Taxing wealth is the next logical step

[NNN0LHI]

That way the wealthy who are sitting on the sidelines with trillions of dollars will have two choices. Invest it in creating jobs themselves or give it to the government so they can invest it to hire new workers and retain the ones we already have and pay them a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Turns into use it or lose it.

There is how to get some investment going.

Don

[Taverner]

1. Yes, yes, yes and hells yes.

[MrSlayer]

2. As if the bought off whores in congress do logic.

Sure, it is the logical thing to do but the House majority passed the Ryan Budget which does the opposite. Which do you think is more likely to happen in reality?

[PufPuf23]

3. Extremely obvious. Shows how bought are government and institutions are as a society. nt

[TBMASE]

4. You realize that most wealth isn't in the form of cash, right?

when you have Capital Gains, it's usually on the sale of an asset that has appreciated from its original value, that money is usually invested somewhere else.
Unless we're going to take homes and other assets I wouldn't expect this to be a plan that's realistic

[Comrade_McKenzie]

5. Then let's take homes and other assets...

There should never be 2 for 1, when there's even one instance of none for 1.

[TBMASE]

8. and sell them to whom and for how much?

it's a one time thing when you take homes other assets, there is no going back and taking more once it's gone

they'll move their cash overseas to protect it

[Zalatix]

57. Then tax it BIG TIME as it moves overseas.

[TBMASE]

70. Houses and Real Property don't go overseas

[NNN0LHI]

6. Actually it is in cash rather than homes or other assets as you suggest

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/10/barack-obama/obama-says-companies-have-nearly-2-trillion-sittin/

Obama says companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets

In an address to the Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 7, 2011, President Barack Obama implored business owners to start investing and hiring. And, he said, they've got plenty of cash on hand to do it.

"So if I’ve got one message, my message is now is the time to invest in America," Obama said. "...Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. And I know that many of you have told me that you’re waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like. snip

We asked the White House press office where Obama got the statistic, and they pointed us to a Dec. 10, 2010, story in the Wall Street Journal, which ran under the headline, "Companies Cling to Cash."

"Corporate America's cash pile has hit its highest level in half a century," wrote Justin Lahart.

"Rather than pouring their money into building plants or hiring workers, nonfinancial companies in the U.S. were sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4 percent of the companies' total assets — the largest share since 1959.

[TBMASE]

7. So you want to take cash from businesses

[NNN0LHI]

9. Businesses can either invest it themselves hiring workers or the government will tax them and do it

It is the businesses choice.

Don

[TBMASE]

10. so to hell with their need to pay existing workers

or future obligations.

Many businesses sit on cash when the economy is slower so they're not desperate for cash, relying on receivables when the bills come due. If you've got 10 million in cash but a 1 million dollar payroll to meet every month, it's not really that outrageous

[TBMASE]

12. Because I know why corporations keep cash?

and think when people start talking about the confiscation of legally owned and earned property by the government because they don't spend their money in a way that satisfies the government is wrong?

I'm pretty sure there's an amendment to the constitution that prevents this sort of thing

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Raising the corporate tax rate even by a substantial amount would

quash any constitutional quibbles you might have.

[TBMASE]

17. Did you read the OP?

He's not talking about a tax, he's talking about seizure of property if it's not spent or used the way the government wants it spent or used.

if it were a tax, I'd have no issue with it at all. Raise the rates.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. The very first word of the OP is 'taxing'. I'm saying that

expropriation of wealth is the same thing as a tax or can be construed as such. AKA "Wealth tax"

[TBMASE]

24. He says tax, then follows up with Use or Lose

That way the wealthy who are sitting on the sidelines with trillions of dollars will have two choices. Invest it in creating jobs themselves or give it to the government so they can invest it to hire new workers and retain the ones we already have and pay them a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Turns into use it or lose it.

There is how to get some investment going

[coalition_unwilling]

27. That's just verbiage for a 'wealth tax' (or a 'tax on savings'). The idea

has been around for over 50 years in one form or another (although, since Reagan, it has fallen out of popularity).

I'm not sure I understand why you so vehemently oppose it - economists generally concern themselves with incentives and a wealth tax, generally speaking, incentivizes savers to consume.

[TBMASE]

28. and the seizure of said property?

if the incentive is spend the money in the way the government demands or the government will seize the money, that's an issue no one should stand for.
Just because you call it a tax, it doesn't make it so

[Blanks]

51. Money is property

The supreme court allowed the taking of real property where it was for the good of the community. Real property has more intrinsic value than money.

The 'money' probably exists electronically anyway (I doubt that they have huge vaults holding all of it in cash). Wouldn't it be fun to just 'disappear' it. Like so many working class retirements have done.

[TBMASE]

67. Taking of real property where the owner is compensated

and their "money" is probably kept in a bank account

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. There's nothing in the OP to indicate it would all be 'seized'

It's clear it's a tax. That's what the OP says; that's what is used in some other countries - for instance, France has a wealth tax of 0.25% above €1.3m, and 0.5% above €3m.

[TBMASE]

68. Use or Lose isn't seizure?

"Invest it in creating jobs themselves or give it to the government so they can invest it to hire new workers and retain the ones we already have and pay them a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Turns into use it or lose it. "

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. No, it's a slogan

If you think the OP was actually saying "seize all savings", then you're living in a different reality.

So, why are you consistently pushing a right wing line these past few days? You haven't answered anyone who's asked you that, yet.

[TBMASE]

77. It's not seizure?

"Invest it in creating jobs themselves or give it to the government"

is it going to be voluntary, that "Use or Lose"?

And I didn't know it was RW to oppose having the government take property because people don't use it the way the government wants it to be used. Now, I realize the eminent domain clause but the 5th amendment requires the government to reimburse the owner for what's taken.

[Blanks]

81. Print up gold coins.

About the size of a dime, print $100,000 on them and require persons with an amount in excess of that in the bank to redeem the cash for these gold coins.

Didn't they do the opposite in WWII?

How's that for compensation?

Instead of e pluribus unum; it could have the Latin equivalent of 'life's not fair'. And a Ronald Reagan bust.

Everyone wins.

[TBMASE]

83. I'm sure businesses would jump at the chance

to be reimbursed with gold. The appreciation would be more than adequate to cover their cash and they could still liquidate it.

[Blanks]

90. Probably not a gold coin worth significantly less than what you're taking from them.

But if they think a tiny gold coin is worth more than $100,000. They probably don't deserve to keep the money anyway.

[TBMASE]

95. It would be legal tender, correct?

The value of a Government Minted gold coin would exceed the dollar value of the actual value of the gold itself.

[Blanks]

108. That wasn't my plan.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. No, it's not seizure, it's taxation

and yes, it is right wing to characterize taxation as 'seizure'. Just look around the internet for all the RW loons who say it. You seem happy to repeat what they say. It obviously has nothing to do with eminent domain or the 5th amendment

BECAUSE IT'S A TAX

though bringing the 5th amendment into it is another 'tell' for a right winger, just like moaning about the 'Maryland taxes driving away rich people' when it's an anti-tax pressure group that told you that.

[TBMASE]

85. So "Use or Lose" is a slogan

and Spend the money or give it to the government is a tax

And how is citing the 5th amendment RW?

I cited a CNBC article, the fact that THEY relied on a report from an anti tax group is not my issue, it's yours. And, it seems your only rebuttal to their report is to say that its done by an anti tax group. The Washington Post cited the same study in their reporting too

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. The rhyme is a clue that it's a slogan

and the words in the title

[font color="red" size="48"]Taxing wealth[/font]

are the clue that it's a tax, since your sight seems to be failing you. Claiming that federal taxes break the 5th amendment is indeed far right wing - eg

The tax protest movement is a relatively long-lived anti-government movement rising out of opposition to federal income taxes. Tax protesters generally believe that either the income tax laws are in some way invalid or that they do not apply to most citizens; therefore, they believe they have a legal and moral right not to pay taxes. Many tax protesters suspect that the government covers up the "truth" about the income tax in order to continue oppressing the people and taking their money. Tax protesters engage in a wide variety of tax evasion strategies that range from simple refusal to pay taxes to complicated schemes using onshore and offshore trusts in order to hide income from the government. Tax protesters are also violent on occasion, attacking IRS agents or property or others charged with enforcing the law.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/TPM.asp?xpicked=4&item=21

You have proved my point; the anti-tax group is the author of the claims, not CNBC or the WP. I pointed out that CNBC also quoted people saying the report was rubbish, but you have chosen to ignore that and go with the right wing talking points. It's your right wing claim, your right wing report, your right wing issue, your right wing problem, and your right wing talking points.

[TBMASE]

110. Like Use or Lose leave policies, right?

Although that "slogan" actually means USE your leave or LOSE your leave.

[Zalatix]

58. Wow, that's what the Libertarians say. Fortunately history doesn't support you.

FDR taxed corporations for sitting on their money. It worked, big time.

Income taxes, capital gains taxes, financial transaction taxes and property taxes are all legitimate and long-standing methods of taxation, and you're essentially calling that confiscation.

There's something wrong here with your logic and I think you can figure it out.

[TBMASE]

71. Tax Cash that was already taxed?

if the government told you it was illegal to save your cash, would you support it?

[awoke_in_2003]

13. It's a small matter...

[HangOnKids]

14. SNARF

"I don't want to work, I want to bang on the drum all day!"

[Kingofalldems]

19. You should probably go work for Romney

[TBMASE]

25. Why?

Because I'm against seizure of private property by the government when said property has been legally earned?
Or is it because I believe the 5th amendment affords protection from government seizure of property without compensation?

[lastlib]

30. If you have a Billion in cash in the bank, you're not "relying on receivables"...

This is more like what's happening in today's economy.

[TBMASE]

45. Ummm, that's what I said. You save the cash so you don't have to rely on receivables

and that IS what's happening in today's economy.

But seizing that cash, if it's not spent the way the OP says, isn't going to help anyone in the long run. Corporations will lose the cash, the government gets a one time inflow of cash to pay people for a few years

[ErikJ]

35. Release the money!

[TBMASE]

46. Profits aren't cash

we have an accrual system in the US. Revenue isn't cash, expenses aren't cash and profit isn't cash

[Waltons_Mtn]

104. Would this mound of money they are sitting on be considered hording?

If so and if hording is some type of mental problem/disability, could we take these corporations to court and have them declared mentally unfit? Remember "corporations are people too my friend".

[socialist_n_TN]

124. Now that's an interesting thought...........

Might work too. Hoarding that much newspaper is DEFINITELY a mental illness.

Of course, I've always liked the idea of eminent domain. Payable with bonds that can't be redeemed for 100 years. And can only be redeemed by individual it's paid to, no proxies or descendents.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Tax all inheritances above $5 million at 100%. Tax all transfers of money out of the country at 200%

If that is not enough, nationalize the banks and the energy companies.

[Initech]

20. And let's tax the hell out of religious organizations while we're at it.

Churches rake in billions and it's essentially free money. It should be way past time for the IRS to end the free ride. If they want to preach politics - they pay. End of story.

[Igel]

38. Make it all non-profits.

While you're at it.

Nobody really *needs* a Harvard and its preachiness. Or Johns Hopkins.

Or even things like Greenpeace or Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy. They just take in contributions and it's essentially free money.

[Initech]

40. That's not the same thing at all.

Those organizations don't preach politics the way our religious organizations do. I'd suggest reading this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47907630/ns/politics/t/churches-get-political-us-irs-stays-quiet/

[Lucky Luciano]

32. Yawn. nt

[Lucky Luciano]

53. Thought it was sufficient commentary on the absurd. nt

[Johonny]

18. don't some European countries try to do this already

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Yes, some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

France is about to expand the amount taken:

Debt woes and tough budget deficit reduction plans have spurred the newly elected Socialist Government of France to propose tax rises targeting the rich equivalent to 7.2 billion euros.

The taxes include a wealth tax on the rich and higher taxes on dividends as well as oil companies. Taxes exemption on overtime will be scrapped and higher taxes on stock options will be imposed.

Those with fortunes over 1.3 million Euros will be hardest hit as the government has brought down the wealth tax threshold as well as tightened the inheritance tax laws. In addition, financial transaction tax will be raised to 0.2%, according to the amended budget proposed by the Socialist government.

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/52096

[mainer]

50. Taxing 1.3 million Euros in wealth would completely gut a lot of retirements

In the US, with its poor safety net, if you have a miliion dollars and live 30 years beyond retirement, you'd have about $40,000 a year to live on until death. That is not exactly living high on the hog.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. I'm not exactly sure how they tax pension funds

This web page says:

Exempt assets include: ... funds in a pension fund constituted in respect of an employment or business (subject to certain conditions)

http://france.angloinfo.com/money/general-taxes/wealth-tax/

Wikipedia says "In principle all assets are taken into account except for the following: ... capital value of pensions and retirement plans", but doesn't give a source for that.

On edit: I'm not sure 'gut' would be the right word, either. 0.25% on wealth of €1.5m is €3,750 per year. It's something, but unlikely to force them to sell major assets.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Agreed.

My 2 cents....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002926874

[Starry Messenger]

26. k&r

[lastlib]

29. I like it.

Beats the livin' hell outa taxing poverty--the GOP strategery (I wonder whut genius thought that idea up? Oh--Cantor/Ryan. 'Nuff said....)

[on point]

31. There is too much liquidity at the top = asset price inflation

BY allowing capital accumulation at the top has created asset price inflation and has reduced liquidity for the majority of the economy causing it to stall at all other levels.

So the top is producing nothing, but is starving the rest of the economy.

[Flatulo]

33. Why wouldn't this just accelerate the flight of corporations to China?

Heck, medical device maker Boston Scientific moved a whole $2.5b division to China, lock stock and barrel to avoid a measly 2.5% tax on medical devices. Workers, managers, factory - all gone.

As it is, major corporations are now looking at China as a market that's 10x bigger than the US market. Never mind the cheap labor, thats where the customers are.

What's going to stop them? US sales will soon be insignificant compared to Asian markets.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. If they want to go, they should go - but without the protection of the U.S. laws.

"medical device maker"?

Then, they rely upon patents.

At a minimum, declare the patents held or used by corporate ex-patriots as void. Then let them see how well China respects their former patents.

[Flatulo]

36. That's what's bizarre about companies moving there - their IP is

stolen before they even unpack.

[Zalatix]

59. And then we should also slap HUGE tariffs on China, too.

[Abra]

37. + >9000!

[Igel]

39. More dictatorship of the proletariat.

And judging by the vitriol here, it would be no better.

It would probably either end with another NEP, to save the butts of those manufacturing lots of vitriol and not much else; or, if they held to their ideology, Zimbabwe.

What people have to remember is that the Soviet citizens and even the Chinese citizens largely held to the politically correct line because they believed. All that sacrifice, all the crappy living conditions, where even for the poor it wasn't all that much better after a few years of Revolution, where the farmers were left to starve because the party bosses' political base was urban and workers, depended crucially on belief--and on having benefits flow to them because of belief. (Lest we think that ideology drove them: No, they wanted stuff and hoped for more stuff. Soviet soul-engineering wasn't nearly as good as their nuclear engineering.) Only later, when belief wasn't enough and nearly 100% compliance was needed did it turn to terror--and then boredom before collapse.

Boredom and collapse are what China and Vietnam are trying to avoid, as Lukashenka (with that Belorusian /a/ just to annoy him in absentia) has kept up low-key terror. Pol Pot didn't get much belief and went straight to terror. Zimbabwe's in terror. Chavez still has belief on his side, while most Cubans are simply bored but things aren't so bad as to necessitate collapse.

[PETRUS]

80. Maybe

Maybe it would be like Russia or Zimbabwe. But rather than compare the US to poor, pre industrial countries you might look for examples of labor assuming political dominance in wealthy modern nations. So maybe it would be more like Norway (which has a wealth tax).

[Hippo_Tron]

128. No, it's called social democracy, and it works pretty damn well Canada and Western Europe

[Honeycombe8]

41. I am against a wealth tax, per se. But our progressive tax system is a wealth tax, to some degree.

The tax rates for the wealthy are too low, for sure, and should go back to where they were in the '90s, at least.

But taxing someone specifically for saving money instead of spending it how the govt thinks you should? That goes too far. That's like a dictator seizing property for himself or the state.

[TBMASE]

47. It's quite obvious you have no idea what cash actually is

I'll bet you think profits are cash and that billionares are just sitting on a ton of cash like Scrooge McDuck instead of having their money in another form like property or stocks

[Zalatix]

60. This, again? Everything is taxable. Property taxes, taxes on capital gains,

taxes on financial transactions... however their wealth manifests, we can tax it.

[TBMASE]

69. The Federal Government does not have a property tax

Capital Gains are recognized at the time of sale.

The OP is suggesting we TAKE their wealth unless it is spent the way the government wants it spent, specifically Cash

[Zalatix]

73. Doesn't mean there can't be a Federal property tax.

Plus corporations TEND to (read: I can't imagine when they don't) get interest on their money sitting in a bank. That is taxable, too.

[TBMASE]

78. They are taxed on the interest

just as individuals are taxed on interest. The OP says:

"Invest it in creating jobs themselves or give it to the government"

Now, if it were voluntary that's one thing but the OP goes on to say

"It becomes Use or Lose"

Lose it how?

[TBMASE]

109. Whatever you think I might be

it won't change your ignorance.

[TBMASE]

114. You CAN'T debate the topic because you have no clue

about the subject.
Like I said, you probably think profits are cash and that billionaires are just sitting on piles of cash

[Zalatix]

131. Actually, HangOnKids and others here have debunked your arguments repeatedly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html

Companies Shun Investment, Hoard Cash

Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

Nonfinancial companies held more than $2 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of June, the Federal Reserve reported Friday, up more than $88 billion from the end of March. Cash accounted for 7.1% of all company assets, everything from buildings to bonds, the highest level since 1963.

You were saying?

[mainer]

112. HangOnKids has already got me on Ignore

I assume you'll be next. She likes to call people childish names and then runs and hides because she doesn't want to deal with the blowback. I have a feeling this is not an adult.

[TBMASE]

113. That's my opinion as well

[Prophet 451]

42. I disagree

I think that a properly progressive income tax system would work better. And yes, there should be incentives to create jobs.

[kentuck]

48. Our choices are limited.

We can either give all the wealth to the few at the top or...

We can tax them and spread out the wealth for the benefit of the rest of society.

Basically, that is the bottom line.

All the other arguments about "job creators', tax fairness, government control of business, etc, are nothing more than peripheral issues that distort the reality.

[mainer]

49. What's your definition of wealth?

Would someone who's saved up a million dollars be wealthy? Someone who's put away 5 million? Will savers be penalized while spendthrifts get away scot free?

My dad (a mere restaurant cook) never spent a thing, lived in the same house for 50 years, and saved close to a million by the time he died. Would his wealth be confiscated?

And if you start taxing savings of those who are careful with a penny (yes it's true, the thrifty CAN save enough to be a millionaire over time) will you keep taxing and taxing until they become un-wealthy and then have to struggle?

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. Someone with more than me is wealthy.

Kill them, make sure their kids are strippped of all inheritance and make sure alll their property goes to the state.

All better.

[mainer]

105. I'm not a dude. I am close to retirement. And it's true.

My dad the cook saved close to a million.

Many people from Asian cultures manage to do so.

Save every penny. Bring your lunch to work. Drive your car until it falls apart. Buy a Timex, not a Rolex. Make your own clothes. Buy land and hold onto it. Send your kids to college. Work 16-hour days.

Forget Starbucks; Folgers will do.

Those were my dad's practices. He never took a vacation, never flew anywhere, changed the oil in his own car, didn't smoke, didn't fritter away money. Ask a number of older generation folks, especially those from New England, and you'll find that they have managed to sock away good retirements.

It's not bootstraps; it's sheer stubborn Yankee thrift.

[mainer]

107. It's not shit. It's my family.

And what are you, a racist? Unable to comprehend that another culture might view savings differently than you do?

A little education is in order:

"Given the higher amount in retirement savings by Asian Americans, it should be no surprise that Asian Americans also contribute more to retirement accounts, 10.3% of a paycheck on average (versus 8.4% in the general population), and $324 on average per paycheck (versus $220 in the general population). Even with the higher contribution to retirement savings, Asian Americans also save more in general with 69% having savings outside of retirement plans (compared with 58% of the general population).

When it comes to routine savings and expenses, its generally considered a good idea to have an emergency cash reserve (90% of Asian Americans say they have one, versus 81% of the general population), and even better if that reserve can cover 6 months of living expenses (51% of Asian Americans have 6 months of reserve versus 32% of the overall population).

When it comes to debt, Asian Americans seem to manage it better than other groups. Only 15% of Asian Americans have student loan debt (compared to 25% overall), 23% of Asian Americans have a car loan (compared to 44% overall). Asian Americans use credit cards more (96% versus 91%), but have better control of them with 35% carrying debt on credit cards, versus 40% overall, and more likely to pay off credit cards in full every month (75% versus 50% overall)."

http://www.8asians.com/2012/02/09/asian-americans-have-mixed-results-in-retirement-study/

You call me shit. I answer with numbers. It's all I can do.

[mainer]

118. Wow, so it's OK to say someone's full of shit and should get lost...

but it's not OK to call them a clueless kid? You hid TBMASE's post because of THAT?

I think someone threw a few too many nasty grenades and now is whining because those grenades exploded in her face.

[TBMASE]

115. I guess you've never heard of a 401K or IRA

Mutual funds paying off one's house putting the extra cash away in investments that grow over time.
Yes, the thrifty CAN save enough to be a millionare over time.

[mainer]

119. The best thing my lawyer ever told me: true wealth is having no debt

As soon as I could, I paid off my mortgage.
No new cars. No new clothes. No new nothing. First, pay off the mortgage.
No matter what the economy does, a bank can never foreclose on you.

Americans are too quick to take on debt for stupid reasons, and that has been the downfall of many.

[unblock]

52. couple this with a repeal of the income tax and you've got a capitalist economist's wet dream

economists don't like transaction taxes because they distort the "true" market, leading to misallocations of goods and services. this is the downside of taxes if you care about resource allocation. the income tax discourages income-generating activities, and worse, because different types of earnings are taxed at different rates it encourages unproductive activities such as disguising labor income as investment income, etc.

a wealth tax punishes mostly hoarding, and encourages idle resources to be put into production, so true capitalist economists love this sort of tax. the classic argument is the art collection benefitting no one but the owner -- a tax would encourage the owner to put the exhibit on display (if only to pay the tax bill) thus benefitting more people.


and liberals prefer the income tax only because it's more progressive than most other taxes. well, a wealth tax is likely to be quite progressive, possibly even more progressive than the income tax.


one practical problem with the wealth tax, though, is that it can be much easier to hide wealth than income. income taxes two, and you at least often have to worry about your counterparty reporting their loss or expense. wealth, on the other hand, can be concealed or can be claimed to have been destroyed or damaged.

[reformist2]

54. A flat tax on wealth of 2% per year will raise $1 trillion, and solve our budget problems.

What's especially nice about this tax is that it would raises more from the rich than the current income tax, while being a flat tax just like the rich claim to want so badly!

[slackmaster]

56. Don has a great idea here! The FIRST step would be for people to stop putting 1%ers in Congress.

Because they will never allow any kind of wealth confiscation as long as they are in power.

[AngryAmish]

61. A wealth tax is a taking. If you want that then you have to change the Constitution.

/ says it every time someone mentions a wealth tax, still get wealth tax threads
/ can we move on to olive garden or circumcision next

[slackmaster]

63. I can see a special tax on the Olive Garden

But a tax on circumcision would be seen as an attack on religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Why is it more of a 'taking' than a property tax?

Or are you saying that it would be OK for local government to impose, like property taxes, but not for the federal government - in which case, why?

[AngryAmish]

72. You are not taking a piece of property when you tax it

Also when the constitution was written property taxes have been part of English common law and American common law for centuries. If the framers had intended to make property taxes illegal they would have written it into the Constitution. None of this is controversial in mainstream American constitutional jurisprudence. You learn it the first semester of law school.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. And you are not taking wealth when you tax it

by a similar argument. You are taxing it. This would not insist that 1% (or however much) of a stockholding is handed over; it would value the person's wealth (including property) and tax that amount. The person would meet that tax bill with cash.

[mainer]

94. And if you're 75 and you happen to own a million-dollar house...

because you bought it a zillion years ago, how are you going to suck blood from a retiree?

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Same way as you do with property tax already

you send them a bill, and let them decide how to pay it.

If they find that they own a million dollar house, but no other assets, and their income isn't enough to cover the wealth tax (a) they might sell up and move to an affordable house (b) you may have set the threshold too low.

[mainer]

100. Ah, so you're OK with kicking the elderly out of their family homes

and make them move into apartments. That's a real liberal value for you.

Many older people have homes they bought for a pittance, which have grown in value. Sometimes the value is ridiculous, but they DON'T WANT TO LEAVE, just so YOU can get the money out of them and redistribute it.

[reformist2]

117. Easy fix - $100K per person wealth exemption.

Still got a problem with the wealth tax, Mr. Moneybags?

[mainer]

120. I'm not a MISTER. I'm a 60 year old female

And I do have a problem with a wealth tax because it's based on income that was ALREADY TAXED when it was earned. OK, so you're going to say that $100,000 is considered "wealthy" and should be taxed. Think about it. Let's say I'm a retiree, and I've got $100,000 saved up. I have a life expectancy of around 85. Which means I have the next 20 years to live on $100,000. At today's interest rates, it really only adds up to about $25,000 of income for the rest of my life. Excluding any emergencies. You call that WEALTHY? And you want to confiscate that pittance of an asset, the whole nest egg I've saved up over a lifetime of working? Money that I have earned, that wasn't accrued through anyone's labors but my own?

Try that on America. See what they think.

Answer me. Really. Look me in the face and tell me that, at my age, with a lifetime savings, you are going to take that from me and distribute it ... where? Into YOUR pocket, because you haven't been as prudent and you want to take my earnings from me?

I'm waiting for your answer. And dare you to call me MR. MONEYBAGS again.

[slackmaster]

76. Property taxes are used to finance vital government services, not general wealth redistribution

If you don't like paying property tax, you can always move your property somewhere else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. This would be used to finance vital government services too

You must have noticed that there's a bit of a shortfall in government revenue, even after cuts in government spending. Everyone's talking about it.

If you don't like paying a wealth tax, you could move to another country and give up your American citizenship. Just like people do who think American income tax rates are too high.

[Junkdrawer]

86. Constitutional Amendment after a Revolution....

Necessary none the less.

[Overseas]

62. That was the logic we used to follow. Until Reagan and Trickle Down Economics.

Top tax rates were much much higher for most of our history. And instead of giving it all to the government, business owners decided to invest in their businesses and hire more workers. And the government got enough to maintain our infrastructure and fund vital social safety nets.

We followed Demand Side Economics-- if the middle class earns more money and the poor have safety net funding, they spend more money buying the products made by our businesses and everyone did better.

In the 80's Grandpa Reagan ushered in Supply Side Economics-- give it all to the rich and it will "Trickle Down" to the rest of us. That is when the choice for the rich became-- Invest in America or stash the cash offshore and keep it all for yourself and your immediate family.

Just to be sure the rich got as much as possible, Reagan set about union busting, so the producers of the goods, the workers, couldn't fight against the rich getting it all.

Where we are now is the result of abandoning Demand Side in favor of Supply Side Economics. We have been doing Trickle Down for 30 years. How is that working for us?

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

[SlimJimmy]

79. Hire new workers to do what? Why would a business owner hire new workers if he didn't need them?

[NNN0LHI]

87. My plant used to hire 200 new workers in one day

Want to know what those new workers did soon after they were hired?

They went out and purchased cars, houses, furniture and appliances with the money from the new job they had.

Know what they would have been purchasing without that new job?

Nothing.

See how it works?

This is really not rocket science if someone gives it just a little bit of thought.

This is about as basic as it gets.

Don

[SlimJimmy]

101. So, your company hired and paid new workers they didn't need just so they could go out and purchase

things? That doesn't pass the common sense test. They hired 200 workers a day because they had a need to hire those workers.

A company hires new workers when they have the sales to support the new hiring. If I make widgets and the market for widgets has dropped 20% over the past year, then I have no need for new workers. Hiring workers in the hope that they will spend money is a fool's errand and a horrible business decision. It's not rocket science if someone gives it just a little bit of thought. That's about as basic as it gets.

[mainer]

89. Why this thread scares me

My income has already been taxed once. I am self-employed, so I've also had to pay self-employment taxes over the years. And no, I don't work as a banker, I don't exploit my workers (unless you call my own long hours at the job self-exploitation) and I produce a product that actually gets exported and brings money INTO the U.S. I don't trust any safety net to protect my retirement, so I have been faithfully saving for decades, in secure investments such as municipal bonds and CDs. I have accumulated enough to help my kids out with their college educations.

And now, because I've been scrupulous about saving and a careful investor, this OP would levy an extra tax on me, for no reason except that I've socked away enough for a comfortable retirement?

[reformist2]

91. If anything, taxing wealth is preferable to taxing income.

Taxes are going to have to go up big time, and I think a small 2% flat tax on wealth is far preferable and less damaging to the economy than jacking up income taxes to 75% again.

[mainer]

92. I'd rather my income be taxed than my wealth

Wealth, for many of us, is a result of careful savings. Those who save faithfully shouldn't be punished.

Taxing income makes taxation a dynamic process. When you're doing well, you pay more in taxes. When times are tough, your taxes fall. It adjusts for your stage in life.

Taxing wealth would more likely hit the elderly harder.

[PETRUS]

97. Serious proposals

People who advocate for a wealth tax generally suggest a progressive approach exempting holdings below a certain amount (and that is set at a very high threshold). Also, the rates proposed are lower than typical returns. That is, even with a wealth tax people's savings continue to grow, the rate of accumulation is just slowed a bit as the amounts get higher.

[mainer]

98. If taxation is less than typical returns on investment, okay

but the OP is talking about confiscation and redistribution.

And if you include real estate as part of the taxed wealth, you are going to be sucking blood from people who are house-rich and cash-poor.

I say this because I do have savings, and part of what I've done is bought farmland to grow food for my own family's use. That farmland doesn't bring in any income, but it is worth money -- and if I were to be taxed on it, I'd have to sell it. Right now it's taxed at an affordable agricultural rate, because I have no plans to develop it. I can see older people on fixed incomes forced to sell their water-front homes that they've owned for decades, because those homes have accrued value through all those years.

[Junkdrawer]

93. "Taxing WEALTH ... is the most radical idea I can think of short of armed revolution"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002926874

You see, I understand just how radical taxing wealth is. I read John Locke in college too.

I also think it's necessary of we want a REAL democracy again.

[mainer]

121. These are the threads that make me wonder: who ARE the people on DU?

Don, you've had some great threads. For the most part, I've agreed with you.

But sometimes, DUers have topics that totally drive me off the cliff.

I am totally a social liberal. Gay rights, atheism, freedom of the press, I'm there.
Obama, I'm there.
Higher taxes, I'm there.

But then we get to wealth confiscation and I'm thinking: who ARE you people? Why do you want to take my hard-earned money, earned through no trick of banking or fiscal manipulations, money that I earned through my own talents and hard work and years of acquired skills? Money that I didn't spend on jewelry or fancy clothes or cars, money that I saved because at heart I'm a cheap Yankee? Money that I earned because I got an advanced degree, despite the fact I'm the daughter of an immigrant and a father with a blue collar job?

Why do you think I should be taxed on my savings?

You have this idea that anyone who's successful must have gamed the system. Let me tell you, some of us played by the rules. Many of us are Democrats. Many of us are happy to pay our taxes. I have, for the past decade, paid the maximum income tax rate and was happy to do so. I've contributed to every liberal cause.

But then I come across people on this thread who say they want to take my retirement savings because it happens to add up to more than THEIRS, and that seems to be the only reason why they say so.

And they call me Mr. Moneybags because I protest. They want my farmland confiscated. They denigrate my years of labor as something that was due to, I don't know ... pure luck? The fact they assume I'm a white male? (When I'm neither male nor white.)

These are the things that really confound me on DU. Because I thought DU wasn't about confiscation.

Yet it seems it is.

[NNN0LHI]

122. I am going to explain this concisely

Myself and many others only have one form of wealth. Our homes. That is all we have.

Yet we are taxed on that single form of wealth every single year. When the value of our homes go up the property taxes increase. When the value of our homes goes down our property taxes still increase.

And people like me have been paying this type of tax on our only form of wealth every single year for decades. And it will never end.

And at the same time our property taxes have been increasing our incomes have been dropping. This is becoming an unmanageable problem for many of us.

Then I read that some firefighters pay has been cut to minimum wage and I realize this is not right and is unacceptable.

Then I see people posting here every day that people like me should have their property taxes raised to help out with these kinds of financial shortfalls. And when that happens I never see anyone begin talking about confiscation of wealth. They just call it a tax and no one gets heartburn when that is suggested.

I once balked here at DU about my property taxes going up so much and you want to know what kind of response I got? Someone posted, "Sell your house and your problem is over."

Nice, huh?

So why is it alright to tax my only form of wealth but not other peoples forms of wealth? Can you explain that?

Hope I answered your question clearly enough.

Take care and see you later.

Don

[mainer]

125. We agree on that -- property tax is a form of wealth tax

And that's why I think taxes should be based on INCOME. Property is sometimes the only wealth you have, and if one has no income, you are reduced to selling your property to pay the taxes.

So if you're going to go with a wealth tax -- which would include the value of your home -- then you are hurting retirees, people on fixed incomes, and people with no incoming cash.

That's where a wealth tax -- which means all assets -- gets you into trouble.

If you were to tax income (and by this, I include capital gains) then I would be in support. But a WEALTH TAX would affect you, me, and everyone who has put their savings into their homes.

[NNN0LHI]

126. Happy we found some agreement here

[PETRUS]

129. What if the first $10 million is exempt?

And the rate above that is progressive, starting at .5% and topping out at 2%? For example...

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the following opinion, but I once heard an economist suggest that wealth/property should be the main thing or even only thing we tax. (He also felt modest holdings should be exempt.) His argument was that such a policy would guarantee that major assets would be harnessed for the good of society, both in the sense that the tax would raise revenue for public services and also in the sense that anyone with significant property would have an incentive to put it to use (invest it if it's money, develop or farm it if it's land, etc.) to cover the tax. I'm not really on board with that, but it was an interesting thought.

[mainer]

132. We still get back to the fact that land/a home is NOT income-producing

and offers no stream of money with which the owner can pay taxes.

A good example is fallow farmland or forested land. The only way an owner could make significant money is to cut down the trees and sell the wood, or to sell the land to developers, or to turn it into house lots. Do we really want this to happen? Does every asset a person owns need to be income-producing to pay taxes?

I own farmland, of which only a small part is in orchards/garden plots. It earns no significant income. I pay pretty low taxes on it because it ISN'T developed. I keep it open it to the public for hiking and hunting. I love the fact it's undeveloped and beautiful. I don't WANT an incentive to screw up that land and turn it into a subdivision.

[reformist2]

133. Land is probably the thing that should be taxed more than anything else.

So says Henry George.

[PETRUS]

135. Right

"I don't WANT an incentive to screw up that land and turn it into a subdivision. "

Exactly. That's the first criticism that came to my mind. But again, with a high exemption it makes me think: How many people are sitting on $10+ million worth of non-income producing property that can't afford to pay a small tax? When the DeVos family and a couple dozen other extremely rich people mounted an attack on inheritance taxes one of the arguments that got a little traction with the public was the notion that people would lose family farms and businesses. But you know what? When challenged, they were not able to find a single example of this happening. Not one. Why? Because the exemptions are so high, they are designed to give all but the very richest a pass. A thoughtful tax regime would probably allow for conservation easements and so forth. A well designed policy could make your objections inapplicable.

[yawnmaster]

123. Maybe it is best if ownership of money is made illegal. eom

[limpyhobbler]

127. Outstanding idea.

This should start right away.

[HiPointDem]

134. not happening. who will do the taxing when the potential taxees own and fund the potential taxors?