Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:56:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: Should there be a wealth tax of 100% for net worth over $1 billion?  (Read 1625 times)
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 02, 2021, 06:32:06 PM »

Some say there shouldn't be any billionaires. This seems like it would ensure that. Would this be better than the status quo?
Logged
ultraviolet
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,947
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.45, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2021, 07:45:37 PM »

This seems like the kind of poll that would have both options be yes
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2021, 11:48:53 PM »

No, there should never be any kind of wealth tax. Policy should be wealth-expanding so that more people can become billionaires in real terms; this seems to contradict the basic point of government.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2021, 09:36:59 AM »

There should be a wealth tax but not 100%.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2021, 10:07:12 AM »

We already have what is in effect a wealth tax, namely, the estate tax. An annual wealth tax would be a mistake, but estate tax rates could be higher, and capital gains taxes from resetting basis should be imposed.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,616


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2021, 02:58:18 PM »

No. Billionaires would simply choose not to live in a country with income caps.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2021, 04:14:10 PM »

Yes
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2021, 10:39:42 AM »

No. The purpose of a tax code is to collect revenue, not to punish people for being successful.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2021, 05:38:59 PM »

This isn't exactly my most bona fide leftist position, but it's not really "billionaires" that I inherently have a problem with.

Billionaires, or even the centi-billionaires as the richest subset among them, are really just a symptom of the economic system of a society which has gutted protections for the working-class, introduced austerity at every measure, drastically lowered the bargaining power of labor, and have stripped away the general affordability and attainability of most basic elements of life, such as one's education, living expenses and homeownership, transport, etc., coupled with wages that are so stagnant while the growth of the highest quartiles continues to grow at hitherto unheard of rates.

"Billionaires" only become to be seen as "the evil" due to the gross malapportionment of wealth. In reality, they are only the beneficiaries of the evil, and the workers the losers. But as the old saying goes: don't hate the player, hate the game. Billionaires wouldn't really be a problem at all if everyone had a floor of security in our society. During the Keynesian period, when the industrial working class probably had it the best at any time in history, the vast majority of working persons were able to, if they desired, enter a collective-bargaining agreement. If you look at the average wages/incomes for various trades in the year 1970 (prior to the neoliberal assault), you can see that, adjusting for inflation, the common laborer in construction was earning $75k a year on average (i.e., twice the average income of today), whereas the average price of a house was less than half what it is today. Simply put, no one today has even a fraction of the resources available to them that the earlier generation did, despite far higher rates of college graduation and the highest worker productivity levels we've ever seen.

Besides, the cut off at a billion seems incredibly arbitrary to me. Is someone allowed to attain a net worth of $999,999,999.99 but can't earn another penny after that? What is the point of that, exactly? As we have seen, it doesn't address the root problems of income inequality at all. And it would only further have the effect of causing would-be billionaires to invest their fortunes abroad in offshore tax havens, and prevent any further innovation on their part. Seems entirely pointless to me.
Logged
Pink Panther
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2021, 08:45:15 PM »

No, absolutely not. This would destroy morale for any up-and-coming entrepreneur/business leaders, causing them not to reach their full potential and not work as hard. Even though the American Dream has it's flaws, it inspires the populace to work their hardest, as this would evaporate. As a result, our society wouldn't be as successful as we could be.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2021, 03:40:43 PM »

Horrible idea.  It would just cause billionaires to move elsewhere thus making government poorer.  Yes billionaires should be taxed more than middle class, I don't agree with Warren Buffet's case where he pays a lower rate than his secretary, but not at 100%.  Another problem with this is determining net wealth is not as easy as some think so no doubt many would use various accounting tricks or perhaps split wealth amongst family to avoid this.  Also billionaires don't actually have a billion dollars on hand, that is their net worth.  Many are large shareholders of big companies and so something like this would cause those stocks to tank and would hurt many middle class.  Many many class people fund their retirement through investments in stock market and most workplace pensions invest heavily in stock market so it wouldn't just hurt billionaires, but ruin retirement savings for many middle class people.

Wealth taxes don't really work.  If concerned, perhaps raise inheritance tax or you could raise top marginal rate too.  That being said with top marginal rate real problem is not rate, but more number of deductions.  If you get rid of a lot of the deductions that primarily favor the wealthy, you could actually lower the top marginal rate and still receive more revenue.  In 1986 tax reform when top rate was dropped from 50% to 28%, no revenue was lost for simple reason most wealthy were only paying around 28% anyways and all that happened is many deductions they could use before were eliminated in exchange for lower rate. 
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2021, 09:56:37 PM »

Interesting that 20% of Atlas supports this. I'm not too surprised.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2021, 07:11:01 PM »

No, absolutely not. This would destroy morale for any up-and-coming entrepreneur/business leaders, causing them not to reach their full potential and not work as hard. Even though the American Dream has it's flaws, it inspires the populace to work their hardest, as this would evaporate. As a result, our society wouldn't be as successful as we could be.
How many entrepreneurs are there who would pass up the chance to earn $999 million because they could not stack another few hundred million on top of it? Since when has "being a literal billionaire" been synonymous with the American dream?

More it would stop companies from growing too large or those at $999 million would sell shares thus losing influence and control of company to stay under that.  If company is worth $10 billion and you have 9% of shares, that will be a strong incentive to other reduce shareholding or not grow it further to avoid getting hit by tax.
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2021, 07:29:50 PM »

No, it should be 90%
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2021, 08:41:23 AM »

The most common wealth tax in the US is the property tax. Assessors will tell you that coming up with a consistent valuation isn't easy, and like any part of the tax code there are plenty of loopholes. Because valuation of a fixed asset is harder than valuation of actual income the loopholes for property taxes can be exploited in ways that income-based loopholes cannot. Some units of government have personal property taxes to extend wealth taxes beyond real estate. Assessing these non-real estate properties are often quite difficult and IL abolished their personal property tax years ago in favor of an overlay to the corporate income tax.

The cleanest way to value assets that comprise wealth is in a fair market sale. Capital gains is based on that, but if the basis is the purchase price then part of the tax is coming from the increased value from inflation. A tax on sales or income doesn't have that factor. If the goal is to create a better capital gains tax on wealth then the basis should be adjusted for inflation and the rates raised to match other income.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2021, 10:53:55 PM »

Confiscatory taxes would likely create a disincentive to work and ultimately cause economic harm. However, by having a strong regular tax system, you can limit how much obscene wealth goes to a small elite without hurting the economy. The tax cuts over the last few decades haven't produced much economic benefit and aren't worth the increased inequality and lost revenue.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2021, 01:34:28 PM »

There should be a wealth tax but not 100%.

This but I wouldn’t be particularly empathetic to billionaires in the event that it was 100%. They won’t starve to death or go homeless.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2021, 07:52:47 AM »

Um, no.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2021, 11:50:37 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2021, 11:54:49 PM by Velasco »

Some say there shouldn't be any billionaires. This seems like it would ensure that. Would this be better than the status quo?

It seems to me a 100% wealth tax is a bit dumb, when there exists a more obvious alternative known as expropriation. In case your intention is not to expropriate or confiscate, but rather ensure there are no billionaires, you should implement a special wealth tax designed for that purpose with a rate below 100%. I guess the rate should be variable, depending on the wealth of every billionaire
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,661
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2021, 04:53:47 AM »
« Edited: May 12, 2021, 04:58:55 AM by Meclazine »

Who cares how much someone else has in the bank?

I prefer billionaires like Elon Musk as they add to society. Success breeds success.

You need these people to drive innovation.

In Perth, we have a suburb called Fremantle which is reasonably up market, but the CBD of Fremantle is over run with free loaders and drugs and left wing freedom warriors. It's turning into a mini-Seattle tent city. It attracts a level of hopelessness with people's outlook. You can smell it.

It's lazy, it's dangerous at night. All the shop owners have left and the place has a really dead feeling during work hours.

Without capitalism, you just end up looking like a mixture of Poland and Venezuela.

These billionaires help guide social change. They invest and create new business.

The left wing ideal is great written on a forum, but outside Norway and Sweden, it does not yield satisfactory results.

I don't want Perth turning into a methy version of Seattle

Billionaires should be taxed less and asked to fix some of these social issues using their success.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.