http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027580511 Tue Feb 2, 2016, 02:50 PM
Mudcat (90 posts)
If the US has $225 trillion in assets, why not tax assets instead of incomes?
Just wondering, and apologies if this is question belongs elsewhere.
It seems illogical to tax incomes and payroll on folks who don't have much in the way of assets (if they have any at all!) while folks who own the vast of majority of assets get to hire accountants, lawyers, lobbyists, and so forth to create ways to dodge funding programs that basically protect and enhance the value of those assets. So, just curious what other DUers have to say on this topic.
I bet the first time some one levied a tax on your computer,phone etc you would scream bloody murder.
Then again I know that,as always,you mean this as a tax for others to pay.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 02:51 PM
KamaAina (71,176 posts)
1. How would you keep the assets from swimming to the Cayman Islands overnight?
Why leftism always needs a version of a Berlin wall.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 02:59 PM
PeoViejo (1,761 posts)
3. Tax Churches on property not directly related to religious activity.
..and probably retire the National Debt.
Response to PeoViejo (Reply #3)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:47 PM
Star Member 2naSalit (10,350 posts)
11. Just tax them already...
it will help bring them into the 21st century and maybe it will also keep them from getting so uppity and able to convince the minions to do stupid and illegal sh*t.
NU teaches the DUmp geniuses how much foresight the founding fathers has.
Response to 2naSalit (Reply #11)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 04:41 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (17,906 posts)
14. The fact you would tax churches to force them to your political will is why churches are exempt.
Some back and forth then Bluenorthwest jumps in.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)
Wed Feb 3, 2016, 07:11 AM
Bluenorthwest (40,151 posts)
53. Your first point is absurdly privileged, the government constantly imposes it's own morality on
others, you don't notice because you are a straight religious person.
Is this person queer or something?
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:01 PM
Vinca (26,462 posts)
4. Assets are already taxed.
I cringe when I get the property tax bill twice a year and every time we go to register the cars it's an extra few hundred bucks in taxes. If I was smart I'd call it all a church and pay zero taxes.
Rolex Randy Shaw says a good liberal should be happy to pay 51% of their income.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:01 PM
TexasMommaWithAHat (2,136 posts)
5. At one time, it could be claimed that taxing assets would be unfair
Since year after year of taxation would result in no assets.
However, things being as they are, I do believe that in addition to other taxes, assets over "x" amount should be taxed at a very low rate just to make the damn point that people can't hoard all the wealth.
I believe that could be considered a bill of attainder.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:04 PM
Star Member pnwmom (68,450 posts)
6. We do tax gains (profits) on assets -- with the capital gains tax.
We could raise that tax.
And we do tax real estate. But an asset tax would be incredibly difficult to administer. Money would tend to flow to assets that couldn't easily be tracked or taxed. How would we keep track of people's jewelry, gold, silver, antiques, artwork, etc.?
Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:35 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
9. Actually
We don't.
The annual increase in value of a stock portfolio is NOT TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS unless the stock is sold during the tax year. It is what some call unrealized capital gains and it is not taxed at all. This is significant because the the vast majority of this increased wealth is held by the .1% AND because it amounts to something in the area of 7 trillion dollars each year.
Fancy that, the top .1% getting richer by $7 trillion every year and not paying one cent of tax.
Response to Uponthegears (Reply #9)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:38 PM
Star Member pnwmom (68,450 posts)
10. It isn't a gain to the person unless they sell it, so that makes sense to me. nt
Getting between a leftist and someone elses money is like getting between Bill Clinton and an intern.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #10)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:56 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
12. Interesting
So when you have (in essence) a savings account (i.e., a stock portfolio) with $1 million in it at the start of the year, and $2 million at the end of the year, you haven't gained anything?
hmmmmmmm
(Oh, btw, I used the savings account comparison for a couple of reasons. First, the stock portfolio is the millionaire version of a working person savings account. The second, of course, is that THE GROWTH IN A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IS TAXED AS ORDINARY INCOME.)
Response to Uponthegears (Reply #12)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 06:54 PM
Star Member former9thward (16,290 posts)
29. What about when the stock goes down?
Do we pay them? Or is it just a one way street?
Response to former9thward (Reply #29)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 07:11 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
30. Why would it be
a two way street? Do we pay working men and women for money they lose? Do we pay mom and pop stores when they go broke? Why should the .1% getting special treatment?
Response to former9thward (Reply #32)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 08:10 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
36. No, your rejection
is capitulation to the .1%.
Working people take risks every day. They risk the only capital they have, their ability to labor. When they get hurt, do they get a tax deduction for lost wages.
But nooooooooo their capital doesn't count (even though it is the ONLY true creator of new wealth). In the Randian mind, the only capital which seems to matter is the wealth some .1% has skimmed off the back of a workers.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:10 PM
Star Member SheilaT (20,605 posts)
7. Many assets are taxed one way or another.
Property taxes on real estate, for example. Registration fees for cars.
But as has already been pointed out, if you simply started taxing everyone's assets, after a while no one would have anything. Or you'd have some incredibly intrusive people pawing through all your stuff and assessing it. Grandma's old turquoise ring? Your patio furniture?
I suppose you are simply thinking financial assets. If you don't exempt a pretty hefty sum, people with any sort of retirement account would be hurt. And some people who aren't all that wealthy to begin with, have managed to save a goodly amount of money.
Unearned income probably should be taxed at a higher rate, I grant you that.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #7)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 08:19 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
37. There is about $7 trillion
of new, totally un-taxed wealth generated every single year.
If we taxed new wealth at the point of generation, the threshold could be set very high, where it applied only to the horders and leeches of the .1%.
Grandma's ring wouldn't be taxed.
The family farm wouldn't be taxed.
The corner pharmacy wouldn't be taxed.
The ONLY people who would be taxed would be those who have turned themselves into nobility on the backs of working people.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 06:34 PM
One_Life_To_Give (5,797 posts)
25. Because most of it is not cash
How much do we tax people for having a $350,000 Condo. Since most people have the majority of the wealth tied up in assets like their house and car. Then you have people like Bill Gates for whom their worth is in Stocks which theoretically each share is valued equally. But when he is forced to sell 10% a year we may see the price of it drop precipitously. Lastly don't forget our seniors for whom the only thing other than SocSec is what they have managed to save over their lifetimes.
Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #25)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 08:35 PM
Uponthegears (226 posts)
39. High threshold
cures the concern.
Tax the .1%
For those people, there is no need to sell investments. They have more than enough fixed capital to liquidate.
But here's the best part . . . what would people like, say, a Bill Gates do if this were implemented? Would he continue to rake in wealth he does not need just to turn it over to the government? That is certainly possible, but there is another way he can avoid taxes . . . he can avoid income . . . say he has a company that is generating $20 million a year in profit. If he puts it in his pocket, it goes to the government . . .
BUT
If he instead takes that wealth and pays his workers higher salaries, better benefits (both creating more demand AND distributing wealth to its true creators) and/or expands his businesses, what happens? His taxes go down and economic and social justice go up.
win win
Or he does what a normal limousine leftist does,he becomes a tax exile.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Tue Feb 2, 2016, 06:48 PM
WDIM (1,210 posts)
26. consumption tax
tax the asset at the point of purchase. this tax would effect and the rich and the corporation the most because they consume the most.
Tax should start at raw materials all the way up the production chain. The more you take from the commons the more you pay.
Response to Mudcat (Original post)
Wed Feb 3, 2016, 07:32 AM
Star Member Adrahil (5,625 posts)
58. Taxing wealth has the tendency to discourage savings.
You would have to exempt things or how could people afford to to save for large purchases?
College savings accounts? Retirement accounts? What about a volatile savings account... What would be the balance taxed?
Would be get a million 1099's we have to account for?
Not nuts about this plan.
Stop,you know it is all about having free everything and then just smoking away the rest of life.
****ing useless vermin.
DUmp economics 101,make production cost 100.00 per unit and force it to be sold at 10.00.
