The following is commentary intended for discussion. Add your comments.
A 2% wealth tax, as proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, wouldn't impact me. It wouldn't impact most of you. (I think it's targeting people who have wealth above $50 million.)
I guess it's tempting to try to play off our jealousy and hope we will be "all for" hitting people who have more than us.
Personally, even when I had nothing, I didn't resent those who had more. I didn't hope that they got taxed more, I didn't spend time thinking about how undeserving they were or how I'd been held back from what was, somehow, rightfully mine. I just tried to show up, work very hard, bounce back, be positive, get motivated after failure instead of feeling discouraged, and help others.
For the ultra-wealthy who speak out on occasion and say they think they should be paying more taxes: nothing stops them from doing so today. They can pay as much as they want over what they owe.
When they're advocating that "they" should pay more, they're actually saying they want to control matters so that "others" pay more-- because they can do what they feel is their fair share today. No new law needed.
What do you think?
No wealth tax. All should pay. And people should not be lifelong wards of the state. Only those that have payed into social security should receive it v
The way for everyone to pay is a consumption tax on everything except food, medicine, and shelter. Shelter being real estate transactions, property taxes, impact fees; leave that for local jurisdictions. Payroll tax for Social Security Trust Fund, managed and separate from the government budget. Corporate income tax above a certain revenue (if BoA can give 1 billion to BLM, they can pay more taxes). Personal property (national or international) tax on the super wealthy. Very small Financial Transaction Tax on stocks, bonds, and derivatives (pension and retirement funds exempt). No income taxes....Somebody add that up 😉
Bob Young says
If there was a constitutional limit on the threshold, I could be talked into it. If not, the threshold will be <=$100k in a decade. Without that hard to change limit, this is the 'camels nose in the tent'.
No. The wealthy already pay the vast majority of the federal tax.
I'm not in favor of a weath tax.
-That money has already been taxed at least once.
-The threshold is $50 Million today, but what's to keep politicians in search of more money to fund their pork projects and vote buying from lowering it?
It doesn’t impact me, but I’m totally against it. I’m against all punitive Taxes. As an example: my state excise tax on cars is based on the value of the car and not based on how miles you drive. That’s punitive.
Art sieber says
This isn’t a tax. This is straight up confiscation
Jeffrey Richard says
No is the short answer. This will lead to taxing 401K, property, family heirlooms, cars, etc.
Russell Brown says
This story was often told in Soviet Russia, and I first heard it in Romania:
Yuri and Alex were peasant farmers who lived next to each other. Each had a small plot of land where he grew potatoes, and Yuri had a goat.
So every morning, Yuri would have milk with his breakfast.
One morning, Alex was digging potatoes and found an old dirty lamp. He rubbed the lamp to clean it and a genie appeared.
The genie said, "Alex, I can grant you one wish. Anything thing you want, I can give it to you. What is your wish?"
Alex replied, "I wish for Yuri's goat to die."
Chris Finan says
Sounds like socialism and a good way to chase american investment away.
Jeff McDonald says
Putting “taxation is theft “ aside, I’m more in favor of (a) tax based on use, and (b) no double taxation. To the second point, I view a wealth tax as double taxation. The wealth was taxed when earned and should not be taxed again. Further, taxing wealth year over year will reduce someone’s wealth over time because of the double taxation. Most wealthy individuals already bear the lion’s share of the tax burden anyway. I do support constrained, practical government spending and accountability which we do not have at local, state, or federal levels. That is where the discussion should be focused.
Paul Wirth says
A wealth tax will only serve to cause layoffs for those who work for the wealthy. Poor people don't sign paychecks. Warren Buffett is shrewd enough to know that a wealth tax would hinder and remove a certain degree of his competition, so he is not being magnanimous. The best tax system for advancing the standard of living for the working class would be a national sales tax as it would bring manufacturing back and raise working class wages.
Whether they paid an inheritance tax or they paid taxes on dividends or taxes on profits or wages, we've given our "partner" Uncle Sam his share all along.
How can he justify making another run at our tax-paid pile?
That's not America.
George Cagliuso says
I think it moves money from productive purposes (investment capital, real estate and other real property, etc) to consumptive purposes (redistribution as welfare, college loan forgiveness, free child care, free college, etc.). As such, it would result in fewer jobs, less opportunity, less upward mobility for poorer classes and more poverty and inequality, thereby creating a vicious cycle of increasing taxes/increasing poverty/increasing redistribution
Roier Hinderber says
There was a time I didn't I do now all these billionaire oligarchs out there that are trying to shut down our free speech burning books basically and all the other things that their funding with their money we need to take it away from him teach him a lesson punish the hell out of them back some 50%
No, and Hell No!
Your wealth has already been taxed. You paid that when you earned it. You also pay taxes on it when you spend it. No way should you owe taxes on it simply for having it.
Also, is that not Unconstitutional? We have a Constitutional Amendment that let the government charge income tax. It says NOTHING about wealth taxes.
Since it required a constitutional amendment to legally tax income, would it not require another amendment to tax “wealth”?
Mark Redelsheimer says
Wealth tax is a red herring. Senator Warren knows full well that the constitution does not provide for the federal government to lay a wealth tax. The multi billionaires are aware of this as well. Political positioning and virtue signaling is all it is.
Wealth taxes have never worked. The net effect of a wealth tax is loss of businesses and organizations because those taxed just leave and move to a place with lower taxes. Another effect is the loss of income to those who can afford it least.
Jesus Ruiz says
I think the only fair and reasonable way to tax is to tax a certain percentage across the board regardless of the income a person earns. Those who make more are already paying more but the percentage is the same across the board. To make different percentages for different people would make it biased and an unjust weight because you are now making decisions based upon people who fall into a particular category and who's to say that your decision of that is just or right. If everyone is getting taxed the same percentage then that is more fair than any subjective percentage for people in a subjective or changing category.
You??? - failure???
Only 14th Amendment "citizens" are taxed upon their income. The 16th Amendment was never fully ratified = fraud.
"Courtesy of Onlashuk Shugaharra
[---POST #1 OF 3---] because FAKEBOOK took the NOTES feature away for no good reason.
The Jubilee was made permanent as a result of the death, burial, and resurrection. That is one of the major differences between the 1st and 2nd Covenants; also called, Old and New Testaments. If one continues to allow their Earthly Estate to remain abandoned in the PUBLIC under the control and Will of the Government ADMINISTRATION, then how will one ever experience anything other than the resulting consequences of rebellion against the Will and Way of the Creator through His beloved Son?
In other words, when a living soul applied for a Social Security number, and gave evidence of birth, and claimed to be a citizen of the UNITED STATES as a party with no vested interested in a freehold fee-simple estate, and its Trust and Res. (Constitution) That living soul literally genocided the Posterity that they once were. Nice to meet you, ESSAU! Don’t take offense to this. For we ALL have done this, no exceptions. So, don't get mad that this has been worded this way. It’s not intended as a personal attack. It is intended to help one to see that, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and that no one is better off than any one else.
So, how is giving-up (abandoning/surrendering) of ones birthright for bowl of pottage working out for you? Do you like being a surety-slave-constituting-Fiduciary-Trustee for the profit of other men in CORPORATE cloaks/Titles? We now work for the benefit of other men, for their profit and gain at our loss making our bricks without straw having the same quota due no matter what.
So then, how did exchanging your birthright inheritance Freehold Fee-Simple Estate work out for you? Did you receive an equal exchange for it? Most certainly not! But, you did receive Security! Social Security! Ain’t that wonderful? No wonder the Creator has turned his back on us. We did this to ourselves voluntarily, and even worse, willingly. But then, to make things worse, we still want what was promised to the Posterity, too. Hello?! Double minded much? That is proven from giving-up/abandoning the Freehold Fee-simple Estate, but you still want to be counted among the Posterity of the Fee-Simply Estate in Trust of the American Republic. IF that is not proof of being double minded, then I do not know what is.
So then, what did you get in exchange for giving-up, the Freehold Fee-simple Estate? "Equality?!" Really?! You got equality, and not “Equity?” (Psalm 98:9 & Acts 17:31) And exactly how it that equal to the "real thing," the substance of the Freehold Fee-simple Estate, hm? Is it as real as Equity? You do know that Equity is as real as it gets, right? IF you didn’t get a fair exchange for the Freehold Fee-simple Estate, then you’ve been taken for a ride. And, more than likely, your still on that ride. Isn’t it time to get off that one-way ride (ticket) to hell?
President Donald John Trump said at his inauguration (January of 2017), "I am here to give the government back to the people... Come and get it!" (paraphrased) How exactly is one going to, "....come and get it..." IF they still allow for their Freehold Fee-simple Estate to remain abandoned in the public, and justly held in abeyance from them under the ADMINISTRATION of other men, who command their Estate in and of the PUBLIC world, which functions entirely under the rule and rules of bankruptcy? Now, do you see why you are obligated to pay all fines, fees, taxes, and prices, even though the blood of the Redeemer has already purchased all things, including your Life, Labor, Liberty and Freehold Fee-simple Estate?
Since it was, "We the People," that created this Republic and its government, then shouldn't the Freehold Fee-simple Estate be administrated by you… after it has been placed under the feet of the one who not only Redeemed your Life, Liberty and Labor; but also, purchased your Freehold Fee-simple Estate with his blood out of insolvency?
In other words, shouldn't we the “Posterity” of the people (Beneficiaries) take control of what was created by our ancestors, accepting the blessing of the Freehold Fee-simple Estate originally gifted to the 1st Man Adam, and passed down through the generation to all of us as an inheritance in fee-simple, not fee-tail?
How do we know this to be true? It is from the Holy Scriptures whence the Magna Carta of 1215 gleaned those rights, that were attached to the land itself that God gave to Abraham. Therefore, it is His covenant that we break when we SELL our liberties and freedom for security under any government of men such as the government of the UNITED STATES. The wording used to transfer the land to Abraham from the Creator-Grantor God was stated in specific words, these words were used in transferring Freehold Fee-simple Estates in Trusts until the 1800's. These very same words are still found in Deeds, Wills and other Trust Instruments transferring property from Grantor to Beneficiary. They are the words of inheritance defining the size of the freehold. “To Ourselves and our Posterity,” are those words of inheritance. “In God we Trust,” does not only mean, in God we have faith, but more-so Trust. It’s always all about Trust.
IF not, then how are you not exactly like Esau? How have you not done exactly the same thing that Esau did? Didn't Esau "despise" the gift of the inheritance? In other words, despise the gift of the Freehold Fee-simple Estate, which originated from the Creator given to the 1st Man Adam, and Redeemed out of insolvency by the "finished work," that "Perfected Equity," by the 2nd and Last Adam? Now, not only do you know why you can say that the Estate is a Freehold Fee-simple Estate. But, you now also know the biggest reason why the nations in the middle east have never known peace. For they suffer under a curse brought to them by the wickedness of Esau for following in the footsteps of Esau, learning to also despise the gift of the Creator, the Freehold Fee-simple Estate. Hebrews 12:16, “...lest there be any fornicator or godless living-soul like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.”
This is the distinction of Esau, and it is carried on through the generations of his bloodline. How unfortunate, even though it is rightly deserved for rebellion. All I can do is to encourage you to not follow in Esau’s footsteps as so many of his prodigy have, and likewise, suffer for that folly. (Read the entire story recorded in Genesis 25, specifically verses 29-34)
Do you see the connection? IF not, then let me ask you a few questions in the spirit of the homicide detective, “Lieutenant Frank Columbo.” Remember, you are not obligated to answer any of these questions. However, these questions are being asked to help one to see something that has been totally and completely seen and understood, but missed. Yet, it has been right before your eyes, all of your years. Now, that may be hard to agree with, but it has been."
MoeMatrix, Sharyl, and Full Measure Team :
MoeMatrix, actually, we DID Not “do this to ourselves”!—not to take away from your excellent analyses.
We have been assaulted/robbed/enslaved by CLEVER and Evil men!—also known as : “Shadow Elites” or “Shadow Government” or “Deep State” or “Satan” or “Ba’al” or “Moloch” or “Worshippers of the Golden Calf” or “Garden Grove Worshippers” (( this scribbler/researcher has traced that Evil germ-line to before advent of the Sumerian civilization, and traced its path of death and destruction to this time/age )).
MoeMatrix, exactly HOW may an avowed
Communist become - he claims : “...in my youth... -
director of the CIA : John Brennan ?
Well, Glenn Beck had been told by President George W. Bush, “Whoever sits in this chair has no power, to change things.”
“Former CIA director turned MSNBC intelligence analyst John Brennan told the outlet's audience Monday that he is "increasingly embarrassed to be a white male," in reaction to investigations surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.” :
One has to study the TRUE history of how Marxian Lincoln got into power (( search his and wife Mary’s use of occult MEDIUMS for guidance, beginning in 1852 and thereafter )), to begin his WAR Against the Founders’ and Framers’ CONSTITUTIONAL Republic, and against We-The-People’s RULE-of-Law and Self-Determination.
Study the history of how Marxists from Europe - the Forty-Eighters - were welcomed into his soon-to-become TOTALITARIAN administration.
All taxes are wealth taxes. No I don’t support any additional tax for anything. Government is a poor steward of the tax money they currently, never give them another dime
Would like to see everyone taxed equally. I get irritated that a certain percentage of the population doesn't contribute. Or if this remains the case, they should forfeit their right to vote...
David Polley says
Just give us a flat tax with no deductions. Cut all stuff like tax deductions for green energy, green cars, mortgages etc. That way the rich would pay the same as everyone else. But as it is now they have accountants to find ways around paying taxes. But it will never fly because there is too many specials interests in DC. Besides if they take 2% from them they will spend 4%.
John L Lake says
I'm not going to be long winded I think that any tax that divides us is meant to do just that to divide us I am among the many that would not have to worry about this tax but even though I don't have to worry about it it is still not right.
Shane Mann says
I do favor a wealth tax as so many of the billionaires and other rich people in the USA are pushing the NWO or call it Build Back Better, or the Great Reset. Tax the billionaires who own the Social Media monopolies, Google, Amazon, Walmart, Apple and other evil globalist corporations
Jim Gray says
this would be actual double taxation, this is money that was left after taxes were paid.....they yelped like wounded pups about double taxation when two different jurisdictions taxing the same money when the salt tax was repealed...........but that effected money that blue states would lose.
Don Bathurst says
We already have versions of a wealth tax. At the local level we pay taxes on personal property, most notably real estate. But, this can also include cars, and in some states other property like furnishings.
In the case of real estate, the government holds all the cards. If the "assessed value" decreases, they can raise the the rates. And, most people do not pay sufficient attention to hold the representatives accountable.
Estate taxes are a cruel wealth tax, applied when families grieve and may not be able to pay without liquidating the results of a lifetime's work.
As to the claim that this proposed wealth tax would only apply to a very few (over $50M), recall that the income tax was to be temporary (to fund support for WWI) and had a tax rate of 1%.
If such a tax were implemented, it would have to apply to lower levels of assets, because those with very high wealth would certainly find ways to shelter their assets to avoid the tax. (Tax avoidance is legal and not the same as tax evasion.)
I have little faith that such a tax would be limited to a rate or a specific level of assets.
We all need to understand that the ultra wealthy are not paying payroll/income tax. Their earnings are not taxed in the same way as those of us who get a regular paycheck are. While I agree the billionaires should be contributing a greater share, I actually support a flat tax because my problem with the current system is that the people on the low end have no skin in the game and I stated earlier, those ultra wealthy on the top and are not contributing as well.
I believe in a capitalistic economic society people should not be “punished “for hard work in attaining wealth anymore than people who are on the other end of the society get punished for being poor. I believe in hard work and high reward for hard work. If you are not willing to work and sacrifice then you should not benefit from the efforts and sacrifice of those who are working hard and benefiting. But I also believe in being a benevolent person and sharing my blessings and wealth with those who have not been as fortunate or potentially have not had as much opportunity as I have. But that should be a personal choice and not dictated from any government or any other organization.
I agree with you. For the most part, the ultra wealthy were willing to take a risk, on top of hard work, which is a huge distinction for me. Society as a whole benefits from those willing to take the risks. I will work hard my whole life and never be wealthy, and I'm OK with it.
That is an excellent, accurate synopsis of “capitalistic economic society.”
I would have written : “capitalistic, MERITOCRATIC economic society.”
In any case, the Washington Robin Hoods are MORALLY bankrupt.
Here is why :
— Robin Hood was Morally Bankrupt —
Sherwoodians’ “compassionate” redistribution of hard-earned wealth :
Libertine Democrats are Liberal Hoods who appeal to citizens’ compassion for the “poor,” and seek votes for raising taxes to aid the down-trodden, as if the category “poor” were a monolithic collective of groups of individuals.
Whenever you hear a Liberal Hood use the term “poor,”
clutch your pockets tightly and ask, “ To which ’poor’ ? ” :
the lazy poor,
—or any combination of these, where appearances reveal a lack of material goods, or where one proves membership in any group supporting the views of Washington Sherwoodians?
If you belong to one of those groups, open your pockets wide to take a windfall and some change from the productive/industrious.
If you belong to one of the following, you’re about to get badly soaked :
the sweat-of-the-brow rich,
the inherited rich,
the compounding-interest rich,
the save-every-penney rich,
the pick-up-every-lost penny rich,
the lottery rich,
—or those citizens with any holdings slightly above the median family income.
No matter how the PRODUCTIVE are given a bath—it is an unjust, immoral, and socially destructive practice.
1) Liberal Hoods acquire no spiritual benefit because they are thieves !
2) The poor do not gain spiritually because they receive stolen goods !
3) The providers do not benefit because their “gifts” to the poor are involuntary !
And the poor get increasingly more lazy, dependent, and prodigious in bearing UNPRODUCTIVE young for the next generation of Washington-Sherwoodians’ charges.
If only Liberal Hoods would become rational; encourage the rich to continue being the best producers they can be; admonish the poor to become more like the rich; and chastise would-be Sherwoodians to find their moral and rational bearings, then . . .
I am NOT in favor of a 2% Wealth Tax. I'd rather the "wealthy" continue to smartly (and legally) invest their wealth .... not have it seized by the Federal government.
Connie Pressley says
I think they should pay the #Wealthtax because they made so much during the pandemic. I don't think that's fair.
Every time I hear about “taxing the rich” or a wealth tax, I wait to see how soon my taxes go up because I became rich to the government.
Mike DiBianco says
Wealth tax is unfair. Taxation of previously taxed income. Can't get rid of it because that just puts more burden on other sources of tax revenue, but should not add to it.
I'm with Jeaneen: implement a flat tax. In 2018, Forbes predicted that the U.S. tax code is approx 75,000 pages. We need to revamp the tax code so that it is extremely concise and stupid simple. Accountants and corporations will absolutely despise this change, but the net benefit to the public and to government will be huge. Also, with it's current length, the U.S. tax code can be used as a political weapon to target certain demographics, and revamping with a flat tax would help fix this problem too.
A wealth tax is a really bad idea, and currently, they may only be trying to target citizens with wealth greater than $50 million, but that would change over time. It's a slippery slope, and sooner or later (definitely sooner), government would have some "small/minute" 1% wealth tax on those with wealth above $1 million. Also, taxes are only part of this equation - government needs to spend a lot less money in order to stop running a deficit year after year. All this talk about taxing the wealthy completely ignores the U.S. government's spending addiction.
Neil Kellen says
Sure, because we know the federal government will do a MUCH BETTER job spending that money.
John J Havlicek says
As a member of the working poor, I could not be more emphatic that just to say...NO! Look, never in the history of the US government, has there ever been a tax that went where it was alleged to have gone.
We have an almost 2,000,000,000,000.00 "relief package" in the works right now, that is supposed to be providing immediate relief to those whose lives and businesses have been utterly destroyed by the Democrat's response to The Virus, which has been far worse than the virus itself. Yet, when you dig in to what they are proposing, the money won't be spent until 2022 and on to 2028. So, where is the immediate relief?
To make matters worse. to add insult to injury, there is still a boatload of money unspent from the last "relief bill". It's like they have no idea as to what constitutes "economic absurdity". Now, they want to add a "wealth tax", in an attempt to further relieve successful Americans of their success. ALL of this is wealth-redistribution...period. It is another attempt to divide Americans by class, and thereby attain more power and money. Look at where the money goes in these proposals and what you find would make a wild carrion-eater wretch.
I have nothing against wealthy Americans. I wish I were one of them. In the meanwhile, those wealthy Americans actually pay me to build and renovate their homes. Thank god for them...until the Democrats finally chase them and their money offshore.
Obama once chided the rich asking them how much money do they need? I strongly dislike massive amounts of money/assets being owned by a few. It is unhealthy for our society. We have seen this last election how a few literally used their millions to allow or ban political messaging. So what to do? A wealth tax is impossible to implement. Who decides the value of assets. The super rich say they want to pay more taxes, but that is a lie. They are leaving high taxed states for lower taxed states. They hire accountants, their generosity is dictated by amount to be deducted on their tax returns. Tom Brokaw said he surveyed his super rich friends that swore they want to pay more in taxes, but afraid our government will waste the money. They are right. Clowns work in our government. Pork is all they care about not doing right by the people. Sharyl you are the best. I am really sorry our federal government spied on you and you still cannot get to the truth of who exactly orchestrated this spy mission.
The wealthy are very skilled at hiding their wealth. A "wealth tax" will cause them to improve their skills even more. A great little book "Capital Without Borders" describes how this works. If we really wantedt to collect the proceeds of privilege, we would tax government-granted privilege directly.
I don't think it's the government's place to decide where people's money goes. People/businesses should be able to decide what needs and charities to invest in without the government's help.
William Wainwright says
I am an expat, living in Switzerland and actually pay a Wealth Tax (Vermögensteuer). There is very little exempted from this tax. In lieu of a private pension plans (gone the way of the Dodo in the USA), employees (but not employers) contribute to a pension plan (Pillar 2) that is exempt from wealth tax . Excess contributions are allowed to be made into a Pillar 3 (similar as a 401k) but this is taxed as wealth.
The wealth tax is progressive and starts immediately. If your wealth (savings, home, cars etc.) is between 1 and 5 million CHF, expect to pay about 1% in wealth tax. The very wealthy can pay up to 1..5% in Vermögensteuer. the minimum rate is about 0.1%, so even the poor have "skin in the game", although as a portion of the total tax burden it is negligible. By the way, the total tax burden in Switzerland is slightly less than the tax burden in the USA and the tax code is ridiculously simple. The US could learn a lot from Switzerland in this regard. Here is another fun fact about Swiss Taxes. The distribution of tax income (where we live, your results may vary), for every 1000 CHF in tax paid, about 600 goes to our community, 300 goes to the Canton (state) and 100 goes to the Bund (Federal). Most of the government functions and issues are handled locally. THIS is Federalism in practice.
Veritas Now says
This one is simple. If you punish success, you will get less of it.
John LaRandeau says
2% x 0.00 = 0.00
There are I believe three countries with a wealth tax - Norway, Spain and Switzerland and I live in one of them. The tax is progressive and tends to max out at 0.45% to 0.50 % exceeding $4'000.000. After allowable deductions is a relatively minor burden for average wage and savings workers. It does not apply to pension funds. The wealth tax varies by state and there is rarely any political discussion about abolishing it - after all it was implemented around 1800. Compensation for it is that the inheritance tax is low, and there’s no capital gains levy or tax on movable property such as equities. One might say that it is politically appreciated by the population in that the wealthier do pay more.
Taxed Enough says
I have a feeling that a ‘wealth tax’ is for show considering the most wealthy placed Biden into the White House.
Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna board members, Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg have all grown their wealth by more than 2%.
I’m sure this tax hike will be followed with one for those not privileged to get a ‘non-wealth tax’ levied on them.
Of course gas prices have already gone up 30% since Biden seized power.
How about the wealthy just pay the increase felt at the pump for the rest of us proles?
Tom George says
A wealth tax will not impact me - YET! Fact is that originally Social So Security Tax was only 1%, and it was only on the wealthy. Today it's 12.4% (plus 2.9% for Medicare) and everyone pays it. This illustrates the fact that once to gov't gets it's greedy hooks into us they figure they've got a good thing and it grows. There are many other examples. So if a wealth tax is initiated history shows us it will grow, and sometime in the future middle class people will be paying a wealth tax on every asset they own, Their homes, cars, savings accounts, IRA's will all be subject to a wealth tax. You can be sure of it.
Fred Speaks says
Reading your comment led me to think of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
I recall being shocked when I learned it applied to me even though I just covered my expenses with a tiny savings on the 5-figure income I brought in, living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where sadly that salary doesn’t go very far.
That tax measure was implemented at a time when a high 5-figure annual salary was indicative of wealth in all parts of the country.
Your observation matches my experience.
Burning Bridges says
Abolish the 16th Amendment.
NO! Any sort of tax on the "rich" -- particularly an "envy" tax like this one -- will eventually trickle down the lower net worth individuals. The government black hole can never be filled. It just keeps sucking in money and wasting it. We are so in the toilet now and we will have passed the point of no return if Kamala Harris becomes president under the 25th Amendment. It's what they've wanted from the beginning of Biden's come back in June 2020. Very clever, but sinister.
Roy Pevlor says
I'm not in favor of income tax. I'm in favor, best described by Keyes prior to running. States can do what they like.
Carolyn Singer says
My concern is how this would be implemented. If you are a farmer with a ranch worth $50M but not turning a profit, you might have to sell it. I am sure some Chinese corporation would snap it up. If you own a manufacturing business, is that “wealth”? Would you then be laying off employees to cover the tax? Or would you just pass the cost on to us consumers. Would more millionaires then just transfer their wealth to a foundation like the Gates and Clintons to avoid the tax? In theory it sounds ok, but in practice these things just don’t work. You also have lots of valuation issues for assets - say an art collection. Sounds like an administrative challenge to this accountant.
Bob Kaluza says
Can the recipients of the redistributed 'wealth tax' spend the money more effectively than the wealthy? I think Elizabeth seriously needs to address that important issue.
I just read the book Socialism Sucks written by Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell, the Foreword was written by Tom Woods.
Here are three three paragraphs from the Foreword of the book that helps address the issue of the overall effectiveness of how the wealthy spend their money.
'The rich’ meanwhile, are caricatured and despised as a matter of routine. And while it’s true that some people have come by their wealth in disreputable ways, made possible by government, socialist critics are not making distinctions like this. It is wealth per se, no matter how acquired, that is to be condemned.
Not a moment’s thought is applied to wondering what the rich might actually do for the economy. We are to believe that they roll around in their cash until it sticks to their sweaty bodies.
Not a word about investment in capital goods, which make the economy more physically productive and increase real incomes. Nothing about capital maintenance, which keeps the structure of production up and running. Nothing about saving at all, since most popular critics of capitalism appear to think consumption is what really contributes to economic health – as if simply using things up could make us rich'
Glenn Lego says
The wealthy can simply move elsewhere in the world, or at least move their money elsewhere, where no one can get their hands on it. That leaves the rest of us holding the bag as it were. What good is a wealth tax if the wealthy can find loopholes to get out of paying it?
A tax on assets is theft, whether those assets are $50M or $50K. Ask anyone who lives in Virginia and has to pay an annual tax on the value of their car. Taxes on property, backed up by forfeiture of the property following failure to pay the taxes, actually mean that we do not really own our property but hold it on government sufferance. The proposed tax would extend that sufferance to everything owned by those targeted.
Moreover, to determine the value of assets would be an extremely intrusive activity, open to fraud by either understating or overstating value.
This tax is another wedge to get us all to the place where we own nothing. It appeals to envy to persuade ordinary people to support it but will eventually target us. The very rich, the powerful, and the connected will all be able to avoid it.
"The top 5% paid around 58%."* [of the Federal taxes]. They are paying more than "their fair share." They also stimulate the economy more than the average tax payer buy providing jobs, purchasing goods and services and investments.
They only way government will ever have enough money is to cut its size and spending.
The wealthy who do not want to pay this tax can just leave. When they do, they take with them any taxes they were already paying and any jobs they may have provided. Then we are worse off than before.
Karen Anderson says
I personally don't believe in punishing people who are honestly very successful.
It won't make a sent into our national debt to tax the ultra wealthy heavier than they are currently. Our concern ought to be what we'll do if our debt is called up. There's no real solution, just seems like there is. Politicians and their long periods of power should be reigned in. We need to be in control,not the politicians. We should cancel those that have just sat on their asses and achieved nothing meaningful for their constituents. And don't get me started on politicians that don't even reside in the same areas where their constituency live. We need to be done with the same old BS.
James McNulty, Esq. says
Yes. Screw the billionaire bastards that have given us the Potemkin Resident Biden.
Lenard Lee says
Too many people wrapped up in the highly "subjective" idea of "fairness". I learned long ago that the only one who's going to watch out for me, is "me"! For all of those who obsess over what someone else is making or how much they've earned, I'd ask "for all of the bitching you do over someone else's wealth, how much richer are you for it? How much more do you have in your checking account? How much more do you have in your retirement account"? If your answer is "zero" as I suspect it is, then why are you so concerned about someone else's wealth? If bemoaning someone else gets you nothing in return, what's the point in feeding your jealousy? The wealthy are free to do what they want with their money and you'll see NOTHING from the punitive taxes you'd wish upon them.
No to a wealth tax. This opens the door to lowering the threshold of what is considered wealthy. If we are talking about a healthy social safety net, why not eliminate the wage threshold for social security taxes? Many people became wealthy by making this world a better place. We love our smart phones, computers etc.., yet we want to punish hard work and ingenuity. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could report on charitable giving in this country. I think we would find that the wealthy give a lot. Shouldn’t they get to decide who their money goes to?
David E Adams says
No. There should no wealth tax. The fact is, it matters little of any extra money raised by the feds to taxing the mega wealthy because they would spend that money and continue to borrow more and run huge deficits. Even if every person in America gave 100% of their incomes to the feds, they would find a way to spend that and borrow more. Just cut them off, massively lower taxes.
David E Adams says
If you give your child $5.00 in spending money, they will spend $5.00. If you give them $10.00, they will spend $10.00 and so on no matter the amount.
I want a wealth hall of fame; not a wealth hall of shame. It is not the government's money. It belongs to those who earn it.
We tax ourselves only with our permission for a specific and defined purpose. Not to support a 20 million strong government employee's wide open maw.
The "covid" bail out bill going almost entirely to the benefit of government employees and their outrageous defined-benefit pensions, that are guaranteed to no one else, should shock the conscience of every single person now force to pay for this Democrat boondoggle.
We the people are asked to raid our own retirement savings just to make government employee pensions whole. This is so fundamentally wrong it leaves me speechless.
Where is the mutual benefit quid pro quo to get this egregious and self-serving windfall, accruing only to government employees and their rapacious public sector unions - the cash cows of the Democrat party?