Why not?
Instead of taxing people for engaging in economic activity, you're taxing people for not engaging in economic activity (sitting on wealth).
Old money plutocrats would be BTFO. There would be a huge incentive to invest in performing assets.
Social mobility would improve. A motivated person wouldn't need to fight against a massive headwind to move up the social hierarchy due to an income tax.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Bump
Sounds interesting to say the least
There's a reason that Magic: The Gathering got rod of mana burn senpai
rid*
Discouraging people putting money in banks is always a great idea
How about I keep my money you keep your money? Now fuck off communist. We don't like your kind around here.
>Double-taxing income
>Redistributing to degenerate faggots with zero ambition
kys
Hold up, think about it.
If I were a rich fuck sitting on billions, I would want to pass an income tax to stop people from accumulating wealth to rise to my level. I wouldn't want any sort of wealth tax, because I am already at the top, I can just sit and be happy on my moneypile.
It almost seems like the system is set up in a perfect way to benefit old-money
because this
youtube.com
How about we just don't tax anybody? And if the government wants money they can fucking earn it by offering services that have to compete in the free market, instead of just robbing the entire nation at gunpoint.
Implying the commie has money. Probably wouldn't a red of his bank account was in the green.
What the hell is with all these communist threads tonight?
Always makes me laugh how stupid people think billionaires just have huge piles of money lying around like they are some cartoon character.
go get more than $10 to your name and maybe you'll have a point. EBT doesnt count.
if they're investing their money and generating a return, then what's the problem with a wealth tax? They can always just earn more than the tax rate, and they'll be sitting pretty.
I got a better idea. Why not just have a flat tax?
Okay.
How?
How do you suppose we tax the money that someone has under their mattress?
How can you tell it is there?
I know people with ridiculously large sums of cash in their house. Whats stupid is trusting a bank to hold your life savings in digital form.
If the right event happened a bunch of dumbass millionaires would be stick with what cash they had in their wallet and a useless plastic card.
A flat income tax, or a flat wealth tax?
>There would be a huge incentive to invest in performing assets.
The wealthy already do this, dumbass. Nobody sits on wealth. Who do you think owns most of the stocks, bonds and real estate? Who do you think pays for the services of investment advisers? Only poorfags keep the majority of their wealth in cash. Now go to sleep. It's past your bedtime.
>he thinks the wealthy just have their money sitting in bank accounts
Kek, go take a free online finance class you retard
>The wealthy already do this, dumbass. Nobody sits on wealth.
So then what's the problem?
Dude, if scrooge mcduck dived into 91ft pool of gold, his duck neck would snap.
How about theft is Immoral and you can come up with any justification you want however its still theft since you are forcing people to give up their property when they have not initiated force against you or anyone else.
I'm building a secret empire, which obviously I can't declare. I will in essence have a lot of motionless wealth cause you don't and can't see it trickling to world domination.
C / noformedawg * - *
>nobody sits on wealth
>except the people sitting on wealth
I'm not even a commie and I can tell you're retarded.
>I know people with ridiculously large sums of cash in their house
You know drug dealers
The problem is your idea would accomplish nothing
we need a single male tax because men have so much privilege
this would force people to go underground from banks
you could just invest in gold and dont report it
>Financial planning 101
>Invest your wealth in income producing assets
>Or assets expected to appreciate in value
>Maintain a small reserve of cash for short term expenses or emergencies
this has GOT to be the most retarded idea i've ever heard of. you think big money/old money just has millions of dollars lying around unused in bank accounts? that it's just sitting there, collecting dust?
no. ONLY nigger rappers and drug dealers hoard money and they only do it because they think big numbers and "muh stacks" are the highest virtue in life.
rich people INVEST their money. they put it into low volatility stocks, mutual funds and other assets. when they need to collect some money to pay for something, they simply sell some of their assets with the help of the internet. they don't keep more than $100,000 in their bank accounts and that's mostly play money for the kids who don't understand the concept of making your money work for you yet and still spend it on frivolities to show off on social media.
not that i condone this, i would mount every big bank upper management's heads on pikes if given the chance and line the streets with them. but if you think that rich people don't understand that not spending their money makes the economy stagnate then you're retarded.
It would improve social mobility.
Think about it. Let's say you're someone with a lot of ideas, and you're doing really well in the marketplace, earning lots of money.
Right now, your income is taxed, blunting the rate at which you accumulate capital.
However, in the world of a wealth tax, your income (which is now a lot higher) doesn't determine your tax rate, meaning that now you can save money and rise through the ranks much faster. If you invest wisely and can generate a larger return per dollar saved, your net wealth will soon rise to eclipse that of the billionaires.
In the end, social status would shake out based on who was performing the best in the market at any given time.
You should probably have some kind of protection around retirement income though.
>Sitting on billions
>He believe rich people have pools of gold in their houses
Red detzcted
I always thought a wealth tax would be a great idea. Watch all those progressive liberals change there tune when they realize there trusts and wealth can be taxed.
Die in a fire you communist scum
It sounds communist, because you're imagining that this would be punative of the rich, to bring everyone down to a poverty level.
Actually since you're taxing a much larger sum of money, the tax rate would probably be a lot smaller (maybe a couple %). Incomes would be proportionately higher, since that tax is lifted.
It's just a different way of taking money out of the economy. Instead of targeting economic activity, you're targeting the lack of it. In this model, people would be more motivated to invest, and make their assets perform.
>rich people INVEST their money. they put it into low volatility stocks, mutual funds and other assets. when they need to collect some money to pay for something, they simply sell some of their assets with the help of the internet. they don't keep more than $100,000 in their bank accounts and that's mostly play money for the kids who don't understand the concept of making your money work for you yet and still spend it on frivolities to show off on social media.
Those would be the easiest things to tax wealth on. They have a fair market rate as of 12/31.
People will open Consulting cabinets, pay each other and your retarded tax will do nothing
exactly. this is what an INCOME tax already accomplishes.
Why would we want to tax wealth? Don't we want people to create more wealth?
The least bad tax is a land value tax (NOT a property tax on improvements.) Land is perfectly inelastic in supply, so taxing it would not affect production. Taxes on income, wealth and sales should be avoided because we want more production, more investment and more savings.
actually if you think about it, inflation is already a wealth tax. You're losing money at a flat % based on your total net
And it's already generally understood that inflation motivates investment, for this very reason
So in reality, we already have a wealth tax in effect.
Wew lad you killed a thread for that
Income tax only affects dividends and other forms of return. For example, Apple didn't do dividends for decades (for various reasons), so your wealth could have skyrocketed but if you never sold you wouldn't pay any taxes on it.
the difference is, inflation comes with a cycle of debt and economic distortion
Formalizing things as a general wealth tax would be preferable
Or we could just keep inflating into infinity to pay for everything
What you describe is extremely impractical. You use a lot of fancy words but I don't think you know what they all mean. How do you define "wealth"; cash on hand, cash in a bank account, investment in financial assets (stocks and bonds), ownership of private businesses, ownership of real assets?
Estate taxes especially hit people who inherit businesses (farms in particular). Say my father was a farmer who worked hard and built his holdings up to 1,000's of acres of land worth $20 million and passed it down to me when he died. The estate tax could run into the millions of dollars.
I don't have a million dollars laying around as it is all invested in the farm. The farm doesn't earn enough money to pay the tax all at once. My only choice is to sell the farm in order to pay the taxes. Inheriting a $20 million farm is vastly different than inheriting $20 million of cash.
Not really. Inflation has the most affect on cash, not assets.
When I say affect, I mean devaluing.
nice digits, and you're right
I'm liking this idea more and more the more I think about it
The only issue is, you'd need rather invasive government accounting of wealth of citizens. But we already have this with the income tax system anyway
You'd need to assess the fair market value of the farm, or whatever it is.
In any case, a farm is a performing asset. As long as the farm is generation more than the % of the wealth tax, it would actually be earning you money, instead of losing you money.
And if the farm were well run, it would quickly rise and grow, since it's income isn't blunted by an income tax.
Think about it this way. You and all the farms around you are canoes and you're all paddling upstream. The speed of the stream is the wealth tax, the rate at which you paddle is your income.
Canoes that can't paddle as fast are soon swept downstream, but those that can push their way upstream.
An income-tax is more like, the water is made of maple syrup. Nobody can paddle very quickly, everyone moves slower up and down
I am a fan of the government not stealing my money so how about no taxes eh?
>sitting on wealth
this is what retards actually believe, just kys the world would improve a tiny bit
you don't seem understand how banking works , where do you think banks get money to lend
how about you just lower the tax rates just for basic government shit like army, police, laws and shit to protect us and put the rules of the game, and let people decide what the fuck to do with the rest of their money
Eventually we will have to have a VAT as well.
If only to catch all the lost tax due to minority communities trading with each other in cash or by virtue of simply squatting in our country and getting gibs.
That's just as bad, moron.
underrated
Because people will just store their money elsewhere and get 0% tax, or only the poor would have to pay taxes (the poor don't have the money to buy a house outright, they must instead save money, but that "saved" money is what's being taxed, and it will be taxed repeatedly for a very long time because they can't spend it until they have accumulated enough to be able to afford a downpayment).
so have a bracketed tax system
but offshoring is an issue, so you'd have to address that with penalties
What about no taxes and get rid of all laws.
>The wealthy sit on there money.
No they don't you fucking retard.
Do you think they keep their fucking money in a shoe box?
Jesus Christ, you are retarded.
You can't address it with penalties because you cannot know that the money is just being stored offshore. As far as you know they bought tons of gold and that's that even though in reality they sold the gold 7 hours later in another country, for instance.
As for bracketed tax system, that doesn't change anything. Once again, only the rich can afford to instantly put any money they get their hands on into something that will virtually always increase in value such as real estate. Moreover, that causes a plethora of other issues: now nobody can buy a house because all the rich people buy them to avoid taxes. Your entire country becomes a ghosttown.
Also, the rich will start paying themselves in assets instead of money, while the poor have no such options. And no matter how low your bracket is, non-0 tax on say $1k over 20 years (the amount of time it took you to get your downpayment ready :^)) accumulates damned fast. And yet, because you bracket it, you as the government don't really receive any money from this system, at all.
Ok, then why is it a problem? They're investing the money anyway, it's generating a return. As long as the return is higher than the tax, they're home free
>now nobody can buy a house because all the rich people buy them to avoid taxes
it's a wealth tax. that includes assets such as houses. They aren't avoiding anything.
>non-0 tax on say $1k over 20 years (the amount of time it took you to get your downpayment ready :^)) accumulates damned fast
Should have invested it. It's already getting eaten away by inflation isn't it?
So you're saying putting your money on the stock market (i.e. what literally everyone is doing) would qualify for 0 taxes, thus nobody in the entire country would ever get taxed, ensuring the rich can destroy the world within 2 years of installing this regime?
>As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
No, but by investing their money in something (stocks, businesses, loans...etc) they can make back a return, and that return is hopefully greater than the tax.
This is how you beat inflation too
So you're saying that either your tax is less than 1%, or you expect people to make over 50% return? You have precisely no clue what you're talking about, period.
exactly, the tax wouldn't need to be very large, since you're taxing a much larger pool of money.
Pic related, a 1% annual tax would bring in more money than we're getting from the income tax right now
You're clinically retarded and don't even begin to have a hint of a clue about anything you're talking about.
>Instead of taxing people for engaging in economic activity, you're taxing people for not engaging in economic activity (sitting on wealth).
Currently the "tax" for sitting on your wealth (i.e. not investing) is inflation.
The rich already engage in "economic activity" through investing. I do not understand how this would improve anything in the slightest.
Currently, you're taxed on the returns you make. If you make no returns (the market went south, you're a bad investor [and therefore contribute to non-productive economic activity], or something like that), the tax does not incur an extra penalty through a stable tax rate on the wealth you still have.
This would only lead to the downside of investing (losses) increasing without increasing the upside (profit). This makes investing more risky for those controlling the capital, leading them to both invest in more safe bets and demanding higher returns. This would be extremely detrimental to, for example, early stage investors (angels, VCs), but also to private equity companies. They often fund the ideas and companies that lead to someone "rising" in the socio-economic ranks.
I don't understand your reasoning.
Democrats are unfit for real work. Stealing is their only ambition.
So they pull all their investments and stuff their mattresses?
Because the state has no right to the personal wealth of its citizens.
>forgetting about the Panama Papers
They will just offshore it and make it real hard to tax them.
Yes.
Dont tax income. Tax wealth.
...
Taxation is theft