Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Y'all are going to be blindsided when deflation hits.

---

Curious - why do you think this? With 38.5 trillion in debt, it would seem to me that we are looking at inflation as far as the eye can see as the only way to pay that off. But I am not an economist. Nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

No reason to pay more taxes after the size and scale of all discovered fraud with the last year.

There should be no talk of raising federal taxes at all for the next decade.

There is already a wealth tax on your estate when you die if over a certain threshold

There will never be a wealth tax, it would be too cumbersome and difficult to implement. While figuring up the value of your home and other real estate would not be too difficult, can you imagine having to have appraisals done for businesses you own, paintings, jewelry, artwork, coin collections, antiques, etc.?

one safe place said:

---

There will never be a wealth tax, it would be too cumbersome and difficult to implement. While figuring up the value of your home and other real estate would not be too difficult, can you imagine having to have appraisals done for businesses you own, paintings, jewelry, artwork, coin collections, antiques, etc.?

---

We already have one today with the federal estate tax. From Google:

Quote:

---

An estate tax is a federal or state tax levied on the transfer of a deceased person's property, assets, and overall net worth before those assets are distributed to heirs.

• What is Taxed: Everything owned at the time of death is included, such as real estate, cash, stocks, bonds, business interests, and personal belongings.

---

This tax is applied after death. They can certainly try a similar approach while you're living, constitutional challenges notwithstanding. A lot of people thought they'd never pass something like Obamacare either.

And Texas property tax

JWinTX said:

---

We kinda have one possibility to get out of the massive debt we currently have without major economic changes and it's one we really don't want to happen, but it will be legalizing marijuana and other drugs that will get taxed into tomorrow. It will generate revenues, stop costs from incarceration and drug enforcement, as well as being under federal oversight. Again, I don't want this at allbut as society continues to degrade culturally, it'll be next before the confiscate or change IRA/401k rules for the Middle Class.

---

This isn't true. The states that have legalized have seen shockingly little revenue from marijuana sales compared to what they promised taxpayers.

Don't look to vice for our financial salvation.

FCBlitz said:

---

No reason to pay more taxes after the size and scale of all discovered fraud with the last year.

There should be no talk of raising federal taxes at all for the next decade.

---

Imagine if everyone was outraged about the fraud and demanded something be done first so we had a better handle on the other entitlements that need to be tweaked. But half of the country doesn't care because orange man bad or doesn't have skin in the game to care.

jeremy said:

---

Whats the answer for the long term?

I still pump money into my 401k, but I also try to build wealth in things that hold value: Land, equipment, etc. Any other ideas how to not get screwed by inflation and/or raiding of our 401k?

---

Not be white…

There are already state property taxes in. Most states that tax wealth to some degree.

What you can't allow is an economically damaging tax on invested non-liquid wealth that is generating economic activity and growth.

The current system of taxing realized gains at something like an income is fine, insofar as it doesn't require the damaging disruption of forced divestment or dissolution of investment in order to pay a wealth tax on that very investment. We can always Arthur about tax rates on gains, but when gains are realized, at least they are not currently invested in growth and production.

I think the fear of the Pareto distribution and the growth of wealth at the unlimited top end is greatly overblown. This is for two three reasons:
1. Mortality. Everyone dies. You can't take it with you. The wealth of control of it inevitably goes to others and eventually it gets redistributed over time. Entropy itself will cause this.
2. Corporeality. A person who has vast wealth still only has one physical being and presence. That in itself is limiting. A person can only control, experience, and deal with so much. Beyond those limitations of time and of the human capacity, the control of wealth will effectively go to others, and be effectively irrelevant to the individual beyond a certain level. One might own it on paper, but others will inevitably be controlling the allocation and use of it.
3. Democracy. A representative republic, being a form of democratic government, does tend to protect property rights, but wise wealthy persons understand they only have the same voting power at the ballot box as anyone else. They may have a lot of reach to influence information and opinion but that only goes so far. Offend the mob to often snd too greatly, you will be looted via the vote. So, the wealthy must be willing to purchase protection from losing most of their wealth by bribing the public mob with some of it. The Roman Patricians and emperors understood this well, and spent vast sums on public works and entertainments.

If they would quit giving our tax money away for votes, they could actually reduce taxes. Doubt that will happen.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

jeremy said:

---

Whats the answer for the long term?

I still pump money into my 401k, but I also try to build wealth in things that hold value: Land, equipment, etc. Any other ideas how to not get screwed by inflation and/or raiding of our 401k?

---

I hadn't thought about this as a proactive plan-

but I put more of my savings into my private Fidelity Brokerage than into my corporate 401K

will be harder for the leftists to steal my money from Fidelity (I hope)

MemphisAg1 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

There will never be a wealth tax, it would be too cumbersome and difficult to implement. While figuring up the value of your home and other real estate would not be too difficult, can you imagine having to have appraisals done for businesses you own, paintings, jewelry, artwork, coin collections, antiques, etc.?

---

We already have one today with the federal estate tax. From Google:

Quote:

---

An estate tax is a federal or state tax levied on the transfer of a deceased person's property, assets, and overall net worth before those assets are distributed to heirs.

• What is Taxed: Everything owned at the time of death is included, such as real estate, cash, stocks, bonds, business interests, and personal belongings.

---

This tax is applied after death. They can certainly try a similar approach while you're living, constitutional challenges notwithstanding. A lot of people thought they'd never pass something like Obamacare either.

---

Aware of the estate tax, have prepared several estate tax returns. However, the estate tax applies to very few people, and with the portability election, far fewer. As I recall, the federal estate and gift tax brings in something like 1% of the tax revenue. A wealth tax, if it is to bring in significant revenue is going to have to apply to far more people and the issue with valuing certain assets would be a nightmare.

Additionally, the federal estate tax is a one time deal, one valuation, one return, one payment (if tax applies). Most of the wealth tax proposals I have read include the wealth tax to be an annual tax. Like the property tax, but includes all assets.

one safe place said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

There will never be a wealth tax, it would be too cumbersome and difficult to implement. While figuring up the value of your home and other real estate would not be too difficult, can you imagine having to have appraisals done for businesses you own, paintings, jewelry, artwork, coin collections, antiques, etc.?

---

We already have one today with the federal estate tax. From Google:

Quote:

---

An estate tax is a federal or state tax levied on the transfer of a deceased person's property, assets, and overall net worth before those assets are distributed to heirs.

• What is Taxed: Everything owned at the time of death is included, such as real estate, cash, stocks, bonds, business interests, and personal belongings.

---

This tax is applied after death. They can certainly try a similar approach while you're living, constitutional challenges notwithstanding. A lot of people thought they'd never pass something like Obamacare either.

---

Aware of the estate tax, have prepared several estate tax returns. However, the estate tax applies to very few people, and with the portability election, far fewer. As I recall, the federal estate and gift tax brings in something like 1% of the tax revenue. A wealth tax, if it is to bring in significant revenue is going to have to apply to far more people and the issue with valuing certain assets would be a nightmare.

Additionally, the federal estate tax is a one time deal, one valuation, one return, one payment (if tax applies). Most of the wealth tax proposals I have read include the wealth tax to be an annual tax. Like the property tax, but includes all assets.

---

Isn't there a specials or Expensive trust that can block most of the wealth tax?

Dan Scott said:

---

The market doubles on average every 8-10 years. It took the DOW over 100 years to get 50K and it'll take only 10 years to get the next 50K. In 20 years the DOW will be at 200K. It's kinda wild to think about. Think about the amount of wealth that will be generated in next 20 years.

Those starting with more money in the market will get richer. The guy with $20M will get the same 4X as the guy with $100K. The rich dude will have $80M though but the other guy will have $400K. We're going to have multiple trillionaires in the next 20 years. If market-driven wealth acceleration continues, and capital compounds faster than wages a wealth tax becomes politically inevitable.

Chipotle CEO said our customers make $100K so we can raise prices. And this is a small example why life feels like a never ending hamster wheel for the middle class. As soon as you make more, you get charged more. I felt it living in The Woodlands where there's a huge Woodlands Tax contractors charge.

Economic classes have existed in every civilization, always wealthy, middle, and poor. That alone isn't destabilizing. What matters is mobility and perceived fairness. When we start cutting benefits while there are multiple trillionaires walking around, people will get pissed. You're going to need a lot of new millionaires to be content with what they have.

---

It amazes me that people still think "taxing the rich" will solve any problems.

First off you will never get the real money from them. The truly rich have enough money and power to avoid whatever taxation rules you come up with. Borrowing against assets. Moving money offshore. If you can afford really good accountants and tax attorneys and you have the ability to diversity your assets you will stay ahead of whatever laws them come up with.

Second, if you actually did tax assets it would be disastrous for the economy. It's like putting a giant anchor on investment. You may cause a little discomfort to the rich guy but at the cost of regular folks getting laid off. It's kind of like raising the minimum wage, it just makes a business find ways to get by with fewer employees. If an owner of a company has to come up with a bunch of money for taxes where do you think that money comes from? Imagine the impact of Jeff Bezos putting 5 percent of Amazon shares up for sale tomorrow. You are literally taking money away from the folks that invest it more efficiently than anyone and create jobs and wealth for everyone else.

The final thing is the fun part though, this idea that somehow this new revenue will pay off debt or be used effectively to help out the little guy. The socialists that implement this insanity just funnel that money to themselves or their friends. Have you not paid attention to all of the fraud that is being exposed? Don't you ever wonder how cities can spend unlimited amounts of money to solve problems like homelessness but they only get worse? Trusting politicians to take that revenue and do anything but enrich themselves is beyond naive. How many "Learing Centers" do you need to see?

That's just a few things as to why this stuff is idiotic. Envy is truly the most destructive sin.

techno-ag said:

---

If somebody is richer than you, what's your gut reaction?

A) Be glad for them, seek to find out how they got wealthy and consider if you might be able to do something similar.

Or

B) Hate them, wish them ill, champion confiscatory taxes in hopes of transferring some of their wealth to yourself via government legislation.

If your answer is not A, something is seriously wrong with your values. You might be a communist or at least what Lenin called a "useful idiot."

---

Depends on how rich:

https://eattherichtextformat.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

Anybody in the Green (millionaires) great for you, anyone in the blue (a single billion) still A but pushing it, anybody in yellow, B absolutely (although not necessarily transferring the wealth just to me but for the better good of society).


So many people on this board freak out when they hear words like wealth tax, when they are not rich enough for it to apply to them. Not even close.

BigN--00 said:

---

So many people on this board freak out when they hear words like wealth tax, when they are not rich enough for it to apply to them. Not even close.

---

I vigorously oppose a wealth tax even though it doesn't apply to me because it is outright theft to tax people on assets that were purchased with money that was already taxed. It is greed and envy, pure and simple, driven by leftists who are never satisfied with any level of government spending. It is always more! more! more!

We need to reject these communist attempts to redistribute wealth and instead force governments to align their spending with taxes derived from reasonable income, sales, and capital gains taxes.

Governments need to stop borrowing money to give people free stuff. They also need to go after the billions and billions in fraudulent spending that the Democrats and media try to ignore.

I believe in gay marriage and I am not gay

I believe marijuana should be legal and I don't smoke

I am pro choice although it won't ever matter to me.

Freedom is freedom.

BigN--00 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

If somebody is richer than you, what's your gut reaction?

A) Be glad for them, seek to find out how they got wealthy and consider if you might be able to do something similar.

Or

B) Hate them, wish them ill, champion confiscatory taxes in hopes of transferring some of their wealth to yourself via government legislation.

If your answer is not A, something is seriously wrong with your values. You might be a communist or at least what Lenin called a "useful idiot."

---

Depends on how rich:

https://eattherichtextformat.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

Anybody in the Green (millionaires) great for you, anyone in the blue (a single billion) still A but pushing it, anybody in yellow, B absolutely (although not necessarily transferring the wealth just to me but for the better good of society).


So many people on this board freak out when they hear words like wealth tax, when they are not rich enough for it to apply to them. Not even close.

---

Nope. Even a trillionaire doesn't deserve to be taxed to death. It's their money, not yours or the government's.

First, trillionaire's don't exist. But if the did, I would be way too lazy to scroll to the right on that website I posted to find one. When you just put your arrow on the cursor and let it go it takes a while to get through a hundred billion. It might take a day to get to a trillion. It's an impossible number to imagine.

Second, how are you gonna' tax someone with that much money "to death."

Third, most importantly no one is worth that much money. They didn't fully earn it! While they may have been smart and got one over on competitors in part... They stole it from the government and stepped on or over people who worked for them. Plan and simple.

BigN--00 said:

---

Third, most importantly no one is worth that much money. They didn't fully earn it! While they may have been smart and got one over on competitors in part... They stole it from the government and stepped on or over people who worked for them. Plan and simple.

---

The only attempt at stealing here is anyone who thinks you can just take somebody else's money because you think they have too much or didn't earn it in a way that you approve.

Fortunately, our constitution and republic form of government protect people from Robin Hood wannabe's.

Proof they stole it from the government?

BigN--00 said:

---

First, trillionaire's don't exist. But if the did, I would be way too lazy to scroll to the right on that website I posted to find one. When you just put your arrow on the cursor and let it go it takes a while to get through a hundred billion. It might take a day to get to a trillion. It's an impossible number to imagine.

Second, how are you gonna' tax someone with that much money "to death."

Third, most importantly no one is worth that much money. They didn't fully earn it! While they may have been smart and got one over on competitors in part... They stole it from the government and stepped on or over people who worked for them. Plan and simple.

---

Musk has $849.2B. He will be a trillionaire this year.

FatZilla said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

The precedent for such a tax at the Fed level is a constitutional amendment - ergo, it'll never happen.

---

Or, they will kill the filibuster, put more judges on the SCOTUS who have the IQ of a bug, like Jackson, pass the tax and declare it constitutional.

---

Constitutional Amendment takes 2/3 of each chamber, cant skip that just killing the filibuster.

---

They will pass a law, not an amendment.

Logos Stick said:

---

FatZilla said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

The precedent for such a tax at the Fed level is a constitutional amendment - ergo, it'll never happen.

---

Or, they will kill the filibuster, put more judges on the SCOTUS who have the IQ of a bug, like Jackson, pass the tax and declare it constitutional.

---

Constitutional Amendment takes 2/3 of each chamber, cant skip that just killing the filibuster.

---

They will pass a law, not an amendment.

---

There's a strong opinion among legal scholars that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. If so, an amendment would be required to enact one. Hasn't been pressure-tested by the SC though, so it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dems try and pass a law whenever they have the WH, House, and 60 votes in the Senate. From there, get your popcorn ready to see what happens when it gets appealed to the SC.

It is a hamster wheel but I hope you're right about the market.