Finally, an opinion from a real economist that agrees with what I have been saying here for a decade: tax accrued wealth, not short-term work.
Here is a link that might be useful: get at the wealth inequity
Well, that's sort of a Duh.
Yep, taxing people that have worked their lives to acquire savings to care for themselves and others and redistributing it to others who have not worked their lives to acquire savings and care for themselves pretty much addresses "inequality."
Inequality is underrated.
When left it it's natural state, undisturbed, people tend to care for themselves by necessity and thus change the balance of "inequality" in their favor.
Did you read the article Demi? Perhaps I am totally misinterpreting it but the gist is the writer suggests taxing wealth more than income.
I am NOT making judgements on your personal life but that would mean dividends , interest , capital gains would be taxed more than earned income. That does not seem to be a scenario that favours you based on what you have posted. Or maybe I have got it wrong. Maybe you are OK with a wealth tax rather than an income tax...
Maybe I need to go back and reread the article....something isn't right.
Demi, inequity Ã¢ÂÂ inequality.
whups. danged forum software. make that: inequity does not equal inequality.
Definition of 'Wealth Tax'
"It is a tax based on the market value of assets that are owned. These assets include, but are not limited to, cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, private cars, assessed value of real property, pension plans, money funds, owner occupied housing and trusts. An ad valorem tax on real estate and an intangible tax on financial assets are both examples of a wealth tax. Although many developed countries choose to tax wealth, the United States has generally favored taxing income.
"The tax is on a person's net worth which is assets minus liabilities. Not all countries have this type of tax; Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Iceland and Luxemberg have abolished it in recent years. The United States doesn't impose wealth tax but requires income and property taxes."
It's an interesting & exciting idea! This article explains Sweden's dropping it.
I suppose you could register you Yacht in the Cayman's "The Cracker Bay" comes to mind.
How to close those loopholes.
Here is a link that might be useful: Wealth Tax
I have the same question for demi, chase. From my reading it seems more people will not pay any taxes. One example in the article:
To see how the wealth tax would work, consider a family with $500,000 in wealth and $200,000 in annual income. Right now, they might pay $50,000 in federal income tax. With the wealth tax brackets described above, they would pay nothing. On the other hand, a family with $4 million in wealth and $200,000 in annual income would owe $65,000.
Doesn't that mean that a lot of middle/lower income people will not be paying any tax that do pay some tax now? More than do not pay taxes now?
Demi - I thought you prefer that everyone pay something? Maybe I also misunderstood?
It is an interesting idea.
I kinda like the idea--but! I can see scenarios that would not be so good. The little old widow lady who receives her deceased husband's small amount of Social Security as her sole income. She owns her home free and clear, and of course has to pay annual real estate taxes, which may be difficult for her in the first place. Would she have to pay wealth tax on the appraised value of her home in addition to the normal real estate taxes? If the homestead appraises pretty high (it's a nice house, say), if she can't afford the wealth tax, does she have to sell the house and downsize?
The house she and dear departed hubby built with their own two hands and lived together in for 50 interminable years...(sob).