Why not an asset tax?

Wouldn't that solve the nation's economic problems. The wealthiest 1% are worth around $17 trillion. A 2% tax on their assets would generate hundreds of billions of dollars, and chances are most people in that class have enough liquid assets to pay such a tax. That 2% tax could pay for Obama's entire stimulus bill in his first term.

What are the arguments against an asset tax? Does anyone ever argue for it?

looking at. Just as a general philosophy, I don't like the idea of taxing the same thing multiple times and it seems to me that in most cases taxes were paid at the time the assets were acquired and/or they have been taxed annually as property for as long as the owner has had them.

property taxes, for instance, are annual levies, and they're widely accepted.

50 years. They will scream class warfare and cry until they die under their satin sheets.

I like it. A good idea whose time may have come. But I would extend it to everyone having an income over $1mil a year.

Again, the trick is getting them to declare that income, then pay their taxes.

I won't hold my breath, though. And $17 trillion? Seriously? Holy crap! :wow:

You wanna put together the value of everything you own? The surrender value of your insurance policies, the value of all your investments, which would collapse by 50% by the time you have to pay, all your bank accounts, the value of your home minus your mortgage, all your debts, your cars. If you own a business, what is the value of it, what is your percentage ownership, blech.

It would be a huge accounting nightmare.

:shrug:

Some can barely pay their property taxes, much less 2% on their homes. They have had these properties for years and it may be worth a lot, but it doesn't create any cash flow.

Also farmers.

Besides how would you value what you own? Do you know what a bear it is to put together information for Estate Taxes? That is basically what you are asking people to do.

You just make it over the first $10 million in assets. But I don't agree with this anyway. Estate taxes is how we deal with excessive wealth and that is just fine.

I can't imagine the tax shenanigans people would come up with to avoid this.

and his lame tax evasion excuses in 2004.

I hate how confusing our tax code is. I know it keeps tons of people in business, like how our crazy medical insurance situation keeps people in business, but it doesn't really produce anything.

If we were to have such a tax, and I'm not saying it's a good idea, it would have to have a very high minimum threshold.

This poster is throwing up a smoke screen trying to make this idea seem as if it would kick old people out of their homes. It won't

How many old folks who can't afford much more than their houses are in the upper 1% of asset holders in the US? The answer is NONE.

(At least, that was my first reaction, until I realized you meant Alternative Minimum Tax... :))

letters were transposed... :)

and then taxed upon sale or death?

Don't see triple taxation going too far. Am I missing something?

But, don't worry about them, if the stock market gets going, they'll do okay and earn far more than the 2% tax.

How very socialistic of you.....

Take from the rich and give to the poor....

Sorry I don't like it one bit.

What is considered rich???

Maybe if it only applied to people with over 100 million dollars in assets???

They need to pay for being so successful you know...

Every American should pay a flat rate tax, thats the only way to be fair.

A janitor taxed at 15% is going to feel it much more than a CEO taxed at the same rate.

The flat tax isn't fair. With a 10% flat tax, a millionaire would pay 10x as much for the same government services as someone who earns $100k. In capitalism, you don't create fairness with taxes. In fact, what you are advocating is ignoring market forces with regard to our tax structure. You are actually proposing something very socialistic. Taxes should be subject to the market forces that drive capitalism. If taxes get too high and it harms investments, then lower them. The goal is to create market conditions that generate wealth. Then, the wealthy benefit too. The tax system is merely a tool to use to keep our economy working.

:thumbsup:

* being good at holding a ball while running around
* being able to forge accounting books
* stampeding competition
* selling faulty products and selling new ones claiming how it fixes the old ones

And at the same time, government should stop paying "subsidies" to large corporations (bailouts, stadiums, whatever - they can afford it)

See, it works both ways. One must invest in society to become successful. Start thinking about it and it becomes a symbiosis. Not socialism.

People should pay their fair share. Which reminds me, I need to contact my financial adviser to find some offshore tax shelters... :sarcasm:

back from Israel so soon?

Just like Forbes magazine and most of the billionaires they list.

Assets tax is not income. Please stop muddying the waters by pretending to not understand that.

People who didn't earn squat are the ones who get taxed when they are given money, and they have to be given a shitpotfull for the taxes to even kick in.

but that is how the discussion is framed.

Like say its a house - if its all paid off, you pay 100% of the asset tax

If you have only paid off 10%, you only pay of 10% of said asset tax AND THE BANK PAYS THE REST

That way, if prices go down, the bank does the work in getting it re-appraised and the benefit is passed onto the homeowner.

Also, if this is just a one time tax, it causes fear of arbitrary taxes that are hard to plan for. Long term business plans often are based on relatively stable and predictable taxation. Taxing flows is a better way of doing things.

They called it the "Intangibles tax." It was meant for only the wealthiest of citizens, those making over $1 million per year, being taxed upon liquid assets. It was easily manuevered around, however, by the rich and their lawyers cooking up ways to hide their assets. Blind trusts, offshore accounts, etc. The problem with this is that the rich would put their assets in other peoples names (their lawyers, their relatives, their maids, etc) until they spread around their net worth so much that they avoid the tax.

You're going to receive (indeed, already have received) a lot of knee jerk responses to the effect of it being a bad idea. But it isn't.

I have somehow gotten the reputation on DU as an economic conservative because of my support of the bailout, but in fact, I'm probably as progressive or more progressive than most on this forum on economic matters. It's just that economics is often confusing and counter-intuitive, so real progressive stances get dismissed as "reactionary."

What you are really proposing is a tax on wealth, as opposed to income (income taxes and payroll taxes) or transactions (sales taxes and stock transfer taxes).

Taxes on wealth are actually a very, very good idea. We have them extensively in this country, but only on "real property." "Real property" is the legal word for land and attachments to land (like houses and factories).

There are two kinds of property, legally -- real property and "personal property." "Personal property" is all property that is not real property. It is sometimes called in Latin countries, "moveable property," because unlike land, you can take it with you.

Personal property is also sometimes divided into "tangible property" (your actual stuff) and "intangible property" (basically, stock and bonds, and other highly theoretical property, generally represented by pieces of paper like stock certificates).

So what we have now is taxes on "real property" but few taxes on "personal property."

There is no reason really that we can't tax personal property. Some states already do, but it's not popular, because it tends to be limited to things like cars.

We actually should tax personal property, and in particular, we should tax certain kinds of "intangible property" like stocks and bonds.

But the American people have been brainwashed with not particularly convincing arguments that taxing intangible personal property is wrong.

Your televisions, radios, refrigerators, etc.? I have. It's stupid. It discourages home improvement and purchsing new items. Removing the tax is much better for stimulus, and just tax estate wealth as we do now.

I said that intangible personal property should be taxed. You are referring to tangible personal property.

that was 1999, I would think it would be an even better idea now since the super rich are so much richer since then and the country needs the revenue more...


http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1999/11/10/1999-11-10_tax_the_rich__says_trump_pla.html

And now, from the man who fixed Wollman Rink, erected Trump Tower and created an empire of casinos and beauty pageants: the Trump Plan to wipe out the national debt.

Unveiling the first proposal of his exploratory campaign for President, Donald Trump yesterday called for socking megamillionaires like himself with a one-time federal wealth tax of 14.25%.

The Donald said his plan would unleash a $5.7 trillion windfall that would make America “completely debt-free in the new millennium” while saving Social Security and cutting taxes by $100 billion a year.

“The economy would boom like never before,” he told the Daily News.

(...)

Of their net wealth. You'd be suprised how paper rich some old farts are. However to come up with the money they'd have to sell first their sould and later their homes.

would affect everybody. You rightly mentioned the liquidity issue in your post as if they could write checks without selling assets. I'm sure they could. But that assumes the portion of their portfolios that is liquid would not need to be replaced with new liquidity. It would.

but I pay property tax each year that is over 2% of my assets.

If you want to tax the real rich, make it much higher.

I agree--why not expand the class of assets that such taxes are levied on? I'm assuming a floor of 500K-1M. Only assets above that would be taxed.

My state senator has developed a plan like that, with a much lower sales tax than we now have, a graduated income tax that we don't have, plus a first $100K exemption on property taxes.