• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should we tax excessive wealth, and if so how much?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,406
36
91
why?

it's their money to do with as they please. Leaving it for their heirs is their right. Why does the govt have ANY claim to that money. it has likely been taxes more times than you have fingers by the time it comes to the point of being inherited. taxing estates is a HUGE slap in the face to the deceased
Why? Because someone needs to pay for the government programs and the military spending. Do you believe there should be flat tax, or do you think it's more reasonable that those who have the ability to pay should pay more?

Interestingly, prior to Regan and his supply side economics and deficit spending, the budget was balanced. Since, the national debt has skyrocketed all while the rich has been paying historically low taxes.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,574
5
81
why?

it's their money to do with as they please. Leaving it for their heirs is their right. Why does the govt have ANY claim to that money. it has likely been taxes more times than you have fingers by the time it comes to the point of being inherited. taxing estates is a HUGE slap in the face to the deceased
Because you cannot have it both ways; either taxes should be paid when income/money is earned or is given to the holder, or when it gets distributed to any beneficiaries.

And I'm fairly sure there are ways to put in money tax-free into estates/trusts. At least one benefit of estate taxes is to give family owned businesses an incentive not to sell, otherwise heirs could just take a payout and run.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,395
128
106
Because you cannot have it both ways; either taxes should be paid when income/money is earned or is given to the holder, or when it gets distributed to any beneficiaries.

And I'm fairly sure there are ways to put in money tax-free into estates/trusts. At least one benefit of estate taxes is to give family owned businesses an incentive not to sell, otherwise heirs could just take a payout and run.
Its quite normal to have both taxes around the world. So I assume we are only discussing the size.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
I don't believe taxing wealth is EVER right. Tax should only be on income or consumption.

In Texas you can be taxed out of your home, because this is a high tax state that believes in taxing wealth.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,574
5
81
Its quite normal to have both taxes around the world. So I assume we are only discussing the size.
The US didn't have an income tax for a long time.

The other thing worth mentioning at this time is that an estate/inheritance tax is a progressive way to limit wealth inequality. If a person wants to pass wealth onto his heirs, that's their wish, but excessive inherited wealth is a disincentive for long-term prosperity. I happen to agree with Warren Buffett on that.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,395
128
106
The US didn't have an income tax for a long time.

The other thing worth mentioning at this time is that an estate/inheritance tax is a progressive way to limit wealth inequality. If a person wants to pass wealth onto his heirs, that's their wish, but excessive inherited wealth is a disincentive for long-term prosperity. I happen to agree with Warren Buffett on that.
I think Buffet knows its starting to resemble aristocracy. You are born into your position in life, rather than something you earn and qualify for.

This is also a quote of his I assume:

“When you have someone who made four and a half billion pay fifteen percent, and because it’s a hedge fund, I have a problem with that.”
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
Eh, that kind of policy would be incredibly destructive.

Just tax cap gains and divi's the same as the marginal rate past a certain threshold.

That way Romney pays 39.6 (minus charitable givings, ect) on his 10's of millions of income rather than 15%.

Where the truely wealthy ultimately benefit is from growing their hoard and only paying cap gains (now 23.8%) while the guy working from the sweat of his brow pays a marginal tax rate that in many cases is higher.

What would work better is to lower marginal tax rates, top rate 30% and middle class at <18% (up to 100k single 150k couple), under 50k should be <10%, and then tax all income the same marginal rate while throwing the middle and lower classes a bone by hitting cap gains at 10% up to the first 100k(50k?) of gains and zero tax on divis to 100k (50k?). This would advantage the middle class instead of what we have now which is STILL a tax structure that hugely benefits the ultra wealthy.

The big stupid thing nobody pointed out was that the 39.6% rate instituted on income above 400k is going to completely miss the income above 1 million for many and it will CERTAINLY miss the wealthy who make 10's of millions a year on investments. Dumb libs so itchy to penalize success that they fall over themselves doing so while missing the broader picture.
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I don't believe taxing wealth is EVER right. Tax should only be on income or consumption.

In Texas you can be taxed out of your home, because this is a high tax state that believes in taxing wealth.
Texas has one of the lowest tax burdens, there's no state income tax. My personal property tax in Richmond is lower than what I paid in Suffolk, Virginia. I only pay personal property tax on my home/property and my vehicles are not taxed as personal property annually.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/28/state-taxes-states-highest-lowest/1654071/
 

Baptismbyfire

Senior member
Oct 7, 2010
330
0
0
why?

it's their money to do with as they please. Leaving it for their heirs is their right. Why does the govt have ANY claim to that money. it has likely been taxes more times than you have fingers by the time it comes to the point of being inherited. taxing estates is a HUGE slap in the face to the deceased
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. How far does the government have to go to protect the right of the individual when the said individual is deceased and his wealth can be a greater good to society if a great portion of it is used to fund social programs, instead of being spent by trust-fund kids.

That is why I said about 50% because I think it is a way of respecting both the wishes of the deceased, and at the same time serving the public interest.

Since people are so protective of tax on capital gains and income, I think this is a fair compromise, and will encourage younger generations to seek new ventures and create a name for themselves through hard work and persistence.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
OP what makes you or anyone else think they have a right to someone elses money? You dont and wealth redistribution is wrong

Shame on you for suggesting this shameful act of tyranny.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,592
2
81
who the fuck gets to decide what excessive wealth is? "you have an ipad 4 and I only have an ipad 2, therefore you have excessive wealth buddy AND I DEMAND YOU GIVE ME 75% OF YOUR IPAD, IT IS ONLY FAIR".....
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,861
1
81
No. Wealth tax is a terrible plan.

Fix the taxation of investment income. Maintain progressive tax brackets. Set a threshold for estate taxes, index to inflation and forget about it.

That's all.
 

Chris A

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,431
1
76
Inheritance taxes would destroy family farms. Family business, so much more. Many farms are now run by big companies already due to regulation and taxes.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,384
5,384
126
Even if that were true, rather that a poor generalization to elicit emotion support from people with zero macroeconomic education...even then...you forget why the US still attracts some of the best and brightest from around the world to bring their contributions here...hint, it ain't to bust their ass to disproportionately fund our government, and those angry little people who'd rather opine about how things should be, rather than earning it themselves.

Sent from my Lumia 810 using Board Express
nearly no one has a decent macroeconomic education, wealthy people included.

as for disproportionate, the people with 73% of the stuff only pay 48% of the taxes. people with the other 27% pay 52% of the taxes. who is disproportionately funding the government? oh, that's right, average people.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I have seen some articles on people who own 1 Million + Acres of land. I think this is a bit too much. It is like they are single handedly causing scarcity of land.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
that's only federal personal income taxes. there's a whole shit ton more taxes out there than just federal personal income taxes. further, i said 'stuff,' not income.
we don't tax stuff. taxing stuff in general is stupid. I already paid taxes on my income to get the stuff, why should I continue to pay taxes because I own something.


Oh right, its that communist/socialist thinking infecting your mind that you'll be in denial of.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,395
128
106
we don't tax stuff. taxing stuff in general is stupid. I already paid taxes on my income to get the stuff, why should I continue to pay taxes because I own something.


Oh right, its that communist/socialist thinking infecting your mind that you'll be in denial of.
You still havent seem to figured out what socialist or even communist means.

Also taxing consumption or certain consumption can be a quite effective method in getting people to change behaviour instead of using other forms of restriction. Taxing consumption is no different than subsidizing consumption. Something very widespread in the US.

A good example on how lack of taxing consumption hurts a country, consumers and companies is simply to look on the US energy usage.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY