A fair estate tax plan: Tax the fuck out of Billionaires when they die

[pilsner]

Here's the plan I wish Obama was pushing:

exempt the first $30 million of an estate but tax estates at 90% after that. This would break-up dynastic wealth but protect small and medium-sized family-owned businesses.

Anyone who bitches about a system that allows a $30 million tax-free gift for winning the lottery of the womb is a piece of shit.

The Wall Street Journal had a recent front-page story headlined, "Obama Plans to Keep Estate Tax." Here's a run-down of Obama's plan for the estate tax:

"The estate tax would be locked in permanently at the rate and exemption levels that took effect this year. That would exempt estates of $3.5 million -- $7 million for couples -- from any taxation. The value of estates above that would be taxed at 45%."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123172020818472279.html

Billionaire tycoons favor a lower estate tax RATE. Whereas small-business owners favor a higher EXEMPTION level. Dems should side with the small business owners.

Bottom line: billionaire tycoons use a huge chunk of the Commonwealth to amass their fortunes. It's time for them to pay back when they croak.

[Oregone]

1. Why wait for them to die?

They are already decomposing filth.

[robinlynne]

19. exactly!

[naaman fletcher]

2. If you did that...

There would be no billion dollar estates to tax, FYI. They would just spend all the money before they die, as opposed to investing it (which means ultimately providing capital to others who want to buy houses, start businesses, etc).

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Hahahaha

:rofl:

[naaman fletcher]

7. I guess, its true though..

I am all for estate taxes that are reasonable, just not punishing 90% ones.

[deadmessengers]

14. Spending it is fine by me.

If people start spending large quantities of cash, that means more money in the economy and more jobs.

[naaman fletcher]

20. its a tradeoff between consumption and investment

Investment is future consumption. If you force people to consume now, you get less investment.

[Selatius]

97. Yes and no.

If billionaires went on spending binges and bought up many things, producers would soon find that a small number of people are crowding out everybody else. They would have an incentive to invest in new technologies and build facilities to boost production so that they are not outflanked by start-up firms willing to fill the demand. While the investment in new technology and facilities may not yield future desired-results, what people desire is also subjective as well. We could favor building a mass transit grid connected by bullet trains to get off of foreign oil over simply building factories and R&D facilities, for instance, but that would be put on the back burner as a result of the billionaires' binge, but at the same time, more people would be put to work, and that would possibly yield more tax revenues, which could be used to build the mass transit grid at a later date anyway.

[Greyhound]

42. In the first place, spending billions ain't easy, the most likely ways to do it are

along the lines of Andrew Carnegie, building hundreds of libraries around the country, that is a good thing and benefits the commons. If they decided to build 200 massive estates, as an example, those are assets and subject to estate taxes, so that's no out.

Second, 10% of a single billion is still $100,000,000, hardly a punishment.

This nation's most prosperous era was at a time of a top tax rate of 70% - 90%, and it's least prosperous times have been while taxes are lowest.

[formercia]

85. When tax rates are high, the rich look for ways to reduce

income that is taxable at the high rate and end up recycling the money back into the economy. Low taxes allow them to accumulate wealth.

Wealth is power and power, not money is the goal.

[Greyhound]

87. Which is why we need a complete overhaul of the tax code. The first step; scrap the whole thing.

We have one of the most obscure tax codes on earth and in that complexity lies the means for those with money to avoid paying their due.

But that's a whole other thread...

[Ikonoklast]

73. The good 'ol trickle down bullshit about rich folks.

You think that the wealthy have been using their capital to create jobs for the rest of us?

Hasn't been happening for thirty years, why would it start now?

[naaman fletcher]

76. what don't you understand?

Money in a bank account gets loaned out to others to buy houses, start businesses, etc. That is simple fact like 2+2=4 if fact.

[Ikonoklast]

78. If you think the wealthy leave their money in a 'bank'

you have no idea as to how capital moves through markets in the world-wide economy.

[naaman fletcher]

92. i understand it well..

The capital markets serve one purpose, in all of their complex forms.. it is to match up people who have excess money, with people who have a shortage of money. If you take away the excess money, then obviously people who need money now won't be able to get it.

[JackRiddler]

103. Yeah, this is just what Madoff and Thain were thinking...

as no mean swindlers on the periphery, but as the CHAIRMEN of two of the capital markets, along with Grasso and Fuld and Kenny Boy and Skilling and the Moody's and S&P execs who were slapping AAA on any bond issued by a breathing customer, and Greenspan and Rubin and Bernanke and Paulson and the fellows at the SEC who somehow didn't spot Madoff but later got fat jobs on bank boards, and the AIG guys and Stan O'Neil and Gramm and his wife on the Enron board and the rest of ALL of the top decision makers in the financial sector, as they knowingly wrote out derivatives with nominal payoffs at 10 times the estimated value of the entire world economy, they were thinking exactly this:

"The capital markets serve one purpose, in all of their complex forms.. it is to match up people who have excess money, with people who have a shortage of money."

They don't get me angry. They're just the enemy.

You, however: What is your interest in the Ponzi system? How does it serve you, materially, to spout such obviously nonsensical ideology? Probably it doesn't, probably you're just Joe the Daytrader dreaming of how rich you'd like to be... and that gets me angry.

But let us know if you swindled a few million, I'd have some respect for you that way.

[naaman fletcher]

106. I have absolutley no idea

what you are talking about. The capital markets serve the purpose of matching up people with excess money with people with a shortage of money. That some people stole some money is totally irrelevant to that fact.

[JackRiddler]

108. The modern-day capital markets serve the purpose...

of sucking money up from the many to the few.

That the entire class at the top engaged in systematic scams is illustrative of how it works.

[naaman fletcher]

110. ok..

well, we need functioning capital markets to serve the purpose I discussed. If your statement is that a bunch of scamsters suck out a massive cut for themselves, then I agree with you.

[JackRiddler]

111. Do we need capital markets?

Even Friedman, when he wasn't fighting ideological warfare but just wearing his Professor's cap, said a computer program should issue the capital. Capital markets by allowing money to make money end up overwhelming and replacing the productive economy.

[naaman fletcher]

112. that's two different issues..

1. Capital markets are needed. Without capital markets, companies can't raise money. There would be no microsoft, google, ford, gm, municipalities would not be able to issue bonds.

2. But, the scum take a big piece for themselves, and that needs to be corrected.

3. Friedman was talking about monetary policy, and correctly said that the Fed doesn't know what they are doing any more than a simple computer based rule.

[Donnachaidh]

83. and all those billionaires keep all thier money in American banks, right?

:sarcasm:

All those offshore accounts are just fiction? :eyes:

[naaman fletcher]

93. it doesn't matter all that much..

the capital markets are global, capital goes to where it is needed.

[Greyhound]

86. Apparently you don't understand how our monetary system works.

You have fallen into the "George Bailey" syndrome of financial misunderstanding.

[naaman fletcher]

94. I understand it well..

please refute what I have said.

[Greyhound]

95. "Money in a bank account gets loaned out to others to buy houses, start businesses, etc."

Tragically oversimplified and implies the most common misconceptions of currency generation and distribution.

This is Econ 101 stuff and the fact that you wrote it shows you do not understand it well, or at all.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

[naaman fletcher]

107. of course,

If you understood it well you would enlighten us.

[anonymous171]

77. Which is why it's a good policy. Hoarding wealth is not good for the economy.

[JackRiddler]

88. Great!

[dysfunctional press]

4. "$30million"...???

i'd be more amenable to a $10 million exemption. or less even. and a tax rate of 95% after that.

[zorahopkins]

5. Better Plan

Here's a much better plan:

Tax the fuck out of billionaires while they are still alive!

There is NO reason why someone should have a billion dollars -- NONE!

It is likely that most billionaires got that way because they did something unethical in business of because they underpaid thousands of hard working women and men.

Tax the FUCK out of them while they are still alive -- if they are really so smart and talented, they will still be able to earn what they and their family need.

[mainer]

32. Is that what Warren Buffett and Bill Gates did?

I wasn't aware they were slave owners.

[Greyhound]

43. Gates, definitely yes. Buffet is arguable.

"Behind every great fortune lies great crimes" - Balzac

[guardian]

60. Then a good chunk of Congress has committed "great crimes"

Congressional net worth

Rank Name Min Net Worth Average Max Net Worth
1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $236,280,153 $397,412,077 $558,544,002
2 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $160,615,042 $343,457,521 $526,300,001
3 John Kerry (D-Mass) $284,157,594 $336,224,883 $388,292,172
4 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $190,443,029 $241,545,513 $292,647,997
5 Robin Hayes (R-NC) $74,576,347 $173,409,173 $272,241,999
6 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-69,659,542 $165,748,714 $401,156,971
7 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $43,821,041 $103,560,020 $163,298,999
8 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $59,897,019 $93,715,011 $127,533,003
9 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $53,326,179 $89,509,099 $125,692,020
10 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $52,344,301 $84,171,162 $115,998,023
11 Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $23,931,154 $64,073,077 $104,215,000
12 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $-19,038,894 $62,468,047 $143,974,989
13 Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) $17,009,100 $50,297,547 $83,585,994
14 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) $22,414,184 $47,350,092 $72,286,000
15 Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore) $28,358,029 $46,127,014 $63,895,999
16 Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $16,929,476 $43,716,445 $70,503,415
17 Gary Miller (R-Calif) $14,494,042 $39,978,021 $65,462,000
18 Tom Petri (R-Wis) $10,631,037 $38,761,518 $66,891,999
19 Denny Rehberg (R-Mont) $6,896,012 $33,355,504 $59,814,997
20 Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) $15,018,074 $33,308,537 $51,599,001
21 Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) $20,419,173 $32,428,089 $44,437,005
22 Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas) $9,876,624 $31,527,603 $53,178,582
23 Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $14,624,035 $31,421,472 $48,218,910
24 Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $10,359,018 $30,788,008 $51,216,999
25 John McCain (R) $20,411,154 $28,452,080 $36,493,006

[Greyhound]

61. Of course they have. Pelosi and Feinstein alone could fill a page with

their shenanigans. Just go down your list.

[mainer]

64. Yeah, that John Kerry! Lock him up for marrying the wrong woman...

Who just happens to be rich. From ketchup sales.

[Greyhound]

72. Look into the history of the Heinz corporation, you will find the crime. n/t

[JackRiddler]

89. OMG, you just discovered the ruling class...

though your comments indicate you don't quite get it yet.

(Little Ms. CIA Harman is worth up to 600 million?! Jeezus FUCK!)

[naaman fletcher]

62. Buffet didn't get rich committing crimes..

That being said "the legendary investor" thing is all BS. What he did was be the first one to figure out how to manipulate insurance laws and regulations to grow his assets tax free. To pull that off, he needed to buy and hold, the buys turned out pretty well. But he is not really some great money manager who you should listen to whenever he speaks.

[Greyhound]

65. As I said, he is arguable. Berkshire-Hathaway frequently does good for

the companies it acquires and makes more for themselves in the process. The tax avoidance and insurance legislation stuff does cross the line at times.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Nah. That would just encourage them to launder it.

I'd like to see a high estate tax, but for that to be only marginally greater than the steeply curved income, property, and capital gains taxes I'd like to see them pay. That money should be circulating among the public, not rotting in a bank or feeding some Ponzi scheme.

[w4rma]

11. Good! They should spend that money! Circulate it back into the economy instead of hoarding it!

Now, if they launder it and get caught, they loose their money and go to prison.

[mainer]

29. Rotting in a bank? Where it can be used to fund other businesses?

Investments are capital that's used to grow more capital. If no one saved and everyone just spent, spent, spent, where would new businesses go to get start-up loans?

And if the whole point of stealing money from billionaires is to give it to other people so THEY can become wealthy, what was the point of this again?

[deadmessengers]

8. I personally would like to see graduation.

0% on the first 5 million, with a blanket exemption for the decedent's primary residence and the land it sits on (this is a 'family farm' exemption).
10% on the 15 million after that.
30% on the 15 million after that.
50% on everything over and above that.

We do it with income taxes, having a graduated progressive estate tax that would primarily affect the wealthiest 1% makes a ton of sense.

[pilsner]

12. The problem with a graduated estate tax

is that Congress would start tinkering with it and put in exemptions for campaign contributers just like the income tax system has been corrupted.

[deadmessengers]

13. That's a problem with Congress, not with graduation

They are going to try to do that whether the tax is graduated or not.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Tax 'em to death right now

I'm all for class war. No, that wasn't snark. I like the plan to allow 30M to pass tax free. I would go further and confiscate fully anything over that.

[BanTheGOP]

34. Bad Idea

The problem with the 30 million mark is that 30 million is an OBSCENE amount of money.

Personally, we need a wealth repatriation act where all wealth over 10 million is not only taxed, but completely confiscated to the general fund. If it is vested in a corporation, than that corporation needs to be run by citizen boards who responds to community need, not corporate greed.

That would eliminate the need to even have an estate tax, as estates wouldn't even exist in the first place.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. And the differece between 30 million and the 10 your postulate as correct

is important .... why, exactly? have you done studies? Got a spreadsheet to prove your point?

[BanTheGOP]

40. Frankly, it's more of a psychological amount

There is no spreadsheet analysis, per se. But wealth repatriation is a vital part of a true progressive society, particularly with the scientific advances that need to be made to sustain the overall health.

In particular, 1.0 Americans have a wealth empire, be it through cash, securities, or residual income, of 10 million dollars. Phsychologically, then, exactly 1 percent of the citizens have an amount that over 90% consider outrageously obscene, and would easily vote to adjust, more so than for, say, $9,990,000.

In fact, this whole discussion of cannot be restricted in of itself to one aspect of justifed societal wealth distribution: wealth owed to the general fund by the estate. The ENTIRE aspect of wealth, creation, and income must be addressed as a whole.

[Thothmes]

71. That right, lets wipe out George Soros bank acount

maybe we could back date the law to get Joe Kennedys fortune also.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Gotta start some place

[Donnachaidh]

84. if that would mean getting at Prescott Bush's *fortune* too, go for it.

Joe Kennedy was no *saint*.

[JackRiddler]

90. Oh, what would the world do without the glorious humanitarian billionaires...

without whom no good work could ever, ever, ever be done. Everything is thanks to you, O Lord of the Billionaires, it's all for you, thank you for giving us food and drink and purpose!

[Thothmes]

98. How many bucks has Soros or Kennedys given to the causes

we support

[JackRiddler]

101. Zero.

How did Soros earn his fortune? Among other lovely acts, he fucked up a series of nations through currency speculation. This was morally criminal, albeit not illegal. According to Soros himself what he did shouldn't be allowed! In his theoretical writings, at least, he supports measures that would make the rise of fortunes like his own nearly impossible. Hard to give it up, except in theory, I guess. Or to your "charitable" foundations, which are actually vehicles for preserving wealth and influence for centuries after one's own death.

It may indicate something about your worship of the billionaires, when one of them is more ready to speak truth about the origins of his own wealth than you are!

What's your income? What's your interest in maintaining the billionaires? Sucker.

The cause I support is social justice on planet Earth. By definition, that world isn't going to include capital accumulation for private individuals to the point where your precious billionaires are possible. If 500 billionaires have more money than 50 or more like 80 percent of the planet's human population, there may actually be a relation there. Has that occurred to you? Oh, sorry, you were busy admiring the half-dozen celebrity liberals among the 500 billionaires.

Now if a handful of the robber barons are quasi-enlightened and do good works to make up a bit for the world fucked up by the system that created the robber barons in the first place, it's probably better than if they supported a fascist party, or used the money to wreck another lucky country (in the rational cause of business growth and job creation, of course).

But the bottom line, the net, is still that they take - they don't give. So your premise is fucked.

[hay rick]

102. How many bucks have Scaife, Coors, etc. given to fight

the "causes that we support." I think the current generation of billionaires and the scions of inherited wealth have done far more harm than good- despite Gates, Buffet, and Soros.

[Xenotime]

10. I'm all for taxing the evil, rich bastards.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Tax the heirs...

unearned income is sacred for some curious reason, but the original owner of the wealth is dead so really doesn't own a damn thing or have any say in what happens to it.

He's dead, you see, so can't say much of anything at all, and the whole idea of a will is just to keep the various wives, girlfriends, and their spawn from fighting over the goodies.

So, whatever the will sez, or the estate is, tax the heirs' income tax on their shares. Or at least at the capital gains rate.

Jeez, if you win the lottery, they hold 25% for taxes. If you win a car in a raffle or TV game show, you gotta pay taxes on the value of the thing. Al Capone got busted for not paying taxes on his criminal enterprises. Why do we let greedy spawn get away without paying taxes?

[Coventina]

17. Amen. This country was founded partly as a reaction to landed gentry.

Primary residence - I'm okay with that being handed down.

But tax the heck out of the rest of the inheritance!!

[kentuck]

16. Naw! Let's leave it for their spoiled spawn.

it's the American way.

[ShortnFiery]

18. That's the ticket!

;)

[Bucky]

21. Once they're dead, there shouldnt' much fuck left in them to tax

or is this proposal related to the Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario thread?

 

[Clear Blue Sky]

22. Wealth tax. 5% of anything over a million. Each year.

[naaman fletcher]

23. Interesting..

A few thoughts on that. If you tax wealth, you potentially run into scenarios where people who have farms and businesses, with little or no income that year (for recession, of whatever reason) don't make enough money to pay their tax.

The plus side is that it keeps assets in very productive hands. That is, people who hoard assets in low risk - low return circumstances will have to give them up to people who will use them more productively.

But, the point would be to do that instead of income taxes i.e. I would not want to just add this tax on just for the hell of it.


But then again, I am clearly a minority at DU when it comes to taxes. I believe in reasonable taxes that fund a social insurance gov't, and a regulatory framework that tempers the faults of capitalism, I do not believe in taxing people just for the hell of it, to punish them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. So the family that bought early in California and now has a $1M house

has to pay more even though they have done nothing but live there?

This is not a simple issue and simple solutions clearly do not work

[Greyhound]

45. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but with this type of tax structure you would

not see the kind of disproportionate, and unsustainable, inflation of property valuations.

California is also not typical, one of the great upward pressures on CA real estate valuations is the insane prop 13 that created a system where tax revenues decrease as values increase. They did need to address the previous system of rapidly increasing property taxes, but prop 13 was a bad idea disastrously implemented.

We should also consider the devaluation of our currency and set the value higher than a million.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Prop 13, like many of our tax laws, had good goals and lousy implementation

[mainer]

27. Including real estate?

Someone could easily have a million-dollar home and few liquid assets. (Here in Maine, retired fishermen own waterfront property they've had all their lives -- with values that have soared in the past few decades.) So every year, even if this person makes little income and is a retiree, he'd have to fork over $50,000 to the federal government. (Not to mention the real estate taxes he'd have to pay to his home state.) Where exactly is he going to get that money, if he's not earning an income?

[JackRiddler]

91. Inflation makes this punitive and unproductive...

Example: You can "own" a million dollars just cos you bought a relatively small, cheap house in New York 40 years ago, and yet not have the income to handle a $50,000 charge - you'll be forced to sell.

Taxes need to focus mainly on either income or spending. As for wealth tax, I think one-time outright expropriation of all wealth over $30 million and its redistribution (preferably via investment in the conversion of the economy to an ecological, hydrocarbon-free basis) is more like what might bring a modicum of justice to the country.

[terisan]

24. Great Post!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Going to have to fix a number of laws and the tax system first.

Whatever the ceiling is, there will be a large number of estates just below it. People will optimize around whatever the law is. Trusts, offshoring, and other options all exist for just that reason. Estate planning is a big deal in this country.

We have never had a wealth tax in this country, though there are a number of locality based ad valorum taxes (property, cars, etc). Like inheritance taxes, the accounting system and the legal works against that. For example, who "owns" the assets of a trust.

Finally I cannot depend on Congress to get it right. Look how thick the tax code is today. Lots of twists and turns. Every time the claim is made that they have closed loopholes, more appear. Its time for a fresh start of some sort.

[Belial]

28. So lets use your idea for a minute...

If we taxed the "hell" out of everyone and leveled the playing field.. who would get the money??

[mainer]

30. And when the current have-nots become the haves...

they'd change the rules again.

[BanTheGOP]

31. Ahhh... perhaps the poor? The jobless? The homeless?

...you know, people in REAL FUCKING NEED?

Sheesh...

[Belial]

39. ahh.. so punish the many because of a few?

[leftstreet]

33. "Tax the Rich. Feed the Poor. Til there are no Rich No More"

[Greyhound]

46. The commons and a rising basic living standard.

So the answer is everybody.

[Hugabear]

58. Is it really that hard to figure out?

Spread the wealth around to those people who don't have as much, those who are in need, the poor, the homeless, etc.

[olegramps]

80. ME!!!!!!!!!

[JackRiddler]

104. Sure, you too!!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. I think tax level is less of an issue than tax enforcement here.

It doesn't matter what level a tax is at on paper if it's easy to avoid paying it - whether by legal, illegal or semi-legal means - and at present my understanding is that a lot of very rich people pay relatively little inheritance tax through one loophole or another.

While raising levels of inheritance tax for the very rich may well be a good idea, I think it's more important to a) close loopholes that enable legal tax avoidance and b) make illegal tax evasion harder.

[Greyhound]

48. Both are absolutely valid.

There is more opportunity for deception in complexity and I'm pretty sure that's why our tax code is so complex. Nobody understands it and it is so contradictory that it boils down to opinion so we can't even define with any accuracy what is illegal evasion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Not enforcement, revision. The people paying very little are following the law

we need to change the laws

[madrchsod]

36. taxing the rich?

libraries built by carnegie,field museum in chicago,rockefeller building the university of chicago,and hundreds of others museum ,foundations,sponsorships that promote the public good...

give them the tax deductions if they invest in the public good.

[mainer]

37. This would pretty much wipe out many retirement plans

Someone who's amassed a million dollars in his investment plan might expect to earn retirement income of about $50,000 a year from that. That's not a huge amount. And the principal has to last him until his death, which might not be for 20 years. So you would completely demolish his investment egg, leaving him on the public dole. How does this help society?

[BanTheGOP]

41. Under a just retirement system...

...this would not happen. But keep in mind that many private retirement funds are, in fact, ruined. I would much rather have the million placed in a general fund, where more likely the principle would more than compensate the amount the retiree is receiving.

[mainer]

49. I already contribute to a "general fund." It's called Social Security.

Why can't I also put away money into my own personal retirement fund? People who are thriftier savers should be able to hoard a little extra for their retirement, shouldn't they?

My dad was a restaurant cook who lived all his life in a house for which he paid $18,000. He never went anywhere or spent much of anything. When he died of Alzheimers, it was his savings of over a million that kept him comfortable and allowed him to hire a caregiver. Shouldn't he have been allowed to keep that money, after all the years he saved? Why should he give it up while the spendthrift who never saves anything gets to suck up my dad's savings?

[BanTheGOP]

51. You are forgetting...

...that part of the benefits are a completely free medical and health care system. Your dad would not only not have to pay for the caregiver, he would be able to not have to worry on how to budget his income from the account.

In addition, I don't advocate 100% takeover of savings in the first place. Just 100% income over a certain level, WAY above your father's income. In your father's scenario, he wouldn't have to have given up much of his savings in an economically just redistribution algorithm.

[mainer]

55. Retirees already get subsidized health care -- Medicare.

For which they contributed most of their lives. So how does taking away their life savings benefit them again?

[BanTheGOP]

75. A comprehensive single-payer health care system...

...overcomes the poverty-stricken levels that medicare provides for. REAL health care, not the drive-by caretakers that permeate the landscape because of current exclusionary medical practices.

[Greyhound]

50. Your scenario assumes $1,000,000 sitting in a safe as cash. That is not how

it works. Even at a modest 3%, $1,000,000 doubles in 24 years. 3% yields $30,000 per year in interest, every year, so if you don't spend any of the original capital you're good forever.

The calcs get more complicated (maybe somebody that does it more regularly and has a minute will do them), but if you have the million at 3% and spend $50,000 per year it will last far longer than 20 years.

[mainer]

53. We all now know that 3% isn't guaranteed.

So you may need that principal to last you 20 years.

If you take away $50,000 every year as a wealth tax, and the retiree also uses $50,000 for his living expenses, that adds up to $100,000 a year. A million dollars is NOT going to last long.

[Greyhound]

63. Government bonds are guaranteed and that's the kind of investment you make

with retirement money, especially as you get closer to retirement.

[mainer]

66. And that's what I've been doing.

So if it's confiscated from me, who's going to be left to iinvest in government bonds?

[Greyhound]

67. I didn't know you were a billionaire. I guess you'll just have to eek out an existence

on the paltry 100s of millions we'll leave you.

[mainer]

68. I'm responding to the "5% wealth tax for anything over a million"

It has nothing to do with billionaires, but with people WAY down the scale. (up thread at #22)

[Greyhound]

69. OIC, sorry. I thought this was still about the 90% estate tax.

The so-called wealth tax thing has not been thought through and I don't think it is necessarily a good idea. In the first place if we wanted to do that the tax would have to start at considerably more than $1,000,000 for the reason you pointed out among others.

[mainer]

57. btw, getting Alzheimers costs way more than $50,000 a year.

When you start hiring round the clock home health assistants, you are talking way more. Again, a million dollars may not even be enough to last 20 years.

[Hugabear]

59. Why couldn't government do that?

Imagine - if all that extra money went into a general trust fund. Then the government truly could afford to invest in their local economies by undertaking public works projects like those you mentioned.

[ThomWV]

44. "Permanent exemption level" would be the kiss of death - think Alternative Minimum Tax

It too was never meant to effect the many people it now does but the reason it does is the minimum level of income at which it goes into effect was made permanent. Sooner or later even modest inflation catches up.

[Contrary1]

47. All that would do is raise prices on goods and services for all us peons. n/t

[Romulox]

56. If progressive taxation is hopeless, then shouldn't we just give up and all become Pubs? nt

[blindpig]

113. Surely there are other options...

[Greyhound]

70. Reich-wing propaganda, just like it's retarded cousin "corporations don't pay taxes".

Thanks to 30 years of republik rule, most don't but only because they've been writing the tax code, not because they pass it along.

[HughBeaumont]

82. That's . . . er. . . . kind of silly.

See this thread for starters.

[Blue Dog Dominion]

79. Adjust the exemption levels to inflation to be fair

A million dollars isn't worth what it used to be... and this is true BEFORE the markets went tits up.

However foundations should still be 100% tax free.

[many a good man]

81. $3.5M exemption would affect one half of one percent of estates

This figure would exempt all the small farmers, small businessmen, and "millionaire next door" types. An exemption at $3.5 million dollars would truly target only the super rich.

see: http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/impactonfarmsandbusinesses.pdf

[Blue Dog Dominion]

96. Q) Who DOESN'T want to be a Millionaire?

A) A Billionaire!

The top 400 earners aka Forbes 400 are all BILLIONARES. A thousand million.

There are tens of thousands of millionaires out in America who had "normal" lives but lived frugally. They bought generics, cliped coupons, bought reliable cars instead of leasing, never carried a credit card balance. 3.5 Million isn't even CLOSE to being "super" rich.

[pilsner]

99. Exempt $15 million individual, $30 million for a couple

and adjust the exemption levels for inflation seems right to me.

The important thing is the 90% rate (or higher) on huge estates. Sam Walton's children have done some evil right-wing things with their money.

Sam Walton's grandchildren don't deserve to be multi-billionaires too. What the fuck are they creating and contributing to society?

[Blue Dog Dominion]

100. Married people should not get higher exemptions

The whole "marriage" concept being approved by government is flawed in the first place. It is really none of their god damned buisness. That goes for Gay marriage, polgamy, marry your dog etc.

[Egalitariat]

109. He didn't propose that. If one person gets $15 mil, shouldn't two get $30 mil?

[yowzayowzayowza]

105. ...or a multiple of the minimum wage.

Say a cool million?