The proposal would impose a 2 percent tax on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion. A 3 percent tax would apply to household net worth above $1 billion. In total, according to the proposal, Warren’s “ultra-millionaire tax” would raise $2.75 trillion in revenue over a 10-year period from fewer than 80,000 families.
Bruce Ackerman, a prominent constitutional scholar who provided Warren with legal guidance on the proposal, said he did not know how the justices would come down on the matter. But, he said, their decision would ultimately be a “test of seriousness.”
“A lot depends on whether they will pass the test,” Ackerman said. “We have to give them a chance to consider deeply these issues.”
In response to inquiries, an aide to Warren pointed to letters from legal scholars supporting the plan. Those letters, which buck the conventional wisdom regarding the constitutionality of a wealth tax, include ringing endorsements from noted scholars including former top lawyers in the Department of Justice.
In all seriousness, I can’t imagine how they would make sure people are accurately reporting their net worth. People with that kind of wealth tend to own a lot of illiquid assets that are tough to value - can’t imagine the government will force them to hire a valuation agent to come up with accurate marks?
Valuation doesn’t have to be accurate (they are not computing IRRs), it just has to be consistent. That shouldn’t be difficult. Tax code is already largely arbitrary.
this is the same shit as a property tax, no idea what this legality bullshit is. we are at a deficit. so im all for it! as for valuing private biz they already hire people to do this for estate taxes. and there are many ways to avoid estate taxes. the usg should ramp up the irs. the idea that audit rates are only 1% is complete utter bullshit. if you are extrmeely rich, you should be audited 100% of the time. not because ur a liar. but because there are more taxes at stake for the govt.
“There’s a direct dollar impact,” said Mark Mazur, vice president of tax policy at the Tax Policy Center. He said the IRS collects an estimated $4 for each dollar spent on enforcement.
the us governtment should be dropping more money on irs until mr = mc.
Wealth tax is essentially asset seizure. If your property is 100 cows, the government will take one cow from you every year. I don’t really like this idea in principle.
In my opinion, the government should mandate all universities to have 50% graduates in math, engineering or quantitative graduates, or otherwise revoke the academic charters of those schools. The fact is that *some* people are doing very well in today’s economy. These are people who have high demand skills, usually technical skills. If we augment the labor pool for quantitative type workers, we will reduce inequality, increase productivity, and decrease the need for immigration. So, a lot of political points will be addressed.
I have been reading a lot of internets lately about millennials blaming their parents for “lying” to them about needing to get a college degree, as it has led to student loans and not much earnings. However, it seems that these guys, to a large extent, just botched their opportunities, rather than being withheld from success in the first place.
principles are retarded. do it based on your selfishness. do the math!
consider that each person in the us costs the government about 25k all in. if you pay more than this taxes then you should favor capitalism. this means that you need to make more than 90k per year for 1 person.
now most people in the us are useless in a household. there are only 90m people who work. there are about 100m houesholds vs 300m people. so there is on average 2 useless people (old, children, gold digger) per revenue generator. implying that each household should generate 75k in taxes.
to pay 75k in taxes, you need to make 275k per year. and that is conservative, because you will prolly have a ton of deductions. anyways how many hoiuseholds earn 275k per year? only the top 4 percent.
if you were a random person, which society would you prefer for the us. a country that shares vs a country where the people who are useful or have legacy wealth have everything. you have to be in the top 4 percent of households and id assume that the majority of the people you know wont make the cut.
whether you like it or not, the us is a socialist country, and the majority of people within it are useless! with that said, it is the top 4 percent that make the us a better place hence why they should be given certain privileges!
RELEASE 21 Savage!
anyways if you want to find out how worthless most people are on a general basis! here is a link!
I mean, income tax is asset seizure and really any tax is asset seizure as in a real time balance sheet income is booked as an asset. If you get paid in cows you still owe 1/3 of those cows. Mandating 50% graduates in math just means you wind up with a lot of dumbed down math courses and bad at math math grads which doesn’t really fix anything. It essentially has the effect of creating a subsidy of math through incentives and subsidies taken too far fail. That said, so maybe its not 50%, but maybe a higher percent mandated is good just a matter of degree I guess like most things. Anyhow, I don’t mind a wealth tax. I for one, look forward to the day when all AF’ers can live the American dream of equality finally knowing Ohai has exactly the same amount of money as the kids in the career forum asking how to pay back their $3,500 signing bonus.
This liberal snow flake I know who (unsurprisingly ) is a fat lesbian gender studies graduate who minored in Persian (despite being from Iran herself and thus not adding any useful skill ) and has about 100K of student debt. Now she is bi4tching about unemployment and lack of jobs.
Yes, my point in general is that a lot of people do not consider employment prospects in deciding their course of study. Thus, graduating class mix does not reflect available jobs. You can graduate with a $200k job offer from FB, since there is such a lack of qualified engineering graduates, or you can be in financial distress from having no job related to a different field of study.
There is an undersupply of technical graduates and oversupply of non-technical graduates. This should be addressed somehow, whether it is through direct intervention, subsidies to technical academic departments, or just better information to students regarding the practical value of their degrees.
Subsidies and taxes are part of any policy to deal with externalities, such as pollution, congestion, or others. Since there is a social cost to labor mismatch, this should also be addressed. Some marginal new engineers will be worse quality than the others, but they can still do most of the work required by the field.
Feel free to change engineers to other kinds of undersupplied workers.
apologies S2000!!! movoign forward, i will do so proactively!
anyways agree with bs. income tax is bs compared to wealth tax.
consider that avg effective tax for income is 25% of what you make.
compare that with wealth where you can make say 8.5% with a balanced portfolio. a 1% annual wealth tax is only 1.1% per year post growth, which is equivalent to a 13% effective tax rate.
overall for income and wealth to be fair. if we hold current income tax rates the same, an annual wealth tax rate of 2% would make them equivalent!
with the retarded welath tax brackets of over 50m in assets, a more appropriate number is 4%, since the marginal income tax at higher brackets is closer to 40% to 50% depending on state taxes.
Wealth and income tax are not really the same though. Income tax only comes with realized cash accumulation. What if you have $10 million stake in some illiquid startup, and then suddenly you have a huge tax obligation, but negative cash flow? Also, this would create a significant incentive for people to deflate asset valuations, something that is much harder to do with realized gains.
So, I don’t see why you wouldn’t just tax income at varying levels, even if your goal is to target rich people. High income and high wealth are highly correlated. Plus, the ability to monetize wealth is a better indicator than paper wealth when it comes to measuring someone’s financial value.
You owe $200k or $300k and I’d think you would assume it as an expense when you make your initial $10M investment. I’m assuming that valuation is at cost (this seems simplest). However, what if the company has debt and your pro rata portion fo the debt is $10M? Then you owe nothing on that holding? The treatment of debt would be interesting, although I hesitate to start a discussion of net worth computation on this forum.
if you cant sell your 10m stake for 10m then its not really worth 10m. anyways property tax has the same issue. high property taxes is a good way to get rid of people who arent rich enough to pay it!
this is also a solid way to fix bubbles and cos that finance their operations through investment. eventually they will be worthless if they dont generate $$.
you can also tax them on the amount they can raise if they are publicly traded. anyways this goes back to my original point from a long time ago. that capital gains should be taxed, and taxed annually as ordinary income. this will prevent bubbles! keep asset prices within their respective cash flows.
you would not need a wealth tax if you just taxed capital gains the same way as ordinary income!
But this goes back to the point that valuations are meaningless unless realized. You agree that $10 million company valuation means little, so why make a tax on paper wealth? However, when the owner actually wants to realize its value, like through selling it or taking out cash, then tax that realized gain or distribution. How would even value some of these assets? Let’s say you own 10 pron stores. Do you have someone come appraise your pron assets, or is it more practical just to declare taxes based on measurable transactions? For what it is worth, I don’t like the idea of property taxes either - better to tax people based on usage of services. If you have a house in some town but no kids, why tax you the same rate for school funding as someone who chose to live there with 5 kids?
The reality is that wealthy people buy lots of stuff to store their wealth (real estate, art, antique tanks, etc.). I think the taxation on wealth may encourage the very wealthy hold their wealth in productive assets as opposed to simply hording it.
you are not valued 10m if no one is willing to write you a check for 10m. its not a hard concept ohai.
my friend was selling his porn store before with a 3x multiple. i told him hed be lucky to get 1.5x, cuz no one wants to run that a declining business with a ton of stigma where the cash flow is extremely yucky!
so because we dont all agree on the valuation you just decide not to tax it? that just sounds silly. as bs said its all made up. we can easily create rules to steal, i mean tax the rich.
wahts interesting is. this is what the roman empire did on its hey day. they had hired thugs bid on a province. and these thugs would effectively take it from the rich inhabitants as a percent of all their est. assets!