Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We may only have 1 chance left to save America from collapse: Tax ACCUMULATED super-wealth.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:27 AM
Original message
We may only have 1 chance left to save America from collapse: Tax ACCUMULATED super-wealth.
America's federal budget deficit for fiscal year '09 was near 1.8 Trillion dollars. With an escalating war and diminished tax base due to unemployment FY '10 could push the 2 Trillion Dollar budget deficit threshhold.

For 1 year.

We'll hit 20 Trillion in debt in what, 5 years if we stay on this pace? Perhaps even sooner.

What if China runs out of money and stops lending to us? America is bleeding the worlds economy dry by our nation's continued borrowing.

Fiscal irresponsibility and runaway deficit spending are causing the devaluation of our dollar. Which by the way is hovering at near record all time lows. Our dollar is becoming more worthless.

Which is deepening our economic crisis. And that's exactly what our current economic situation is;
- AN EPIC CRISIS.

Trickle-down/Supply-Side Economics(SSE) has been an epic failure since Reagen's 1982 budget unleashed HELL on the working class that has left our nation in a state of a collapsing economy and a dieing middle class.

The most glaring effects of SSE
- its inability to balance America's federal annual budget.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy have shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class and working/unemployed poor.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy fueled explosive deficit growth.
- 95% of America's 12.5 Trillion dollar national debt has accumulated since Reagen's 1982 budget proving SSE's inability to fund our nation.
- Tax cuts for the super-wealthy have fueled the upward redistribution of wealth from the MC and poor to the wealthy few.
- result: 90% of all of America's vast wealth is owned by the wealthiest 15% of it's population.
- diminished earning and purchase power of the remaining 85% of us. How can an economy sustain when most of it's population is going broke?

When the super-wealthy hoard their wealth, they remove it from circulation and remove that wealth from our economy.
Meaning that most of America's wealth isn't circulating and is not working within our economy.

Meanwhile the super-wealthy sit on top of a mountain of wealth while our nation sits at the edge of fiscal collapse. Reforming our income tax code and raising taxes on the rich is a step in the right direction but only goes so far. Income taxes do little to address the hoarding of wealth.

It's time for a new tax on accumulation of super-wealth. As an example..

Levied annually, like the income tax.
Tax net worth annually on individuals worth 5 Million dollars or more. Taxed progressively in incremental brackets. Higher net worth moves into a higher bracket so that a person worth 5 million isn't hit so hard by this tax, but a billionaire would be. And rightfully so.

Net worth is determined through individual audits of wealthy people. Tough enforcement for any who evade these taxes or hide wealth.

Our Treasury is going broke. Our nation is going broke. Meanwhile, the wealthy sit on top of a mountain of super-wealth.

Poverty is exploding. The rich get richer. America goes deeper into debt.

The American economy works best when wealth is spread throughout its entire population rather than concentrated and hoarded by the wealthy few.

Taxing accumulated super-wealth could jump start our economy by funding New Deal level infrastructure rebuilding and improvement. Roads, highways, streets, water, sewer, electric power grid, cleaner power generation, cleaner energy, renewable energy, schools, public education, tuition assistance.

Taxing accumulated wealth could solve our deficit and debt crisis. It would address the growing wealth divide. The wealth divide, the gap between rich and poor is a national tragedy.

I want to add, may be meaningless but did you know..
In 2003, Bill Gates' father testified before congress on our governments need to tax accumulated super-wealth. Of course, that testimony fell on deaf ears.

What other alternative do we have? If you're opposed to this then give me your best idea as a an alternative.

Peace
UY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hell yeah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. If the pattern of the Senate's HCR reform were followed
anyone with 40K or more in annual income would be taxed extra as "super wealth", while those at the very top would get a better deal than those at 40K.

This has been a legislative pattern for my entire 50 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. We did it after WW2
And it worked. Debt was about 120% of GDP back then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. No, we didn't
We had a top marginal tax rate on income in the 90th percentile.

But there was never a tax on accumulated wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ah yes, the Golden Rule at work.
Thems that have the gold make the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Just enact a 100% inheritance tax for estates above $5 million.
Problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Exactly.
Five million is more than e-goddamned-nough. I'm enough of an asshole to set it at more like three million, but we'll be generous and use your figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Another option would be to just enforce the fraud and RICO statutes already on the books
I guarantee, a large percentage of the über-wealthy did not accumulate their money by honest means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Meanwhile the super-wealthy sit on top of a mountain of wealth while our nation sits at the edge
of fiscal collapse."

Dragons in old stories always sit on their hoarded treasure. They have no use for all that wealth, but they hoard it and destroy anyone or anything that threatens to take even the smallest part of it.

We now wisely reject the once widely accepted belief in hereditary power. But enormous hereditary wealth translates to hereditary power. I am not suggesting that people should not be able to pass down wealth to their heirs--up to a point. But beyond a reasonable point, it does become a situation where we end up being "ruled" by the wortless descendants of people who merely managed at one time to become very, very rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. TIME TO SHARE THE WEALTH MOTHERFUCKERS!
:kick: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. We create the environment
and socio-economic stability to enable that kind of hyper-earning be done in safety and security, so damn right they need to kick some of it back down! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. I agree wholeheartedly!
I like straightforward no nonsense replies like yours!

:fistbump:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onestepforward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. k&r with one quibble: that mountain of wealth isn't being hoarded - if it's hoarded,
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 03:33 AM by Hannah Bell
it loses value. It's desperately seeking profitable investment opportunities.

Thus the succession of economic bubbles with over-production & bust (e.g. in real estate, telco/computers), thus the offshoring of industries to low-wage countries to be re-imported to wealthier ones & pocket the difference; thus the demand to privatize schools, prisons, the military, parks, roads, etc.

And thus the expansion of war.

Most of the evils of our time come from this big overhang of wealth at the top. Classic Marx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. One area in which wealth is protected
is in these so called charitable tax exempt foundations which just become a legacy extension of the original wealth acquirer. They can avoid capital gains as they liquidate equity positions and avoid inheritance taxes.

It is amazing how every little tax benefit gets abused. An example are college savings 529s which allow after tax money to be saved and pulled out tax free on earnings for education. They announced that vast sums were being put into these 529s (far beyond any sort of education requirements), and it turned out that they are an effective tax avoidance tool even if you allow for the taxes when not used for education.

A big problem with trying to tax wealth is that, unless it is in real property (think real estate) it is real difficult to get a handle on. Since an accounting comes at inheritance time, it can probably be done. Lets say you tax 10% of someone like Bill Gates - would he pay his taxes with an in kind payment (Microsoft shares) or be forced to liquidate that portion of his holdings. Of course the bottom then drops out of the stock price - what tax is he responsible for (the value at tax date or the value when he tries to pay the taxes)? What about the other equity holders (those small retirement savers) who take it on the chin as the equity markets tank again? Bonds would also collapse as they are liquidated to pay the tax.

What about tax exiles? Before such a law comes on the books, many individuals would use the existing laws to give up U.S. citizenship and pull their wealth out of the country. Already we have one of the most aggressive laws for going after U.S. citizen ex-pats who are responsible for taxes on income earned out of the country even though all economic activity is done outside of the U.S. (their only connection being their U.S. citizenship). What would be the impact of the capital flight from the U.S.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Maybe capital being removed from the US could be hit with a hefty tax.
Could that be a solution to the capital flight problem?

As for the stock problem, do the super wealthy really have the majority of their wealth in stocks? I'm skeptical. If I were that wealthy, the bulk of it would be in much safer forms. I suspect that most of them could come up with the cash needed to pay the tax without having to liquidate large blocks of stock.

But what if most of someone's wealth were in stocks? Could the tax perhaps be paid in shares of stock? The government could then sell it off slowly to avoid dropping the price.

Of course, I'm not a financial analyst so I could be totally off base here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. You get one bite at the apple perhaps
not even that. The wealthy will pull capital out prior to laws being enacted. Corporations will find tax friendlier homes.

Wealthy have their money mostly invested in stocks and bonds (think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) as two examples. In many cases the wealth concentration is in the form of a single stock (company founder or inheritor of company like the Waltons).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpljr77 Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
16. This is a terrible, not-well-thought-through, and downright un-American idea, imo. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jpljr77 Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Not a Freeper. A progressive can recognize something as unfair as well, fwiw.
Taxing wealth is fundamentally unfair. Plus, it would be extraordinarily complicated. Do you count the total value of a home, or the equity in the home? Tons of questions like that.

It's much simpler than people think to raise money from the rich without going after wealth. Just repeal the Bush tax cuts, revert the top tax bracket back to 39.6%, and tax capital gains and dividends as income. Simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
18. Unconstitutional
There is no constitutional mechanism through which accumulated wealth can be taxed. In order to tax income, the constitution had to be amended.

So any such tax passed would face immediate suits in court and under the current makeup of the SCOTUS, no way would it be ruled constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
21. You have eloquently and succinctly described the cumulative effect of 'puke-driven policies/agenda,
yet MA just elected a model Brown, perhaps the epitome of 'pukedness. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC