I assume you’re thinking 6 x 17 = 102%?
It doesn’t work like that, because 6% gets smaller every time your wealth is smaller.
$100 - 6% you are left with $94
$94 - 6% you are left with $88.36
$88.36 - 6% you are left with $83.06
Etc
It’s still BS...
I assume you’re thinking 6 x 17 = 102%?
It doesn’t work like that, because 6% gets smaller every time your wealth is smaller.
$100 - 6% you are left with $94
$94 - 6% you are left with $88.36
$88.36 - 6% you are left with $83.06
Etc”””
The 17% was a rounded up number, the correct number would be 16.6666667% to infinity. then you get 100%
Whileyou would be paying a 6% tax each year, your ‘wealth’ might NOT reduce.
Inflation with the value of housing, jewelry, art, and other items might put that original $100 up over $100 by year #2.
The ‘value of my wealth is fluctuating-—real estate—stocks—bonds—other assets I own. So the 6% might stay static, but that is all-—and I don’t think the Dems would stick to that amount EVER.
It is BS-—and it defies the Constitution.
Funny how using the Constitution is OK for this ‘wealth tax”, bvut they re trying to Impeach Trump for doing “Unconstitutional things”.
The Democrat rules are like trying to nail Jello to the wall.