4 Likes
I’m responding to comments, that is why I have provided different information. It’s what happens in a conversation. How is it sketchy to state the fact that tax collections have increased? I honestly don’t think that most here would have known that. Based on the tax rate cuts, my guess is that most here believed that gross tax collection dropped significantly- which was specifically one of the comments that I was responding to.
I mean the premise here is to drastically change the rules and grab wealth that was earned under the current rules. That is a very spooky thing to a lot of people. To do something like that, there better be a really good reason- like the survival of our nation due to an ongoing World War. To me, a valid reason for seizing property is not because spending increased by 2% and tax revenues only increased by 1%.
1 Like
You are being sketchy by saying “grab wealth that was earned under the current rules” which is a nonsensical statement. Almost all wealth was earned under the current rules (technically even wealth made breaking the rules is still made under the current rules), that how wealth works - but we don’t go around calling property tax spooky.
7 Likes
The problem with a wealth tax is in article 1 section 9
“4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
This means that you could not establish a tax that collects more per capita from Maine or North Dakota than it collects from New York or Florida or California. The Constitution would have to be amended, as it was amended to enact the income tax. (PS - this affects the fedgov only, which is why states and cities can enact property taxes).
From a conservative point of view, the best argument I think would be to note that the original income tax of 1903 was 1% on an income of $3,000, which would be the equivalent of 1% on $85,000 today. It would not surprise me if the “wealth” thresholds in the Warren proposal similarly crept downward to encompass all the rich, and the upper middle class too. No one reading this has Gates or Buffet type money, but I am sure that some boingers have seven digits in retirement accounts or real estate and would be shocked to think they are the “rich” in need of harvesting.
The GOP is pro-war mostly all the time, and the Dems have no problem with war when there is a Dem president. Congressmembers of any party who want to take the war powers back from the executive are unfortunately too damned scarce.
1 Like
I would be extremely spooked if the Federal government decided to start taxing real estate. That is the feudal system.
I suspect that if the Constitution were amended to allow a direct property tax, it would be a matter of months at most before proposals surfaced for a federal real estate tax. After all, the valuation and collection infrastructure is already in place. I don’t think it would apply only to the houses of the 1%, either.
1 Like
This is some keen insight, Mr. Boudreau. It does make me feel warm and fuzzy inside to see AOC and EW setting up plays like this! With AOC’s appointment to the Financial Services Committee I’m hoping for great things.
That, and I’ll take the “Nice proposal but it’s dead in the water,” comments all day every long over no good policy proposals at all. It’s nice to see the idea starting to become part of the national conversation.
2 Likes
So, just to be clear, in a conversation about taxing incredible accumulations of wealth, property and power, your gripe about holdovers from feudalism is about some six degrees of Kevin Bacon connection to property taxes?
5 Likes
This might have been posted here already, but instead of handing the right wingers a talking point about paying higher taxes,
how about “The Big E” ( my nickname for my senator) promoting instead
#LIFTTHE CAP
based on all income…
Thanks! That’s what I was looking for. Much appreciated!
1 Like
I don’t know them or their views, but if they segued that into a discussion about how funding schools with property taxes was vile for those exact same reasons that would be pretty dope
No, it’s not at all. There’s no central ownership of land, and no system of unelected officials whose job it is to give a nebulous amount of money to the head official. Property tax had also been collected several times in US history and is often why “good guy” confederates claim the south went to war with the north.
What’s worse is that if you are spooked the US would commit to a system of forcibly removing no-US people from their lands only to then hand it over the US citizens for the enrichment of the nation, then boy did you sleep through a lot of history class.
4 Likes
I’m not saying her proposal is a revenge play for what was done to her people. That would be a massive stretch.
Hoarding wealth is ALSO feudal, but you seem okay with that…
5 Likes
The United States used to have a very small military. For some years after its foundation, it did not even have a Navy, and its Army was pretty small. Currently, total military expending constitutes about 2/3 of the total federal discretionary spending. The US spends more on defense that the other 8 highest spending countries combined. Yes, there is a lot of room for cutting that budget.
Inflation, population growth, and the general growth of the economy are the main drivers for tax revenue growth, not taxation rates. The larger your population and the higher to cost of labor and materials, the more you need to spend to maintain your programs.
4 Likes
How do you define hoarding? Do you have no wealth beyond what it takes to survive? A homeless person may consider you to be hoarding.
But to your point, I am OK with others owning things and I don’t feel jealousy when I hear about people with enormous wealth.
Who needs billions of dollars… seriously. Who needs it.
Oh please, don’t give me that. It’s not jealousy to be pissed that we could have more resources that benefit all of us. We could not have people dying from easily preventable diseases, because we all have health care (which, BTW, a national health care would not only give us better outcomes, BUT IT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW), that all children get a quality education, which gives them a better quality of life in the future and makes our economy more productive, that we all have public spaces that we can enjoy equally… etc.
No one is talking about doing away with all forms of wealth, but how about we do away with a society that allows so many people to fall through the cracks, often through no fault of their own, and build one that works for all of us.
11 Likes
Amassing significant capital without applying it in a truly productive way into the national or global economy. At least, that’s how most educated and smart wealthy people define it.
Examples: keeping 20%+ of net worth tied up in cash or precious metals as a hedge; spending 10s of millions of dollars on residential real estate that is used by the owner for 2 weeks out of the year, if ever; using a significant portion of net worth for gambling and speculation that adds no real value to the economy (this includes casinos and derivatives); investing in expensive art, antiques, jewellery, apparel, sports cars and other collectible items that end up spending most of the time being unused, unseen, and unenjoyed by their owners.
9 Likes
I think what’s important to also note here is that we live in an economy that depends upon our being consumers of goods and products, right? That means across the board - which is why after 9/11, W. advocated for going out to shop, because it was seen as a means of stimulating the economy after the disaster.
But the elite hoarding wealth away means that there is less money circulating on all levels of the economy. Although the middle and working classes not spending (because, you know, they can’t afford to) also has a detrimental effect on the consumer economy.
Reminds me of the sketch on SNL last week, Millennial Millions, where the millennials had to listen to rich boomers complain for 30 seconds to win, and the second was the collector boomer, who had like 3 or 4 houses, a wall of guitars, and vintage cars, too.
And as you note, people like Piketty have defined this stuff pretty well already. No need to reinvent the wheel here, yeah?
8 Likes
