With the country's net worth standing at $123.8T just charge a 7% tax on net worth per year. 😆
7% of $123.8T is $8.6T. That covers $7T in spending, and we pay off the national debt is 30 years. I mean, we could also cut spending - apparently we hate to do that.
But I love the idea of the bank paying part of my taxes since they partly "own" my house! I also love the idea of churches FINALLY paying tax! Bastards... 😆
It is also intuitively fair: people support the government in proportion to how much they would lose if government protection went away and they lost everything. Makes sense.
@spruce112358
The problme is just that the "worth" is asome arbitrary value. The money dodn't actually exist. If all stock woners would start to sell completely prices would be down in a very short time.
Evn if they would sell off "just" 7% the results would be devastating (see the black Friday 1929, how much stock was actually traded that day?)
Otherwise I am a proponent of the tax on personal wealth as I am a proponent of taxes on inheritance.
@spruce112358 saidI am not in favor of taxing static wealth per se, as this is ultimately the same thing as dispossession. Suppose someone has 100 dollars and earns no income on it. Tax away 7% the first year, and 93 bucks are left. Tax away 7% of the remainder next year, and so on, and eventually the govt. has simply taxed it all away.
With the country's net worth standing at $123.8T just charge a 7% tax on net worth per year. 😆
7% of $123.8T is $8.6T. That covers $7T in spending, and we pay off the national debt is 30 years. I mean, we could also cut spending - apparently we hate to do that.
But I love the idea of the bank paying part of my taxes since they partly "own" my house! I also love t ...[text shortened]... o how much they would lose if government protection went away and they lost everything. Makes sense.
I am in favor of taxing earnings and transactions. That is, whenever money changes hands, the govt. gets a piece of it.
Tax one thing or another, there is no other sensible way to finance public services.
I know AvJoe wants a pay-as-you-go system, so that if you paid your fire-dept. dues and your house catches fire, they come and put it out; if you didn't, they don't. This is unworkable, as a major fire, such as recently hit L.A, proves. Same goes for garbage collection, sewerage, bridge & road maintenance, public libraries & schools, policing, etc.--everybody pays, not on subscription. Anything else is silly and unworkable.
@moonbus saidLet me put a different perspective on it. 😆
I am not in favor of taxing static wealth per se, as this is ultimately the same thing as dispossession. Suppose someone has 100 dollars and earns no income on it. Tax away 7% the first year, and 93 bucks are left. Tax away 7% of the remainder next year, and so on, and eventually the govt. has simply taxed it all away.
I am in favor of taxing earnings and transactions. Tha ...[text shortened]... schools, policing, etc.--everybody pays, not on subscription. Anything else is silly and unworkable.
Government exists to protect all our rights equally. One of the most cherished rights is the right to property, along with freedom of association, freedom of speech, justice, defense, etc. That's a service, and it is not free. Someone should be paying for it - so why not pay for the service in proportion to what is being protected? So if you have a lot of value to protect, you pay more. You have less to protect, you pay less. That's how insurance works, and that's not unfair.
7% tax on net worth means everyone pays the same rate - rich or poor - on their NET WORTH.
So a guy whose net worth is $100 - he doesn't have just $100. He gets a paycheck, and spends it to buy stuff to live. He doesn't own much property to speak of. So what does he pay each year in taxes? $7. That is a SUPER low rate compared to what he pays now which is SS and FICA at least, maybe income tax if he makes a decent amount. 😆
@Ponderable saidThe net effect would be to reduce the speculative nature of stock values and re-emphasize the importance of dividends. 😆
@spruce112358
The problme is just that the "worth" is asome arbitrary value. The money dodn't actually exist. If all stock woners would start to sell completely prices would be down in a very short time.
Evn if they would sell off "just" 7% the results would be devastating (see the black Friday 1929, how much stock was actually traded that day?)
Otherwise I am a proponent of the tax on personal wealth as I am a proponent of taxes on inheritance.
Right now, people buy a stock hoping the price will go up and without thinking about the dividend. That's just speculation.
With my tax system, people wouldn't want the stock price to go up - they'd want the dividend to increase. Which makes much more sense. You'd tend to buy stock in companies that made profits, not those that spent money buying back there own stock!
Fair play - this is a new idea I'm floating. Keep challenging it. I want to see if it holds water. 😆
@moonbus saidProperty taxes are the model.
I am not in favor of taxing static wealth per se, as this is ultimately the same thing as dispossession. Suppose someone has 100 dollars and earns no income on it. Tax away 7% the first year, and 93 bucks are left. Tax away 7% of the remainder next year, and so on, and eventually the govt. has simply taxed it all away.
I am in favor of taxing earnings and transactions. Tha ...[text shortened]... schools, policing, etc.--everybody pays, not on subscription. Anything else is silly and unworkable.
@spruce112358 saidIn fact the net value for the company does in fact go down if it buys back own stocks. Only through the rise in price because of buying activity the stock price increases. (And the value for the remaining stock holders does increase too)
The net effect would be to reduce the speculative nature of stock values and re-emphasize the importance of dividends. 😆
Right now, people buy a stock hoping the price will go up and without thinking about the dividend. That's just speculation.
With my tax system, people wouldn't want the stock price to go up - they'd want the dividend to increase. Which makes muc ...[text shortened]... Fair play - this is a new idea I'm floating. Keep challenging it. I want to see if it holds water. 😆
So what we would need if we would want a fair tax on shares would firstly be a good tool to evaluate the net worth of a company. This will be very difficult for comanies with intangible assets (think DJT-stock).
So I think that speculation would go down if there would be a tax on the trade of shares. Stockholders seems officially always to pronouce the long-term investemnet, so a modest tax on share trading wouldn't affect them at all. But they also seem to be strongly opposed to a trade-tax.
@wildgrass saidThat illustrates my point precisely. If you tax a person‘s home, based on its net value, then eventually the government owns your home. Same thing applies to a farm. Eventually, the government takes away your farm, in 7% chunks year after year. What the government should be taxing is only increase in value, not static value.
Property taxes are the model.
@spruce112358 saidSuppose you have a gold bar in a safety deposit box. This is part of your net worth. What you are proposing is that the government should take a 7% slice off of that gold bar every year. Until there’s simply no gold left there. do you think that’s fair? Leave aside the question of your earning any money on top of that gold bar. That’s a separate issue.
Let me put a different perspective on it. 😆
Government exists to protect all our rights equally. One of the most cherished rights is the right to property, along with freedom of association, freedom of speech, justice, defense, etc. That's a service, and it is not free. Someone should be paying for it - so why not pay for the service in proportion to what is being pr ...[text shortened]... to what he pays now which is SS and FICA at least, maybe income tax if he makes a decent amount. 😆
@moonbus saidMoonBus Said this, a total misrepresentation!! He didnt know I am looking!!
I am not in favor of taxing static wealth per se, as this is ultimately the same thing as dispossession. Suppose someone has 100 dollars and earns no income on it. Tax away 7% the first year, and 93 bucks are left. Tax away 7% of the remainder next year, and so on, and eventually the govt. has simply taxed it all away.
I am in favor of taxing earnings and transactions. Tha ...[text shortened]... schools, policing, etc.--everybody pays, not on subscription. Anything else is silly and unworkable.
MOONBUS SAID THIS::
""Tax one thing or another, there is no other sensible way to finance public services.
I know AvJoe wants a pay-as-you-go system, so that if you paid your fire-dept. dues and your house catches fire, they come and put it out; if you didn't, they don't. This is unworkable, as a major fire, such as recently hit L.A, proves. Same goes for garbage collection, sewerage, bridge & road maintenance, public libraries & schools, policing, etc.--everybody pays, not on subscription. Anything else is silly and unworkable.""
Note he says tax 'public services'. Duh. We get that.
My analogy a while back is 10 people have homes in a remote area. No 'public' fire dept available. Sonhouse has a water truck. He offers to be available to put out any house fire if they pay him a yearly premium of $350 for that coverage.
Marauder elects to go it alone, and does not opt for that insurance. He has a house fire, and calls Sonhouse. Is there any duty owed to Marauder to put out his fire? (If you have problem with this premise, erase thoughts of government from your minds).
I will not allow my statements and analogies to be misrepresented!!!! Moonbus, that is not nice!!!
@moonbus saidSure, maybe a bad model, but a model that currently exists nonetheless. Despite the unfairness of paying taxes on unrealized gains, home seizures for not paying taxes are rare.
That illustrates my point precisely. If you tax a person‘s home, based on its net value, then eventually the government owns your home. Same thing applies to a farm. Eventually, the government takes away your farm, in 7% chunks year after year. What the government should be taxing is only increase in value, not static value.
Is it logical that home property are speculatively taxed while other similar investments (e.g. art) are not?
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@moonbus saidWhat?
That illustrates my point precisely. If you tax a person‘s home, based on its net value, then eventually the government owns your home. Same thing applies to a farm. Eventually, the government takes away your farm, in 7% chunks year after year. What the government should be taxing is only increase in value, not static value.
I pay property taxes on my home, don't really agree with it, but the govt never owns it or takes possession of it no matter how many years. WTF are you on about?
@moonbus saidWell, as for the notion of "shaving off a piece" some people see getting paid $100 but "shaving off" $20 for gummint equally annoying. 😆
Suppose you have a gold bar in a safety deposit box. This is part of your net worth. What you are proposing is that the government should take a 7% slice off of that gold bar every year. Until there’s simply no gold left there. do you think that’s fair? Leave aside the question of your earning any money on top of that gold bar. That’s a separate issue.
But I would say that the whole idea of Net Worth is NOT to keep things separate, so the value of the gold bar is combined with your stocks, real estate, bank accounts etc. Remember your income per se is not going to be taxed. So since virtually everyone who has a gold bar also has income, that doesn't present a huge problem.
Theoretically, today, if you had a gold bar in the bank and little income (e.g. paid no tax), society would protect your contract with the bank "for free" - is that more fair? Not really. You have a contract with the bank - who enforces that contract? Why does the bank not just keep your gold bar, or "lose" it? Police, laws, justice system - all of that has to be funded. Society is protecting your gold bar, that protection has to be funded.
Under the Net Worth system, a further alternative of course would be to bury the gold bar in your yard and don't tell anyone about it. But if you don't claim it as part of your net worth and never pay taxes, then if it one day the bar turns up missing, you can't tell the police about it. Protecting the bar was on you, and society doesn't have to cover the cost of investigating the theft because you cannot confess that something is missing! That also seems kind of fair. 😆
@wildgrass saidA government lien should not unhouse anyone - ever. That just creates a homeless problem which society has to deal with. 😆
Sure, maybe a bad model, but a model that currently exists nonetheless. Despite the unfairness of paying taxes on unrealized gains, home seizures for not paying taxes are rare.
Is it logical that home property are speculatively taxed while other similar investments (e.g. art) are not?
It should simply prevent the deed being transferred, e.g. sold or inherited, unless the back taxes are paid.
3 edits
@spruce112358 saidPonderable explained why your idea is impossible.
The net effect would be to reduce the speculative nature of stock values and re-emphasize the importance of dividends. 😆
Right now, people buy a stock hoping the price will go up and without thinking about the dividend. That's just speculation.
With my tax system, people wouldn't want the stock price to go up - they'd want the dividend to increase. Which makes muc ...[text shortened]... Fair play - this is a new idea I'm floating. Keep challenging it. I want to see if it holds water. 😆
Make Elon Musk and Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos liquidate 7% of their companies' stock every year and the prices will plummet and cause sheer chaos.
I have a little Amazon in my 401k. If I knew that Bezos was going to have to sell 7% of his Amazon in April, I'd obviously dump my Amazon now. Come March 31, I'd sell it short. In this paradigm, big companies practically couldn't exist.
Then let's assume the company isn't publicly held. I happen to have part interest in a family business. It's not worth much, but it pays some salaries and churns out a few bucks in profits each year. Let's say my interest in the business has an appraised value of $1,000,000. So, now, every April, I have to write a check for $70k to the IRS on account of that business? Yikes!! I'd probably have to get rid of my interest in the company. Probably, we'd turn it into a non-profit and just pay out the monies in salaries instead of dividends.
Which are now all tax free under your proposal.
Nice.