What is it about the idea of a multimillionaire having to pay a tiny percent of their wealth (that is probably growing at a rate of 7%) that people see as unfair, yet they see no problem taking away 15% of the paycheck of a janitor cleaning the floors, or charging a single mom 7% of the amount she's paying for diapers?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607446)

repeal regressive use taxes and add a wealth tax.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609492)

Some countries have like a 0.5% wealth tax, which is an amount that I think almost all people wouldn't find worth the risk of evading.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607466)

"But what about lockup periods and vesting?!"

They would negotiate different agreements. They'd take out loans secured by their stock. Whatever. This is hardly an impossible dilemma.

And I have never heard anyone propose exempting privately held shares.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607850)

Private shares won’t be exempted, but you won't know what they’re worth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607882)

And what can be done is relevant when you're making an argument based on pragmatic considerations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607945)

the end game for most startups these days isn't IPO but to be bought by google/fb/etc.

there's an article about it https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/private-inequity/570808/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609375)

the wealth tax ALREADY EXISTS for real property.

and stock is just numbers in the sky like other's said.

small companies? private companies taxed how?

also you say its "impractical to administer"

who is ACTUALLY in favor of doing this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607515)

Numbers that can be converted to cash almost immediately in the case of publicly traded stocks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607866)

EDIT: you fucking stupid cocksucking morons thinking that this sort of tax will not fuck all sorts of people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607889)

2. It will start at the really rich, but then, after the precedent is established, will continuously be adjusted downward until it encompasses most people

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607563)

i’d rather not have bezos dumping a fuckton of amazon stock every year while it sits in my portfolio. also i think wealth inequality is stupid to worry about. quality of life of lower/middle class people matters far more imo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607622)

Also, real talk, a decent reason to oppose this is that it's being sold as a tax on "the rich" which means that, sooner or later, it will be hitting the UMC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607873)

What significance attaches specifically to the "multiple" part? None.

Amounts matter. Compliance burdens matter. Intelligibility matters. Incentives matter.

But multiplicity itself? Doesn't matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607890)

Except the Roman Republic —> Roman Empire, Russia —> USSR, Cuba —> Fidel’s Cuba, etc etc etc etc.

What you don’t understand is that the leftists are a cancer. You must snuff it out at the earliest possible instant. You can or give an INCH or it will metastasize and kill you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607938)

Canada: British Columbia has recently implemented a tax on personal homes. The tax is in addition to regular property tax and begins at homes worth more than $3 million Canadian (approx. US$2,307,692.31). The tax is 0.2% on the first million above the $3 million and 0.4% on any value above that. No recognition of mortgages, lien, or taxes due is taken into account.

France: Until 2017, there was a solidarity tax on wealth on any net assets above €800,000 for those with total net worth of €1,300,000 or more. Marginal rates ranged from 0.5% to 1.5%.[3] In 2007, it collected €4.07 billion, accounting for 1.4% of total revenue.[4] From 2018 onwards, it has been replaced by a wealth tax on real estate, exonerating all financial assets.[5]

Spain: There is a tax called Patrimonio. The tax rate is progressive, from 0.2 to 3.75% of net assets above the threshold of €700,000 after €300,000 primary residence allowance.[6] The exact amount varies between provinces.

Netherlands: There is a tax called vermogensrendementheffing. Although its name (wealth yield tax) suggests that it is a tax on the yield of wealth, it qualifies as a wealth tax, since the actual yield (whether positive or negative) is not taken into account in its calculation. Up to and including 2016, the rate was fixed at 1.2% (30% taxation over an assumed yield of 4%). From the fiscal year of 2017 onwards, the tax rate progresses with wealth. See Income tax in the Netherlands. In addition to the vermogensrendementheffing, owners of real estate pay a tax called onroerendezaakbelasting, which is based on the estimated value of the real estate they own. This is a local tax, levied by the city council where the property is located.

Norway: 0.7% (municipal) and 0.15% (national) a total of 0.85% levied on net assets exceeding 1,500,000 kr (approx. US$181,378.48) as of 2019.[7] For tax purposes, the value of the primary residence is valued to 25% of the market value, secondary residences to 90% of the market value, while working capital such as commercial real estate, stocks, and stock funds are valued at 75% of the market value.[8] The Conservative Party and Progress Party in the current government and the Liberal Party have stated that they aim to reduce and eventually eliminate the wealth tax.[9]

Switzerland: A progressive wealth tax that varies by residence location. Most cantons have no wealth tax for individual net worth less than CHF 100,000 (approx. US$102,040.82) and progressively raise the tax rate on net assets with a top rate ranging from 0.13% to 0.94% depending on canton and municipality of residence.[10] Wealth tax is levied against worldwide assets of Swiss residents, but it is not levied against assets in Switzerland held by non-residents.[10][11]

Italy: Two wealth taxes are imposed. One, IVIE, is a 0.76% tax imposed on real assets held outside Italy. The values of such assets are determined by purchase price or current market value. Property taxes paid in the country where the real estate exists can offset IVIE. Another tax, IVAFE, is 0.20% and is levied on all financial assets located outside the country, including, so far as the language seems to imply, individual pension schemes such as 401(k)s and IRAs in the US.[12]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39607954)

and even if it was true it's such a miniscule percentage that it disproportionately likely affects the truly wealthy

and none of them turned into soviet russia or cuba

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39608057)

fine, i can buy that.

but then we should cut all taxes for the single mothers and janitors in the OP scenario. u can keep ur current tax rate for billionaires, and make it so everyone who is poor pays $0.

cut programs and defense spending and figure it out but the answer isn't to keep the current shitty system that has produced the most inequality and have vs. have nots in the history of 'murica

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39608107)

A) They already pay zero

B) In general, it is pretty bad to have people that truly pay zero. People who pay zero always vote for more spending because they're not paying for it anyway

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609193)

2) There are already taxes that could accomplish similar things that aren't utilized well. The top one is the estate tax - which is the ideal implementation of the wealth tax.

3) If you really want to hit rich people at the point of earnings then you can focus on shit like cap gains and such.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609217)

this is the most retarded meme in all of politics. We don’t have nearly enough debt imo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609320)

With treasury yields this low it seems like a massive scandal that we’re not borrowing more. Where the fuck else will the Chinese put their money?

I’d plow it all into infrastructure. Roads, airports, trains, bridges, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609350)

Let's say we did that. What does that get us? For example, this is huge for a place like China because they have 1.4 billion people many of which aren't connected and therefore can't fully participate in economic activity. Is that really a problem for the US? I don't think it is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609396)

This would drive economic growth basically funded by foreign investors

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609461)

Explain how. The problem with the subway is the combo of wasteful spending and terrible people (bad culture, bums, no law enforcement, etc.). If you spent billions more it'll still suck and not be up to Asian standards.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609469)

i’d build a lot more public housing to get the disgusting bums away from everyone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39610153)

The chances of another country challenging the us for reserve currency status or supplier of risk free bonds are as lower than ever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39611928)

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609257)

We need to get back to an understanding of why people go to college and why the public should fund it. It is specifically so these people can learn useful things that will get them jobs. Not everyone needs to go to college. Those that go to college should either be learning something useful or paying their own way.

"Just because many grads have jobs starting out of college that won't require a college education doesn't mean there's no future for their degrees in the labor force."

I'm not sure what this means. Just because they got a degree in poli sci and got a job driving an Uber doesn't mean that someday they won't become a Starbucks manager, not that this requires a college degree either or what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39609391)

The ideal result for a 110 IQ person is managing a Starbucks. They don't need college for that. They DEFINITELY don't need a lib arts/social sciences degree from a college. If you want to argue for a 2 year community college and a degree in business then we can talk about that, but that's not what people are talking about now.

Basically, useless programs at universities should be gutted. The only people who should be allowed to "major" in them should be people identified as potential future academics in that area. Other program population should correspond to job prospects.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39612039)

- Heavily graduated income tax rates, treat capital gains as income: Bezo's $4B stock sale would have something like a 70% top marginal rate

- Zero percent corporate tax rates, but the new rule applies US individual graduated tax rates to all investors domestically and abroad: foreigners no longer get to enjoy US capital appreciation for free

- Uncap 401ks, allow tax free savings in high amounts, encourage companies to fill them with tax-free stock, and allow workers to borrow against the 401k for home purchases and other big items

- 15% tax on consumption (VAT), walked back for certain items (this subsidizes exports)

Basically, heavily taxing the individuals who make up the recipients of corporate largesse and reducing the value (post tax cashflows) of capital so long as it is so unequally distributed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39610506)

It's hilariously difficult to administer - oh how convenient, now we all have to start itemizing our wealth to prove we don't meet that threshold, I'm sure that's just for our own benefit.

Wealth taxes are comically distortionary - capital flight, incentivizing frivolous spending on leisure / entertainment over asset accumulation, etc. To avoid some of the major problems with it, the rate is so low it doesn't even add meaningful amount to govt revenue.

But the distortions are extreme - now you have employment shifting from productive work to rent-seeking in what's basically an entire new industry that pops up in helping people contest valuations and help the rich game th wealth tax, of course the govt side will also bloat w/ bureaucrats fighting on the other side but with less competence.

How long do you give before they say oh let's just lower the threshold oh what a convenience everyone is already itemizing their wealth to prove they're below the threshold.....

Also lots of evidence from Europe - results range from massive failures of capital flight e.g. France lost an absurdly high proportion of their millionaires in like 10 years, tens of thousands of millionaires in a short time..., to completely ineffective while being a distortionary waste.....

If you'd rather bureaucrats have that money to waste on incompetent bloat and useless budget justifications than there are far more efficient ways to tax the wealthy than the wealth tax.....

Edit: also underestimating all the different types of weird shit the super wealthy own that we don't think of that's absurdly difficult to value, paintings, classic cars / historical shit / weird trendy shit that's over-priced, so the real cost in distortions via bureaucratic system necessary to collect these taxes heavily eat into the revenue they generate for govt, oh but they don't pay those costs either so probly cool w/ them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39611350)

something went horribly wrong the past 30 years though in terms of wealth inequality, mega-billionaires who don't pay taxes and buy up our cities but I guess the horse is out of the barn, nothing we can do

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39615609)

i'm sure waste of space govt bureaucrats and jewfuck lawyers/accountants are all for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39611636)

they're dead

that "pleasant spot" is where u take ur kids fishing and camping every summer

oops washington DC says you've got a net worth of $5 million but it's cool it's just a 1% wealth tax just pony up $50,000 in cash each year

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39611871)

In any case, with regards to your land example, it's rather easy to get a mortgage or line of credit from the bank to tap the equity without being forced to sell it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39612258)

Second, we have taxes that don't require any exchange (e.g., property and registration taxes).

Third, I don't see any value in talking about the number of times money has been taxed. Incentives, distortions, amounts, compliance costs, fairness, outcomes, and all that matter. But the number of times money is taxed? Doesn't matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39614248)

sales tax is based on a new transaction

a wealth tax is based no nothing new, just existence. that's fucked up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39612052)

the IRS could focus on ending the loopholes that allow transfers of property with option value to be deemed $0 value like GRATs and carried interest. or call all gifts and transfers income and tax at normal rates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4447161&forum_id=2#39615338)