Tuesday, September 24, 2019

The Wealth Tax Proposals

VOX Bernie's Wealth Tax Explained
VOX Warren's Wealth Tax Explained


Now I am often confused about what the correct answer is when it comes to taxing assets that increase in value...Especially when a person dies...


I mean currently a lot of the capital gains are never taxed because of the basis being stepped up for the person who inherits.  On the other hand, many of the assets like farm land and houses only appreciated at about the rate of inflation.  So they really are worth about the same in relative cost to when they were bought.


Now Warren and Bernie's proposals are even more challenging.  They apparently want to track and tax people's "wealth".  I mean what can go wrong with this...  Thoughts?

20 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

No thoughts, obviously. Insanity precludes rational thought.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -― Friedrich Nietzsche

"THERE IS NO SANITY CLAUSE!" -- The Joker

John said...

On the other hand... Is there really sanity in the 20% of Americans owning 89% of the countries wealth and making 62% of the country's income?

And as I discuss above, the ability of wealthy families to avoid ever paying capital gains taxes due to the availability of trusts and the step up basis seems wrong also.

I agree that families should not be excessively punished for learning, working saving, living clean and investing. However that does not mean that they should not pay taxes on their gains.

John said...

Oops, forgot my link...

Distribution of Wealth

And another

John said...

It looks like even us wealthy folks with big 401k's can drag out paying taxes for decades

jerrye92002 said...

So, what you are insisting on is that we must punish successful people just for being successful? And thereby reduce the total capital available to grow the economy and the standard of living for everybody?

If what you want to do is to reduce wealth concentration then I suggest you look at the brilliant social change started in early America, where wealth is inherited more or less equally by all children, and not just passed to the eldest as in Europe of the time. What that means is that, within a few generations, wealth is dissipated, unless each generation picks up and builds on it-- that is, "succeeds" further.

Is there sanity in the 20% of Americans...? Probably, since they pay something like 95% of all the income taxes. And if you want to alter that the way to do it is to make it more possible for the less wealthy to accumulate wealth, say by implementing the FAIRTAX so that savings and investments are not taxed, and reforming Social Security to create additional savings and investment opportunities for everybody.

John said...

I'll repeat this for your benefit...

"I agree that families should not be excessively punished for learning, working saving, living clean and investing. However that does not mean that they should not pay taxes on their gains."

John said...

Another view

Income Tax Data

John said...

How to avoid taxes

How to avoid taxes

John said...

And one more...

jerrye92002 said...

sorry, but I only looked at the last one. If your argument is that the income tax system is not fair, I am way ahead of you. I have always insisted that the minute the tax code starts to treat one dollar different from another depending on where it comes from, who gets it, and where it is spent cannot possibly be fair. and if you need 75,000 pages to explain it, then I can guarantee it is not fair because no human being can even begin to understand it, let alone comply with it.

And fundamentally, it should never be the purpose of the tax code to create "fairness" by anybody's definition. The sole purpose should be to raise the revenues required for government to effectively provide its constitutionally-limited services. We don't need a wealth tax. What we need is to quit spending like drunken sailors that won the lottery.

John said...

If the goal is to raise funds with no focus on fairness.

Then we should tax the rich and not tax anyone else. Only -20 % of citizens would need to inconvenienced with forms, records, etc.

jerrye92002 said...

FINE idea. The FAIR tax does exactly that. Those below the poverty line get a rebate of all taxes they will pay, and everybody spending above that amount pays a fixed percentage of discretionary spending, so it is perfectly progressive. and NOBODY (except merchants) files a tax form. Since everybody pays the same percentage, it's perfectly fair and completely transparent.

jerrye92002 said...

Oh, and since the top 20% pay 95% of the income taxes anyway, we are being "fair" by your definition already, just with LOTS more paperwork and inherent UN-fairness under the sheets.

John said...

And yet income taxes are a small part of taxes in the USA...

Remember those pesky sales, property, license fees, gas taxes, sin taxes, etc.

jerrye92002 said...

And many of those taxes are eliminated by the FAIR tax. Most other taxes are state or local, and if they want to continue those regressive taxes, they can.

John said...

Your FAIR tax also seems to have no sizable constituency supporting and is therefore DOA...

jerrye92002 said...

Well, just because it is politically difficult does not mean it is the wrong solution. In purely practical terms it is a great solution. And the bill has 47 cosponsors in Congress.

John said...

It looks like 33 out of 437... Don't hold your breath.

Especially since no one even discussed it in 2017 before making the big change.

jerrye92002 said...

Well, Prohibition eventually passed, and later had to be repealed-- higher hurdles for what is arguably a not-so-good idea. Again, difficult but right. Way too many good reasons to do it, but not letting Congress micromanage our financial lives in greedy pursuit of more of other people's money is, indeed, a major obstacle to passage.

We definitely should entertain this before any "wealth tax" that takes us the opposite direction.

John said...

I can't wait to see what happens going forward !!!