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.
We already have the federal estate tax, which is a form of wealth tax. At any rate, if taxing wealth is deemed unconstitutional there are other ways to skin the cat. For example, add the requirement that assets be marked to market each year, with taxes paid on any gains annually.
For a lot of us, seeing people of extraordinary wealth paying zero tax or a nominal tax does not pass the fairness test. These people benefit enormously from the freedoms and protection afforded by our system, and it's only fair that they help pay for the cost in some proportion to the benefits they enjoy.
We already have the federal estate tax, which is a form of wealth tax. At any rate, if taxing wealth is deemed unconstitutional there are other ways to skin the cat. For example, add the requirement that assets be marked to market each year, with taxes paid on any gains annually.
For a lot of us, seeing people of extraordinary wealth paying zero tax or a nominal tax does not pass the fairness test. These people benefit enormously from the freedoms and protection afforded by our system, and it's only fair that they help pay for the cost in some proportion to the benefits they enjoy.
Do the people who pay a tax on the mark to market increase(which is not realized, and does not create any cash) get a refund if the value of their wealth drops by $100 billion? If the value is determined on December 31, and the tax is due on April 15th, what happens if the person's wealth drops below the amount of taxes they are supposed to pay?
Increasing the capital gains tax rate might be reasonable, but taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous, since no cash producing transaction has occurred.
Do the people who pay a tax on the mark to market increase(which is not realized, and does not create any cash) get a refund if the value of their wealth drops by $100 billion? If the value is determined on December 31, and the tax is due on April 15th, what happens if the person's wealth drops below the amount of taxes they are supposed to pay?
Increasing the capital gains tax rate might be reasonable, but taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous, since no cash producing transaction has occurred.
Yes there are issues with this approach. I'm not an advocate of mark to market, but it has been tossed out as an idea in the past.
With the tax law we have today it's possible to never pay income tax on asset appreciation. That's not fair in my opinion. There are a number of ways to address this, but of course politicians have been paid enough to ignore this particular issue.
However, I do support higher tax rates for the wealthy. If you earn more you should have to give back to your country more. So many problems to be solved in this country, and often the issue preventing it is $.
You're assuming that taxes are the only way to contribute to the country. Many, many wealthy people are paying far more property taxes but don't use the schools, roads, parks, police, fire any more than the poor person down the street.
And many, many of those same wealthy people are the ones making charitable donations to their local non-profits including area schools. And a ton donate to larger state and national organizations where policy improvements are made.
And a lot of wealthy people also donate their time and talents to the countries benefit.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 11-30-2022 at 03:38 PM..
Reason: Please, no profanity in Great Debates.
Yes there are issues with this approach. I'm not an advocate of mark to market, but it has been tossed out as an idea in the past.
With the tax law we have today it's possible to never pay income tax on asset appreciation. That's not fair in my opinion. There are a number of ways to address this, but of course politicians have been paid enough to ignore this particular issue.
I would change the estate tax to eliminate the step up in basis that currently occurs. Under my plan, if You inherit shares in the family company(farm, ranch, etc), there's no tax unless you sell them, but since you have no basis in them, you would pay capital gains on the entire sale. If you inherit cash, there's no tax, since it already had tax paid top become tax. Any assets you inherit, hard or soft or paper, get a basis of zero. Far simpler, and ensures that if the assets are sold, there's taxes to be paid.
We already have the federal estate tax, which is a form of wealth tax. At any rate, if taxing wealth is deemed unconstitutional there are other ways to skin the cat. For example, add the requirement that assets be marked to market each year, with taxes paid on any gains annually.
For a lot of us, seeing people of extraordinary wealth paying zero tax or a nominal tax does not pass the fairness test. These people benefit enormously from the freedoms and protection afforded by our system, and it's only fair that they help pay for the cost in some proportion to the benefits they enjoy.
For a lot of us, people thinking that taxing wealth is allowed and is going to get you anything are going to be seriously disappointed - this has been tried many times in Europe and has always been repealed - it is a very bad idea. You can't just work around an issue to make something constitutional without changing the constitution. Also who is going to determine the value of a an asset such as a painting or other item that is one of one and is considered"priceless".
What is "fair" - the wealthy already pay almost all the taxes already. The top 1% pay about 40% of the taxes but over 50% pay zero income taxes currently. The fair thing would be more having to actually pay taxes rather than hoisting punitive taxes on those already paying for almost everything. The bottom 90% pay significantly less taxes than the top 1%. Elon paid some $11B in taxes last year, doesn't sound like he paid zero taxes - what benefit did he get that is worth $11B?
More comments from those that want everything to be OPM, they are the first to complain if they have to pay an extra penny for anything of value and do little to contribute to society - they are the give me free stuff crowd.
Just to clarify the difference between estate taxes and a wealth tax - estate taxes are taxes on a transfer of ownership, with wealth taxes there is no transfer so does not meet the definition - tax on estates are excise taxes which are specifically spelled out in the constitution. A wealth tax would not be an excise tax because no transfer of ownership so would be then subject to the taking without just compensation clause and does not get past the requirement for needing to be allocated evenly clause.
The Supreme court has ruled that the estate tax is an excise tax on the transfer of wealth from the estate to the heirs - similar to the imposition of an excise tax on specific items or goods like gas and similar to the sales tax which is tax on the transfer of ownership of items.
You're assuming that taxes are the only way to contribute to the country. Many, many wealthy people are paying far more property taxes but don't use the schools, roads, parks, police, fire any more than the poor person down the street.
And many, many of those same wealthy people are the ones making charitable donations to their local non-profits including area schools. And a ton donate to larger state and national organizations where policy improvements are made.
And a lot of wealthy people also donate their time and talents to the countries benefit.
I'm glad to see someone, other than myself, point that out. My wife and I married somewhat late in life, and opted not to have any children. HOWEVER, that didn't stop the local school district from sending us a tax bill, every year. Even though we're now old enough to be eligible for the "senior citizen discount", our school tax bill is still $4000............to educate children we never had.
More comments from those that want everything to be OPM, they are the first to complain if they have to pay an extra penny for anything of value and do little to contribute to society - they are the give me free stuff crowd.
My wife and I have paid more than one million dollars in taxes during our lives. Our tax liability would go up if capital gains did not receive the favorable treatment it gets today. We’re not recipients of “free stuff”.
As I mentioned up thread, quite a few billionaires recognize wealth inequality as a serious problem. I guess you don’t see it as an issue?
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.
