Replacing all Taxes with Wealth tax

Archbob

Ancient CFC Guardian
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
11,776
Location
Corporate USA
I know this would never pass but what do you think about getting rid of SS tax, income tax, sales tax, etc and just replacing everything with a wealth tax thats either calculated on total assets or Net Worth each year. I don't think it would have to be very large, maybe like 2% to generated as much revenue as our tax system does each year. It would achieve many goals:

1. Progressive
2. Better for income equality
3. Less reason to hoard vast amounts of wealth and more incentive to take risks and invest.
4. it makes sense. If you have more assets, you should pay the country more to protect said assets.
 
Most people are not sitting on cash. Do you expect a 70 year old retired person to pay 2% of the value of his IRAs every year? Say he has $500,000 in IRA, that's $10,000 at 2% he'd have to come up with, every year, in cash just to pay.
 
Wouldn't rich people just move their assets elsewhere?
 
Most people are not sitting on cash. Do you expect a 70 year old retired person to pay 2% of the value of his IRAs every year? Say he has $500,000 in IRA, that's $10,000 at 2% he'd have to come up with, every year, in cash just to pay.

Yeah, that's crazy. If there was just a tax on liquid weath (Cash) it might be more fair but then you'd just not use or keep cash.
 
So, in other words, as long as I rent and spend all the money I earn every year, I won't have to pay taxes?

Let's all be grasshoppers and laugh at the ants!
 
So, in other words, as long as I rent and spend all the money I earn every year, I won't have to pay taxes?

Let's all be grasshoppers and laugh at the ants!

Seems to me your rampant consumerism would be fueling economic growth, so it makes sense to me if you want to go down that road :)
 
Well, that growth would be good now, but it would eliminate most incentives to save, and savings are also a thing you need sometimes.
 
3. Less reason to hoard vast amounts of wealth and more incentive to take risks and invest.

This would have nothing but negative effects.

1.) Most people with portfolios involving moderate risk are probably going to see only 5% returns on their best day in our new economy. Your proposal calls for taxing net wealth means that those investments will be taxed at 2% of their value reducing return to 3%. Inflation will account for a further 1-2% perhaps, so whats the point? If we are talking about safe investments in things like bonds then you have basically taxed the investment into the negative in many cases.

2.) We don't want to encourage reckless risky investing, we want manageable risk investing.
 
Although a intresting idea that is well thought out, there is consideration on the issue of genurine, stable tax amounts needed for the coffers and the issue of a possible tax avoidance via loopholes.

Of course the most important issue is to ensure the rich pay their taxes. We need to encourage them to place the money that serves as their price for living in a civilised society to be in the national coffers as oppose to the Swiss bank account.
 
Too easily avoided by using offshore accounts or other tax shelters. I think something like what we have now, but higher taxes on the extremely wealthy would be a improvement. We should probably consider a maximum wage to keep outrageous CEO pay from getting worse. Anything above the maximum wage would be taxed at 100%.
 
I know this would never pass but what do you think about getting rid of SS tax, income tax, sales tax, etc and just replacing everything with a wealth tax thats either calculated on total assets or Net Worth each year. I don't think it would have to be very large, maybe like 2% to generated as much revenue as our tax system does each year. It would achieve many goals:

1. Progressive
2. Better for income equality
3. Less reason to hoard vast amounts of wealth and more incentive to take risks and invest.
4. it makes sense. If you have more assets, you should pay the country more to protect said assets.

I don't think we should have as goals for a taxation system as you have set out. It would be better for a system of taxation to be affordable for all than for it to be progressive, progressive is the trade off we make for the cost of government being too high for all citizens to be able to bear an equal share.

Income equality shouldn't be a goal of taxation, or any operation of government, if achieved, it would eliminate all personal motivation to be productive.

Insofar as a government initative to provide incentive to take risks and invest, you might not have noticed the prevailing interest rates. We are already neck deep in a regime of financial repression. Only a dullard could think this good and a worthy goal. Reckless behavior by banks and all levels of government is a large part of the problem, the only anchor we have left is prudent assest managment by the private individual and some corporate interests. There is no hoard of wealth. Don't buy into the myth of the wrinkled old white men and their vast inexhastible hoards of wealth. Wealth is debt, and debt is wealth and the issues are productivity and demand.

Government efforts to provoke capital to take risk only leads to more malinvestment and calamity, as it ever has. Abuse yourself of this notion.

And your last point is simple. It makes no sense whatsoever. There should be no reason that one citizen should pay a great amount of money for asset protection than another because it doesn't cost by the dollar to do so. And largely, government doesn't try to. That is why the weathly invest in private security.

The whole point of government is to have equal protection for all from theft, and instead, you'd have a government that steals from all who dare be productive to distribute to all who in return would not be required to be productive at all.

You are simply spouting pro-Marxist, anti-American thought. Get a job, and if that doesn't suit you, get a better one, and stop your sin.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
 
And your last point is simple. It makes no sense whatsoever. There should be no reason that one citizen should pay a great amount of money for asset protection than another because it doesn't cost by the dollar to do so. And largely, government doesn't try to. That is why the weathly invest in private security.

It costs signficantly more for the government to ensure no one attacks your 50 story building than it does to ensure no one attacks a homeless man off the street. There's is far more incentive to attack one than the other.

Your points make sense in an idealistic world, which we don't live in. There is a basic cost of living and anything above that is "expendable cash". The more money you make above basic living costs, the more you should pay. Most people don't understand that they need America's system to make them wealthy.
 
It costs signficantly more for the government to ensure no one attacks your 50 story building than it does to ensure no one attacks a homeless man off the street. There's is far more incentive to attack one than the other.

Your points make sense in an idealistic world, which we don't live in. There is a basic cost of living and anything above that is "expendable cash". The more money you make above basic living costs, the more you should pay. Most people don't understand that they need America's system to make them wealthy.

A valid point, but is it not also valid to say that the rich already do pay a lot more than the poor in a flat tax system? Or do you think the rich still do not pay enough even if they pay a lot more cash?
 
That is really a dumb idea. Are you anti-rich? :(
 
It costs signficantly more for the government to ensure no one attacks your 50 story building than it does to ensure no one attacks a homeless man off the street. There's is far more incentive to attack one than the other.

Could you please break that down for me? I see that bs classism claim all the time and I would like to see some hard numbers to back it up. Any random city will do, please. I'd like to see the cost breakdown of every single call leading to every single response and every single unsolicited police action. Really. You made the claim, so back it up. Because honestly, I bet the vast majority of costs for police responses are because of domestic violence, break-ins, and so forth in poorer areas.

Also, you never responded to my first post in this thread. TO sum it up shorter, why do you hate retirees?
 
Interesting idea that I think would get hopelessly bogged down in enforcement and implementation.
 
Could you please break that down for me? I see that bs classism claim all the time and I would like to see some hard numbers to back it up. Any random city will do, please. I'd like to see the cost breakdown of every single call leading to every single response and every single unsolicited police action. Really. You made the claim, so back it up. Because honestly, I bet the vast majority of costs for police responses are because of domestic violence, break-ins, and so forth in poorer areas.

Also, you never responded to my first post in this thread. TO sum it up shorter, why do you hate retirees?

Actually, come to think of it, that claim doesn't make much sense. A 50-story skyscraper doesn't necessarily need all that much protection. Large amounts of land on the other hand...

It doesn't matter though because even under a "Flat" tax system the dollar amounts paid by the rich are higher...
 
Back
Top Bottom