Skip to comments.David Stockman: Soak the Rich (with a 30% wealth tax)
Posted on 10/14/2013 5:45:35 AM PDT by reaganaut1
David Stockman is at it again. The Reagan-era budget director caused an uproar in 1981 by publicly decrying the moves of his boss to spur the economy with tax cuts. Now a private investor and author, hes pushing for a huge new tax on big earners. Stockman would subject the nations top 10% of households to a levy equal to 30% of their wealth, payable over a decade. Without it, he maintains, the U.S. will wind up in a horrific, Greece-style debt wreck.
Stockman, 66 years old, recently talked up his plan at an unlikely forum: New York City Junto, a monthly soirée of libertarians organized by hedge-fund manager Victor Niederhoffer. The tax-averse crowd listened politely as Stockman laid out his case. For starters, he said, the long-term budget outlook is much bleaker than the rosy, Keynesian nonsense put out by the Congressional Budget Office. Stockman reckons U.S. debt, now $17 trillion, is headed to $30 trillion, or 150% to 200% of gross domestic product. That is a nonstarter, and that takes the system down, Stockman said. The CBOs baseline projection puts debt at 130% of GDP by 2050.
The wealth tax, Stockman said, could go a long way toward stabilizing things. It would be part of a broad package of measures he has in mind to bring the deficit down and keep it low. The tax wouldnt be permanentit could be lifted in 10 years or so, when debt has dropped to a more manageable 30% of GDP. Interestingly, Stockman, a multimillionaire, would be subject to his own tax.
But Stockman is the first to admit that the proposal may never fly in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.barrons.com ...
It wouldn't stabilize anything. It would just give them license to spend more.
Actually, YES! They’re rich. Dems are all about “pain for thee, luxury for me.” They’ll never go for it unless it only affects the conservative wealthy.
It would be hysterical to watch Soros and Theresa Heitz Kerry if something like that passed. Also all the Hollywood types LOL. It would be worth it just for the entertainment factor.
MSM commentators and Democrat politicians alike are going to have a hard time selling the public on a wealth tax being a bad idea, while more income taxes are somehow just fine.
Didn’t David Stockman become a Democrat twenty years ago?
Don't kid yourself. There would be tailored exemptions for people like these. It's the people who worked and saved their whole lives who would get hit.
I would consent to a one-time wealth levy. It must be tied to the ratification of essentially all of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.
And once all that wealth has been confiscated will the government promise to stop spending money it doesn’t have?
So Zuckerberg and those left-wing nuts from Google who put their money in the Grand Caymans to avoid US taxation will LOVE this, right?
How about all those left-wing Wall Street types who fork over millions to their Democrat political patrons? They’ll love it too, right?
How about all those Hollywood types? They’ll be making YouTube videos supporting this, right?
He needs a liberal application of superglue and shredded foam...
Everything will then belong to the US feral government.
Isn't that nice?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
The problem is increasing concentration of wealth. David Stockman’s solution is a 30% direct tax on that wealth. But does anybody think that current trends will not far outstrip that 30% over the next ten years?
The problem is the ossification of the economy. Winners become winners, and the guy starting out from the bottom never stands a chance. This sad state of affairs is the direct result of government policy. Government intervenes in the market, time and time again, in favor of the wealthy. They are picking winners and bailing out the losers, but these recipients of government largesse are always, always, always, wealthy and well-heeled.
The way to correct this problem is not to increase taxes and increase government intervention. The way to do it is to let the rough and tumble of the market operate. If the big fish can hold onto what they have on their own, fine. But if a thousand little fish can pull one down, that’s fine, too.
The bankruptcy of GM, as painful as it would have been in the short term, would have been a great tonic for our economy. Those productive assets would have been redirected into profitable endeavors and people who invested stupidly would have taken it in the neck. That is just as it should be.
Instead, we have a zombie company, taking up space in the market, sucking up capital, and producing nothing useful whatsoever. But the rich stayed rich, and that is what matters to Washington in the end.
Soros' wealth is already offshore. Kerry's would soon follow. As would mine... and me.
He's proposing 30% over 10 years... which is more like 2.5 to 3% per year. But I agree, this sucks!
This is not crazy.
Trump and his Wharton buddies came up with a similar plan to prepay estate taxes early at a discount.
Most of his rich friends thought it was a brilliant idea.
One variant to Trump’s plan calls for a certain amount of the estate tax to be paid over three years by buying US Treasury bonds and bills on the open market and then turning them in to the Treasury for cancellation.
If I remember correctly, the Trump tax would bring in about $5 trillion and would lower the interest expenditure about $350 billion per year. This would put a balanced budget within reach.
The guy is an idiot. No matter how much money the government gets it will never be enough. Put on your jackboots and take 100%. Still wont be enough, next year they’ll need more. The only way to get things under control is to cut back on, even wholesale eliminate, many if not all entitlement programs. Without significant reform (ie elimination) these programs’ insatiable thirst for resources will destroy us. Not may, not could. They will destroy us. The takers class will grow without bound while the percentage of makers will atrophy and die.