Posted on 10/21/2019 9:49:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Elizabeth Warren is among the strongest contenders and Democratic hopefuls for the presidential election of 2020. During the fourth Democratic debate, on October 15, her “Wealth Tax Plan” received close attention as to how it could reduce income inequality in the United States.
The central argument of Warren's the wealth-tax proposal is this: through a progressive wealth tax system — which means those with more wealth will pay higher tax rates — the wealthiest people in America will pay their “fair share” and that fair share will enable the equal redistribution of wealth. Set forth by French economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman; this idea for lessening the "wealth gap" is composed of three main planks:
First, households would pay an annual 2 percent tax on all assets for net worth equal or less than $50 million. Individuals and families who are worth more than a $1 billion would pay a 3 percent tax . Second, the Warren forecasts a revenue of $2.75 trillion, and that would be allocated in the creation of new government programs such as universal child care for every child age zero to five; universal pre-k for every three- and four-year-old; student-loan forgiveness; free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, two-year colleges and four-year colleges. Third, the Warren proposal aims to heavily tax corporations so that they would pay their so-called “fair share.”
The plan is, in fact, a type of Robin-Hood tax plan in the sense that it seeks to punitively take from those who have a lot of wealth and distribute it to those with less. The problem with the plan is that, if implemented, it will create three major unintended, yet, detrimental consequences.
The first consequence will be the significant expansion of federal authority over the economy. Even if, in theory, the Warren wealth-tax plan targets only the super wealthy at first, this does not mean that the middle-class is exempted from a potential rise in income tax. For Elizabeth Warren to fund all the programs that she wants to implement, taxing the billionaires — even at a very high level — won’t be enough. The middle-class will eventually be forced to contribute to the funding of these programs, which means that the plan, instead of alleviating the wealth gap, will reduce the purchasing power of the middle-class. This means that ordinary citizens will have a hard time saving for their retirement or to invest in business ventures. Moreover, the plan gives the federal government more extensive power and authority over the allocation of resources and the economy as a whole.
As a result, federal agencies will have far greater control over how resources will be allocated and invested throughout the broader economy. Yet, experience suggests government allocates resources inadequately and inefficiently, while distorting markets, and leading to bubbles and malinvestments. For example, government-owned schools underperform compared to charter schools and private schools, and the medical public sector generally delivers lower-quality healthcare. If government already delivers such outcomes under current conditions, what reason do we have to believe that resources will be better managed when government controls even more resources?
The second consequence will be a great decrease in productivity for the economy overall. Indeed, those who already own large amounts of assets often own those assets because they have managed to put them to good use expanding the economy and increasing employment. The wealth tax, meanwhile, is built on the premise that government agents can convert that wealth into cash payments, and that the government knows better how to distribute it.
Moreover, were Warren's plan to be enacted, many of those subject to the tax may leave the country. This has already been shown to be the case in Europe, where, accoriding to NPR:
In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.
In France alone, the "wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems."
The Warren wealth tax plan may confiscate the material wealth of wealthy persons and families. But those same people can take their know-how and move elsewhere. The impact on American productivity would not be positive.
Senator Warren's wealth tax plan, despite the well-intended programs that it will generate; will end up as merely a tool to increase the power of Washington policymakers. Over time, taxes will creep down the income scale as the income tax did, eventually hiking the tax burden for the middle class, while also cutting productivity which will drive down wages and wealth for everyone.
Germinal G. Van is an author, political essayist and libertarian scholar. He was born and raised in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. He immigrated to the United States in 2010 with a student visa. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the Catholic University of America and a master’s degree in political management from the George Washington University.
My own guess on the level of taxes to pay for all of the “free programs” the Dimocrapt presidential candidates will have to be 90% of every working person’s gross annual income.
What happens if you wealth tax the independently wealthy and wealthy retirees who have no proportionally comparable income?
Are you not forcing them to liquidate some of their assets in order to pay?
All this, presumably, after they already paid all the associated sales and property taxes when they acquired their wealth on the front end.
Now I’m asking this question more based in principle, because it is is highly likely that anyone who is wealthy enough to get into Warren’s 3% bracket are probably receiving income off of investments. It seems very unlikely that anyone with that kind of wealth doesn’t have a good part of their assets into income generating investments, but that’s not a given.
Also, if your wealth is not growing and it’s being depleted by 2 to 3% annually, how long does it take before you fall out of the wealth tax brackets?
The more you ask questions, the more it becomes very fair to call it intentional wealth redistribution. In other words, it’s very probably less about delivering anything to those in need as it is about punishing those who are not.
Lots of significant issues with this.
1. Unconstitutional. nothing in the constitution allows for this tax.
2. How will the government know who has such wealth? Just think of the massive bureaucracy that will need to be create, the rules and processes to be created to assess the value of each asset, the forms required,. If made law, every single person will have to fill out and submit a complete net worth financial statement to the government, completely documented and valued per their rules.
3. Once enacted, it will quickly apply to everyone with 100k or less in assets, because 1) the government will now possess everyone single person’s complete financial statement 2) they will then have the authority to confiscate as much wealth as they want 3) just look at the income tax as first passed and now reality as your guide.
I worked my ass off to the point that I had to have quadruple bypass at 45. Being as focused and driven as I was, I sacraficed a freakin lot the magnitudeof which I am really only now beginning to comprehend. I pay krap tons of taxes, multiple tens of thousands of dollars of real tax. I have spent most of my life working 80+ hour weeks for months in some sh@thole town in the middle of nowhere, or some sh@thole country. My fault, I chose what I chose, there was a forever amount of time, until there wasn’t. How many hours of my day, week, or year is my “fair share”. Why am I obligated to take care of those who do not plan or perpetually make bad decisions? Why am I obligated to pay for your abortion because you can’t walk 5 feet without throwing your legs behind your skull and injecting some random guys herpes encrusted phallus. I aint doing you. Why are others entitled to my time and effort, and the fact that they get paid from my blood sweat and tears while they contribute nothing of any positive value to society besides wasting resources and creating pollution and spewing out children that eventually turn into criminals because of bad parenting, how is this in any universe fair?
/rant off
“Senator Warren’s wealth tax plan, though well intentioned”? No, it is evil through and through.
People who propose and support wealth taxes are people seeking revenge upon their betters. Appeals to economic efficacy are of no interest to them.
There are three things that would happen, if her plan goes to implementation:
1. Companies would raise prices on products and services, to ensure the same profit level survives on. So you’d pay more for cars, tires, ovens, coffee, etc. It’s not the companies paying...you the consumer would pay.
2. If you were a wealthy retiree...you’d quietly move your money into Panama, Costa Rica, or the Philippines.
3. All of this action (by companies, and people moving cash outside of the US), would leave to a stalled economy, fewer jobs, and a lesser GDP for at least three years...until someone admits a damage situation exists.
She (if she won) would be a one-term president, with the Democratic Party in serious damage control by the 3rd year, and few options left other than dumping medicare-for-all, and the wealth tax. Go and ask them what medical options are left once that happens, and they can’t answer on that.
Haven't seen too many "ordinary" folks build skyscrapers, own a Railroad, etc etc.
Why aren't all the Wealthy Liberals doing this already?
(Yes, I realize that John Kerry chose to hide his Yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying MA Taxes and his Accountants chose to use the lower Tax Rate Table on his MA Income Taxes when they could have used the “voluntarily” higher Tax Rate) Wouldn't it make sense to use this so called Tax Windfall to pay down the National Debt before adding new outrageously expensive Government Programs to the Budget?
Of course, Lieawatha probably got the idea after playing Monopoly with her Grandpapoose’s...
The biggest question regarding wealth redistribution or any other big government funding that requires taxing the rich and the wealthy and well-off...
is...
the resentment that all of that creates.
Why would any productive member of society continue being productive just to have government take it away? The more productive members of society getting soaked and penalized, just for being more productive and smart and knowing how to manage their lives and funds better than the less productive.
You penalize the productive members of an economy, and you end up with a lot less productivity to tax and take away from. At a certain point, almost as quickly as the taxes and wealth-redistribution take hold. the tax revenues will be drying up and then, there will be NOTHING of value to tax and the funding dries up for the social experiments schemes.
Dumb as rocks are all the socialists who don’t have the brain matter to be able to extrapolate the repercussions that inevitably come from their stupidity.
You would need an army of IRS appraisers to calculate “wealth” especially for the wealthy individuals that have money in non liquid assets like private homes, farms, art, factories, oil wells, etc. And they would be forced to sell assets every year to produce the cash the government demands.
In total..meaning all taxes..I pay over 50% of my earnings...in taxes...I don't want to know the exact number...it would just piss me off more than I'm pissed off now.
From the Articles of Confederation:
“Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united States in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
“The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the united States in congress assembled.
https://usconstitution.net/articles.html
This indirect taxation could be reinstated by Congress. Exemptions and deductions could be allowed, converting a real property tax into a modern version of the French wealth tax.
These are links to the French wealth tax forms for 2017, when wealth other than just real estate was subject to wealth taxation:
https://www.impots.gouv.fr/portail/formulaire/2725/impot-de-solidarite-sur-la-fortune
the main form:
https://www.impots.gouv.fr/portail/files/formulaires/2725/2017/2725_1954.pdf
“private homes, farms, art, factories, oil wells”
All those except for art are now usually subject to ad valorum taxation.
Types of art could be made subject to taxation, such as art works purchased for over $10,000 as adjusted for inflation, or meeting the listing requirements established by law or regulation (that might require say all paintings by certain French Impressionists be listed).
Pictures of the art might have to be posted on an IRS website as per regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of the IRS and values declared.
If you declare an picture is worth $20,000 and someone says it is worth $50,000, then you might have to pay a fine of say 10% (plus a 10% finder’s fee payable to that someone) (plus the tax) on the $30,000 or sell the picture to that person for $50,000 and pay the tax on the $30,000 difference.
That someone might have to post a bond of $3,000 to ensure their claim is serious.
The fine and finder’s fee might be reduced to 2% each for people over age 75.
I’ve had to pay ad valorum real estate taxation annually for decades and no politician ever wanted to end it.
“You would need an army of IRS appraisers to calculate “wealth” especially for the wealthy individuals that have money in non liquid assets like private homes, farms, art, factories, oil wells, etc. And they would be forced to sell assets every year to produce the cash the government demands.”
I wish I never had to make a call to a stockbroker.
“You penalize the productive members of an economy, and you end up with a lot less productivity to tax and take away from. At a certain point, almost as quickly as the taxes and wealth-redistribution take hold. the tax revenues will be drying up and then, there will be NOTHING of value to tax and the funding dries up for the social experiments schemes.”
The last time I checked California real estate prices were high and subject to real estate taxation that was costly given those high prices.
It’s way past time Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg et al feel the effects of ad valorum taxation like the homeowners of Connecticut, New York State and New Jersey.
“Unconstitutional. nothing in the constitution allows for this tax.”
It’s possible to comply with the constitutional capitation proportionality limitation (if still in effect in the face of Amendment XVI, to which it is not compatible with) by setting higher wealth tax rates for poorer states and then allowing a full income tax credit for the higher wealth tax rate amounts.
Mississippi rich folks would pay a higher wealth tax rate on April 14th and have the excess (and maybe a bit more) credited to their April 15th income tax amount.
“exodus”
The US taxes income on a global basis. The UK doesn’t.
The UK didn’t even tax capital gains until 1965. UK capital gains taxation was indexed to inflation until 1997 I believe.
If you live on the Channel Islands...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.