We Need a Wealth Tax

[staboner 4955]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol what? He’s super fucking wrong. 

eh. its good to have slorch back. sure its his usual short sighted bit. just trying to connect with him. i get tired of the the nonstop shitstorm in here. and i've fought with slorch far too many times to even count

and yes we have a massive inequality problem. sadly, with every passing day, a tax is likely the only way to stop the bleed. i guess it beats the other potential outcomes. 

ya'll have a nice night 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Any grown ass man who types “LoLz” in every post will never be in danger of making millions of dollars.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

 

Stop acting like this is about you, and just admit you don’t want certain of your fellow Americans to get a hand up. Just own it. 

Straight up false.   This whole process is not about helping anyone.  It's about punishing others.  The ones you hate.

Hands up already exist.  Bigtime.

The notion that i shouldn't oppose it because it doesn't apply to me is EXACTLY what's wrong with the whole deal.   "Fuck that other guy.  I need some of his shit."

Edited July 17, 2020 by slorch

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Any grown ass man who types “LoLz” in every post will never be in danger of making millions of dollars.

Yep.  Just too damned dumb to understand your class envy politics.   Lolz.

 

If everyone's not miserable, we're not doing it right, according to y'all.  If people "A" here just had some of those people "B's" shit over there, people "A" would be happy, amirite?

Edited July 17, 2020 by slorch

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Too easy to get out of estate tax.  We have no kids and no plans for em.  Drives our FA insane that we have zero plans to avoid giving tons of it to the govt when we pass.  The damn game is rigged in favor of the Uber wealthy.  Hilarious that so much of the middle class does their bidding.  I mean, you can afford a ford raptor so you should be really worried about a guy having 25M instead of 50M.  Thanks bros.   

so you're making a choice on where your money goes.

What a novelty...

[elfenix 34168]

people B have a lot of people A's shit and keep bribing congress to let them grab more of it, so clearly that's not correct. 

[washparkhorn 9931]

We could do what the wealthy do and adopt MMT for everyone, not just them. A little discussion of the changing reality of . . . leverage. https://bclmacro.substack.com/p/markets-memes-and-mmt

Quote

 

In brief, here is what MMT says about government deficits.

• Governments face an inflation constraint, not a solvency constraint.
• So long as there are unemployed factors of production (labour, capital) it’s possible for government spending to employ those factors without causing inflation.
• With less than full employment, marginal government spending need not be accompanied by taxation.
• Therefore, government spending of newly created money at less than full employment is a responsible policy choice.

That is a far cry from “deficits don’t matter”, but it’s also a really boring set of sentences, and most of them feel irrelevant to most people because we haven’t experienced full employment or inflation for the last decade. Why worry about those caveats when everyone knows we aren’t at full employment, and inflation, wasn’t that something we did in the 80s? Critics who attack the logical, theoretical or empirical implications of the MMT memes are missing the point - the idea that deficits don’t matter is popular because it agrees with experience. 

Critics of MMT assert that it offers nothing new. They’re right, in the same sense that Elvis offered up only reheated blues music. The ideas behind MMT are as old as economics itself, but that takes nothing away from the influence its memes are exerting in the present moment.

The fact that people believe deficits don’t matter for the ‘wrong’ reasons doesn’t change the impact of their belief - which is to allow government bond yields to be on record lows, inflation expectations to be muted, and directly monetised government spending to be taking place almost everywhere. For now, the belief is likely appropriate. There is no sense in which the US economy is anywhere near any capacity constraint.

 

This economic system works for the wealthy. Might as well adopt it for the rest of us. 

[Bateshorn 9882]

The current system is completely broken.  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We’ve been told that the accumulation of wealthy can be ameliorated by trickle down economics. It didn’t.

We’ve been told the government partnering with billionaires and lightly regulated corporations would help lift us up. It didn’t.

We were told volunteerism and charity by the super wealthy will fix the inequality and make society better than government redistribution. 
It hasn’t. 
 

On the OTOH, we have evidence from our own country that soaking the rich and building up the lower and middle class works. We did it from 1932 through roughly 1962. Then we started to shift gears, especially after 1980. 
 

Simply put: the wealthy in this country do not contribute enough for the broad betterment of society.  They’ve been given every chance to try to do it in a free market way over the last 50 years. It’s time to try something different.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The current system is completely broken.  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

We’ve been told that the accumulation of wealthy can be ameliorated by trickle down economics. It didn’t.

We’ve been told the government partnering with billionaires and lightly regulated corporations would help lift us up. It didn’t.

We were told volunteerism and charity by the super wealthy will fix the inequality and make society better than government redistribution. 
It hasn’t. 
 

On the OTOH, we have evidence from our own country that soaking the rich and building up the lower and middle class works. We did it from 1932 through roughly 1962. Then we started to shift gears, especially after 1980. 
 

Simply put: the wealthy in this country do not contribute enough for the broad betterment of society.  They’ve been given every chance to try to do it in a free market way over the last 50 years. It’s time to try something different.

you're right.  No opportunity whatsoever exists...

 

Haha.   Keep blaming other people...and keep looking to the state.

[wildcat09 29187]

We’re only a few months into a pandemic that eliminated over 30 million jobs in the blink of an eye and Slorch looks around and thinks all those workers just suddenly became lazy and decided they didn’t want to work.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

What a tired refrain it is to hold up the extremely rare exceptions as your example things are working.  “See?!  1 out of every 10,000 poor people grows up to escape their class!  This system works!  Stop blaming other people!”

[Brew 3044]

The first step would be roll back the Trump tax cuts. I appreciate the extra cash, but I pay more than some employees wages less tax strictly because of the QBI deduction. I have a number of clients that are down well into the 6 figures.

The second step would be to eliminate the capital gains rates and just tax it at regular rates.

The third step would be to eliminate LKE on real estate. If you sell, you pay. 

The fourth step would be to lower the estate exemptions back to where they were and allow it to be paid over a few years to allow those not liquid to keep from liquidating a business interest.

A wealth tax is a nonstarter because of the disclosure of asset values annually.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

8 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Too easy to get out of estate tax.  We have no kids and no plans for em.  Drives our FA insane that we have zero plans to avoid giving tons of it to the govt when we pass.  The damn game is rigged in favor of the Uber wealthy.  Hilarious that so much of the middle class does their bidding.  I mean, you can afford a ford raptor so you should be really worried about a guy having 25M instead of 50M.  Thanks bros.   

Definitely challenges executing an estate tax but at least it’s a situation where there’s already a process in place and most estates have their values calculated.  And the money is already changing hands so the disruption to businesses is happening regardless.  A wealth tax is much harder to calculate and execute.  Any entrepreneur starting something big could never get off the ground with a wealth tax in place.  Let Bezos start and grow Amazon.  But tax his income at a much higher rate, and make sure society gets its share after he dies.

[Bateshorn 9882]

There’s also zero chance a Roberts Court is going to let a wealth tax stand on constitutional grounds. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that "the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs" - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z9141

 

A wealth tax is levied on an individual's net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources.

Asked in the poll if "the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality," 54% of respondents disagreed.

“Rich people have a right to blow their money on Lamborghinis and world-wide cruises or whatever,” said Esin Zimmerman, 53, a lifelong Republican from Madison, Minnesota, who wants higher taxes for the wealthy. “But that money could be used in other ways that help people.”

Zimmerman said she would especially be in favor of a wealth tax that would help pay for government programs for U.S. military veterans, or help single parents with young children. “It could put the border wall up,” she said. 

The results may reflect how the economic changes of the past roughly 20 years, from globalization to the financial crisis, have shaped attitudes about economic policy.

 

[Woodrow Call 494]

Check out Thomas Picketty's latest work, "Capital and Ideology." Long read, but speaks to the historical roots of financial inequality and proposes solutions. Some are real eye openers. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

There’s also zero chance a Roberts Court is going to let a wealth tax stand on constitutional grounds. 

Truth.


https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/john-roberts-supreme-court-wall-street

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

41 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

There’s also zero chance a Roberts Court is going to let a wealth tax stand on constitutional grounds. 

I would say non-zero.  It depends on the circumstances.  “So you’re saying there’s a chance?!?” meme

[wildcat09 29187]

43 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

There’s also zero chance a Roberts Court is going to let a wealth tax stand on constitutional grounds. 

This applies to literally anything that Dems want to achieve legislatively. Which is why packing the Court needs to be the second thing the Dems do if they take all three branches, right after eliminating the filibuster.

[Brew 3044]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I would say non-zero.  It depends on the circumstances.  “So you’re saying there’s a chance?!?” meme

It is zero. If by some miracle it is nonzero, trust and estate attorneys will make more than they do today. There are so many better ways to deal with it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Excuse me, I thought this was America!  We can do whatever the hell we want! 

[wildcat09 29187]

8 minutes ago, Brew said:

It is zero. If by some miracle it is nonzero, trust and estate attorneys will make more than they do today. There are so many better ways to deal with it.

I like this idea of redistributing more of the wealthy’s vast fortunes to lawyers. Let’s make it happen.

[Brew 3044]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Excuse me, I thought this was America!  We can do whatever the hell we want! 

We can, but it’s a stupid idea. We have enough issues with income tax reporting even though the IRS gets notice of most personal income generated. Expenses and entity reporting are the thorns in the side of income tax.

Are you going with cost or FMV reporting? What’s the verification process? Are trust assets included? What about privately held business interests? An estate tax return is a reporting of wealth and everything has to be supported by valuations. It is a cumbersome process that is expensive.

It’s a bad idea, but gets support because people think tax the rich sounds awesome. Let’s fix the income tax system.

[wildcat09 29187]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This applies to literally anything that Dems want to achieve legislatively. Which is why packing the Court needs to be the second thing the Dems do if they take all three branches, right after eliminating the filibuster.

Fuck, I pulled an AOC. I need more coffee. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

We can, but it’s a stupid idea. We have enough issues with income tax reporting even though the IRS gets notice of most personal income generated. Expenses and entity reporting are the thorns in the side of income tax.

Are you going with cost or FMV reporting? What’s the verification process? Are trust assets included? What about privately held business interests? An estate tax return is a reporting of wealth and everything has to be supported by valuations. It is a cumbersome process that is expensive.

It’s a bad idea, but gets support because people think tax the rich sounds awesome. Let’s fix the income tax system.

It sounds like you’ve thoroughly researched this and aren’t just talking out of your ass.

The tax we’re talking about applies to such a small segment of the population, it’s not that hard to enforce. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[JBJ 3647]

58 minutes ago, Brew said:

We can, but it’s a stupid idea. We have enough issues with income tax reporting even though the IRS gets notice of most personal income generated. Expenses and entity reporting are the thorns in the side of income tax.

Are you going with cost or FMV reporting? What’s the verification process? Are trust assets included? What about privately held business interests? An estate tax return is a reporting of wealth and everything has to be supported by valuations. It is a cumbersome process that is expensive.

It’s a bad idea, but gets support because people think tax the rich sounds awesome. Let’s fix the income tax system.

Step 1A is broadening the income tax to catch more ... all ... income sources.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

8 hours ago, slorch said:

so you're making a choice on where your money goes.

What a novelty...

Yeah but I don’t have an asshole son or daughter who would not have earned a penny and used that windfall for cocaine/hookers.  

As shitty as the govt is I think they deserve at least half of the money over some kid who was nothing other then lucky sperm.  It’s not a novel idea, as loads of billionaires have signed the giving pledge.  

And you don’t need to worry.  They can raise the estate tax til they’re blue in the face.  There’s a million ways around paying if somebody REALLY doesn’t want to.  I know plenty of people who moved to PR to avoid an income tax.  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  The govt going after a little more from the wealthiest is the least of our worries.  

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

2 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

Definitely challenges executing an estate tax but at least it’s a situation where there’s already a process in place and most estates have their values calculated.  And the money is already changing hands so the disruption to businesses is happening regardless.  A wealth tax is much harder to calculate and execute.  Any entrepreneur starting something big could never get off the ground with a wealth tax in place.  Let Bezos start and grow Amazon.  But tax his income at a much higher rate, and make sure society gets its share after he dies.

Sure, I’m not saying the wealth tax has to be the way to do it.  Just saying the wealthiest should pay more.  That’s the 50M and above club.  Find some way to do that and cut out the million loopholes we have now.  

[Brew 3044]

No kids, just go the private foundation / charitable route. No reason to blow it on the government.

[Brew 3044]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It sounds like you’ve thoroughly researched this and aren’t just talking out of your ass.

The tax we’re talking about applies to such a small segment of the population, it’s not that hard to enforce. 

Enforcement is crap. IRS auditors are idiots and very few audits take place. The government could easily make money by hiring high end tax practitioners to really start doing audits. Ease of enforcement on your plan depends on your cutoff number. Is it $5M in assets, $50M in assets, etc.? Whatever it is are you going to require those with businesses to value them every year? If so, is it going to be allowed a closely held valuation discount? What about property? Who sets the valuation criteria? What if all my assets are in a revocable trust?

The average estate return takes 6 months and costs the estate in excess of $15k depending on what assets are owned. I have several that fees have exceeded $50k. An estate return is just a wealth tax. Value all assets and pay the tax.

It doesn’t work and should be a nonstarter. It is a simple sounding plan that pulls at people’s emotions that would be another steaming pile that has no chance of enforcement. If you want to go after the wealthy, eliminate the qualified dividends and capital gains tax break along with QBI deductions.

[Sbbruin 21697]

20 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

She's right. Also, that is surprisingly low considering the value of Disney. She must have gotten fucked over.

She's the granddaughter of Roy Disney, so $120 mil as the grandniece of Walt is pretty good.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just to clarify what we’re talking about with a wealth tax and why it’s more strategic/different than an income tax.  Also, under Warren’s proposed wealth tax, if you have $50M in assets, none of that would be taxed.  You get to keep $50 million, free and clear. Every dollar above $50,000,000 you’d pay $0.02 on every dollar, unless you’re a billionaire, then it’s $0.03.  This video explains what kind of revenue that would generate.

 

[RomaVicta 29756]

I haven't read all of this, but I agree with the premise.

I also am sort of surprised at how little any leaders talk about reversing the Trump tax relief for the wealthy and their corporations. That money would help to pay citizens during the coronavirus crisis. I imagine someone has already said that on this thread, so I agree with whomever that may have been.

[Brew 3044]

As someone that spends their entire life dealing with tax law, that’s a stupid f-ing video that plays to people’s emotional response to wealth. Instead of posting a video meant for kids and idiots, I would prefer to hear how to deal with the issues I’ve brought up above.

A tax on the accrual basis of capital gains for high income individuals would generate more money than that based on the last numbers published. Not to mention eliminating QBI would blow those numbers out of the water.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just to clarify what we’re talking about with a wealth tax and why it’s more strategic/different than an income tax.  Also, under Warren’s proposed wealth tax, if you have $50M in assets, none of that would be taxed.  You get to keep $50 million, free and clear. Every dollar above $50,000,000 you’d pay $0.02 on every dollar, unless you’re a billionaire, then it’s $0.03.  This video explains what kind of revenue that would generate.

 

It seems good in theory. And I think the aggregation of obscene wealth by a few is a huge problem in this country. However, how is it possible structurally?

A 3 cent wealth tax on Bezos would be 5 billion dollars. I doubt he has that much available in cash. So he is going to sell assets to pay the tax.  If that happens to be stock, that sale is probably going to negatively affect the stock price. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

51 minutes ago, Brew said:

Enforcement is crap. IRS auditors are idiots and very few audits take place. The government could easily make money by hiring high end tax practitioners to really start doing audits. Ease of enforcement on your plan depends on your cutoff number. Is it $5M in assets, $50M in assets, etc.? Whatever it is are you going to require those with businesses to value them every year? If so, is it going to be allowed a closely held valuation discount? What about property? Who sets the valuation criteria? What if all my assets are in a revocable trust?

The average estate return takes 6 months and costs the estate in excess of $15k depending on what assets are owned. I have several that fees have exceeded $50k. An estate return is just a wealth tax. Value all assets and pay the tax.

It doesn’t work and should be a nonstarter. It is a simple sounding plan that pulls at people’s emotions that would be another steaming pile that has no chance of enforcement. If you want to go after the wealthy, eliminate the qualified dividends and capital gains tax break along with QBI deductions.

I mean, the billionaires absolutely thought a wealth tax was possible.  They were literally crying on television about it.  
 

 

Why would they be so upset if it was so impossible?  If it was such a pipe dream, why did they campaign so hard against it?  You’d think they’d be all in favor of an idea that is DOA with no chance of success.  

“Hell yeah, go for it! Do the wealth tax that will never happen!”

Said no billionaire ever.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

As someone that spends their entire life dealing with tax law, that’s a stupid f-ing video that plays to people’s emotional response to wealth. Instead of posting a video meant for kids and idiots, I would prefer to hear how to deal with the issues I’ve brought up above.

A tax on the accrual basis of capital gains for high income individuals would generate more money than that based on the last numbers published. Not to mention eliminating QBI would blow those numbers out of the water.

You’re just trying to complicate something that doesn’t need to be complicated. 

You audit someone’s assets, and you send them a bill.  It’s amazing we know how much all these rich guys are worth but all of a sudden it’s impossible to quantify for tax purposes?  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So he is going to sell assets to pay the tax.  If that happens to be stock, that sale is probably going to negatively affect the stock price. 

Oh heavens no, not the stock price. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[wildcat09 29187]

16 minutes ago, Brew said:

As someone that spends their entire life dealing with tax law, that’s a stupid f-ing video that plays to people’s emotional response to wealth. Instead of posting a video meant for kids and idiots, I would prefer to hear how to deal with the issues I’ve brought up above.

A tax on the accrual basis of capital gains for high income individuals would generate more money than that based on the last numbers published. Not to mention eliminating QBI would blow those numbers out of the water.

“I am very angry that this video intended to simplify a topic for a lay audience did not address the specific technical concerns of a professional in the relevant field.”

[softlynow 1774]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I mean, the billionaires absolutely thought a wealth tax was possible.  They were literally crying on television about it.  
 

 

Why would they be so upset if it was so impossible?  If it was such a pipe dream, why did they campaign so hard against it?  You’d think they’d be all in favor of an idea that is DOA with no chance of success.  

“Hell yeah, go for it! Do the wealth tax that will never happen!”

Said no billionaire ever.

Not sure if serious. You're asking why people would be disingenuous in a political campaign? Really?

The wealthy taking this stance are looking to help elect the person likely to make them wealthier. Scare tactics are used without reserve by most if not all in politics. Here, they could be scaring the stupid into voting against their economic interest, because, well, they do that often. They also could be scaring other wealthy people, maybe those who don't give to candidates at all or often, to open up their pocketbooks for Republican candidates.

[JimmyJames 12271]

An education from Texas Tech can sometimes be a dangerous thing. 
 

I see one of our resident dumbasses has returned from his self imposed DT exile to spew his nonsense throughout this thread.
 

Just pulls yourself up by your bootstraps!  Says the slorch. 
 

Can the return of Johnny Sack be next? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Not sure if serious. You're asking why people would be disingenuous in a political campaign? Really?

The wealthy taking this stance are looking to help elect the person likely to make them wealthier. Scare tactics are used without reserve by most if not all in politics. Here, they could be scaring the stupid into voting against their economic interest, because, well, they do that often. They also could be scaring other wealthy people, maybe those who don't give to candidates at all or often, to open up their pocketbooks for Republican candidates.

That’s a good point.  It’s not like a billionaire jumped into the Presidential race when he thought Biden might not win the nomination. 

[wildcat09 29187]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

An education from Texas Tech can sometimes be a dangerous thing. 
 

I see one of our resident dumbasses has returned from his self imposed DT exile to spew his nonsense throughout this thread.
 

Just pulls yourself up by your bootstraps!  Says the slorch. 
 

Can the return of Johnny Sack be next? 

Fuck I hope not, it’s been nice not seeing him drunkenly throwing n bombs around. 

[Brew 3044]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re just trying to complicate something that doesn’t need to be complicated. 

You audit someone’s assets, and you send them a bill.  It’s amazing we know how much all these rich guys are worth but all of a sudden it’s impossible to quantify for tax purposes?  

No, you are trying to simplify something you clearly don’t understand other than what you have seen on TV. As an example, take someone that has several active business interests, real estate holdings, partnership interests in real estate holdings, maybe a chunk of it owned by a revocable trust, etc who is going to be responsible for setting valuations? Does he get a chance to pull his own valuations?

It makes zero sense and is why our system is built on transactions.

[Sbbruin 21697]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

No, you are trying to simplify something you clearly don’t understand other than what you have seen on TV. As an example, take someone that has several active business interests, real estate holdings, partnership interests in real estate holdings, maybe a chunk of it owned by a revocable trust, etc who is going to be responsible for setting valuations? Does he get a chance to pull his own valuations?

It makes zero sense and is why our system is built on transactions.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Good Lord.  We’re going to get left wing Trumpkins next.

”You’re just trying to complicate things!  Why not done?”

Sorry but this is how it goes with every issue that challenges the folks that control things.  

We can’t figure simple things that other countries do with ease because there’s always the people that say you can’t do that, it will be too hard, it will never work.  

Take any hot button topic and any simple idea gets screamed down with “experts” that tell you why it won’t work and why.  Never mind that what we’re doing now is beyond broken. 
 

This happens with gun policy, healthcare, climate change, immigration, taxes.  We never fix shit because “it’s just not feasible.”  Sorry if I call bullshit.  

[Brew 3044]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

“I am very angry that this video intended to simplify a topic for a lay audience did not address the specific technical concerns of a professional in the relevant field.”

I make a solid living dealing with the idiocy of lay people ideas, better known as  tax law passed by Congress. If they will run this through,  me, my valuation partners, trust attorneys I work with, etc are going to do even better. That doesn’t mean it is logical. $50M picks up more people than you know of. I have a number that fall into that category that all have very complicated personal financials. They don’t own $100M in publicly traded stock we can look up on Yahoo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

6 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yes, the lesson of the Trump years is that things really are simple, and we shouldn’t listen to experts who point out uncomfortable details.

When the “expert” starts off his analysis with “It’s a stupid idea” it becomes very difficult to take anything he says seriously when there are several other experts that disagree with him. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

I make a solid living dealing with the idiocy of lay people ideas, better known as  tax law passed by Congress. If they will run this through,  me, my valuation partners, trust attorneys I work with, etc are going to do even better. That doesn’t mean it is logical. $50M picks up more people than you know of. I have a number that fall into that category that all have very complicated personal financials. They don’t own $100M in publicly traded stock we can look up on Yahoo.

Good to see you’re working in your clients best interests in this thread. Very noble. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Brew 3044]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When the “expert” starts off his analysis with “It’s a stupid idea” it becomes very difficult to understand anything he says seriously when there are several other experts that disagree with him. 

I’m still waiting on your response to the questions I’ve put forth and you have responded with a kid’s video and it can be done. As far as the rest of the world, to my knowledge the use of a true wealth tax has dropped over the years. Very few actually use a flat net worth calculation. 

I’m telling you it’s stupid because there are much simpler ways to raise the funds which I’ve laid out a few of above and the complication of trying to do it in practice.