3 ms·
I agree with Paul here; A Wealth Tax adds a seemingly arbitrary additional rule that is based on less than liquid assets; It also adds significant complexity t
by smileysteve 6y ago
I agree with Paul here;
A Wealth Tax adds a seemingly arbitrary additional rule that is based on less than liquid assets; It also adds significant complexity to the system.
Versus, a progressive income tax is less arbitrary and less "complex" (though many people do not comprehend the concept.)
To take the simplicity further; we should eliminate capital gains and qualified dividends special tax rates coordinated with the corporate tax rate to 0%; This structure already exists in the REIT tax code.
In addition, while there is an argument that Social Security is tied to an individual, the base level and Medicare/Medicaid are not; so instead of being "flat taxes" should be moved to be paid for by the progressive income tax. (Similarly, if universal healthcare were to become policy, this is much better as a progressive tax)
- wycy 6y agoThere's nothing wrong with a tax on non-liquid assets. We already have taxes like that: property tax.
- nybble41 6y agoProperty taxes are routinely pointed out as examples of highly regressive taxes which cause numerous issues for those who can least afford them.
- wycy 6y agoMy point is that there's nothing inherently impossible about a tax based on illiquid, difficult-to-value assets. A tax on wealth > $50M will obviously not be a regressive tax.