We Need a Wealth Tax

[fattyflattie 4636]

Some are the most driven and intelligent people on earth.  They'll find a way, and laugh all the way to the bank.  If you're lucky, they won't scheme to fuck your political party over in the meantime.  

[fuggled 576]

1 hour 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.

Just to nitpick, the tax is on net worth over $50 million.  So even if we overvalue your $45 million by 10%, you still don't pay any tax.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

46 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

I assume you're including cap gains in income

Whatever it takes.  I'd like to see capital gains taxed at a reduced rate up to something like double the median income.  Maybe just the median income.

It's a small help for the little guy investor trying to earn retirement.  It becomes abusive for people that can live lavishly off capital gains.

[EuroHorn 3204]

It’s a wealth tax not income tax.  Warren is estimated to be worth about $9 million 

 

but I’m sure dipshit 40 something data analyst Brad knows this. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by EuroHorn

[BradInATX 9208]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whatever it takes.  I'd like to see capital gains taxed at a reduced rate up to something like double the median income.  Maybe just the median income.

It's a small help for the little guy investor trying to earn retirement.  It becomes abusive for people that can live lavishly off capital gains.

Right on. And FWIW ( @Brew ) I prefer this too, just like both of you. My argument was never that a wealth tax is better, and I understand the difficulty in the wealth tax. Or at least conceptually why it's difficult. But I'll take either one, and this is the one on the table now.

Let's fix the problem of the super wealthy not contributing now, and we can perfect it later.

 

14 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

dipshit

Guilty

Quote

40 something

Nope

Quote

data analyst

Nope

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2033]

5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

 

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". 

 

Hell yeah, I like this attitude. Take out SS and Medicare, and Medicaid, and, and shrink the military. 

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Hell yeah, I like this attitude. Take out SS and Medicare, and Medicaid, and, and shrink the military. 

 

- Man that works in the most heavily socialized and welfare-ized industry in the country

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, BradInATX said:

 

- Man that works in the most heavily socialized and welfare-ized industry in the country

Which industry? I also don't mind getting rid of subsidiaries of all industries.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Which industry? I also don't mind getting rid of subsidiaries of all industries.

Farming. You would be unemployed without subsidiaries [sic].

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Farming. You would be unemployed without subsidies.

It would be hard, but do it.

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It would be hard, but do it.

We can get whatever product you farm cheaper from other countries whether South America or China or whatever. The only reason the American farming industry exists is because the government pays to keep our crop prices down to compete with what it would cost to import them. Those subsidies, which are a nice way of saying welfare, are 100% the opposite of capitalism. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think you really grasp the world "socialism" and its relationship with our country. It wouldn't "be hard". Without the socialist aid we give out to American farmers, the industry wouldn't exist. At least not in any form resembling what it looks like today.

It doesn't diminish your job or your hard work at all. But it's textbook socialism.

Edited March 4, 2021 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

FYi - If you want to understand what the American farming industry would look like without the welfare it's given, go to a Farmer's market on any given Saturday and look at the prices.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

This has probably been explored in some article somewhere, but I'd like to discuss the policy background of a wealth tax.

Let's start with two fundamental propositions.  First, we need more tax revenue and second it surely seems that the wealthy do not share according to their "blessings" so to speak.

The third proposition, or result of the first two is that the wealthy, either high earners or high accumulators (is there really any meaningful difference or is it just the income statement/balance sheet change of perspective?) should be taxed more.

Why wealth tax?  Is it purely a matter of optics?  Is it "retaxing" those who have previously been undertaxed?  If the latter, why not make it temporary while raising income tax rates and reducing deductions?

I am amenable to the idea of a wealth tax, but looking at it seriously, I think I was just seduced by the low percentage (reducing "confiscation!!111!" objections) and the eat the rich aspect of it applying only to a relatively rarefied segment of society.

I also think it's somewhat more equitable to raise the income tax, which applies to all generally, on the wealthy, rather than create a tax levied only on the wealthy.

[blacklab 11843]

I'm fine with raising taxes on the rich, adding another $100 billion bureaucracy is not the most efficient way to do it.

Do we really want another $100-$200 billion taken out of the economy by the army of lawyers and accountants this will create? Will the world be a better place if these people are doing something productive for the common good rather than fighting in court over the value of some shit sitting in someone's garage? I've always thought the greatest benefit to a flat tax would be finding something better for all those people to do, now we're going to double or triple the size of this army?

Every year there will be a sell off of some stock to pay for this depressing stock prices. Those of us who own stock but are no where near the $50 million will pay for it. 2% of the market goes bye bye every year.

There are going to be stories of paper millionaires who on Jan 1st own stock worth $100 million, but by the time they can sell or are able to sell the stock will have gone down to nothing or near nothing and he can't pay his million in tax. So loopholes will be created for situations like this, and then Brew and his team will find ways to use that to get out of paying and we end up not getting near what we thought we would. In a few years there will be 30,000 pages of rules, exceptions and laws on the books and it will be a bigger mess than the irs/tax code is today.

This will be used as a political tool. Republican president in office? George Soros I think your shit's worth about a trillion, pay up! Dem in office? Koch bros, that pipeline is worth a trillion, pay up! There is no good way to place value on most businesses. We see hundreds of lawsuits a year over property values of industrial sites in Texas every year. We'll have to build courtrooms everywhere to handle the cases this will bring on. 

The other thing that happens with every change in tax law is a change in people's behavior. People go to unreal lengths to not pay taxes. No one has any idea of the things that are going to happen, but I guarantee there will be things that happen that are bad for the economy as a whole, and good for the person paying the tax that are going to happen, and us little ones are going to pay. 

If the goal of this thing is to raise $3T a year, ramp up the higher tax brackets and death tax to do so. Don't need to change laws, rules or exceptions, just add a new tax bracket over $1M a year at a higher rate and/or do the things brew listed earlier. 

 

 

[Firemans4Horn 17823]

NSIAP

 

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

24 minutes ago, blacklab said:

flat tax

Yes please.   

Now if you could figure out abortion and gun rights, we could live in a fucking utopia. 

[workswithseed 2033]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes please.   

Now if you could figure out abortion and gun rights, we could live in a fucking utopia. 

Palabra! 

[Murfdogg21 4412]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes please.   

Now if you could figure out abortion and gun rights, we could live in a fucking utopia. 

Abortions and guns for some, miniature American flags for others!

[Brew 3045]

47 minutes ago, blacklab said:

I'm fine with raising taxes on the rich, adding another $100 billion bureaucracy is not the most efficient way to do it.

Do we really want another $100-$200 billion taken out of the economy by the army of lawyers and accountants this will create? Will the world be a better place if these people are doing something productive for the common good rather than fighting in court over the value of some shit sitting in someone's garage? I've always thought the greatest benefit to a flat tax would be finding something better for all those people to do, now we're going to double or triple the size of this army?

Every year there will be a sell off of some stock to pay for this depressing stock prices. Those of us who own stock but are no where near the $50 million will pay for it. 2% of the market goes bye bye every year.

There are going to be stories of paper millionaires who on Jan 1st own stock worth $100 million, but by the time they can sell or are able to sell the stock will have gone down to nothing or near nothing and he can't pay his million in tax. So loopholes will be created for situations like this, and then Brew and his team will find ways to use that to get out of paying and we end up not getting near what we thought we would. In a few years there will be 30,000 pages of rules, exceptions and laws on the books and it will be a bigger mess than the irs/tax code is today.

This will be used as a political tool. Republican president in office? George Soros I think your shit's worth about a trillion, pay up! Dem in office? Koch bros, that pipeline is worth a trillion, pay up! There is no good way to place value on most businesses. We see hundreds of lawsuits a year over property values of industrial sites in Texas every year. We'll have to build courtrooms everywhere to handle the cases this will bring on. 

The other thing that happens with every change in tax law is a change in people's behavior. People go to unreal lengths to not pay taxes. No one has any idea of the things that are going to happen, but I guarantee there will be things that happen that are bad for the economy as a whole, and good for the person paying the tax that are going to happen, and us little ones are going to pay. 

If the goal of this thing is to raise $3T a year, ramp up the higher tax brackets and death tax to do so. Don't need to change laws, rules or exceptions, just add a new tax bracket over $1M a year at a higher rate and/or do the things brew listed earlier. 

 

 

My wife will make sure to put my portion earned back into the economy. If she does not notice it, then it may help pay for a few extra feet on the next boat.

[Brew 3045]

32 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes please.   

Now if you could figure out abortion and gun rights, we could live in a fucking utopia. 

A flat tax is something that sounds great in principle, but our tiered tax structure is more fair in my personal opinion. I don’t mind paying a higher percentage than those on lower income tiers, I do mind paying more than the guy sitting beside me on the same tier. The QBI deduction and the arbitrary industries it applies to is the biggest pile of shit to come out in tax law in a while. Two self employed guys making $500,000, one may get a $100k deduction as long as he doesn’t work in a few professional service industries. That’s a $35k or so swing in tax bills on the same numbers.

[elfenix 34169]

flat tax sounds great in principle if all you've taken is a high school economics and government class. 

 

the burden of taxation should look like that because the benefits of living in the society that the US government is the foundation of look like that.

Edited March 5, 2021 by elfenix

[fattyflattie 4636]

26 minutes ago, Brew said:

A flat tax is something that sounds great in principle, but our tiered tax structure is more fair in my personal opinion. I don’t mind paying a higher percentage than those on lower income tiers, I do mind paying more than the guy sitting beside me on the same tier. The QBI deduction and the arbitrary industries it applies to is the biggest pile of shit to come out in tax law in a while. Two self employed guys making $500,000, one may get a $100k deduction as long as he doesn’t work in a few professional service industries. That’s a $35k or so swing in tax bills on the same numbers.

I'll take your word for the specifics.  I was speaking to the fact is tax is one of the most divisive part of politics in our country.  A flat tax eliminates ones ability to bitch, imo.  The poor guy feels he's being taxed too much.  The successful guy feels he's being taxed too much.  

[NWBuck 8547]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes please.   

Now if you could figure out abortion and gun rights, we could live in a fucking utopia. 

Abortion remains legal, but must be accomplished by AR-15. 

Problem solved. 

[Enchubben 5509]

As a tax guy, this is great. Keep creating stupid fucking tax laws every 4 years. Job security! Can’t wait to see what else president Magoo can come up with in the next year.

If these clowns could just start getting it done earlier in the calendar year that would be great. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

6 hours ago, Brew said:

My wife will make sure to put my portion earned back into the economy. If she does not notice it, then it may help pay for a few extra feet on the next boat.

Blacklab makes some interesting points, but the one about lawyers and accountants would only increase the velocity of money in the economy.  Go read troph and brews posts in the boat and car fanatic threads.

The one about bureaucracy is spot on.

[Buzzrock 14870]

The federal government should be able to run everything on 3.5T per year and 23T in debt that will never get paid off. Want more money? Focus on policy that grows the economy.

Also this thread is pointless because wealth tax will never happen.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

7 hours ago, Brew said:

My wife will make sure to put my portion earned back into the economy. If she does not notice it, then it may help pay for a few extra feet on the next boat.

To my earlier post, it would seem you are doing your part with trucks, boats, and cars, as well.

[Brew 3045]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To my earlier post, it would seem you are doing your part with trucks, boats, and cars, as well.

I plead the 5th.

[Nivek 16843]

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 think it would be easier to install a new wealth tax than to remove loopholes and overhaul our overly complicated tax system which that way on purpose.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

A flat tax is really one of the worst ideas around.  You’re basically going to crush anyone living paycheck to paycheck instantaneously and it will require more government money to support them. The only people a flat tax helps is people lucky enough to have a high paying job or sitting on immense wealth. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31240]

10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think it would be easier to install a new wealth tax than to remove loopholes and overhaul our overly complicated tax system which that way on purpose.

Not trying to be a dick, but I'm not sure that's true.  An almost entirely new system is bound to create its own loopholes.  By eliminating the "tried and true" loopholes, deductions, and credits, I think we're far more likely to obtain a predicted result.

One aspect that's interesting is that presumably, a wealth tax on those above a certain wealth level might only produce a pretty limited number of returns, which might simplify some of the difficulties associated with an entirely new tax and a kind of new taxing regime.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A flat tax is really one of the worst ideas around.  You’re basically going to crush anyone living paycheck to paycheck instantaneously and it will require more government money support them. The only people a flat tax helps is people lucky enough to have a high paying job. 

A flat tax is inherently regressive.  The question is is it more or less regressive than a graduated tax filled with exceptions, many of which are available to or used only by the wealthy.

A lower, graduated tax with no exceptions would be pretty ideal I would think.

[Dahobbs 17420]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A flat tax is inherently regressive.  The question is is it more or less regressive than a graduated tax filled with exceptions, many of which are available to or used only by the wealthy.

A lower, graduated tax with no exceptions would be pretty ideal I would think.

This. Although I see the benefit of using the tax system as a behavioral modifier, I think almost all deductions and credits that complicate the system would function better as direct investments. 

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whatever it takes.  I'd like to see capital gains taxed at a reduced rate up to something like double the median income.  Maybe just the median income.

It's a small help for the little guy investor trying to earn retirement.  It becomes abusive for people that can live lavishly off capital gains.

Capital gains should be treated like any other income. I don't see any reason why somebody who makes money from capital should be taxed less than someone who makes money from labor. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

This. Although I see the benefit of using the tax system as a behavioral modifier, I think almost all deductions and credits that complicate the system would function better as direct investments. 

Capital gains should be treated like any other income. I don't see any reason why somebody who makes money from capital should be taxed less than someone who makes money from labor. 

I suppose if we're going to ditch all the exceptions, capital gains treatment goes too.  

[Brew 3045]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Capital gains should be treated like any other income. I don't see any reason why somebody who makes money from capital should be taxed less than someone who makes money from labor. 

For the same reason we have 100% bonus depreciation and Section 179, reinvestment inherently creates a wider base although there is an argument it just expands the gap. The rate should be higher, but I don’t think LTCG’s should be tied to income tax rates. There should be a larger base at 0% to encourage investment by lower income brackets and a higher rate than current on higher brackets.

[Dahobbs 17420]

33 minutes ago, Brew said:

For the same reason we have 100% bonus depreciation and Section 179, reinvestment inherently creates a wider base although there is an argument it just expands the gap. The rate should be higher, but I don’t think LTCG’s should be tied to income tax rates. There should be a larger base at 0% to encourage investment by lower income brackets and a higher rate than current on higher brackets.

I've yet to see any real evidence that favorable tax treatment results in more investment, particularly in people with lower income. The people that can invest (and are educated enough to do so), do invest. And they don't invest because of favorable tax treatment but rather at the prospect of increased income down the line. I suspect that all that favorable tax treatment does is change how people invest (or perhaps more accurately, where) and provide a benefit to those already wealthy enough to invest. 

[wildcat09 29213]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This. Although I see the benefit of using the tax system as a behavioral modifier, I think almost all deductions and credits that complicate the system would function better as direct investments. 

Capital gains should be treated like any other income. I don't see any reason why somebody who makes money from capital should be taxed less than someone who makes money from labor. 

BUT THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!!!

[blacklab 11843]

Twice, yes, that money is going to move quickly through the economy, but I'm discussing it as the greater good.

Those people are smart and going to make money somewhere. If instead of doing this they were out building a better mousetrap that benefited society as a whole I think we would be better. Every advance in technology allows more of our society to do better things. Yes it may fuck over some people on the front lines, but it should benefit everyone else.

As far as flat tax what I would love to see is a staggered percentage, 0% or even a negative percent on the first 30-50k, 10% on 50-100k, 30% above 100k, and then 50% above a couple of hundred k. Each year tweek the numbers to maximize the revenue.

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

10 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Twice, yes, that money is going to move quickly through the economy, but I'm discussing it as the greater good.

Those people are smart and going to make money somewhere. If instead of doing this they were out building a better mousetrap that benefited society as a whole I think we would be better. Every advance in technology allows more of our society to do better things. Yes it may fuck over some people on the front lines, but it should benefit everyone else.

As far as flat tax what I would love to see is a staggered percentage, 0% or even a negative percent on the first 30-50k, 10% on 50-100k, 30% above 100k, and then 50% above a couple of hundred k. Each year tweek the numbers to maximize the revenue.

 

What you're describing isn't a flat tax, but rather a simplified progressive tax structure. And I totally agree with it. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The problem is the concentration of wealth and not all tax ideas address this.  We have a group of around 600 people that got $2 trillion richer over the last year and they were already billionaires.  They are hoarding societies resources because we’ve allowed them to. 

If a person or small group of people decided to hoard 50% of the food or medicine in America and not share, we’d probably kill them.  

An income or flat tax does not address this hoarding issue because you’re taxing annual income and spending, you are not taxing obscene stockpiling. That’s the problem. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The problem is the concentration of wealth and not all tax ideas address this.  We have a group of around 600 people that got $2 trillion richer over the last year and they were already billionaires.  They are hoarding societies resources because we’ve allowed them to. 

If a person or small group of people decided to hoard 50% of the food or medicine in America and not share, we’d probably kill them.  

An income or flat tax does not address this hoarding issue because you’re taxing annual income and spending, you are not taxing obscene stockpiling. That’s the problem. 

Concentration of wealth is difficult to achieve without income.  The increase you speak of was impossible without income (income here including growth/capital gains).

I'm not sure there's a "hoarding" issue.  That money is at work somewhere in the economy in most cases, hence the growth and income.

The longer I look at it, the more unjustifiable a wealth tax seems in comparison to raising income tax rates and collections (meaning reduction/elimination of deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.).

The best justification for a wealth tax seems to be as a correction for previous undertaxation.  Again, that indicates a problem with income taxation rather than accumulation of wealth.  And that would seem to indicate that you should fix the income taxation problem and a wealth tax should only be temporary until the undertaxation problem is "fixed."

The real issue behind a wealth tax I think is political sleight of hand.  Even poors unaffected by tax hikes and cuts tend to get lathered up about them because they pay income taxes to one degree or another.  This idea is pretty much all "eat the rich" and even the poors can figure out that this doesn't affect them.

Edited March 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13132]

12 hours ago, blacklab said:

I'm fine with raising taxes on the rich, adding another $100 billion bureaucracy is not the most efficient way to do it.Do we really want another $100-$200 billion taken out of the economy by the army of lawyers and accountants this will create?

I'm only half kidding when I say... absolutely. Sounds like a kick-ass jobs program.

Quote

If the goal of this thing is to raise $3T a year, ramp up the higher tax brackets and death tax to do so. Don't need to change laws, rules or exceptions, just add a new tax bracket over $1M a year at a higher rate and/or do the things brew listed earlier. 

Boo.

[bad_teammate 13132]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure there's a "hoarding" issue.  That money is at work somewhere in the economy in most cases, hence the growth and income.

Whose growth and whose income? The "somewhere" it's at work is among the Top 0.1%, concentrating there and gathering more and more of its fellows to itself.

It's not trickling down, brother.

[wildcat09 29213]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Concentration of wealth is difficult to achieve without income.  The increase you speak of was impossible without income (income here including growth/capital gains).

I'm not sure there's a "hoarding" issue.  That money is at work somewhere in the economy in most cases, hence the growth and income.

The longer I look at it, the more unjustifiable a wealth tax seems in comparison to raising income tax rates and collections (meaning reduction/elimination of deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.).

The best justification for a wealth tax seems to be as a correction for previous undertaxation.  Again, that indicates a problem with income taxation rather than accumulation of wealth.  And that would seem to indicate that you should fix the income taxation problem and a wealth tax should only be temporary until the undertaxation problem is "fixed."

The real issue behind a wealth tax I think is political sleight of hand.  Even poors unaffected by tax hikes and cuts tend to get lathered up about them because they pay income taxes to one degree or another.  This idea is pretty much all "eat the rich" and even the poors can figure out that this doesn't affect them.

I do think we've got a hoarding problem, in that even if that money is "at work" somewhere in the economy, it's at work in ways that distort markets and politics and harm the rest of us. E.g., after 2008 the financial industry and a bunch of wealthy individuals bought up a lot of residential properties and jacked up rents across the country. Had all of those financial resources been more evenly distributed across the American population, you would have seen them spent in many different places and the impact on the rents would've been much less. That's just one of countless examples.  When a select few people control enormous amounts of wealth, even if they want to diversify what they do with it we're still talking about a pretty limited number of ways they'll actually invest or spend that wealth. Extremely concentrated wealth is like a black hole that distorts everything around it.

[Dahobbs 17420]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Concentration of wealth is difficult to achieve without income.  The increase you speak of was impossible without income (income here including growth/capital gains).

I'm not sure there's a "hoarding" issue.  That money is at work somewhere in the economy in most cases, hence the growth and income.

The longer I look at it, the more unjustifiable a wealth tax seems in comparison to raising income tax rates and collections (meaning reduction/elimination of deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.).

Correct. You can't do anything with 10 million dollars in stock until you sell it, at which point it becomes taxable income. Now, there are technically loop holes like getting loans against assets and just stacking them forever to avoid a taxable event. We can think about creative ways to address those situations without creating a whole new taxing structure that complicates the code even more. That said, it isn't like a wealth tax is entirely novel. After all, that is exactly what property taxes are. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

35 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I do think we've got a hoarding problem, in that even if that money is "at work" somewhere in the economy, it's at work in ways that distort markets and politics and harm the rest of us. E.g., after 2008 the financial industry and a bunch of wealthy individuals bought up a lot of residential properties and jacked up rents across the country. Had all of those financial resources been more evenly distributed across the American population, you would have seen them spent in many different places and the impact on the rents would've been much less. That's just one of countless examples.  When a select few people control enormous amounts of wealth, even if they want to diversify what they do with it we're still talking about a pretty limited number of ways they'll actually invest or spend that wealth. Extremely concentrated wealth is like a black hole that distorts everything around it.

I might suggest that rather than a hoarding problem attributable to the wealth owners, it's a by-product of the financial markets and corporate governance that favors growth in the short term.

Of course many of those controlling the financial markets and coporate governance are also within the wealth brackets we're talking about, but I think it's really the result of the system being set up for immense passive gains and income rather than some individual or even concerted action by the wealth owners per se.

tl;dr capitalism run amok benefits the capitalists

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Concentration of wealth is difficult to achieve without income.  The increase you speak of was impossible without income (income here including growth/capital gains).

I'm not sure there's a "hoarding" issue.  That money is at work somewhere in the economy in most cases, hence the growth and income.

The longer I look at it, the more unjustifiable a wealth tax seems in comparison to raising income tax rates and collections (meaning reduction/elimination of deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.).

The best justification for a wealth tax seems to be as a correction for previous undertaxation.  Again, that indicates a problem with income taxation rather than accumulation of wealth.  And that would seem to indicate that you should fix the income taxation problem and a wealth tax should only be temporary until the undertaxation problem is "fixed."

The real issue behind a wealth tax I think is political sleight of hand.  Even poors unaffected by tax hikes and cuts tend to get lathered up about them because they pay income taxes to one degree or another.  This idea is pretty much all "eat the rich" and even the poors can figure out that this doesn't affect them.

Rather than a wealth tax, which is difficult to implement, regulations to slow or prevent wealth consolidation should be implemented. The real issue is that wages have largely stagnated while revenues and profits have risen.  For public companies, you could mandate a pay scale that doesn't allow C suite employees to makes 100s of times the amount of low wage employees, and 10s of times the amount of key production employees. It is more difficult for privately held companies, but something can be figured out there as well. Owning things is not a "job" nor is it particularly productive and the "reward" of income needs to be better distributed.  Once we made a national goal of using money to make money without regard to what happens in between or what truly gets produced, it is easy to see how we ended up where we are with closed factories and poor job prospects for many. Those with existing capital just want to make more capital.  The industry is irrelevant. Employees are expenses. 

[hornmpa96 2598]

If the issue is “the rich don’t pay enough taxes”, that’s easily solved by treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income subject to tax at marginal rates. Additionally that could be included with the proposal to Mark publicly traded assets to market annually. 
 

If the issue is “wealth inequality”, that seems much more complicated and I would venture that discussion would start with the enormous amounts of support provided to the financial markets in this country which drives inflated asset values in assets disproportionately held by the wealthy.

[hornmpa96 2598]

9 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Rather than a wealth tax, which is difficult to implement, regulations to slow or prevent wealth consolidation should be implemented. The real issue is that wages have largely stagnated while revenues and profits have risen.  For public companies, you could mandate a pay scale that doesn't allow C suite employees to makes 100s of times the amount of low wage employees, and 10s of times the amount of key production employees. It is more difficult for privately held companies, but something can be figured out there as well. Owning things is not a "job" nor is it particularly productive and the "reward" of income needs to be better distributed.  Once we made a national goal of using money to make money without regard to what happens in between or what truly gets produced, it is easy to see how we ended up where we are with closed factories and poor job prospects for many. Those with existing capital just want to make more capital.  The industry is irrelevant. Employees are expenses. 

C-suite compensation has grown because of the value of equity compensation which ties back to the amount of support provided to financial markets.

[ndawg 1242]

If the problem we want to solve is wealth inequality, unless we plan on abandoning capitalism altogether, I think the goal ought to be to replenish America's supply of lower and middle class jobs. A carbon tax credit could be applied towards goods produced and sold in America, in order to offset the fossil fuels required to transport goods manufactured in Asia. This would help make up the disparity in labor costs that make offshoring appealing to begin with, without adding to the inherent burden that tariffs shoulder the consumer with.