Base taxes on net worth only.

Sorry but you have no clue. Hope if you actually have any money a financial manager is handling it. Just to help you a tiny bit money is not growing unless the rate of growth exceeds inflation. The value of money is based on purchasing power not on the size of the stack of pennies. And all smart investors hold a certain amount of cash so that a fire sale of assets won't be required if unexpected contingencies occur. Usual recommended amount is six plus months of living expenses but in this time with increased volatility my recommendation is about a year.

 

You do no of course that there is no evidence to support the Laffer Curve.

 

In today's world these specific contingencies could be easily worked out leave still an infinitely simpler tax code.

 

It has no logical basis.Only protection of property and it's rights are necessary to have a free market system or democracy. Thus someone is being punished erroneously. Also, I advocate that all general policy be placed on a ballot requiring a two thirds majority approval, no electoral college involvement.

 

No, old goods would be taxed at a depreciated rate, meaning true and accurate value to replace. This would promote a pressure to get the most out of a product and make products that retain value. I'm sure there are those who never actually worked a day in their life who would hate that.

 

Net worth tax is the most asinine idea I've heard in weeks.

 

Not on consumption or income, net worth. Do the math, 4.25 percent would bring in more than the country currently brings in.

 

The point of this discussion is to consider what would actually happen to your taxes if they were 4.25 percent of your net worth.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you applied it to your current situation? Please share that.

 

A tax on wealth means a person is taxed on unearned income, is taxed repeatedly on the same wealth, and tends to destroy wealth.

Consider a retired person who has saved all his life and depends on his net wealth to sustain him for 30 years. Your 4.25% tax will take 50% of that persons retirement funds (his wealth) in 16 years. A wealth tax is a terrible idea.

 

Just for fun, Apply it to yourself. 4.25 percent of your net worth. Compare it to what you pay in all taxes combined.(SS and Medicare not included and separate as they are actually like 401K savings) Bet you save.

 

my taxes would be close to 85000 a year..stupid idea..just because you own nothing why hurt the rest of the smart people out there..

 

All that really matters to me is reducing taxation per capita. If this achieves this then I am in favor, if not then I am not.

Steal less from less people.

 

The question is; at what point in the percentage of population does net worth get high enough to be impractical and for the ownership of each type asset due to current exemptions?

 

The logic you apply is based on the deletion of some of the facts. As stated, the tax on net worth is based on properties protected, year after year. There is no deterrent or punishment for being productive. In fact the tax is an incentive to create structures that facilitate long term valued products and provide high valued services. Industry would go back to making quality. Citizens could afford to put more into a separate Medicare trust fund that would not be taxed unless it was unused or transferred. The myth that it destroys wealth is only good when applied to the absolutely most unproductive. That few can be taken care of by a social security system which is separate and not actually a tax shared insurance plan.

 

You should use the "reply with quote" feature, so that people know who you're responding to.

 

And that $85,000.00 compares to what in current accumulated various and sundry taxes minus the deductions?

 

That's the point. This system steals nothing. It simply requires each citizen to pay for the protection that the system, as a whole, provides each citizen equally, and bases it on properties protected.

 

Do you really believe wealth is the measure of intelligence? Guess you must be in favor of a 100% inheritance tax which would at least make that a little more true.

 

the value of the land is determined by what a person is willing to pay you for it.. so if no one is willing to buy it then it has no value..totally worthless...so then no taxes are due right?...so who decides what the value is worth?...this idea sounds like a sixth grader made it up

 

Would a citizen be allowed to forego the protections and not be required to pay for the service he doesn't use?

 

The same system that determines property values now. Do your homework. It would become a better science and more regulated procedural structure.

 

"Time frames" of use, defining "use", defining "access" would all have to be ratified by a two thirds majority of a popular vote for exemptions to be given. That's where the democracy comes in. Protect the property first by "pooling the resources" equitably. Then, through true "due process", which is the referendum, determine allocations and exemptions.

 

Net worth tax would be punitive. For example, the largest amount of net worth most people have is their house. A pensioner living on a fixed income that owns their house paid off over 30 years would be taxed on what is basically their life savings.

 

so if when this stupid idea did work then there would be no one to buy property it would have no value so no taxes due then right..you must own some real property right now ?..so you understand that demand determines the price

 

lets say your math worked... (its off, the current budget exceeds the current estimated net worth of all americans, so you'd have to raise your tax number)

do you not think there would be massive manipulation and fraud in net worth calculations? you seem to suggest this would level the playing field, and would stop waste, hoarding, and inflation... can you explain how ANY of those would stop? it sounds nice to say, but in reality there is nothing with this method that would prevent ANY of that... all three would continue...

how many millions of federal employees would it take to calculate the net worth of people, and hold them accountable to not cheat... people cheat rampantly with the current tax code and we waste hundreds of billions in that system, this new system would be like the old days where people were taxed on assets, and they guess what, they hid assets and were quite successful in doing so...

lets take home appraisal for instance... I could go find 10 guys to appraise my home, and none of them would match what the city says my home is worth... and guess what, if I put it for sale today, it could be an absolute random guess which guess on the massive range of appraisals will be accurate... my home is worth nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for it, whats it worth if nobody is willing to pay for it? the city will tax me as if someone would buy it at that price, but that does not mean someone will buy it at that price, yet your fair and honest system would penalize me for being stuck with a worthless asset in some cases...

your idea sounds great in theory, however the practice of it would be choked full of fraud and waste in practicality...

I mean you said it would make gaming the system very difficult... I think it would be exceptionally easy at that point... the wealthy have the means to convert assets and hide them even easier... how can you prove otherwise without an individual audit of every single home and property... you can't... even with full access things could be hidden quite easy... are you going to appraise every painting on the wall, every gold plated fixture, open every safe hiding cash or gold?