Howdy folks,
I disagree with a punitive tax on the wealthy. Their tax rate is already sufficiently high. It's not their tax rate, it's their incident of taxation (i.e. how much they really pay) which is the problem.
So, as a modest proposal, why not eliminate all deductions for income over $1,000,000 and tax it at a flat 15% - pay at the window.
Hell, for that matter, why not eliminate all deductions for every man, woman, child and corporation and have everyone pay 15%. 15% tax on all forms of income. No deductions. And give everyone a one time exemption of $25,000. That would mean that a family of four wouldn't state paying tax until $100K.
early Saturday morning and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/09/americas-billionaires-take-center-stage-national-politics-colliding-with-populist-democrats/
tax. Much less onerous and disruptive to the taxees, and probably would raise more revenue over their lifetimes.
You stated: "the complete elimination of the inheritance."
What about a circumstance, such as a generational family farm or other family business? Might one suppose other tax codes would allow the next generation to inherit the farm without going into massive debt or actually having to sell the farm operation?
What say you?
Thank you.
Catch
@LewisBraham Remember, under the annual wealth tax system I am proposing, society would be constantly calling that wealth back in. We could raise the rate if you think that would be better. How about 4%.......or 6% ?
Why is the current system of a Draconian tax rate imposed at death better, in your opinion?
The "draconian" estate tax affects less than 0.1% of the population and allows for an $11 million exemption from the tax per person: https://cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-the-federal-estate-tax It is by no means draconian in any shape or form.
Moreover, it is a philosophical problem in a nation that ostensibly believes in "personal repsonsibility" and being "self-made" to allow children who've done no work at all for the money they receive to inherit wealth in perpetuity. It also will lead to the death of our democracy as it creates an entrenched power base that never changes. And let's be honest, money always matters more in the U.S. than votes. Letting Jeff Bezos' and the Kochs' heirs run the nation forever is a bad idea. We fought a Revolutionary War to put an end to the notion of royalty and inherited titles. We don't need to allow it here today.
Anyway, accepting the premise that we want to pull truly obscene wealth back away from individuals for the good of society: Wouldn't it make more sense to do it on an annual basis at whatever rate is deemed appropriate as opposed to a very large tax upon death?
@LewisBraham I accept that the effective rate is usually far less than the marginal rate, but for someone like Bezos, the true effective rate would be quite close to the marginal rate.
I don't have that much of a problem with the inheritance tax or any other marginal tax rates SO LONG THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE. They must be or you'll stifle innovation, etc.
I still see the problem is with the incidence of taxation (and Trump's tax cuts). Not enough revenue, debt going insane . . . rono does not like it. No he doesn't.
So I'll stick with 15% for all forms of income and a $25K personal exemption.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Here is one article on the subject:https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/higher-taxes-rich-wont-suffocate-innovation/580642/
I'm good with the inheritance taxes but feel the 'exemption' should be somewhere between $1M-5M. Above that, tax it for sure, but again, don't go overboard. Damnit, the gov't always overshoots - both parties, etc. Hell, look at California and pot. They got so damn greedy for tax revenues, that they made the red tape and fees so large, the black market is still thriving and decimating their projected revenues. Idiots.
And that's what I fear most with all this talk about wealth taxes. Idiots will overshoot.
That said, the very rich are going to have to start paying their fair share or they are going to have to die. All of them. Sorry but that's a fact.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Derf
And lest we forget, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix came from humbler backgrounds. And how many more geniuses would we have if we taxed the wealthiest appropriately and used the revenues to educate and foster students from poor backgrounds?
https://famousscientists.org/scientists-harsh-begin/
I'm thinking a good number of the most wealthly would be shielded from this tax through the use of a trust. In this way, they really don't own the assets but recieve benefit from them as beneficiary of the trust.
I've never heard Elizabeth Warren (and others) say that they would tax the wealthy along with their trust funds, etc.
I'm for a flat tax (or even a step tax) with no deductions, writedowns or writeoffs allowed. All trust would be taxed the same with a flat tax.
In this way everybody pays the same. Those that make more pay more including their trust. I'm not for taxing pent up wealth in the form of an income or wealth tax as Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders purpose as real estate is already taxed and unrealized capital gains usually get tax at the time the asset is sold.
It is pretty simple some politicians want to increase taxation so they can expand Federal governemnt social programs thus moving the Country more towards a socalist republic.
social program expansion would be good for all, though; higher taxes would be good for all, also; you need to read the literature on this.
as for your socialist republic,
... what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/trump-socialism-state-of-the-union.html
but I suspect you know this in your heart and are just trollling.
I have no objection to a "wealth tax" that starts at a reasonable level, which may be difficult to define, but I agree that there's little evidence that higher taxes stifle invention and ingenuity. Thomas Edison is remembered far more for his inventions than he is for Con Ed, and Steve Jobs will be remembered for the I pod and I phone, not just for Apple, regardless of how much tax his heirs pay.
When we have an increasing deficit in the face of high employment and a stable economy, there is little doubt that the deficit will bloom during a recession. We really need to raise taxes when times are (relatively) good). I felt the best about the US when the deficit was actually decreasing during Clinton's second term, and I never voted for him, so I assumed the Republican Congress was responsible, but that was OK with me.
Then Bush gets, elected, cuts taxes, takes the Iran war off the books, and we now seem to be living on Chinese largesse, as they and others buy our bonds. (While I think we must protect our intellectual property, I'm not sure antagonizing the Chinese government in other areas is wise.)
I'm seriously concerned that the oligarchs are already in power and that the rest of us are not their concern.
Perhaps the horse is out of the barn (boy, that's a comment from a distant time), but we need to try to provide rational voices amid this time of division.