How about a wealth tax of 100%

[clementine613]

on any amount over $30 million?* Seriously, does anyone need any more than that?


* I just picked $30m for the sake of argument and am fully aware that a different number (higher or lower) may be needed, so if you're going to argue against me (which is fine), don't do it on the basis of the number alone.

[Mr.Bill]

1. What are you trying to do,

destroy the luxury yacht industry?

[BlueTsunami2018]

2. Now here's an extreme to match the right's elimination of the IRS.

This wouldn’t be a winning issue for us at all. Even poor people think taxing anyone at 100% is draconian, no matter where it starts.

[clementine613]

3. Ooooh, my heart bleeds for the poor multi-millionaire who has to live on only $30m*

Draconian, indeed.... : rolling my eyes:

* or whatever number is set.

[BlueTsunami2018]

35. I don't think it's about anyone's heart bleeding.

It just doesn’t seem fair to most people. They feel like they wouldn’t want it done to them even if they’ll never be in that position, like being the very best at something should be rewarded accordingly. Or being very lucky. Or being unique. Or being marketable.

Being fairly taxed is one thing. Having everything taken away after a certain number is hit is an extreme viewpoint.

[NotTodayPutin]

4. What would be considered wealth?

Stocks?
Tangible assets like art, vehicles, furniture etc?
Money in the bank?
Real estate?

[clementine613]

6. I suppose that's a detail that needs to be worked out.

I presented an idea, not a detailed proposal.

[edhopper]

5. Because it would mean the government

Would be confiscating many businesses and corporations.
Should the government own Tesla or Amazon, because most of Bezo and Musk wealth is in stock.

[clementine613]

8. They shouldn't have stolen the wealth to begin with.

Do you want to let them keep their ill-gotten gains just because you're afraid of the government having it?

[edhopper]

13. The government is then running the companies

That is a ridiculous idea.
Reinstate higher tax rates, make cap gains the same income,, close loop holes, fund the IRS.
A one time 2% wealth tax for over a $billion would also be good.

[ck4829]

14. But *this* isn't?

[edhopper]

15. What is *this*?

[clementine613]

16. Or it could sell the stock...

... and use the money to help out the common taxpayer instead of the super-rich.

[edhopper]

18. This is such a stupid idea

I can't discuss it in any earnestness

[clementine613]

19. You're entitled to your opinion...

... although it would be more helpful if you told me *why* you thought it was a "stupid idew."

[edhopper]

21. I have

repeatedly, you don't want to understand.

[edhopper]

20. Who are they selling it to

If you took most of the wealthy money?
And you do know what will happen to the market when you sell 90% of all stocks at the same time.
Your idea is the basis for Marxism.

[clementine613]

22. The average people, who might buy a few shares each.

[edhopper]

23. I guess they can

Since you just caused the biggest crash in history.

[sarisataka]

31. Brilliant!

Take over the companies and confiscate stocks. Turn around and sell the stock to "average people". When those people become wealthy due to stock investments, confiscate the stocks, again, and sell them, again.

The government gets a never ending money machine. At least until people catch on and stop investing.

[jimfields33]

32. What? Seriously?

Say goodbye to every 401K in an instant.

[Igel]

38. And, it needs to be said, every pension fund.

Whether state or federal, school or private.

Interestingly, a lot of people invested in those programs are *not* paying FICA taxes. Take away those, and you have millions with no retirement savings, pension, and ineligible for Social Security.

[inthewind21]

29. Ill gotten gains?

So any company worth over 30mil in your mind is ill-gotten?

[SoCalDavidS]

7. Should Be Easy Enough To Get Through The Senate nt

[Hoyt]

9. Do believe wealthy should have to sell portion of holdings annually, like Minimum Distribution

retired folks -- even with modest 401(k)s and IRAs -- are subject to. Not sure about what percentage should be.

[clementine613]

10. If it's over the threshold, yes.

[Hoyt]

12. Sorry, I'm not for 100% tax, mainly because wealth in this country is just on paper, even

if you own say land.

[clementine613]

17. Someone's "right" to have unlimited wealth

shouldn't trump our *right* to healthcare, housing, education and public infrastructure.

[edhopper]

24. Fair taxation can get us that

You are proposing Communism.

[clementine613]

25. No, I'm proposing a wealth cap.

No one needs twenty kajillion dollars.

[edhopper]

30. You are proposing

The Government confiscate the means of production, straight out of the Manifesto.
A higher tax rate, robust IRS and closing loop holes will do what you want.
Take a look at Europe, most countries do it without an unconstitutional "wealth cap".
But I can see you will never admit you did not think this through or care to hear about why it won't work.
Have a good day.

[VarryOn]

33. Just think of a list of things "no one needs..."

Why stop at wealth?

Some other things no one needs:

--More than 2,000 calories a day
--Reconstruction after a mastectomy
--Luxury brands of anything
--More than one vehicle
--Air conditioning below 72 degrees
--Pedicures and manicures
--Fifteen brands of each item in the supermarket
--A cell phone that has anything other than the most basic functions
--First class seating on an airplance
--Private jets
--A house larger than, say, 1500-2000 square feet
--More than two kids
--Cigarettes
--Alcohol

If "need" is the criteria for whether something should be allowed, then there are few things that would be allowed. I'm always leary when someone says "no one needs"...and then they go own to propose something that would in no way affect them. If the government could limit wealth, then it would only move to something else.

The govertnment taking 100% of wealth over a certain threshhold is just a bad idea. One, people will be build wealth up to the cap, then stop. Who wants to work hard and take on risk only to start giving 100% to the government. You'd be a damned fool. I suspect most would pack up and move as much of their assets out of the USA. Attempting to confiscate large amounts of wealth from those with the most means to avoid it is never going to generate the revenue this idea purports to generate.

All sounds a little communismy to me.

[Igel]

39. The USSR had 130 sq ft as the living space a person had a right to.

Constitutional right.

My bedroom is bigger than that. And it's #3 for size in the house I'm in.

That didn't include a kitchen--typically small, but that would be for a family and while it would double the space for an individual wouldn't do that much for a family of 3 or 4. (And typically individual flats had communal kitchens.)

So a house with 1500 sq ft?

That's for a family of 10.

2000 sq ft? Family of 14. Assuming that one's a child.

(Sadly, the USSR had that as a right, but the average living space per person, as of 1985, still hadn't reached that awesome number.)

[VarryOn]

41. Very interesting. I haven't heard about this before..

It's also interesting the average square foot per person couldn't even reach a mere 150 sure feet per person.

[Hoyt]

26. Agree with providing for those needs, now and long term.

Doubt your plan will do that, especially long-tern, but that’s another matter.

[werdna]

11. It depends -

If everyone in the country has adequate:
Food
Shelter
Health care
Education
Basic necessities
Retirement security

It matters not to me how much else some insecure, obsessive wealth hoarder accumulates.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. No Thanks

I can see a raise (graduated) in realized gains & dividends.
Then I could get behind a modest (10%?) tax on total asset value growth.
Typically, among the uber rich, a 10% (perhaps higher) tax on accumulated value wouldn't require sell off, therefore becoming realized gains.
Example: 15% total growth. 5% realized. On a $10 billion dollar fortune that would be 30% of $500 million ($150 million in tax), plus 10% of the unrealized billion.
A total tax load of $250 million still leaves $250 million after taxes, plus a billion in unrealized gains. That's still 12.5% gain and $100 million in taxes not paid today.
I don't believe a 100% tax above a certain amount would survive a challenge as a violation of the 14th amendment.
It certainly would be nearly politically impossible to pass.
I also don't believe 100% taxation is at all reasonable.

[sarisataka]

28. Jeder nach seinen Fhigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedrfnissen

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Sounds good on paper, yes?

[dawg]

34. I generally oppose wealth taxes because they can apply to people who are already losing wealth ...

such as retirees who are spending down their nest eggs or business owners who are going through difficult business conditions.

It's much better to tax incomes, because income taxes generally only apply to people whose wealth is increasing.

Of course, we need to do a much better job of taxing some incomes.

[brooklynite]

36. I know people who have $30 M and they earned it by working hard...

…and not by oppressing the working class. How much they “need “ is irrelevant. So, for that matter is this rant, since it’ll never happen.

[madinmaryland]

37. Elmo is going to be pissed, because he won't be able to buy Twitter!

[WarGamer]

40. The UK Wealth Tax Commission studied this extensively...

You know, people who actually have a clue...

They arrived at a one time 5% tax and 1% annual on UHNW individuals.

You see... believe it or not you still have to let the rich be rich... because if you don't, they will stop working.

Example.

If there was a 80% marginal income rate for everything past 500k/year for example...

Plastic surgeons and high powered attorneys would stop working by September and take the rest of the year off.

No one will work for 20% of their worth.

[Amishman]

42. That would be country destroying economic suicide

Assuming the tax can be structured that it cannot be avoided via trust, corporation, etc; you would have a capital flight like the world has never known.

Those subject to the tax would immediately liquidate all assets over that threshold and attempt to hide or offshore them. This mass liquidation of hundreds of billions - if not trillions - would utterly destroy all US financial and real estate markets and annihilate the value of the US dollar. Our economy would implode in depression if not total collapse.

So yeah, let's not even joke about this, it's a stupendously bad idea.