3 ms·

In my opinion… Wealth taxes are a not the best idea. Being taxed on something illiquid that can’t generate cash flow is the pinnacle of dumb taxation. For ex

In my opinion… Wealth taxes are a not the best idea. Being taxed on something illiquid that can’t generate cash flow is the pinnacle of dumb taxation. For example, you have a piece of art. You’d have to sell something just to hold onto the art, and if you don’t have anything to sell, you’d have to sell the art itself just to pay for ownership of the art. It would make some sense to increase capital gains taxes instead of slapping people with a wealth tax. I say this as someone that would not be hit by a wealth tax. Also, the rich can simply move assets out of the country, and then you erode the very thing you want to tax.

Spooky23 3y ago
Didn’t say wealth tax, just tax. Taxing unrealized gains would be dumb. It’s pretty easy, hit dividends, income for social security and Medicare purposes without caps, etc. Eliminate deductions for margin interest, tax filing, legal, other fees. Put an excise tax on LLC formation and annual reporting, and require an annual filing of beneficial owners of corporate entities. Charge a higher fee for foreign and corporate owners.
- r00fus 3y ago
  These are really good solid ideas that would also have a lot of popular support. Basically take all the loopholes that the .01% use and close or disadvantage them so they don't use them (or as much). Rich still get richer but the system stabilizes.
TexanFeller 3y ago
> Being taxed on something illiquid that can’t generate cash flow is the pinnacle of dumb taxation My house isn't very liquid, can't generate revenue very effectively, and I'm taxed every year on its current value. Guess us regular folks are already subject to a wealth tax.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago
  You can rent out real estate. House hacking, Airbnb, boring rental, etc.
  - peter422 3y ago
    And you can sell otherwise non-revenue generating assets if you need to. If you want to say it's difficult to tax illiquid assets, that's fine. But it's not impossible and while it would just change people's relationships to these types of assets (maybe in a good way for society), it's not going to be the end of the world.
  - masfuerte 3y ago
    Sure, and the rich person can charge people to look at their valuable artwork.
- Viliam1234 3y ago
  Rich enough to have money that can be taken away, not rich enough to afford a specialist for tax evasion. People like this pay most of the tax. And yes, all the reasons why "taxing X would actually be harmful for the economy" somehow magically do not apply to the small fish.
Retric 3y ago
Don’t fall into the trap of assuming nothing changes when you tax something. Tax art and the value of art decreases thus decreasing the tax. Which is likely good for the economy.

Spooky23 3y ago

Didn’t say wealth tax, just tax. Taxing unrealized gains would be dumb. It’s pretty easy, hit dividends, income for social security and Medicare purposes without caps, etc. Eliminate deductions for margin interest, tax filing, legal, other fees. Put an excise tax on LLC formation and annual reporting, and require an annual filing of beneficial owners of corporate entities. Charge a higher fee for foreign and corporate owners.

r00fus 3y ago
These are really good solid ideas that would also have a lot of popular support. Basically take all the loopholes that the .01% use and close or disadvantage them so they don't use them (or as much). Rich still get richer but the system stabilizes.

TexanFeller 3y ago

> Being taxed on something illiquid that can’t generate cash flow is the pinnacle of dumb taxation My house isn't very liquid, can't generate revenue very effectively, and I'm taxed every year on its current value. Guess us regular folks are already subject to a wealth tax.

devoutsalsa 3y ago
You can rent out real estate. House hacking, Airbnb, boring rental, etc.
- peter422 3y ago
  And you can sell otherwise non-revenue generating assets if you need to. If you want to say it's difficult to tax illiquid assets, that's fine. But it's not impossible and while it would just change people's relationships to these types of assets (maybe in a good way for society), it's not going to be the end of the world.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  Sure, and the rich person can charge people to look at their valuable artwork.
Viliam1234 3y ago
Rich enough to have money that can be taken away, not rich enough to afford a specialist for tax evasion. People like this pay most of the tax. And yes, all the reasons why "taxing X would actually be harmful for the economy" somehow magically do not apply to the small fish.

Retric 3y ago

Don’t fall into the trap of assuming nothing changes when you tax something. Tax art and the value of art decreases thus decreasing the tax. Which is likely good for the economy.