3 ms·
Your overall point is right, a wealth tax would be massively complex. In all honesty it's probably only worth implementing on billionaires (and using some of t
by wing-_-nuts 5y ago
Your overall point is right, a wealth tax would be massively complex. In all honesty it's probably only worth implementing on billionaires (and using some of the funds raised for beefing up the IRS legal team and auditors).
One thing I want to point out, the reason why 'wealth taxes have always failed' is because it's against the interests of the wealthy, and the wealthy are powerful. Look how scared republicans are of grover norquist and the billionaires that back him. It's hard not to argue the same thing is happening in the EU as well.
- dexterdog 5y agoHow do you even implement in on "only billionaires?" Wouldn't everybody need to doc their wealth to prove that they are not a billionaire?
- wing-_-nuts 5y agoBillionaires are largely majority shareholders in corporations. I'd say that's a fine place to look. Maybe the IRS can look at the assets of anyone who's suspected to be worth 750M or more. Again, as I said, you could fund better enforcement of this by funding an IRS task force who's job it is to find and tax them. I can't believe something so simple as 'billionaires should pay more than 23% (or whatever it is) taxes are controversial, but here we are. I especially love how the Koch brothers effectively funded an astroturf campaign that hijacked the republican party, to get blue collar folks to argue against taxes on the 1%. That is some rich irony.
- dexterdog 5y agoNobody is saying they shouldn't pay taxes. People are saying they shouldn't be taxed on their wealth partially because anybody with an inkling of historic knowledge knows that a wealth tax will be coming to the masses shortly thereafter. Taxes are already far too complicated.