ZOMBIE FORUMS

A few days ago, I read a Ralph Nader/Pat Buchanan interview linked on Mac Hall. It was generally forgettable, but did include one point I felt worthy of additional thought: Nader proposed a 'modest wealth tax', i.e. every year all taxpayers would pay a small percentage of their net worth (or possibly net worth above a given minimum, though Nader didn't mention that) to the government.

At first, I thought to myself, 'Self, that's the worst idea I've ever heard'. But when I tried to analyze why it seemed like a bad idea, I came up short; it's unorthodox as all hell, but would seem to neatly sidestep a lot of the criticisms of income, property and estate taxes (its main competitors, or so I'd think).

I lack the economic kung-fu to properly think out all its implications. Discuss?

It would defeat the purpose of wanting to make profit.

How?

The more you make, the more you pay. Depending on the rate, people would either try to make less, or hide more profits.

But if everyone gets 50% taken from their wages, then you still want to earn more because 50% of 100k is 50k (you still have 50k left over). Someone who makes 30k would be left with 15k.

It's a good idea, but if not implemented properly, it could be a catastrophic disaster.

Illegal. Immoral. Horrible idea.

-MiB

The trouble with a tax like this is, eventually, there'll be a cap to how much you can make. At some point, you'll amass so much money that the tax will be higher than the amount you can possibly make in a year. Which, at that point, you might as well stop working, but you have to, unless you want your money to be continually dwindling away. And what happens if you want to retire? If you want to live off your wealth, well, your wealth's going down the drain.

As weird as it sounds, I have to agree with Mibbers here. Bad idea.

People earn whatever they earn, and it's fucking foolish to expect them to give up hard earned cash just because they earned it.

-Kitty

Fuckin' leeches.

Does someone who makes 100K a year use more services than someone who makes 12K a year? Not in a mesurable way. Why should they pay more?

Problem is, net worth is an illusion, it isn't real. if you own 20 billion dollars worth of stock, it isn't really worth that.

If Bill Gates tried to sell off all of his stockm it would cause a crasha and the value would crater. Total worth is meaningless. non-liquid assets are valuable, but not equal. Thus any tax would be inherently unfair.

That's an income tax.




Well, they benefit from civilization a good deal more than the less wealthy, particularly the whole code of laws thing.

Anyway, for the retirement reason, I agree that a net worth tax would be a poor strategy to pursue. I think income taxes, or a very high death tax, would be a better idea.

Moreso


They benefit more from the socal services? I think not. Lower income people tend to spend more time using the socal safety net.

They coudl also theoretically hire their own security forces to keep their assets safe.

But the idea that you somehow 'owe' the government money to give to welfare bums because they pave streets is retarded. If they just paved streets and did stuff beneficial to you? Alright, you can ask for money and I'd give some. But demand, and to fund a bunch of shit I don't care about? Nein.

-MiB

Another problem, it seems to me, is that it would encourage people to spend all their money. Say you know that on the first of January you are going to lose 10% of your savings- wouldn't you rather just spend them? Obviosuly, most people won't spend it all, but they'll certainy spend more, and depending on what you tax- i.e.: if you tax property- then they will have to "blow" their money on one use items- holidays, parties, etc. Would this have a fairly dramatic effect on the economy. Also the reduced amount people deposit in banks or invest in shares, since those get taxed too. Anyway, I'm know squat about economics, but these sound like bad effects to me; am I way off the mark here or what?

you'd still be worth the same amount, unless you count nothing but liquid assets in this tax,which we've established is rather hard to do when so much money is tied up in assets, why not just convert all of your cash into property or antiques etc, but...



ok, so in an attempt to avoid this crude income/net worth tax you're instead hitting VAT/sales taxes and all the money you're otherwise pumping into the local/national service economy with a big upsurge. Consumer spending is what drives a modern economy, not dents it



the tax rates mentioned above are far higher than the money or share trading taxes, far higher.



yes you do, yes you are.

spending money for goods/services (and getting paid for providing said goods/services) is what capitalism is basicly supposed to be about, it's be rather odd if a ultra-socialist tax caused the system to turn into an artificially ultra-capitalist one in an attempt to avoid it. well, it'd be less weird and more a result of what, without many, many clauses and loopholes will be an unrealistic and unworkable tax, as has been mentioned before.