some of her belongings in order to pay inheritance taxes. You can only hold on to so much stuff, even when it has sentimental value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:12 AM

4. is this on

 

liquid or illiquid assets? Does real estate count? Primary residence exempted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:13 AM

5. In some instances

that would penalise those who save as opposed to spend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:18 AM

7. Exactly. Savers would suffer. Spenders would be untouched.

My dad never spent a thing all his life and died (after a lifetime as a cook) with a million dollars in assets, living in the same little house he bought 60 years earlier.

This OP would tax his life savings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:34 AM

13. intention is not punish savers .. but to get those who have gotten really wealthy to do their bit

maybe a million is a small threshold .. how about a billion.

they wouldnt be living off social security - would they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:08 AM

42. This is what the estate tax is for.

It works, too. That's why they fight it so hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:38 AM

16. The bar needs to be over a million

A middle-class couple can have over a million in home equity and retirement savings if they have decent jobs, save early and regularly, and don't have any unexpected unemployment or health crisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spinbaby (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:39 AM

19. agreed ... the number is besides the main point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:44 AM

24. The number is NOT besides the main point

THE NUMBER could affect a lot of Americans -- doctors, lawyers, small business owners.

Set the bar at a million? There go the life savings of many savers.

Set the bar at five million? There go the assets of many small business owners.

Savings that people have socked away through frugal lifestyle or long hours on the job (my dad worked 16-hour days) are from earnings that were already taxed. They should not be taxed again just because they're sitting in an IRA account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:24 AM

50. small business owner is Republicanese for corporation

 

it's a bullshit buzzword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CE5 (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:02 PM

54. It's not a buzzword -- small businesses really do exist

Just because some individual proprietorships are worth billions doesn't mean the country isn't full of genuine small businesses.

I'm fairly sure that one small factory with high-end equipment, or a jewelry or furniture store with its inventory, must be worth up in the millions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CE5 (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:10 PM

56. I'm a small business owner

and I am a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CE5 (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:56 AM

127. My husband is self-employed. Can't get a smaller business than that. (And yes, it is a business.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spinbaby (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:57 AM

35. Sure make the bar 50 million and adjust for inflation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:44 AM

23. Would also tax

that which had already been taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 AM

36. Like everything else is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:00 AM

37. like you pay income tax on full income ( after fica tax has been paid)? ... then Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:14 AM

46. Would also probably be unconstitutional without an Amendment.

The 16th Amendment authorizes an income tax, not a wealth tax. A wealth tax sounds like a "direct tax" in the Constitutional sense; I think that would severely hamper Congress's ability to spend funds derived from the tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:04 PM

105. You mean like my spending money from my wages is taxed twice?

Sadcry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:23 PM

106. That might depend on what you buy.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:35 PM

108. Like what?

Everything I buy except some exempted food items is taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:14 AM

6. so sad

 

capital controls used to be linked to third world countries e.g. Argentina today, Malaysia during the Asian financial crisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink