Why not an asset tax?

[LC EFA]

They never fail to disappoint when coming up with new tools for the government to loot the productive, and hopefully redistribute it to their own person.

Onlooker  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-25-09 04:04 PM
Original message
Why not an asset tax?
   
Wouldn't that solve the nation's economic problems. The wealthiest 1% are worth around $17 trillion. A 2% tax on their assets would generate hundreds of billions of dollars, and chances are most people in that class have enough liquid assets to pay such a tax. That 2% tax could pay for Obama's entire stimulus bill in his first term.

What are the arguments against an asset tax? Does anyone ever argue for it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4909363

Generally the people who would argue for such a thing are the ones with no assets and are expecting the windfalls to be redistributed to them

geckosfeet  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sun Jan-25-09 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. How are you going to get them to pay? They will tie it up in court for
   
50 years. They will scream class warfare and cry until they die under their satin sheets.

I like it. A good idea whose time may have come. But I would extend it to everyone having an income over $1mil a year.

Again, the trick is getting them to declare that income, then pay their taxes.

Imagine the face on people like Al Gore and George Soros when you break them the bad news.

SammyWinstonJack  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Sun Jan-25-09 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Given the free ride they've had these past 8 yrs, it's time for them to pony up.
   
I won't hold my breath, though. And $17 trillion? Seriously? Holy crap! :wow:

Speaking of free rides, isn't it time for you to go get your welfare check redistribution check.

sandnsea  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-25-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. They are not in the top 1%
   
You just make it over the first $10 million in assets. But I don't agree with this anyway. Estate taxes is how we deal with excessive wealth and that is just fine.

There is such a thing as excessive wealth ?

Unless you define excessive as "more than $0.01 than anyone else".

Onlooker  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-25-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Only the very rich get taxed
   
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 04:23 PM by Onlooker
But, don't worry about them, if the stock market gets going, they'll do okay and earn far more than the 2% tax.

What are you going to do when you've looted everyone richer than yourself ?

rangersmith82  (220 posts) Sun Jan-25-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. taxed for being successful???
   
How very socialistic of you.....

Take from the rich and give to the poor....

Sorry I don't like it one bit.

What is considered rich???

Maybe if it only applied to people with over 100 million dollars in assets???

They need to pay for being so successful you know...

Every American should pay a flat rate tax, thats the only way to be fair.

220 posts. Don't expect your stay at the DU to be plesant or extended.

Taverner  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Sun Jan-25-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. Awesome. Especially if you are only taxed on the part of the asset you *own*
   
Like say its a house - if its all paid off, you pay 100% of the asset tax

If you have only paid off 10%, you only pay of 10% of said asset tax AND THE BANK PAYS THE REST

Good luck getting a loan under those conditions dumbass.

Silver Swan  Donating Member  (391 posts) Sun Jan-25-09 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
38. I am in no way rich
   
but I pay property tax each year that is over 2% of my assets.

If you want to tax the real rich, make it much higher.

Who will you declare to be the "real rich".. Those with $0.01 more than you, Those with $10M more than you ? Will this scale slide as the number of "real rich" people decreaces ?

[Carl]

Convenient that they always set the threshold level above where it could possibly affect them.

There is just something inherently evil about trying to confiscate anything from someone else to give it to someone that has done nothing to earn or deserve it.

[jtyangel]

So then only the 'poor' truly have ownership of anything then is that it? The 'rich' are perpetually taxed and never truly own anything? These people are just vile. Really...I'm not 'rich' by any stretch, but I have enough personal ethics that tell me this is a vile suggestion to make someone pay rent on something they basically have already bought in the interest of giving it to the 'poor' who actually get to have ownership in things they then spend that 'rent' money on. Who raised that brigade over there?

[Chris_]

We already have an "asset tax" - it's called "sales tax". We pay it at the point of purchase.
Except for your real estate, which we have an annual "asset tax" on that too called "property taxes".

[USA4ME]

They waste a lot of time discussing things that are never going to happen.

.

[TheSarge]

We already have an "asset tax" - it's called "sales tax". We pay it at the point of purchase.
Except for your real estate, which we have an annual "asset tax" on that too called "property taxes".

Kay you've got to understand you're dealing with a bunch of people that barely comprehend basic math much less complicated things like sales tax.

And it reveals their petty jealously as well as their gotcha mentality...the DUmmies don't think it's fair that people have "assets"...especially since THEY don't... so they think the people that do have them should be taxed to make it fair for under achievers like the DUmmies.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

How would that even work?

Do they tax savings? Do they tax money reinvested? Tangible assets only? What will that do to savings and investments except diminish the amount companies and banks can use? Are their heads wrapped in plastic bags or something?

[Flame]

How would that even work?

Do they tax savings? Do they tax money reinvested? Tangible assets only? What will that do to savings and investments except diminish the amount companies and banks can use? Are their heads wrapped in plastic bags or something?

Yes.


They don't care what is taxed, or how it's done, as long as its others paying the taxes.

And their heads SHOULD be wrapped in plastic bags if they aren't already.

[jukin]

If one has a rental house and is taxed on it will not one just pass that on to the renters?

I would.

If one has a commercial property and is taxed on it will not one just pass that on to the corporate/business renters?

Would not that corporate/business renter then increase their prices to compensate?

I would.

How does this help the lazy person?

[TheSarge]

If one has a rental house and is taxed on it will not one just pass that on to the renters?

I would.

If one has a commercial property and is taxed on it will not one just pass that on to the corporate/business renters?
Would not that corporate/business renter then increase their prices to compensate?

I would.

How does this help the lazy person?

I could see this bunch passing regulations to make that illegal...and force businesses to operate at a loss for the "benefit of the people".

[Karin]

The sheer ignorance is mind-boggling.  They have no idea how our entire financial system works, from capital markets to credit markets, everything.  "Don't worry, once the stock market gets going, they'll make enough to pay the tax."   Oh. My. God. 

They could learn a lot just by setting up a lemonade stand for a day. 

Jukin, these people are certainly renters.  I'm a landlady, and you can believe that I would pass anything stupid like this directly to the renters.  They need to be careful of what they wish for, I guess. 

[Karin]

OK, Txradioguy, I would just throw everybody out on their ear.  Good luck finding a place to stay, moonbats. 

[TheSarge]

OK, Txradioguy, I would just throw everybody out on their ear.  Good luck finding a place to stay, moonbats. 

Two things would happen...and I'm of course hypothizing...you'd get sued because of someone's percieved "right" to have you provide them housing...or again more legislation would be passed preventing you from tossing these people out.

It might seemed far fetched to some...but I wouldn't put it past this congress.

Universal healthcare is merely the proverbial camels nose under the tent flap.

Next will be universal housing...groceries....etc etc

[Wretched Excess]

as long as we are being ridiculous, what about an ass tax?  or taxing people by their shoe size;  by their carpet footprint, so to speak?  or taxing people alphabetically?




 . . . or taxing them according to the amount of government services they consume?    

[Carl]

Two things would happen...and I'm of course hypothizing...you'd get sued because of someone's percieved "right" to have you provide them housing...or again more legislation would be passed preventing you from tossing these people out.

It might seemed far fetched to some...but I wouldn't put it past this congress.

Universal healthcare is merely the proverbial camels nose under the tent flap.

Next will be universal housing...groceries....etc etc

BINGO

Of course what the fools don`t realize is that they won`t have every thing they dream of but rather everyone will have nothing.

Like the USSR was for the most part.

[BlueStateSaint]

. . . or taxing them according to the amount of government services they consume?    

I like that idea.  The DUmb****s would be anti-tax in nanoseconds.

[Wretched Excess]

I like that idea.  The DUmb****s would be anti-tax in nanoseconds.

it works in the private sector.

[Tantal]

You must be required to flunk math to be a liberal.

2% of 17 trillion is 340 billion, less than half of what the bamster wants to spend in his first term.

You don't think this DUmmie means for this to be a one-time deal do you? I'm pretty sure they're talking 2% YEARLY. Over the Messiah's first term, this would come to 1.36 trillion. If they get some free shit out of it one time, don't think for a second that they won't come back to the well again.

[LC EFA]

You don't think this DUmmie means for this to be a one-time deal do you? I'm pretty sure they're talking 2% YEARLY. Over the Messiah's first term, this would come to 1.36 trillion. If they get some free shit out of it one time, don't think for a second that they won't come back to the well again.

That is exactly what they mean. Every year, the "rich" (which is a negotiable term btw) willingly submit their documents to the government, and the government demands 2% of the figure derived.

It's economic suicide.

[BlueStateSaint]

That is exactly what they mean. Every year, the "rich" (which is a negotiable term btw) willingly submit their documents to the government, and the government demands 2% of the figure derived.

It's economic suicide.

You can bet that the percentage of "the rich" in proportion to the 100% of the whole population will grow by leaps and bounds, every year.

[Chris_]

Can we just call it the A$$hat tax?

[crockspot]

It's like watching retards try to play Jenga and masturbate at the same time.

(credit to a CUer, I can't recall who, for that line.)

[Redstatecka]

Convenient that they always set the threshold level above where it could possibly affect them.

There is just something inherently evil about trying to confiscate anything from someone else to give it to someone that has done nothing to earn or deserve it.

The Democrats, liberals and leftists are not just the anti-American and anti-freedom and anti-capitalism coalition, as well as what constitutes the death party (re: abortion), but they are the party of jealousy, resentment and class warfare.

Not being in the top earners, I wouldn't mind learning of what that experience would be.

But I do not begrudge them that, unless they've earned it illegally, especially through illicit drugs or drug-trafficking and unfair advantages.

And I hope that they have to pay a fair tax burden as the rest of us.

But to penalize them for success?

Only the Democrats, liberals and leftists would be so ignorant and stupid to do that.

Clearly, they do not understand negative incentives. To wit: Higher capital gains taxes and, now, this assets-tax proposal simply drive those with such assets to recast or restructure them in ways that removes those assets'  positive impact on our economy.

How is it possible that so many people in America do not see that the Democrats, liberals and leftists represent the socialism-ization and Marxist-ization of our country?

Do they not understand that when everyone is reduced to a common denominator, especially through jealoousy and spite, that they lose? Rhetorical question.

Actually, an answer: The dumbing-down of America, including the lack of teaching about American history, capitalism, econoimics and basic civics, leads to such ignorance.

But ignorance can be cured? Yes, if desired.

But there's none, though, for stupidity. SEE: Democrats, liberals and leftists.

[Chris_]

I doubt Ted Turner, who is the LARGEST PRIVATE LANDOWNER in the US (and, thus, the world) would like his millions of acres taxed...

[Wineslob]

Re: Why not an ass tax?

Damn good idea. The DUmp could make BILLIONS for the country.