[econjack]

First, we already have a tax on wealth; we don't need another one. Second, the question is: Why does the gov't feel it needs to tax wealth? Why does the gov't feel it knows how to spend my money better than I do? Why is it better for the gov't to buy cell phones for beat beats than let the people who earned the money decide whether they want to buy cell phones for dead beats? Or, could it be the gov't spends money to buy votes?

[riverdawg]

“First, we already have a tax on wealth;”

There is a federal inheritance tax on amounts above $11.4 million, but revenue from it is less than $20 billion per year (less than 1% of total federal tax revenue. Most of the super rich, to whose estates the tax would apply in principle, are able to shelter much of their assets from this tax.

I’m not defending a wealth tax; on the contrary, I think it would raise little revenue, and further distort individual saving and investment decisions.