Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

David Stockman: Soak the Rich (with a 30% wealth tax)
Barron's ^ | October 11, 2013 | Robert Milburn

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, he’s pushing for a huge new tax on big earners. Stockman would subject the nation’s 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 CBO’s 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 wouldn’t be permanent—it 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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: davidstockman; taxes; wealthtax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
Do you think Obama and other Rats have a philosophical disagreement with this idea?
1 posted on 10/14/2013 5:45:35 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The wealth tax, Stockman said, could go a long way toward stabilizing things.

It wouldn't stabilize anything. It would just give them license to spend more.

2 posted on 10/14/2013 5:47:07 AM PDT by raybbr (I weep over my sons' future in this Godforsaken country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


3 posted on 10/14/2013 5:47:39 AM PDT by apoxonu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


4 posted on 10/14/2013 5:48:31 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The tax wouldn’t be permanent

Yeah, right.

5 posted on 10/14/2013 5:50:48 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Though I oppose the concept in principle, this is exactly what needs to be proposed - and thrown in the faces of those Democrat-supporting "rich" who have slithered out of all previous attempts to make them pay for the giant government they advocate. Stockman knows full well a wealth tax is radioactive inside the Beltway, but he has actually done opponents of big spending a huge service by publicly advocating it.

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.

6 posted on 10/14/2013 5:52:12 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Didn’t David Stockman become a Democrat twenty years ago?


7 posted on 10/14/2013 5:53:00 AM PDT by GOPJ (Brieitbart sent me... Freeper newfreep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
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.

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.

8 posted on 10/14/2013 5:55:21 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The tax wouldn’t be permanent—it could be lifted in 10 years or so


9 posted on 10/14/2013 5:56:00 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Huge difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


10 posted on 10/14/2013 5:57:59 AM PDT by jimfree (In November 2016 my 13 y/o granddaughter will have more quality exec experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

And once all that wealth has been confiscated will the government promise to stop spending money it doesn’t have?


11 posted on 10/14/2013 6:00:14 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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?


12 posted on 10/14/2013 6:02:44 AM PDT by Obadiah (I Like Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

He needs a liberal application of superglue and shredded foam...


13 posted on 10/14/2013 6:03:47 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Four or five years of a 30% "wealth tax" and there will be no "wealth" left to tax.

Everything will then belong to the US feral government.

Isn't that nice?

14 posted on 10/14/2013 6:08:08 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


15 posted on 10/14/2013 6:08:57 AM PDT by Haiku Guy (Gun Control Haiku: Say "Registration" / And they call you paranoid / So say "Privacy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
It would be hysterical to watch Soros and Theresa Heitz Kerry if something like that passed.

Soros' wealth is already offshore. Kerry's would soon follow. As would mine... and me.

16 posted on 10/14/2013 6:09:16 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
...this is exactly what needs to be proposed - and thrown in the face of...

...Warren Buffett.

17 posted on 10/14/2013 6:09:42 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Four or five years of a 30% "wealth tax" ...

He's proposing 30% over 10 years... which is more like 2.5 to 3% per year. But I agree, this sucks!

18 posted on 10/14/2013 6:10:31 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


19 posted on 10/14/2013 6:11:01 AM PDT by Andy from Chapel Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

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.


20 posted on 10/14/2013 6:12:20 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson