(01-25-2019 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bleeding the patient didn't kill him, and now he is playing basketball in the driveway, so there is a data point that suggests we should not reject bleeding the patient as a treatment.

when you get a chance, read the link I posted in post #390

Read through it - seems light on the actual substance.

I do like the portion of finding a way to circumvent the circumvention of paying taxes by using tax havens.

On the overall idea of increasing revenues to pay for vital social services, such as expanding healthcare, I’m also on board. We’re woefully behind on healthcare outcomes and spending given our status in the world, and it would be good to be able to tackle that issue with a significant increase in funding.

I do wonder about the consequences for the super wealthy who aren’t super wealthy with liquid assets. But I really don’t have enough knowledge of how these people structure their finances to talk about it intelligently. Or just on investment in general - the number of people this would target is fairly small so it may not have a dent, but it could easily affect investment patterns.

Will need to do some more reading on the implications. But no knee jerk reaction either way.

Well, I have some kneejerk reactions to a wealth tax. For one thing, it taxes the same wealth over and over and over. Picture all your money in a great big wheelbarrow. If you have $50B. it is taxed, leaving $47B in the wheelbarrow. The next year, that same 47B is taxed again, leaving say, $44B in the wheelbarrow, and so forth. This is even mentioned specifically in the article.

Second, property taxes are mentioned as a form of wealth tax. So individuals with a lot of real estate in their net worth, like Trump and myself, end up paying twice.

Third, what is wrong with being successful that the Democrats are always trying to bring wealthy people down?

I wonder why the countries doing this went from 12 to 4. That seems to be a red flag.

Point 2 is exactly why I asked for specifics. Is it clear that property would be included, since you already pay, what is in essence a wealth tax, on it? Or perhaps there is some deduction?

Like I said, I know the Netherlands does some form of wealth tax at 1% and they seem to be doing just fine, given that almost every major company operating in the EU has been moving their operations to Amsterdam the past few years.

And I quibble with the third item - it’s less knocking down wealthy people and more trying to provide assistance for less wealthy people so they can function at a higher level in society. It isn’t illogical to me that we ask those with the most to help more, because they can afford to do so. And as AOC pointed out, there are places in this country where ring worm is present again... We need to invest in our country and our future, and this proposal looks to do that.

My concerns with the proposal would be its legality as Tanq pointed out and the potential effect on investments in the country. It would be interesting to see what happened in the Netherlands when they implemented the tax and how high wealth individuals and companies acted.

Well, a 1% wealth tax is not as bad as a 3% wealth tax. Small amounts of poison are better than large amounts. I see no rush of wealthy people to move their money into the Netherlands. maybe you do. Who are the leading Dutch billionaires? If I were a billionaire, I might well move my companies to Amsterdam, but I damn sure would not move me there.

But I know what I would do if such a tax was on me, and I could move my wealth away from the tax. I am guessing you would sit still, so you could help out other people?

Of course it is knocking down the rich. have you never heard the phrase "pay their fair share"? It's a phrase you hear regardless of how much they pay. Let's play a game. Every time we hear a liberal say "the wealthy are already paying their fair share", I'll give you $100. Every time we hear a liberal say "the rich are not paying their fair share", you give me $1. Only question is, do I have to pay taxes on my profits from this deal? Are you going to 1099 me?

As of 2016, there were 9 Dutch billionaires for a population of 17 million. In the US there were 540 billionaires for a population of 326 million.

That’s 0.52 billionaires per capita versus 1.69 billionaires per capita.

Not sure if you can correlate that directly to the wealth tax, but those are the numbers.

I will say, a significant number of Dutch people I know do complain about their high taxes, but they are all happier there, paying them, than they would be here. They are often shocked at the lack of support we receive for things like health car, childcare, and paid leave. But then again, all the Dutch people I know aren’t billionaires, so that may not be relevant.