Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How many of you have heard about it? I've yet to hear anything out of Washington that would warrant me worrying about it, but it was brought up in an article I was reading. Doesn't a wealth tax basically cause you to lose wealth and make it near impossible to build wealth without working a job? At least with an income tax you still come out on top (i.e. you make 100,000, pay 35,000 and you still come out with 65,000). Under a wealth tax, what if you are retired, have no income, and are living off your wealth? Not only is your wealth depleted every year, but it's depleted even faster because the gov't takes some of it?
Or what if you have a small passive income coming in every year, but it's not enough to cover your wealth tax? Then you have to cash in some of your investments to pay the wealth tax, resulting in a decrease in the passive income, and over time it just depletes your wealth at a disgustingly fast rate?
Just wondering what your guys thoughts were on this. Do I have it right?
How many of you have heard about it? I've yet to hear anything out of Washington that would warrant me worrying about it, but it was brought up in an article I was reading. Doesn't a wealth tax basically cause you to lose wealth and make it near impossible to build wealth without working a job? At least with an income tax you still come out on top (i.e. you make 100,000, pay 35,000 and you still come out with 65,000). Under a wealth tax, what if you are retired, have no income, and are living off your wealth? Not only is your wealth depleted every year, but it's depleted even faster because the gov't takes some of it?
Or what if you have a small passive income coming in every year, but it's not enough to cover your wealth tax? Then you have to cash in some of your investments to pay the wealth tax, resulting in a decrease in the passive income, and over time it just depletes your wealth at a disgustingly fast rate?
Just wondering what your guys thoughts were on this. Do I have it right?
Having not read your article, or even what might be defined as wealth -- it is hard to say.
In many cases Wealth is protected from taxes that the working slobs pay -- and not by accident, of course.
Basically a wealth tax is a tax on all assets over a certain limit... say the limit is 5 million, that means if you own several homes, cars, a large bank account, annuities, etc. etc. (not sure "what" will be taxed as the law isn't written yet but basically your entire "estate") and it is valued at 20 million, there will be an additional tax on the 15 million... I am all for it as long as the limits are reasonably high enough and indexed to inflation... its been talked about before but it seems both republicans and democrats were opposed to the idea cause they have a lot of wealth...
Basically a wealth tax is a tax on all assets over a certain limit... say the limit is 5 million, that means if you own several homes, cars, a large bank account, annuities, etc. etc. (not sure "what" will be taxed as the law isn't written yet but basically your entire "estate") and it is valued at 20 million, there will be an additional tax on the 15 million... I am all for it as long as the limits are reasonably high enough and indexed to inflation... its been talked about before but it seems both republicans and democrats were opposed to the idea cause they have a lot of wealth...
I don't know, it sounds like as bad of an idea as property taxes. Income taxes you still come out on top, property taxes you are in the red every year. A primary residence doesn't bring in income, and even if you pay off your mortgage you still pay rent to the gov't every year so there is no real homeownership in this country. The "wealth tax" sounds like the same thing except on your wealth.
Basically a wealth tax is a tax on all assets over a certain limit... say the limit is 5 million, that means if you own several homes, cars, a large bank account, annuities, etc. etc. (not sure "what" will be taxed as the law isn't written yet but basically your entire "estate") and it is valued at 20 million, there will be an additional tax on the 15 million... I am all for it as long as the limits are reasonably high enough and indexed to inflation... its been talked about before but it seems both republicans and democrats were opposed to the idea cause they have a lot of wealth...
Coming off of his victory over the Tea Party, Obama should propose this as a ride along to the Immigration Reform Bill.
Coming off of his victory over the Tea Party, Obama should propose this as a ride along to the Immigration Reform Bill.
The time to strike is while the iron is hot.
Let's see:
- arch-conservative Obama signed into permanency very low tax rates, something the liberal Bush never dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama signed across-the-board spending cuts, something the liberal Bush never dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama increased the estate tax (the only federal wealth tax) exemption by as much as ten-fold, something the liberal Bush never dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than the liberal Bush every dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama assassinated US oil companies' number one foreign enemy, something the liberal Bush only dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama assassinates on a regular basis other US oil companies' foreign and domestic enemies using unmanned drones, something the liberal Bush only dreamed of;
- arch-conservative Obama has maintained Guantanamo prison, something the liberal Bush dreamed of.
- arch-conservative Obama is trying to gift health insurance companies millions of new customers who pay premiums into high deductible policies, something the liberal Bush never dreamed of;
- actually it was the hermaphrodite Tea Party that tried to strike while the iron was hot, something the liberal Bush didn't even think about dreaming of, but they wound up sticking it in their own arse, something no one had nightmares of;
- very highly likely that nothing significant will occur by the mid-December (incestuous-, sorry I mean bi-partisan budget negotiations), mid-January (government funding) and early-February (debt ceiling) deadlines, arch-conservative Obama will conserve the status quo.
With arch-conservatives like Obama, who needs the liberal Bush?
Now, things could turn around among the incestuous and the hermaphrodites in November 2014, we'll see, but don't hold your breath, either way you'll take in that place anyway.
I don't know, it sounds like as bad of an idea as property taxes. Income taxes you still come out on top, property taxes you are in the red every year. A primary residence doesn't bring in income, and even if you pay off your mortgage you still pay rent to the gov't every year so there is no real homeownership in this country. The "wealth tax" sounds like the same thing except on your wealth.
It's similar, but property taxes are normally less than what you could rent out said property for and property taxes are usually applied in areas that receive public services. It's possible to find an area that doesn't have property taxes or has incredibly low property taxes, but it would be rare because people like public services. Switzerland has a wealth tax, but it's only like 1%-1.5% of your global assets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
