Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Retrograde

(10,063 posts)
6. Let's see
Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:50 PM
Nov 2012

I save up the down payment for house, scrimp to pay the mortgage, spent money to repair and maintain it, and when I reach retirement age I get hit up with taxes again because it appreciated after all those years? And does this "wealth" include retirement savings (for most people, job-provided pensions are a thing of the past) that's supposed to cover all of one's needs for 20 or more years?

There are already provisions for taxing this "wealth" - property taxes, inheritance taxes. The problem is the very wealthy - Romney, for example - can afford accountants and lawyers who can find loopholes for them to exploit.

Yep. I've said this for a while........ socialist_n_TN Nov 2012 #1
As Greece how well that works ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #3
Simple, you make people report their own wealth. reusrename Nov 2012 #7
With what means of traceability or discovery? ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #12
Good thinking. reusrename Nov 2012 #17
Would you commit perjury to hide your assets? closeupready Nov 2012 #8
Yet this can be a problem esp. for elderly who own their house or farm yet have SharonAnn Nov 2012 #15
I don't see the problem. reusrename Nov 2012 #19
This is an op-ed, not an editorial. athena Nov 2012 #2
Interesting. Game would change from disguising income to hiding wealth. DirkGently Nov 2012 #4
It just seems that way at first. reusrename Nov 2012 #10
It is much easier for the common people to hide wealth. ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #13
Is the idea for the wealth to never grow beyond a certain amount? JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #5
Let's see Retrograde Nov 2012 #6
End the massive accumulation of wealth, period n/t leftstreet Nov 2012 #9
It discriminates against savers, rewards the spendthrifts mainer Nov 2012 #11
we'll have to kill them first librechik Nov 2012 #14
holy carp! nt brokechris Nov 2012 #25
and we can't kill them either, obviously. That's why it's such a thorny problem. librechik Nov 2012 #34
How do you calculate wealth? gravity Nov 2012 #16
Tax both. ProSense Nov 2012 #18
Make all bank records accessible by the IRS... Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #22
wow! all I can say is that I am FAR to the left of you brokechris Nov 2012 #23
aren't bank transfers over a certain amount, maybe $1K, already flagged? by homeland security? eom amborin Nov 2012 #37
"Privacy nuts"?? Wow---your board name really IS apt. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #29
I'm not sure I get it brokechris Nov 2012 #30
AFAIK, that's already the case. Bank accounts have required your 'SS# or Tax ID#' for years. freshwest Nov 2012 #35
This would be un-Constitutional PlasticFern Nov 2012 #20
Welcome to DU! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #38
Most people I know have no saved wealth... the entire paycheck goes to bills... Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #21
yet some people have scrimped and saved brokechris Nov 2012 #24
My 88-yr-old mother, as well. Lives really frugally, so she can have some U.S. bonds. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #28
and I believe older people like your mother brokechris Nov 2012 #31
The virtual elimination of the inheritance tax, something the Founders approved of, destroys that. freshwest Nov 2012 #36
I am more comfortable with just income and estate taxes. MrYikes Nov 2012 #26
Well, there are a whole slew of retireees like me---from public education---who think this is a bad WinkyDink Nov 2012 #27
I do find it fascinating that now that the top marginal rate is likely to go back to 39% Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #32
No shit! ProSense Nov 2012 #33
This ought to be the primary method for collecting taxes. reformist2 Nov 2012 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NY Times Op-Ed: Tax Weal...»Reply #6