Brian, Brian, Brian...
Posted on 08/01/2018 12:06:00 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
To pay off the ~$21 trillion dollar federal debt, which amounts to about $60,000 per American, it is probably necessary to have annual federal wealth taxation.
It is best to introduce the federal wealth tax when asset values are high, so a smaller percentage of rich people's assets have to get taxed to pay off the national debt.
The tax might be levied upon the total of net personal property financial holdings and the equity in real property.
The rates might be:
1% on the equity in real property habitually resided in by the filer(s),
2% on the equity in agricultural land, less .05% for each year owned & habitually worked personally, up to 20,
2% on the equity in other real property not habitually resided in by the filer(s),
2% on the net worth in personal property financial holdings, other than common stock, and
4% on the net worth in common stock.
The rate is higher on common stock because most of modern great wealth is in the form of common stock.
Joint returns might be permitted that include children, parents, and the spouse/domestic partner of one specified filer. Joint returns would reduce the artificial shuffling of assets between related persons to reduce taxation.
There might be exemptions, from the tax due, of $100 for each year of a filer's age up to age 65, less $100 for each year of a filer's age above age 65, as of January 1 of the tax year. Age-based exemption amounts adjust moderately well for adult wealth accumulation and old age spending.
Example 1:
Mary, age 62, and Bob, age 63, own a $700,000 personal residence outright and $100,000 in common stock.
The tax on the residence would be $7,000 and the tax on their common stock $4,000,
with an exemption of $6,200 for Mary and $6,300 for Bob,
so they would not owe any federal wealth tax.
Example 2:
Jean, age 56, and Jim, age 58, own a $450,000 personal residence and a $150,000 rental apartment outright.
The tax on the residence would be $4,500 and the tax on the rental apartment $3,000,
with an exemption of $5,600 for Jean and $5,800 for Jim,
so they would not owe any federal wealth tax.
Example 3:
Anne, age 42, and Peter, age 45, own a $1,000,000 personal residence outright and $200,000 in common stock.
They had no children and Peter's parents are dead.
Anne's mother, age 63, and father, age 69, own a $300,000 house outright and $150,000 in common stock.
Anne and Peter would file a joint return with her parents.
The tax on the residences would be $13,000 and the tax on the common stock $14,000,
and after their exemptions of $4,200, $4,500, $6,300, and $6,100 for a total exemption of $20,100,
they would owe a federal wealth tax of $6,900.
Example 4:
Terry, age 50, and Paul, age 49, own $300,000 personal residence together with a $100,000 mortgage.
Terry has a teacher pension right worth $700,000.
Paul has a city police pension right worth $800,000.
Terry and Paul would file separate returns, with their respective parents.
Terry's mother, age 73, and father, age 75, own their $200,000 house outright and $20,000 in Treasury bonds.
Paul's mother, age 70, and father, age 71, own their $250,000 house outright and $50,000 in common stock.
Terry and Paul have two children, Patty, aged 26, and Debbie, age 28, each with $2,000 saving accounts.
Paul's return would take the children since his side is better off financially.
Terry's and her parents' return would have a tax on her housing equity of $1,000, on her pension right of $14,000, on her parent's house of $2,000, on her parents' Treasury bonds of $400, for a total of $17,400,
with exemptions for Terry and her parents of $5,000, $5,700 and $5,500 for a total exemption of $16,200,
so Terry and her parents would owe a federal wealth tax of $1,200.
Paul's and his parents' and children's return would have a tax on his housing equity of $1,000, on his pension right of $16,000, on his parent's house of $2,500, on his parents' common stock of $400, on his children’s saving accounts of $80, for a total of $19,980,
with exemptions for Paul and his parents and his children of $4,900, $6,000, $5,900, $2,600 and $2,800 for a total exemption of $21,200,
so Paul and his parents and children would not owe a federal wealth tax.
Example 5:
Mark Sugarhill, age 38, owns $10 billion in common stock and a $16 million mansion outright. He bought and gave multi-million mansions to all his direct relatives years ago.
The tax on Mark's stock would be $400,000,000 and the tax on his mansion would be $160,000,
and after his exemption of $3,800, Mark would owe a federal wealth tax of $400,156,200.
“To pay off the debt, we should cut spending to the bone - eliminate anything not in the Enumerated Powers.”
Fat chance of that happening - there are voters to be bought in Novembers of even numbered years.
“Collecting more money from productive Americans does not shrink the debt; it just promotes more wasteful spending.”
Threatening to collect more money may discourage wasteful spending.
Threatening to collect more money from wealthy people may discourage them and those who merely think they are wealthy from contributing to politicians fond of wasteful spending.
Brian, Brian, Brian...
“A wealth tax is obviously superior etc”
So speaks someone who is obviously without significant wealth
IF any of your wealth tax exceeds the cost of moving. Then why not move? ie. if i was a billionaire, how much do i spend in your state? well, what if i move to get away from your tax? what if i decide i live in the caymen islands? how about brazille? you dont think a country will offer me citizenship for the money to come with me?
you would have to build a wall to keep the wealthy IN...
> Shares in ownership are not taxable because their true value cannot be ascertained until they are sold <
The county I lived in (my post #93) just picked an arbitrary date. I believe that it was December 31 of the previous year. You were supposed to pay a yearly 1% county tax on the value of your stock shares as of that date.
I just ignored it. And as I mentioned earlier, I never heard from them one way or the other.
LMAO!
Confiscation of assets accumulated from earNings we ALREADY PAID TAX ON.
I have a better idea: The Federal government should SPEND A LOT LESS MONEY and let growth in tax receipts pay debts the government shouldn’t have spent in the first place.
Some economists say that deficit spending IS taxation. This moron proves the point. . . raising taxes to pay for deficit spending.
You must still live in your parents basement. $400,000 is an insignificant amount to those who have actually worked and save most of their lives. You like your idol Obama must think “at some point you’ve made enough.”
Nobody could be this stupid to suggest something like this. Well either you’re stupid or a progressive. You need to just go away with ideas like this. Maybe post it on DU, they’ll love it.
“The deficit is already a tax, in and of itself, in that it causes inflation and devaluation of money.
“It’s also a flat tax.
“And largely exported abroad to non-USA holders of dollars and t-bills.”
But not entirely.
It’s people like me that have bank balances that have been paying too.
I’ll only be paying for a few more years. My money is disappearing, along with the ability of the USA to play fiat money games.
If you think the Chinese are going to be playing much longer you are in for a shock. They’ve learned to lend to other countries at stiff terms and interest rates. They get some territory they can effectively call their own after any default.
“This is a tax on the equity assets of wealthy people”
You’re either a troll or an envious loser. Did you just discover Marx?
“Shares in ownership are not taxable because their true value cannot be ascertained until they are sold”
In that case, transfer 4% of the shares into Uncle Sam’s name.
“Did you forget about Article I, Section 9, Clause 4? This is an unconstitutional direct tax.”
That clause probably was effectively nullified by Amendment XVI over a century ago.
“It’s a tax on your past income.”
Someone else wrote that a short time ago.
“You were a retail clerk....and made no more than $10k a year???”
A long time ago.
Their ability to "call it their own" may be dependent upon their being able to field troops there against any government deciding to try to expropriate. Then again, with the millions of excess men, they might find that a good feature.
>>. A wealth tax would encourage them to do something creative instead of sitting on their asses or causing political havoc.<<
What children do with their inheritance is NOYDB nor the government’s. You make massive assumptions on what the children of the wealthy do based on a few isolated cases.
I went to a school with VERY RICH kids and your stereotype doesn’t match up with reality.
Taxing wealth means you tax productivity, period. At least a labor tax, once levied, is done. A wealth tax levies over and over and over and over.
The other examples in this thread are also based on stereotypes. I have well in excess of 7 figures and that is through thrift and toil. It is not for you nor anyone else to lay claim to that just because I did not spend it — which is what this plan would force people to do.
This is a BAD idea and the whole thread should be locked or wiped out.
What? The debt has already been paid by the devaluation of the fiat dollar. Are you being sarcastic?
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.