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

[DCal430]

I am beginning to think we need a tax on individuals who hold excessive wealth. Why does someone need to hoard 100+ million dollars. All these people is hoard all of this wealth while countless go without proper food, water, shelter, and medicine. This wouldn't be an income tax, but something in addition, a tax on all of your assets - liabilities over a preset amount. I was thinking 5% a year tax over 1 million and 10% a year tax over 10 million seem like a very fair amounts. You can be forced to liquidate assets to pay for it too. This will stop the excess hoarding of wealth.

 

[werepossum]

Why does someone need personal belongings or private homes or automobiles? Confiscate it all and let everyone live in government housing, ride government mass transportation, wear government-issued clothing, use government-furnished computer centers if they have a legitimate reason to use a computer - not that anyone needs to use a computer outside of work. Just think of all the wonderful things government could do!

Hey, if you're gonna be a bear, be a grizzly. Either we're free individuals entitled to the fruits of our labor, or we aren't. If the latter, why waste a decade confiscating their wealth? They'll just move to Russia.

Gettem' clue - rich people don't "hoard" wealth, they invest it. Businesses are started by raising venture capital or borrowing from banks or even individuals. Allow government to confiscate the "hoarded" wealth and innovation grinds to a halt, to be replaced with government-funded businesses for friends of whomever is in power.

I don't have anything near a million dollars, but your plan is one of the few things that could bring me out in armed rebellion.

 

[schneiderguy]

No.

 

[ivwshane]

No. I'd be perfectly happy if everyone's income regardless of where it came from was taxed the same (not the same rate, just treated the same).

 

[Baptismbyfire]

While I am against excessive tax for the rich, I do believe we should up the estate tax, so the heirs above a certain bracket do not get more than 50% of their parents' wealth.

 

[DCal430]

Oh with this excessive wealth tax, there would be no need for an estate tax, since all wealth will constantly be subject to a yearly tax.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Wealth tax is normally not a good idea. But capital gains and property needs to be taxed higher, specially capitals gain with atleast 3x. The main problem with rich in terms of the economy is their very low spending amount compared to their wealth/income. So their money hoarding becomes destructive for the economy.

 

[Tsavo]

Wealth tax is necessary only to obviate the purchase of power and privilege.

Capital gains tax rate should be based upon your income bracket.

If you are so wealthy that you are subject to a separate wealth tax...all I can say is save the stamp that was on the last letter the IRS sent you, because that's your cut of your capital gains for the year.

 

[Conscript]

Ever hear the saying, don't bite the hand that feeds you? You libs that want everyone else to pay for your programs and entitlements are in for a rude awakening as you demonize the people responsible for the backbone of our economy.

Sent from my Lumia 810 using Board Express

 

[Tsavo]

Ever hear the saying, don't bite the hand that feeds you? You libs that want everyone else to pay for your programs and entitlements are in for a rude awakening as you demonize the people responsible for the backbone of our economy.

Sent from my Lumia 810 using Board Express

...except that the very wealthy feed no one but themselves.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ever hear the saying, don't bite the hand that feeds you? You libs that want everyone else to pay for your programs and entitlements are in for a rude awakening as you demonize the people responsible for the backbone of our economy.

Sent from my Lumia 810 using Board Express

We aint talking about taxing the middleclass here.

 

[Conscript]

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

 

[boxleitnerb]

Wealth != wealth.

You would have to differentiate between earned wealth, for example from successfully building a company, and wealth that stems from an inheritance that you increased speculating at the stock exchange.

I think a wealth tax is a bad idea. Rather tax "earnings" from stock deals, inheritances etc. because these are the sources where the money comes from and where the beneficiaries didn't do anything themselves or contributed anything to society. Money earned through honest work, be it a truck driver or CEO should be taxed equally.

Why that CEO earns 1000x the wage of the lowest employes in his company while firing 25% of the staff and taking subsidies from the tax payer that he will never pay back is another question that needs to be addressed separately.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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

I dont think there is a large potion of Ph.D people that sits in the top bracket.

 

[1prophet]

We aint talking about taxing the middleclass here.

But it always ends up that way because the rich write the laws through their bought and paid for legislatures,

while the politicians play the get the rich card the laws are crafted in such a way that the rich can exploit the loopholes the middle class ends up holding the tax bag.

 

[ShintaiDK]

But it always ends up that way because the rich write the laws through their bought and paid for legislatures,

while the politicians play the get the rich card the laws are crafted in such a way that the rich can exploit the loopholes the middle class ends up holding the tax bag.

The rich dont have that many votes last time I checked. So just vote on someone else and actually get average joes into the politics, rather than another political family dynasty.

 

[Murloc]

People who lead a luxury life spend much more on VAT than normal people because they spend more. Just increase the VAT and remove linear taxes (like the bureaucratic fixed fees, those hurt everyone equally in absolute values but relatively they hit poor people much more).
Easier to pass politically because you're not stealing anyone's hard-earned patrimony.

 

[ShintaiDK]

People who lead a luxury life spend much more on VAT than normal people because they spend more. Just increase the VAT and remove linear taxes (like the bureaucratic fixed fees, those hurt everyone equally in absolute values but relatively they hit poor people much more).
Easier to pass politically because you're not stealing anyone's hard-earned patrimony.

A consumption based tax wont work. It would also hit the middleclass and lower higher. The issue is the rich do not really spend much compared to their income.

 

[michal1980]

lol liberals now will claim there not socialists/ communists.

 

[ShintaiDK]

lol liberals now will claim there not socialists/ communists.

I dont think you know what either liberal, socialist or communist means.

Terms can also be mixed. Try lookup social liberalism for example.

 

[michal1980]

I dont think you know what either liberal, socialist or communist means.

Terms can also be mixed. Try lookup social liberalism for example.

I think I do. The problem is that defenders of communist/socialist want to muddy the waters because they know if the truth of their positions came out their support would wane.

It starts with questions like 'excessive wealth' and people start taking excessive wealth. To do what with that wealth? hand it out to the others. hmmm whats this sound like.

Next step start taking the evil rich companies away, why? profits are bad, they 'steal' the work/labor from the poor. Its better if the government runs the companies. (look at all the liberals calling for nationalizing health care). etc etc. The left will only be happy if they control who has money, who doesn't, and what profits are.

 

[yhelothar]

Ever hear the saying, don't bite the hand that feeds you? You libs that want everyone else to pay for your programs and entitlements are in for a rude awakening as you demonize the people responsible for the backbone of our economy.

Sent from my Lumia 810 using Board Express

It's irritating when ideology is argued without any regard to the actual facts.

The facts show that the whole notion of trickle down wealth with supply side economics is bullshit. It's astonishing how the republicans still parrot this failed economics.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

I think I do. The problem is that defenders of communist/socialist want to muddy the waters because they know if the truth of their positions came out their support would wane.

It starts with questions like 'excessive wealth' and people start taking excessive wealth. To do what with that wealth? hand it out to the others. hmmm whats this sound like.

Next step start taking the evil rich companies away, why? profits are bad, they 'steal' the work/labor from the poor. Its better if the government runs the companies. (look at all the liberals calling for nationalizing health care). etc etc. The left will only be happy if they control who has money, who doesn't, and what profits are.

Dude, I understand your concern, but the world is not so black or white. There are degrees in the middle between 100% regulation and 100% no regulation.

And there is a reason why ShintaiDK asked you to look up the terms.

The liberalism you are thinking of is the so called revised liberalism that supports more government intervention under the belief that some degree of economic equality is necessary to ensure liberty in other spheres, but there is also classical liberalism, which advocates a very hands-off policy. That's why the political/economic idea popular today is called neoliberalism.

 

[Zivic]

While I am against excessive tax for the rich, I do believe we should up the estate tax, so the heirs above a certain bracket do not get more than 50% of their parents' wealth.

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

 

[conehead433]

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

This