General Discussion

A HERETIC I AM

(24,876 posts)

74. The thing is, if you start taking "wealth", which in Bill Gates's case would mean his shares of....

Tue May 6, 2014, 02:20 PM

May 2014

Microsoft, you will quickly grind him down to zero. Yes BTW, that is how the majority of his net worth is held. In spite of what many on this board seem to think, he doesn't have $60 billion held in a bank in stacks of 100 dollar bills. His net worth changes, both up and down, every day based on the share price of Microsoft.

So as you take his shares of Microsoft, the fewer he owns and the less they pay in dividends and the less total value they have given any raise in share price.

So, sooner rather than later, such a scheme would render the 2nd wealthiest man on the planet....penniless. I know that has appeal to many on DU, but it is a profoundly stupid idea.

No, don't tax wealth. (edited out an inaccurate statement) Tax income. Just change the brackets and make the highest one $20,000,000 or so and set it at say...75%

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

131 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

should we be taxing earnings...or should we be taxing wealth? [View all] backwoodsbob May 2014 OP

I dunno YarnAddict May 2014 #1

everyone DOES pay something in taxes - you gotta stop watching faux news leftyohiolib May 2014 #2

Apparently not enough to make them get out & vote in mid-terms. YarnAddict May 2014 #9

i dont those two thing are intertwined - unless taxes went crazy high leftyohiolib May 2014 #34

Excellent point, taxing them isnt the answer, but what is? randys1 May 2014 #79

I'd hate to see people fined for NOT doing something YarnAddict May 2014 #109

I will take that randys1 May 2014 #114

What does "skin in the game" mean? Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #8

So why don't most people vote, especially in mid-terms? YarnAddict May 2014 #12

Any number of reasons. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #18

That doesn't keep people from challenging equally daunting odds and paying for the privilage of AScott May 2014 #24

Congratulations! You have discovered that humans are not rational self-interested agents! Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #26

What % of the pop plays the lottery? Jackpine Radical May 2014 #102

I recall a story that said the poor spend (on average) 9% of their income on the lottery. AScott May 2014 #103

plus alot of people are lazy - they dont think their vote maters - they feel the 2 parties are leftyohiolib May 2014 #35

Is it stupid to think your vote doesn't matter? Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #44

yes i believe it is stupid to think your vote doesnt matter - leftyohiolib May 2014 #57

Why? Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #65

i never questioned the reason to vote it seems to me that you have only one way leftyohiolib May 2014 #82

Tell that to the people who gerrymander. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #68

areas get gerry-mandered BECAUSE people sat home in census years like 2010. but just sit leftyohiolib May 2014 #88

Here.... YoungDemCA May 2014 #22

Many don't vote because they have been convinced that their vote doesn't matter liberal N proud May 2014 #23

And many of us have been voting for effing ever, truebluegreen May 2014 #41

How would you tax wealth? Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #3

off their 1040 ? leftyohiolib May 2014 #5

Do you mean adjusted gross income? Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #11

yes that is what i meant and youre correct it's just income and now to quote gov perry "oops" leftyohiolib May 2014 #30

1040's don't show wealth, they show income. n/t pnwmom May 2014 #16

yes you are correct - i goofed up leftyohiolib May 2014 #32

Measuring wealth is far easier, imo. reformist2 May 2014 #58

How so? oldhippie May 2014 #62

Periodic appraisals of real estate, bank account and mutual fund balances, cars... reformist2 May 2014 #72

That's a pretty limited definition of "wealth" ..... oldhippie May 2014 #77

It's way harder to hide assets than income, imo. reformist2 May 2014 #83

Really? OK, I guess you must not be .... oldhippie May 2014 #87

LOL that made me laugh laundry_queen May 2014 #125

You have that backwards Lonusca May 2014 #126

Wealth is much easier to hide than income. Adrahil May 2014 #112

there is alot of wealth in this country and the u.s. should go after it - the u.s. created the leftyohiolib May 2014 #4

So, again, how would you assess wealth? oldhippie May 2014 #59

idk but i refuse to think it cant be done -records of sales are kept and could be recorded in a data leftyohiolib May 2014 #66

That's what I thought ..... oldhippie May 2014 #70

you were expecting a soultion to this problem in 5 minutes from people on a discussion board? leftyohiolib May 2014 #85

You're right. And I am sorry. oldhippie May 2014 #89

It's already done. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #71

Once in a lifetime ..... oldhippie May 2014 #73

People die every day. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #78

I don't think you have run the numbers ..... oldhippie May 2014 #86

Several countries have a wealth tax including France and Spain. So to find out 'how' a person Bluenorthwest May 2014 #94

Um, I'm talking about something that exists NOW. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #116

So anyone who's rich would be worth 15% less each year? AScott May 2014 #6

that is assuming they never make a penny backwoodsbob May 2014 #27

Granted, but do you really believe that 98% of someone's previously owned wealth should be taken AScott May 2014 #55

of course not backwoodsbob May 2014 #76

A 98% confiscation of wealth over 25 years is exactly what your OP proposes, so... AScott May 2014 #92

In countries that have wealth taxes the rates are in the 1-2% range Bluenorthwest May 2014 #95

So if I retire at 65 and have saved $ 1 million ..... oldhippie May 2014 #67

no...of course not backwoodsbob May 2014 #96

Your OP, which we were to discuss .... oldhippie May 2014 #100

you're right...it is perfect as it is backwoodsbob May 2014 #110

I'm getting ready to eat the penalty and cash out backwoodsbob May 2014 #97

Is 98% of accumulated wealth being confiscated a "fair share" over the course of 25 years? AScott May 2014 #99

The thing is, if you start taking "wealth", which in Bill Gates's case would mean his shares of.... A HERETIC I AM May 2014 #74

again....you assume his money is just laying in a mattress backwoodsbob May 2014 #107

No, in fact I think I made it explicitly clear that I DON'T think his money is under his mattress A HERETIC I AM May 2014 #115

What kind of wealth? spinbaby May 2014 #7

I Support A Wealth Tax, Sir The Magistrate May 2014 #10

I don't think that you can determine what an individual's wealth is. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #14

Market Value Of Most Assets Can Be Established Readily, Sir The Magistrate May 2014 #17

I'm afraid I think the evidence shows otherwise. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #25

You Ignore Items Like Stocks, Bonds, Notes, And The Like, Which Are the Bulk Of Wealth, Dir The Magistrate May 2014 #28

the wealthy hide their assets behind multiple layers of dummy corporations nt msongs May 2014 #48

Government Could End That, Sir, Handily The Magistrate May 2014 #51

How do you fix Sgent May 2014 #117

What Is The Market Value Of the Building, Sir? The Magistrate May 2014 #118

You forget Sgent May 2014 #120

It Is Worth Its Proportion Of The Building's Current Value, Sir The Magistrate May 2014 #121

So, assuming a moderate return on investment, in 10 years all the "wealth" would be gone. pnwmom May 2014 #13

To some extent, wealth is taxed already. Big Blue Marble May 2014 #15

not really backwoodsbob May 2014 #46

I love saving for my retirement especially with the interest on savings of 0.000000000000001% lol nt msongs May 2014 #49

So because I don't have children I should be taxed more? brooklynite May 2014 #19

Your proposed method of taxation would reward people for wasteful spending, accruing nothing, pnwmom May 2014 #20

In an economy that has been based almost entirely on Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #75

And when all their wealth is gone who will you tax? nt hack89 May 2014 #21

Rather Depends On What Is Done With The Tax Revenue, Sir, Does It Not? The Magistrate May 2014 #31

Only if state and local property and business taxes go away hack89 May 2014 #37

Not Necessary To Arrange A Tax In Cash Terms, Sir The Magistrate May 2014 #47

Stop making sense! FrodosPet May 2014 #106

With this approach, the very rich would end up holding their wealth as gold bars in basement vaults, Nye Bevan May 2014 #29

Exactly ..... oldhippie May 2014 #84

What if my assets are not growing faster than the tax rate? hack89 May 2014 #33

You'd probably have no tax. A flat tax on wealth would free the middle class of all taxation. reformist2 May 2014 #61

How much wealth is too much wealth? nt hack89 May 2014 #108

Both as we do. whatthehey May 2014 #36

How about taxing dividends and capital gains as income? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #38

I'm not sure exactly how this works gollygee May 2014 #39

Wealth isn't cash. Few wealthy people keep their money liquid. It wouldn't work. Xithras May 2014 #40

Ahhh Excellent question oldandhappy May 2014 #42

A tax on capital? No way that would ever fly. MicaelS May 2014 #43

I believe that's the point of the Estate Tax... Jeff In Milwaukee May 2014 #45

Since millionaires can't be bothered to pay on their earnings, wealth closeupready May 2014 #50

We should be closing loop holes... deathrind May 2014 #52

One way we get at that is capital gains tax - TBF May 2014 #53

The numbers don't work for your taxation structure ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #54

Violates the takings clause AngryAmish May 2014 #56

That would cause nothing but a rapid devaluation of property Savannahmann May 2014 #60

I'm sure we could manage a transition. The key question is whether a wealth tax is fairer. It is. reformist2 May 2014 #63

Transition? Savannahmann May 2014 #81

Gotta disagree Sgent May 2014 #119

As I mentioned Savannahmann May 2014 #129

Both. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #64

I'm with you in concept, but much of "wealth" is based on paper -- like value of stocks or real Hoyt May 2014 #69

so tax the same dollars over and over and over again . . . nonsense DrDan May 2014 #80

But... we want their money ?? Bonx May 2014 #113

we should be promoting saving, not spending DrDan May 2014 #128

Tax earnings. Wealth is too hard to calculate. jmowreader May 2014 #90

This will be fun. Each year the poor people can sell off any valued posessions hughee99 May 2014 #91

GWT moondust May 2014 #93

Wouldn't this problem be best dealt with through taxing capital gains and inheritance taxes? /nt Marr May 2014 #98

ALL bonuses in transnational corporations. ALL tax haven money collected on pain of prison. ancianita May 2014 #101

Ummm... It depends. politicat May 2014 #104

I think you might have something in theory, but Jackpine Radical May 2014 #105

well... there are issues to consider. Adrahil May 2014 #111

And how do you calculate wealth? Inventory everyone's belongings? JHB May 2014 #122

I doubt such a tax would be constitutional badtoworse May 2014 #123

Intuitively, this sounds like a bad idea. aikoaiko May 2014 #124

Why not both? Orsino May 2014 #127

Then I would screw myself by restoring my classic car, for example. Throd May 2014 #130

Wow, talk about expanding an intrusive govt workforce mainer May 2014 #131