He had a three-sentence response and I quoted two of them (and the one I cut out was just insulting me directly). If I respond to specific sentences or sections, it’s out of an attempt at brevity and trying to avoid a wall of text.
And no, I think the discussion speaks for itself. I don’t feel the need to summarize it just so you can tell me that I’m wrong.
Banzai
2796
So wealth taxes are different from income taxes, which is what people are used to, but are similar to property taxes, which people are also used to. People get taxed based on the value of their home, and those taxes fund their city government, schools, hospitals, etc. A wealth tax would be exactly the same, but it would be federal rather than local, and would not tax everyone’s wealth, just the very top of the wealth chain.
Call it The American Dream Act, cause anyone who got filthy rich is sure as heck benefiting from what this country has provided. Wouldn’t have happened in Paraguay, right? So taxing their wealth is a way to have them pay back into the awesomeness of America that provided the fertile soil for their endeavors. Use those funds for the common good, ie. promote the general welfare, one of the foundations of our country.
It’s not how we have done things in the past, but I still haven’t seen a reason why it’s a bad idea other than the gubnment shouldn’t take your property, to which I say they do that with taxes all the time already. Wealth is property, and spending it is no different than hoarding it to your overall wealth, except that the wealthy don’t spend it and thus don’t get taxed, while everyone doesn’t have that option…
The wealthy don’t pay their fair share, and they should, is the point.
This is sort of where I stand. I feel it is logically and morally better to tax income at the federal level (things like local sales taxes and local property taxes are rather different and I’ll ignore them). Each dollar that comes in should be taxed. After this tax the money is yours to do with as you will - neither saving it nor spending it should generate additional taxes on that dollar although of course any interest or investment income is dollars coming in and should be taxed.
Given that it is unlikely that all sort of income avoidance and loopholes will be closed I’m grudgingly willing to support the idea of a wealth tax although I am not convinced that it is any more moral and it feels less logical.
Houngan
2798
If it speaks for itself, then why post? Let’s face it, you wanted to do a drive-by but now it’s a taxi ride where we’re all in the same car talking. There’s an obvious argument for wealth tax that deserves discussion, engage at that level instead.
Houngan
2799
I don’t agree, and I think it goes back to the very basics of the discussion. Interest or investment INCOME is entirely different than WEALTH. Completely different subjects. And, they’re already taxed. Edit: sorry, I think I misread you. Seems like we’re on the same page.
I’d also stress that compared to @scottagibson and @Banzai, I would prefer the broad property tax be applied to everyone. Almost everyone has property, and I think the system is more likely to function well if everyone is forced to participate proportional to how much they’ve benefitted from what the government provides in terms of infrastructure and stability.
Of course there can be some standard deduction, for everyone, just like there is for real estate taxes.
Houngan
2801
Could you elaborate on how everyone owns property?
Do you have a bank account? An investment account?
If you read above I mentioned I prefer a broader definition of a property tax - to include investment and other forms of property besides just real estate. Unify the whole system.
Banzai
2803
Seems fine, just make the standard deduction about 15 million and progressive after that. Those of us who earn an income already pay for infrastructure and stability through an income tax. Those who live off of their passive wealth accumulation do not. A wealth tax is supposed to help even the playing field.
Houngan
2804
If I get it, property in your definition is essentially all wealth? Nothing wrong with that, just wasn’t obvious.
I’m participating in the discussion, but that doesn’t mean I need to summarize the discussion just to satisfy some need of yours.
Here’s my response to that argument: If we’re serious about a wealth tax, I would support setting a reasonable floor–say $50,000–and just taxing everyone’s wealth above that level. Enough of this “everyone who has more money than me” bullshit; if we’re going to implement this, I think it’s reasonable to apply it more broadly, instead of just demonizing those who have a bunch of stock. Who’s with me?
I would love for someone to come up with an objective, measurable definition of “their fair share” so we can see who does or doesn’t meet that criteria.
Houngan
2807
Okay, so what rate is that going to be taxed at? Safe investments, which constitute most of the later-than-boomer population, return 2-3%. Don’t get me wrong, at 48 I’d love to have a pension in my pocket but it didn’t happen. How much of my retirement savings are you going to tax?
What advantage does this actually have over removing income avoidance schemes and loopholes and simply taxing income? There is no implied gotcha in this question. I wonder though as my guess would be that given the nature of things a wealth tax on extremely high net worth individuals will lead to all sorts of avoidance schemes and loopholes and in the end amount to fairly little.
@AK_Icebear , just repeating this to show what I’m trying to accomplish with a wealth tax.
Banzai
2810
People who make $50k a year already pay their fair share. People who sit on 50 million in investments do not. The wealth tax is supposed to help level the field, not impose additional burdens to the lower income people who already bear the burden of paying for government.
It will slow the accumulation of wealth. Income taxes being applied to income won’t have any effect on existing wealth, which will continue to grow despite the income tax. To be clearly, I would do both: close the income tax loopholes, etc, and impose a tax on excessive wealth.
Banzai
2812
The rub is how you define income. If it includes the increasing valuation of property, as with property taxes, then sure, lets discuss it.
A person making $50K a year pays about $2590 in federal taxes. If a person has $50 million in investments, then they would only have to sell maybe $60,000 worth of stock (probably less) in a year to pay the same amount in taxes. So how is one “their fair share” and the other is not?
But that’s beside the point, since we’re talking about a wealth tax. So for anyone with less than $50K in savings and investments, they pay zero in wealth taxes. Everything above that, they could pay maybe 1%? Or 0.5%? That seems reasonable.
Houngan
2814
Fantastically regressive, but yes. 50k is essentially the lower middle class trying to get by. 1% represents, well, 1% of their wealth every year, which moves them down by a much larger gap than 1% for a millionaire or billionaire. If they are trying to build a retirement fund making a conservative 3% then you’ve cut their 30 year plan into 1/3 even discounting compounding.
