Taxing net worth!

[DearS]

I'm sure that a living wage can be implemented, while businesses stay profitable. Although new regulations might need to be big turn arounds.

Perhaps capping the total net-worth of an individual at $1 billion. Or taxing them. perhaps taxing all individuals on net worth. Currency then cannot be influenced by a few individuals to a such degree. Also taxing a corporation on its net worth. So business' best option is to better use their money hiring more, increasing productivity or paying more. No business will be immune. In either case, world currency will be distributed more evenly. The gov. can keep they low minimum wage, but devote more of its money to complete the minimum living wage for individuals.

An increase of mininum wage to minimum living wage, might result in the nations economy unable to trade resonably with other nations.

taxing net worth is likely easier for developing economies. It will prove a more powerful foundation for growth, and justifiable standards of living.

[Disenfranchised]

I have advocated such an approach for over 20 yrs. I don't think it would keep people from making more money, or the things that make them money. It would get them to spend more on themselves. And that would stimulate the economy and make more jobs.

The down side is that foreign investors might take their wealth elsewhere instead of investing it here in America.

But this will never happen as long as it is the very, very rich who run the country. As long as someone with enough money can buy influence in the government they will not allow such a change to be even discussed in Congress, much less passed.

Dream on!

[firefox]

DearS, I take it you're not really a Republican? Do you instead have tenure somewhere?

[MistrX]

The rich would simply get very good at hiding their net worth.

[preservanation]

The rich would simply get very good at hiding their net worth.


Who makes these tax laws? Rich politicians!
They purposely write in loop holes that they can conveniently jump through.

[firefox]

NO kidding. Now we're getting somewhere! ;)

The only viable solution is to give *everyone* a tax cut, and cut the spending by a large amount as well in order to balance the budget.

[1Samuel8]

Let alone the absurdity of the concept of "net worth" alone, it is frightening that some of you are advocating taxing it! You guys belong in the Soviet Union!! You would be happy there even after it collapsed!

[sarcasm on]
Here, I have a better idea than taxing net worth: how about you make earning money illegal and the government sends each person a payment to support only a sustenance level of survival. For people who want more than mere survival, they should be required to make a formal request justify to the communists why they should get more.
[/sarcasm off]

Net worth: ridiculous.
Taxing net worth: criminal.

[Truth_and_Power]

NO kidding. Now we're getting somewhere! ;)

The only viable solution is to give *everyone* a tax cut, and cut the spending by a large amount as well in order to balance the budget.


I know a war in the middle east we can cut.

[Disenfranchised]

You are all way off. The only to get just taxation is to amend the constitution to make it illegal to contribute to political campaigns, thus giving the masses the power to get tax laws passed that will be fair and equitable, giving no one an advantage over anyone else.

[firefox]

NO kidding. Now we're getting somewhere! ;)

The only viable solution is to give *everyone* a tax cut, and cut the spending by a large amount as well in order to balance the budget.


I know a war in the middle east we can cut.


Works for me. War is the largest single federal expenditure! Think of all the money you and I would be able to save/spend/donate then...

[Marley]

"Perhaps capping the total net-worth of an individual at $1 billion."

Won't do anything. People will fund trusts with any taxable excess while retaining control or enjoyment.

And "worth" is even more subjective and manipulable than "income." The ONLY way to perfectly determine somethings "worth" is to SELL IT!

"So business' best option is to better use their money hiring more, increasing productivity or paying more."

I disagree. What about distributing it to shareholders as dividends?

That would avoid your proposed tax perfectly.



I suggest to policy designers to worry more about funding governments needs equitably and less about controlling the personal lives of the governed.

[Mayberry]

Well, like most Average Joes, my net worth is negative! So will I receive a payment? Ha ha. I think this would have way too many loopholes. Boortz's (sp?) Fair Tax is still the best deal going, in my opinion.

[firefox]

EW... No tax is fair, you know that, Mayberry. Why not just end the income tax and be done with it? That's the way to get smaller government- not just create a new one to replace it.

[PatrickHenry]

What if you have a high net worth in a house you can barely afford the payments for? I recently had a 200% run up in my house value, but I can still barely afford the mortgage.. And the property tax dipsticks at the county building are socking it to me already!

[firefox]

They probably want you to have to foreclose :)

[manu1959]

I'm sure that a living wage can be implemented, while businesses stay profitable. Although new regulations might need to be big turn arounds.

Perhaps capping the total net-worth of an individual at $1 billion. Or taxing them. perhaps taxing all individuals on net worth. Currency then cannot be influenced by a few individuals to a such degree. Also taxing a corporation on its net worth. So business' best option is to better use their money hiring more, increasing productivity or paying more. No business will be immune. In either case, world currency will be distributed more evenly. The gov. can keep they low minimum wage, but devote more of its money to complete the minimum living wage for individuals.

An increase of mininum wage to minimum living wage, might result in the nations economy unable to trade resonably with other nations.

taxing net worth is likely easier for developing economies. It will prove a more powerful foundation for growth, and justifiable standards of living.


if you place a cap on how much a business owner can make they will either move their company offshore, find a loophole or close the business....there is no point in hiring more people or paying someone more or increasing productivity.....you get nothing for your efforts.......

[Disenfranchised]

If it ain't broak, don't fix it. We now live under the system that is the best EVER at producing the things we all need to live. Bar none. So ANYTHING we do to "improve" it will most likely have the opposite effect.

What is broken is our method of financing our elections. As long as a few VERY VERY RICH people can give as much as they want, or are able, to get certain people elected to office where they will make the laws we all live under we will live under laws that are written for the benefit of those rich people. And the rest of us will pay in many many ways, including the majority of the taxes. Even though the rest of us only have somewhere between 10% and 30% of the country's income and only controll about 10% of the wealth. Ao I propose we change the Constitution of the United States to correct this disparity in influence.

I propose that the Constitution of The United States of America be amended
to prohibit anyone from using any amount of money to influence any lawmaker,
beyond the cost of direct communication with the lawmaker or his staff, be
that in a face to face meeting or via mail or other means of communication.

I propose that donating money, or goods or services that cost money or
spending money entertaining the holder of a public office or candidate for
public office or donating anything of value to a charity or institution in
the name of the holder of a public office or candidate for public office
shall be prohibited.

I propose that all campaigns be financed totally and exclusively by the
public from public funds set aside for that purpose, that a candidate be
eligible for campaign funds equal to each of the other candidates upon
presenting signatures of one percent of registered voters in said
candidate's own district.

I propose that any holder of a public office or candidate for public office
that accepts any such gift or contribution or donation be forever banned
from holding public office.

[preservanation]

Its not American business's responsibility to act as an arm of the socialists. Providing jobs is not their duty, it is a by-product of being a successful enterprise, just like providing tax money to the gov.

[Mayberry]

What is broken is our method of financing our elections Well said Disenfranchised! My sentiments exactly.

[Disenfranchised]

Its not American business's responsibility to act as an arm of the socialists. Providing jobs is not their duty, it is a by-product of being a successful enterprise, just like providing tax money to the gov.


You've got that right. It isn't the responsibility of business to do anything other than make money for their stockholders. And that is where the wealth of those who control the government through contributions to political candidates gives influence over the lawmakers. That is why we, the middle class, pays 70% of the taxes but only make 30% of the money made in any one year. It is the influence of the extremely rich over our lawmakers that their wealth gives them.

Also, it is through taxing the workers and consumers that the money get to the government The taxes paid by the corporations are returned to them through higher prices.

[preservanation]

Disenfranchised:That is why we, the middle class, pays 70% of the taxes but only make 30% of the money made in any one year. It is the influence of the extremely rich over our lawmakers that their wealth gives them.
2001:
5% of top wage earners pay 50.25% of all Fed income tax
Top 10% pay 64.89%
Top 50% pay 96.03%
Then this...turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history. marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604t264.html

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.
Kinda pokes holes in your stats and theories.

[1Samuel8]

It is the influence of the extremely rich over our lawmakers that their wealth gives them.Correct.

The taxes paid by the corporations are returned to them through higher prices.Sadly incorrect.
When prices rise, consumers buy less. Therefore, the revenues will go down.
Returned through higher prices???? You have got to be kidding.

[Marley]

"When prices rise, consumers buy less."

I disagree.

You can't make such a simple conclusion.

Demand curves come in many shapes.

Show me a live-saving drug that a consumer will pass on, will choose to die instead of paying the increased price. It doesn't exist.

Just for an example.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yeah that's great preserv.. if we wait long enough, inflation will take us all over 50k. Are we then all middle class?

[Leopardpm]

"When prices rise, consumers buy less."
I disagree.
You can't make such a simple conclusion.
sure you can - it's entirely logical.

Demand curves come in many shapes.yup - and all of them are downward sloping: the higher the price, the less consumed.

Show me a live-saving drug that a consumer will pass on, will choose to die instead of paying the increased price. It doesn't exist.The marginal consumer who must choose between purchasing the drug or purchasing food to eat - without the drug they die in a month, without food they die in 3 days... what choice would you make in this predicament?

[Marley]

I would eat and medicate, borrowing on credit the money needed if need be.

I would eat beans and rice instead meat and buy the medicine.

The real world is complicated. "Logic" is easy as long as you keep it simple.

Your simplistic model cannot explain inflation.

According to you, no food seller would be selling food today because the prices aren't the same as they were in , oh say, 1946.

Yet the prices have gone up, and consumption has been stable.

"The marginal consumer" either insited on a raise or quit for a better job huh?

But back to the topic, SOME ONE pays the corporation's taxes because corporations don't exist except on paper and conceptually.

Owners, workers, customers, vendors, some one else pays these "corporate" taxes.

"Corporations" have no need for money or anything else, they don't exist, they don't eat, sleep, or need to get out of the rain.

Leftist rhetoric railing at corporations is nothing but illusion.

[Leopardpm]

I would eat and medicate, borrowing on credit the money needed if need be.

I would eat beans and rice instead meat and buy the medicine.
what if no one wants to lend you any money - not exactly a good credit risk considering health, right? And you know what I mean, I think you are purposely dodging: there ARE cases of people on the margin, WHEREVER that margin may be, that opt NOT to pay, or simply CANNOT pay the higher price.

The real world is complicated. "Logic" is easy as long as you keep it simple.sure, which is why it is important to translate complicated issues down to their most simplistic parts so as to better understand the nature of what is actually occurring.

Your simplistic model cannot explain inflation.Why do you say this? Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, pretty simple.

According to you, no food seller would be selling food today because the prices aren't the same as they were in , oh say, 1946.untrue - you forget that ALL prices have increased, INCLUDING wages, due to inflation. There is no difference between earning $1000/year and buying bread for $1/loaf, and earning $2000/year and buying bread for $2/loaf (this assumes that the labor is the exact same and the quality of the bread remains constant)

Yet the prices have gone up, and consumption has been stable.you fail to see and take into account the 'unseen'

"The marginal consumer" either insited on a raise or quit for a better job huh?no, inflation raised his wages just as it raised his food prices... nothing mysterious here

But back to the topic, SOME ONE pays the corporation's taxes because corporations don't exist except on paper and conceptually.

Owners, workers, customers, vendors, some one else pays these "corporate" taxes.

"Corporations" have no need for money or anything else, they don't exist, they don't eat, sleep, or need to get out of the rain.

Leftist rhetoric railing at corporations is nothing but illusion.
there are plenty of legitimate reasons for treating corporations with contempt, but I would agree with you that most leftist tax punishment schemes are not based on any sort of economic reality.

[PatrickHenry]

2001:
5% of top wage earners pay 50.25% of all Fed income tax
Top 10% pay 64.89%
Top 50% pay 96.03%
Then this...turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined...marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604t264.html

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.
Kinda pokes holes in your stats and theories.
Say preservanation...your link didn't work. And absent any solid proof, I would say your statistics are, well, skewed. Or maybe made up.

The tax system is unfair and we Americans know it intuitively. Federal spending is out of control and the entire world knows it. It's time for a change, but I don't think taxing net worth is the ticket...too complicated.

Personally, I think tariffs would be better. It'd bring back a lot of factory jobs to the US.

[Marley]

"no, inflation raised his wages just as it raised his food prices... nothing mysterious here"

Sorry, I never got a raise from anyone named "inflation!"

If taxes on a corporation go up, something gives, wages, dividends, sales price, cash flow to vendors, something.

Corporations don't exist, they don't need or want anything, they are only a legal concept.



And the problem with taxing "worth" is it's a made up number.

At least "income" is set for individuals on a cash basis, so only income received in cash is taxable to be paid in cash.

If I own a 45 acre farm, you say it's worth $1 million, I say it's worth $1,000, there is no objective way to tell who's right, unless it's liquidated.

[Leopardpm]

"no, inflation raised his wages just as it raised his food prices... nothing mysterious here"

Sorry, I never got a raise from anyone named "inflation!"
all you have to do is compare the wages of the past to their present counterparts - why are you even debating this point? I am sure you understand that wages have increased steadily over the years, right?

If taxes on a corporation go up, something gives, wages, dividends, sales price, cash flow to vendors, something.

Corporations don't exist, they don't need or want anything, they are only a legal concept.

And the problem with taxing "worth" is it's a made up number.

At least "income" is set for individuals on a cash basis, so only income received in cash is taxable to be paid in cash.

If I own a 45 acre farm, you say it's worth $1 million, I say it's worth $1,000, there is no objective way to tell who's right, unless it's liquidated.
I don't disagree with any of this, why do you keep repeating it? I am not defending taxing of anything, let alone 'corporations'.

[Disenfranchised]

"no, inflation raised his wages just as it raised his food prices... nothing mysterious here"

Sorry, I never got a raise from anyone named "inflation!"

If taxes on a corporation go up, something gives, wages, dividends, sales price, cash flow to vendors, something.


Yes. Prices. Enough to pay the taxes.


Corporations don't exist, they don't need or want anything, they are only a legal concept.


Yes they do. They have the same standing in law as an individual. They can engage in business, own property, sue you, etc. Their sole purpose is to make money for their owners.


And the problem with taxing "worth" is it's a made up number.


Made up by the one who's worth it is.


At least "income" is set for individuals on a cash basis, so only income received in cash is taxable to be paid in cash.


Not true. If the IRS can find "profit" from trades it will tax you on the increased value of the goods received in exchange.


If I own a 45 acre farm, you say it's worth $1 million, I say it's worth $1,000, there is no objective way to tell who's right, unless it's liquidated.


Wrong again. I used to work for my county Assessor and I went to appraiser school where they taught us how to value a property from sales ratios, the price of comparable properties in the neighborhood that were recently sold.

[Disenfranchised]

It is the influence of the extremely rich over our lawmakers that their wealth gives them.Correct.

The taxes paid by the corporations are returned to them through higher prices.Sadly incorrect.
When prices rise, consumers buy less. Therefore, the revenues will go down.
Returned through higher prices???? You have got to be kidding.


Not kidding at all. It just takes longer.

Think it out. Where do the corporations get their money, any of it. Profit form doing business. And that is where the tax money comes from too.

[Disenfranchised]

2001:
5% of top wage earners pay 50.25% of all Fed income tax
Top 10% pay 64.89%
Top 50% pay 96.03%
Then this...[quote]turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.


Your search - marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604t264.html - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords
Where did you get those stats? From a right wing propaganda organization. ?


Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.
Kinda pokes holes in your stats and theories.


The increased tax revenue is from the increased value of the stock market, which goes very disproportionately to the rich. The rest of us pay in the long run through the money we pay for the things we buy from the corporations.

[preservanation]

The rich are not the only ones invested in the stock market. Anyone who has a 401k, IRA, or a retirement fund is in the stock market.
Even if your not, a high tide floats all boats. Stop whining.

Sorry about that link, I'll provide you another one so you can dismiss that source as right wing propaganda as well.

[Disenfranchised]

Stating the facts as I understand them to be. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in a few details. But the general premise is true. The middle class carries a greater burden proportionally to their resources.


The rich are not the only ones invested in the stock market. Anyone who has a 401k, IRA, or a retirement fund is in the stock market.
Even if your not, a high tide floats all boats. Stop whining.

Sorry about that link, I'll provide you another one so you can dismiss that source as right wing propaganda as well.


Whining? I don't need to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm done with you and you're insults. I have much better things to do with my time.

[preservanation]

"Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya."

[1Samuel8]

Think it out.Not only have I thought about it but so have 99% of the world's economists and you are in the 1% camp.

Rising prices does not equate rising profits.
Rising prices will lead people to consume less.
Profits are prices multiplied by volume.

Where do the corporations get their money, any of it. Profit form doing business. And that is where the tax money comes from too.Let me try a different angle: if prices (or taxes) continue to rise and rise and rise and rise and rise, are you suggesting that consumers will continue to consume and consume and consume and consume and consume AT THE EXACT SAME LEVEL AS BEFORE and therefore, profit will be unaffected?????????

[Marley]

"Made up by the one who's worth it is."

And by whoever is trying to tax it!!!!!

It's all a made up number until it's actually SOLD. At arm's lenth to a 3rd party.

How many dot.com suckers though they had a bunch of "worth" in 1998?
So what happens if you tax what you claim is worth and it turns out be worthLESS???

[Mayberry]

It's all a made up number until it's actually SOLD. I wish I could convince the appraisal district of that. :(

[Marley]

You should have an appeals process available to you.

But there's the cost/benefit thing to consider.

[Mayberry]

You should have an appeals process available to you.
Sure. I appeal, they knock a few grand off, then hit me twice as hard the next year. :rolleyes: But there's the cost/benefit thing to consider. Precisely. They make sure the cost will outweigh any benefit, and continue to screw you year after year, until you're finally forced to sell your home. Then they can really stick it to the new owner because of the higher appraisal based on the sale price (assuming the housing market isn't in the tank). When it was in the tank around here, they left appraisals at the previously over-inflated values and just cranked up the rates. There were no devaluations unless the house sold. Then they had no choice but to go with the lower value. Ain't government grand?