We Need a Wealth Tax

[Guest Lobo]

This is going to make for an awkward Easter brunch discussion between U.S. Bishops and the Pope.  

U.S. Bishops, "Yeah, no..."

Pope Francis, "No, yeah..."  

Levity aside---so this can be up to 3% for those with over $1bn in assets at "snapshot" time (the 2% on assets over $50mm and then the auto surtax on anything above $1bn)?  Which presumably could blow away any income taxes due that year.  Would income taxes paid offset the 3% wealth tax or could you count your wealth tax against your income taxes (like we do with state income taxes/property taxes right now)?  The NY Times article raises the question and says its left unaddressed by Warren's proposal.  

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

58 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Also, maybe it's just a difference in what we value and the way we view the world, but are you saying you think it's actually a *bad* thing to try and accrue money in order to make money and do less work?

Depends on what you mean by "bad".

It's inefficient and it leads to wealth consolidation, both of which are "bad".

Quote

Do the people who don't believe this want to be Howard Roark and eschew knowledge work and lay bricks in honest work with their hands because that's the only noble work with integrity?

I don't know what this question is asking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL, odds are they get zero.  UT Dell medical school likely will get more.  No football program will get a penny.  Fuck that shit. 

I was messing with you.  Figured you had some good causes picked out.  

[Bone3421 716]

LOL, odds are they get zero.  UT Dell medical school likely will get more.  No football program will get a penny.  Fuck that shit. 

I mean I'll take some if it helps you out , but I'll be happy with just the xmas party also

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what this question is asking.

Nevermind, then.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Nevermind, then.

Cool, because it seems like you're using emotional language ("bad", "honest", "noble", "integrity") that gets very boring as it becomes just another culture war argument.

[safe sex 11676]

53 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Let me apologize ahead of time, I'm not the smartest guy in the world as you know...but how is this, even, a problem? 

DP

Edited March 2, 2021 by trauma babe

[safe sex 11676]

53 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Let me apologize ahead of time, I'm not the smartest guy in the world as you know...but how is this, even, a problem? 

Because they don't actually stop working. They don't just let people run their businesses while they retire, but they put their energy towards increasing wealth disparity by whatever means they are able to, legal and otherwise. Lobbying politicians, going into politics themselves, legal loopholes, tax fraud, you name it. That kind of work can be done from the golf course or a yacht or a second/third/fourth home. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by trauma babe

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, trauma babe said:

Because they don't actually stop working. They don't just let people run their businesses while they golf and go yachting (though ofc they do these things as well), but they put their energy towards increasing the wealth disparity in whatever means they are able to, legal and otherwise.

Are you saying it would be good, or better, or even that you'd approve of their using their money to make money and work less, if they just retired and stopped trying to make money? I guess I'm confused as to what the distinction or difference is. What difference does it make? Why does it matter?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool, because it seems like you're using emotional language ("bad", "honest", "noble", "integrity") that gets very boring as it becomes just another culture war argument.

Sorry, I was just trying to understand your position and point. 

[safe sex 11676]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Are you saying it would be good, or better, or even that you'd approve of their using their money to make money and work less, if they just retired and stopped trying to make money? I guess I'm confused as to what the distinction or difference is. What difference does it make? Why does it matter?

Because they don't stop once they have a fortune. They don't hand things off to someone else to make a fortune. They work their money to game the system to keep others from rising while taking more and more for themselves. I will completely cop to the fact that I am doing a poor job of explaining my point. Haven't been sleeping well. 

Regardless, I don't even know why I quoted you in the first place. This isn't how I wanted to spend my afternoon; entirely my bad. Let's pretend it never happened.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Sorry, I was just trying to understand your position and point. 

My position has nothing to do with the nobility of any kind of work. My position is entirely about maintaining a healthy economy that limits both wealth concentration and poverty.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Because they don't stop once they have a fortune. They don't hand things off to someone else to make a fortune. They work their money to game the system to keep others from rising while taking more and more for themselves. I will completely cop to the fact that I am doing a poor job of explaining my point. Haven't been sleeping well. 

Regardless, I don't even know why I quoted you in the first place. This isn't how I wanted to spend my afternoon; entirely my bad. Let's pretend it never happened.

Fair enough. Sorry for adding to the bad day :(

I just saw this and think it is awesome. I would 100% get behind this!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dozens-of-famous-men-support-242400-monthly-payments-for-mothers-for-unpaid-labor-at-home/ar-BB1e4Byv?ocid=uxbndlbing

A group of 50 male politicians, actors and other prominent figures published an open letter this week backing a proposal that calls on the Biden administration to issue $2,400 monthly payments to mothers for "unpaid labor at home" during the pandemic.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

My position has nothing to do with the nobility of any kind of work. My position is entirely about maintaining a healthy economy that limits both wealth concentration and poverty.

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you.

[B00M 6280]

2 hours ago, gyroprotagonist said:

- euro had a lower $$ amount trigger the tax.  Spain's is something like $800K you start getting taxed.

is this part of the reason why the housing market in spain is so depressed, ahem, reasonably priced? Saw a house hunters international on Valencia (WITH THE WIFE I SWEAR). Big private homes with insane views that would easily cost $1M anywhere near Austin were like $350k. It was eye opening.

Edited March 2, 2021 by B00M

[B00M 6280]

Since a wealth tax is so unlikely to happen, are there any silver linings to this wealth consolidation? 

NASA couldn't do shit for years due to budget cuts, changes of direction with new presidents, natural bloat, etc, but now they seem to have legit competition and assistance from spacex, blue origins, etc and suddenly we're on our way back to the moon and Mars with tons of other projects in the pipe. Was it going to happen at this pace anyway? 

Alphabets research spin offs (X, Calico, Verily, etc), Musk's tesla, solar roof, hyperloop, neuralink, etc, Bezos' amazon, blue origin, etc, etc .. They're all putting presumably massive R&D money into renewables, biotech, robotics, AI, space, etc. Would this be happening on this scale without wealth consolidation and the ability to fund extremely expensive, long term risks with life altering upside? 

If the ultra wealthy give to charities is that actually less efficient at getting help to the needy than government controlling the same wealth? Obviously there are examples of super inefficient charities but are there any that are redundant to government services that allow for Apple's to apples comparison? Are there any that are funded by these ultra wealthy that are transparent with their finances and truly great success stories?

Surely, even if this destroys our country, we'll get to buy some cool shit on the way right?!

Edited March 2, 2021 by B00M
To be clear I'm not trying to argue against a wealth tax. I don't know the best way to reduce the wealth gap. I'm just trying to see a glass half full if we're stuck on this path.

[Guest Lobo]

We just torched Texas public health earlier this afternoon, so I'm sure that freed up some cash to pitch in for these  solar-powered underground rockets or whatever Boom was talking about.  Count me in!  

 

[wildcat09 29213]

7 minutes ago, B00M said:

Since a wealth tax is so unlikely to happen, are there any silver linings to this wealth consolidation? 

NASA couldn't do shit for years due to budget cuts, changes of direction with new presidents, natural bloat, etc, but now they seem to have legit competition and assistance from spacex, blue origins, etc and suddenly we're on our way back to the moon and Mars with tons of other projects in the pipe. Was it going to happen at this pace anyway? 

Alphabets research spin offs (X, Calico, Verily, etc), Musk's tesla, solar roof, hyperloop, neuralink, etc, Bezos' amazon, blue origin, etc, etc .. They're all putting presumably massive R&D money into renewables, biotech, robotics, AI, space, etc. Would this be happening on this scale without wealth consolidation and the ability to fund extremely expensive, long term risks with life altering upside? 

If the ultra wealthy give to charities is that actually less efficient at getting help to the needy than government controlling the same wealth? Obviously there are examples of super inefficient charities but are there any that are redundant to government services that allow for Apple's to apples comparison? Are there any that are funded by these ultra wealthy that are transparent with their finances and truly great success stories?

Surely, even if this destroys our country, we'll get to buy some cool shit on the way right?!

Yes. Read Winners Take All. Even when they legitimately do good they do even more harm.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes. Read Winners Take All. Even when they legitimately do good they do even more harm.

I don't really want to be any more depressed, so I'll take your word for it.

[EuroHorn 3204]

Let’s impose a wealth tax on  millionaire politicians 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

7 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Here is the text of the bill. 

 

Cliffs notes:  We will figure it out later

 

1                                      ‘‘(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF VALUATION RULES.—Not

2               later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of

3               this section, the Secretary shall establish rules and meth-

4               ods for determining the value of any asset for purposes

5               of this subtitle, including rules for the valuation of assets

6               that are not publicly traded or that do not have a readily

7               ascertainable value. Such rules and methods—

8                                                             ‘‘(1) may utilize retrospective and prospective

9                                      formulaic valuation methods not currently in use by

10                                 the Secretary,

 

1          ‘‘(2) may require the use of formulaic valuation

2      approaches      for     designated     assets,     including

3      formulaic approaches based on proxies for deter-

4      mining presumptive valuations, formulaic approaches

5      based  on  prospective   adjustments   from  purchase

6      prices or other prior events, or formulaic approaches

7      based  on   retrospectively   adding  deferral  charges

8      based on eventual sale prices or other specified later

9      events indicative of valuation, and

10          ‘‘(3) may address the use of valuation dis-

11      counts.

Legislatively, that's how these things usually work when there's an agency such as the IRS involved.  Congress sets out broad parameters like "there will be a wealth tax of 2% or whatever on assets owned by the taxpayer valued at more than $50 million or whatever."  The details of calculation, assessment, and collection are left up to the agency by rulemaking.

It's very much how the IRS has always worked.

Edited March 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 16843]

5 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

If it comes to it - absolutely.  Luckily, I'm not neurotic enough to think this means shit in the grand scheme for myself/family.  No kids so it's all gonna be left behind anyway.  I think that's where they REALLY need to go after money.  

Have you considered adopting a middle aged white dude?  I hear it is all the rage.   Dad.

[Incredulity 11541]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Legislatively, that's how these things usually work when there's an agency such as the IRS involved.  Congress sets out broad parameters like "there will be a wealth tax of 2% or whatever on assets owned by the taxpayer valued at more than $50 million or whatever."  The details of calculation, assessment, and collection are left up to the agency by rulemaking.

It's very much how the IRS has always 

I understand the normal course of business with legislation.

This was a specific response to other poster.

[LABEVO 928]

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Since a wealth tax is so unlikely to happen, are there any silver linings to this wealth consolidation? 
NASA couldn't do shit for years due to budget cuts, changes of direction with new presidents, natural bloat, etc, but now they seem to have legit competition and assistance from spacex, blue origins, etc and suddenly we're on our way back to the moon and Mars with tons of other projects in the pipe. Was it going to happen at this pace anyway? 
Alphabets research spin offs (X, Calico, Verily, etc), Musk's tesla, solar roof, hyperloop, neuralink, etc, Bezos' amazon, blue origin, etc, etc .. They're all putting presumably massive R&D money into renewables, biotech, robotics, AI, space, etc. Would this be happening on this scale without wealth consolidation and the ability to fund extremely expensive, long term risks with life altering upside? 
If the ultra wealthy give to charities is that actually less efficient at getting help to the needy than government controlling the same wealth? Obviously there are examples of super inefficient charities but are there any that are redundant to government services that allow for Apple's to apples comparison? Are there any that are funded by these ultra wealthy that are transparent with their finances and truly great success stories?
Surely, even if this destroys our country, we'll get to buy some cool shit on the way right?!

Depends who you are IMO. For upper middle class surly types it's probably neutral to slightly good. We reap the benefits of the exploitation by way of cheap goods and services. Services like Amazon and Uber where the only reason the price is so extraordinarily cheap is because they underpay, exploit and mis-categorize their labor force as 1099s.

But if you're lower middle class and below, it has destroyed economic mobility.

And once the machine has consumed the underclass, all of us comfortable Surlyites or our children are next. The machine won't stop consuming until there are two distinct classes. The 1% and the servant class. It will eat us next. To think we're safe and support the ruling class' efforts to consume and own everything is foolish. But at least fags can't get married!

[Biff Tannen 45491]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

And once the machine has consumed the underclass, all of us comfortable Surlyites or our children are next. The machine won't stop consuming until there are two distinct classes. The 1% and the servant class. It will eat us next. To think we're safe and support the ruling class' efforts to consume and own everything is foolish.

So like, next week?

[Incredulity 11541]

TIL Obergefell doesn’t exist.

[StassneyHorn 6535]

1 hour ago, LABEVO said:

 

I’ve been being stupid lately and looking at out of state places to go. Goddamn, 400k houses in Arizona have a monthly payment as much as my 175k townhome from 3 years ago due to the HOA. Thought I was Memphis bound but cheap Cali girls moving to Phoenix is cool too.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Some excerpts:

[TwiceHorn 31240]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Some excerpts:

She just makes too damned much sense.

[EuroHorn 3204]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She just makes too damned much sense.

She’s a multi-millionaire.  She makes way too much money.  All of it from the same system that she despises. Let’s include multi millionaires in the wealth tax.  Start with everyone of them currently in government 

[wildcat09 29213]

3 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

She’s a multi-millionaire.  She makes way too much money.  All of it from the same system that she despises. Let’s include multi millionaires in the wealth tax.  Start with everyone of them currently in government 

Welcome aboard, comrade!

[BradInATX 9208]

Lol. What a mouth breathing simpleton you are.

Warren's effective tax rate last year was 22 percent on less than a million dollars. Jeff Bezos' was 1.8% on billions.

Only in idiot world is this acceptable. Hurr durr socialism

[Brew 3045]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Lol. What a mouth breathing simpleton you are.

Warren's effective tax rate last year was 22 percent on less than a million dollars. Jeff Bezos' was 1.8% on billions.

Only in idiot world is this acceptable. Hurr durr socialism

Click bait, we don’t know what Bezos paid in tax because it’s not public. We know what Amazon paid, but that has nothing to do with what Bezos paid personally. What Amazon paid is a byproduct of the current tax system and 100% bonus depreciation. It’s allowing them to dump their free cash flow into expansion.

I love a good surly tax debate. It’s always full of great misinformation, misunderstandings of the system, and the all important shit I read on the internet while I was sitting on the toilet this morning. I support a wealth tax, it may help pay for my next boat so I’m in. I would prefer it be tied to some sort of programs.

However, structurally what methodology are we going to use for property valuations? How are we valuing closely held businesses? How are we handling personal property valuations annually? Are we using some sort of national methodology or is it like it is now for estates and everyone just makes the shit up as they go? Also, why $50M? Why not tie it to the estate tax exemption and anything over that be taxed annually in some way. 2% may be a little steep, but .5%-1% on a lower threshold with maybe a sliding scale up to 2%. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter because this debate has pretty well been a nonstarter even though if it went to a public vote it would carry soundly. Just goes to show you who the control lies with in this country.

Just for the record it would be a much simpler process to make some corrections to the income tax system to close some of the holes in it.

[BradInATX 9208]

12 minutes ago, Brew said:

Click bait, we don’t know what Bezos paid in tax because it’s not public. We know what Amazon paid, but that has nothing to do with what Bezos paid personally.

 

LOL if you don't think Bezos is hiding most of his wealth and income back in Amazon or other adjacent shell companies.

What do you think he pays, personally, in effective tax rate? I'll bet you literally any amount of money that it's below 22%.

 

But since we don't know what Bezos' effective rate is, let's change my original post a different rich asshole for whom we know some personal tax info.

Warren paid 22% effective.

Donald Trump paid $750

 

Does my point materially change at all? What is the purpose of your "correction" to my post here? I don't see one. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that our system is set up for rich assholes to avoid paying taxes and that something needs to be done to address that inequality. Do you disagree? 

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[Brew 3045]

10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

LOL if you don't think Bezos is hiding most of his wealth and income back in Amazon or other adjacent shell companies.

What do you think he pays, personally, in effective tax rate? I'll bet you literally any amount of money that it's below 22%.

 

But since we don't know what Bezos' effective rate is, let's change my original post a different rich asshole for whom we know some personal tax info.

Warren paid 22% effective.

Donald Trump paid $750

 

Does my point materially change at all? What is the purpose of your "correction" to my post here? I don't see one. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that our system is set up for rich assholes to avoid paying taxes and that something needs to be done to address that inequality. Do you disagree? 

Is Trump really rich at this point or is he just so leveraged he thinks he’s rich?  

My point is/was you are not comparing like things. Even in the scenarios you are looking at, the problem with what they are paying lies within the income tax system itself. Why not fix the income tax system in some way rather than throwing another tax out there that will likely be easily manipulated? Better yet, let’s fix the income tax system and then add a wealth tax if everyone wants one. If you want to further complicate the system with more asinine laws that aren’t well written or with taxes that are easily avoidable, I celebrate those decisions. It helps get me one step closer to paying it or potentially not paying it based on the loopholes that end up in it.

[Brew 3045]

Additionally, if the IRS gives me the ability to write off 100% of my capex spending in a year, should I opt out of that to make everyone feel better about what I pay in tax or should I take advantage of how the system is built and save my tax money?

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

Is Trump really rich at this point or is he just so leveraged he thinks he’s rich?  

My point is/was you are not comparing like things. Even in the scenarios you are looking at, the problem with what they are paying lies within the income tax system itself. Why not fix the income tax system in some way rather than throwing another tax out there that will likely be easily manipulated? Better yet, let’s fix the income tax system and then add a wealth tax if everyone wants one. If you want to further complicate the system with more asinine laws that aren’t well written or with taxes that are easily avoidable, I celebrate those decisions. It helps get me one step closer to paying it or potentially not paying it based on the loopholes that end up in it.

 

How do you fix the income tax system? This is an entirely different thread, but that's easier said than done. The only way to do it is to properly tax cap gains, but as I'm sure you know (since you seem versed in this), that creates all kinds of disincentivization issues.

The problem is that it's too easy to hide wealth and there aren't really any good ways to get it as it comes in. Ergo.. a wealth tax.

Sure it'll have problems and hiccups but none of them are showstoppers, despite concern trolling and crying from the  Fox News morons serving as the oligarchs' pawns.

[Brew 3045]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

How do you fix the income tax system? This is an entirely different thread, but that's easier said than done. The only way to do it is to properly tax cap gains, but as I'm sure you know (since you seem versed in this), that creates all kinds of disincentivization issues.

The problem is that it's too easy to hide wealth and there aren't really any good ways to get it as it comes in. Ergo.. a wealth tax.

Sure it'll have problems and hiccups but none of them are showstoppers, despite concern trolling and crying from the  Fox News morons serving as the oligarchs' pawns.

I laid out 3-4 valuation questions in my response to your earlier points that create massive problems with an asset based tax model. Valuation based methodologies for non liquid or publicly valued assets is an interesting concept that is going to make a lot of guys in my industry well off unless they standardize the methodology of valuing things. We have tried it with an estate tax and it’s a failure from a valuation standpoint. I can give 10 accounting/law firms an estate with property, business interests, etc and I bet the estate tax owed doesn’t match on any of the 10. That is a problem in a tax system that is taxing valuations.

As far as the income tax system, the simple answer is simplify it. Kill the QBI deductions, have a real discussion on capital gains tax, take out the social agenda items, restructure the corporate tax system, get rid of 100% bonus depreciation, lower rate structures, etc. There are a multitude of things that can be done, instead we’re going to sit around and wait on Trump’s tax changes to sunset and talk about wealth/estate tax issues.

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

I laid out 3-4 valuation questions in my response to your earlier points that create massive problems with an asset based tax model. Valuation based methodologies for non liquid or publicly valued assets is an interesting concept that is going to make a lot of guys in my industry well off unless they standardize the methodology of valuing things. We have tried it with an estate tax and it’s a failure from a valuation standpoint. I can give 10 accounting/law firms an estate with property, business interests, etc and I bet the estate tax owed doesn’t match on any of the 10. That is a problem in a tax system that is taxing valuations.

As far as the income tax system, the simple answer is simplify it. Kill the QBI deductions, have a real discussion on capital gains tax, take out the social agenda items, restructure the corporate tax system, get rid of 100% bonus depreciation, lower rate structures, etc. There are a multitude of things that can be done, instead we’re going to sit around and wait on Trump’s tax changes to sunset and talk about wealth/estate tax issues.

 

If you gave 10 lawyers a house they'd come back with 10 different valuations on it too. So what? We've been taxing property value for decades and yet somehow we manage to survive. We'll find a way to make it if we have to put values on other assets too. 

And frankly, I don't really give a shit if we overvalue someone who is worth $45 million by 10 percent and they have to pay a million bucks. $50 million is high enough that even if you're within a little bit of margin of error on your valuation, you're still rich as fuck and will manage to put food on your table with your remaining $44 million.

It's a nonissue. Concern trolling that the 1% has somehow sold to a portion of the 99% that they're bending over the desk and rawdogging. Don't be a mark.

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[fattyflattie 4636]

58 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Does my point materially change at all?

It kind of does because I'm certain Bezos made money.  Trump...

[Brew 3045]

24 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

If you gave 10 lawyers a house they'd come back with 10 different valuations on it too. So what? We've been taxing property value for decades and yet somehow we manage to survive. We'll find a way to make it if we have to put values on other assets too. 

And frankly, I don't really give a shit if we overvalue someone who is worth $45 million by 10 percent and they have to pay a million bucks. $50 million is high enough that even if you're within a little bit of margin of error on your valuation, you're still rich as fuck and will manage to put food on your table with your remaining $44 million.

It's a nonissue. Concern trolling that the 1% has somehow sold to a portion of the 99% that they're bending over the desk and rawdogging. Don't be a mark.

A Mark? Really? You clearly fall into the third category above of the debate shit I read about on the Internet this morning while taking a dump. The mark is the guy touting the tax the rich mantra without understanding and working through the downsides of the proposal. Not looking at the downsides of proposed tax law and working through the alternatives is why we have the pile of crap we currently have.

10% variations don’t even come close without some sort of mandated calculation methodology. Take a business with one owner and then the same business with minority ownership. The sum of those individually owned valuations will not be close even though the business is worth XXX dollars. What about art, guns, jewelry, etc? Do I get to treat it like my bank financials and throw whatever I want on it? Am I going to have to have an outside valuation done every year or two? Are we just going to use a multiple of EBITDA valuation based on industry type? Is it going to be keyed to investments and not personal property like some have brought up? I can keep going if you need me to.

The estate tax example is the perfect example even though you don’t follow it. It is a wealth tax. There is an entire planning industry out there built to get around it and an entire valuation industry built around avoiding it. Valuation based taxes are much more complicated than an income based scenario because valuation is arbitrary.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

A Mark? Really? You clearly fall into the third category above of the debate shit I read about on the Internet this morning while taking a dump. The mark is the guy touting the tax the rich mantra without understanding and working through the downsides of the proposal. Not looking at the downsides of proposed tax law and working through the alternatives is why we have the pile of crap we currently have.

10% variations don’t even come close without some sort of mandated calculation methodology. Take a business with one owner and then the same business with minority ownership. The sum of those individually owned valuations will not be close even though the business is worth XXX dollars. What about art, guns, jewelry, etc? Do I get to treat it like my bank financials and throw whatever I want on it? Am I going to have to have an outside valuation done every year or two? Are we just going to use a multiple of EBITDA valuation based on industry type? Is it going to be keyed to investments and not personal property like some have brought up? I can keep going if you need me to.

The estate tax example is the perfect example even though you don’t follow it. It is a wealth tax. There is an entire planning industry out there built to get around it and an entire valuation industry built around avoiding it. Valuation based taxes are much more complicated than an income based scenario because valuation is arbitrary.

 

None of what you said is prohibitive of a wealth tax. I'm sure there will be a cottage valuation optimization industry just like ProTax fights housing appraisals every year. Who gives a shit?

Lot of words but I still don't see anything prohibitive. Just gnashing of teeth that because it won't be perfect we shouldn't do it. 

"It will be difficult and will have some challenges, so let's not do it and just let the rich keep destroying the fabric of our country!"

[TwiceHorn 31240]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

None of what you said is prohibitive of a wealth tax. I'm sure there will be a cottage valuation optimization industry just like ProTax fights housing appraisals every year. Who gives a shit?

Lot of words but I still don't see anything prohibitive. Just gnashing of teeth that because it won't be perfect we shouldn't do it. 

"It will be difficult and will have some challenges, so let's not do it and just let the rich keep destroying the fabric of our country!"

That last, attributed to Brew, is utter bullshit.

Brew knows his accounting and tax inside out.  He comes at this from an extremely knowledgeable perspective.

You'll notice that he is not advocating against raising taxes in any way shape or form, but is actually pointing out real-life problems with a wealth tax.

I might shut up and listen if I was you.

Edited March 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Brew knows his accounting and tax inside out.  He comes at this from an extremely knowledgeable perspective.

You'll notice that he is not advocating against raising taxes in any way shape or form, but is actually pointing out real-life problems with a wealth tax.

I might shut up and listen if I was you.

 

There's nothing to listen to. He's saying "it'll be difficult to do" and I'm saying "sure it'll be difficult but do it anyway". 

Like I said originally, I'm not sure what his point is. It's going to be hard and smart people will have to work around some things and figure some methodologies and guidelines out. Nobody is arguing that. What I'm arguing is "so what? do it anyway". The government has lots of existing rules and processes that have levels of subjectivity and arbitrariness (property taxes, the aforementioned estate taxes, etc.) and yet we still manage to implement those.

My two arguments are:

- Sure it's hard, but it's doable. Do it anyway.
- When you have $50mm in assets, it's not really that important that we get your valuation perfect. No matter what you're still going to be in the absolute upper upper echelons of wealth in America.

Knowing more than I do about tax code doesn't change either of those two bullets.

Perfect is the enemy of good here. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[Brew 3045]

I don’t think you have read or comprehended much of anything I’ve typed at this point. You clearly just want to feel better about everything by thinking you’ve added a new tax on the rich. That’s fine because I made it perfectly clear that it helps me personally for them to do it, so have at it. However, there isn’t one time where I’ve said I’m against the tax per se. I just am keenly aware of the problems with a valuation based tax and what that looks like in practice because I have years in practice trying to minimize estate tax issues and dealing with IRS auditors.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

There's nothing inherently superior in a wealth tax versus an income tax.

It has some populist appeal in that it is a small percentage and only applies to the ostensibly very rich.

We have long experience taxing income and the ins, outs, and what-have-yous.  We have sporadic experience taxing wealth in the form of the estate tax, which is probably mostly evaded.

It's a little less politically seductive, and doesn't have the fun "eat the rich" aspect to it, but eliminating a lot of deductions and raising marginal rates would accomplish much the same thing with a lot fewer perverse and unintended consequences.

Edited March 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Brew said:

I don’t think you have read or comprehended much of anything I’ve typed at this point. You clearly just want to feel better about everything by thinking you’ve added a new tax on the rich. That’s fine because I made it perfectly clear that it helps me personally for them to do it, so have at it. However, there isn’t one time where I’ve said I’m against the tax per se. I just am keenly aware of the problems with a valuation based tax and what that looks like in practice because I have years in practice trying to minimize estate tax issues and dealing with IRS auditors.

 

Great. Then what are you arguing? I've fully conceded your point that a wealth tax has issues and hurdles for the entirety of our discussion. You're saying "it's not easy!" when I never said it was.

My point throughout this entire discussion is that whether not it's easy is immaterial to the discussion. Do it anyway. Most important things are difficult.

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's nothing inherently superior in a wealth tax versus an income tax.

It has some populist appeal in that it is a small percentage and only applies to the ostensibly very rich.

We have long experience taxing income and the ins, outs, and what-have-yous.  We have sporadic experience taxing wealth in the form of the estate tax, which is probably mostly evaded.

It's a little less politically seductive, and doesn't have the fun "eat the rich" aspect to it, but eliminating a lot of deductions and raising marginal rates would accomplish much the same thing with a lot fewer perverse and unintended consequences.

 

I assume you're including cap gains in income

[Guest Lobo]

Would anything stop a billionaire worth $50bn with 90% of that wealth tied up in his own company's single issue stock...he gets the 3% tax bill due and has to liquidate $1.5bn to pay the bill.  Not enough time to sell 3 houses, a plane, and a half dozen private equity deals on the very illiquid secondary market.  So he decides to sell $1.5bn of his company's stock (with likely a covered call for the ride down) rather quickly. That kinda fire sale starts to drop his company's stock for all investors, and fast.  But while you were watching that, he was also buying options to ride back up after he single-handedly cratered his own stock.  He makes out fantastically while the rest of us are scratching our heads outside the IRS building for 3 weeks afterwards.  I know not much can stop that from happening now, but they've never had the "Had to do it so I could pay my fair share, sorry folks...them's the IRS rules so I can't be punished by SEC or FINRA" excuse either.  It's the perfect cover. 

I know we're discussing nuanced and rare circumstances, but that's kinda the point of a tax like this.  You have to account for what the $50bn wealth person might do to mitigate this because making sure you get the 3% from the $50bn guy is the same revenue as getting your money from 1,000 $50mm guys and it's certainly not 1000x the effort.