[RickJWagner]

You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes.

One company alone— Berkshire Hathaway— paid almost $27 Billion in taxes for 2024. That’s about 5% of all corporate taxes paid.

To really make money, you have to tax a bunch of smaller fish, not a handful of bigger fish. You need big numbers.

That’s politically unpalatable, especially for Republicans. ( Though Democrats seem to have no appetite for it either. )

In the past, Republicans would cut taxes ( popular ) while not spending as much ( unpopular ). Democrats would not cut taxes ( unpopular ) while spending more ( popular ).

Sadly, today both parties are acting like undisciplined parents. Everybody wants to give out the treats ( spend big ) while nobody wants to earn the paycheck ( raise the taxes ). It’s a bipartisan formula for disaster.

[Buttons840]

> You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes.

Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick.

It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources).

Your suggestion to tax the poor is stupid, because the poor have nothing more to give. Even if we could extract 10x the amount of taxes from the poor, it would barely be a blip. If the bottom 50% paid 10x the taxes, then they'd be contributing, what, like 15% of all taxes? We're going to take from the poor, take food out of their mouths, for 15% more taxes? Like I said before, its like trying to squeeze blood from a stone, there's just nothing there to squeeze.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... https://usafacts.org/articles/who-owns-american-wealth/

[fsckboy]

>Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick.

no, you won't, people change their financial decisions in the face of taxes. increasing taxes will slow the economy, bringing in a change of party in the whitehouse and congress, and taxes will be lowered again. high taxes don't work, and people don't like them.

>It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources).

taxes are on income, not wealth. the reason those percentage numbers and the wealth numbers come out the same is because poor people pay small or zero tax so it's as if their income is not counted

higher taxes on the wealthy will not benefit the poor, their taxes don't get lowered. However slowing the economy does hurt the poor

[Buttons840]

Taxes are on whatever we want to tax.

Instead of taxing income or spending, tax wealth. Will the wealthy make themselves less wealthy in order to avoid a wealth tax? I don't think so. Tax the top 1%; even with a wealth tax they'll still be able to afford multiple homes and a yacht--hell, there are people who can afford two homes and a yacht and don't even fall in the top 1%, so people will still be able to have plenty without ever actually paying a wealth tax.

[nradov]

There are some theoretical advantages to a wealth tax but in practice it would be extremely difficult to implement. The issue is that much wealth isn't cash in a bank account or holdings of publicly traded securities but rather equity in illiquid private investments. And some of that is offshore, so would you only tax wealth held in the USA by American citizens or would it apply more broadly?

Like one person I know is a German citizen living and working in the USA with a permanent resident visa, and she owns some forestry land in Canada. Should that land be subject to a wealth tax and if so how would you value it? Does the IRS then need to hire an army of bureaucrats to calculate valuations on those assets?

[Buttons840]

Tracking wealth seems hard. Tracking income seems hard. If we can do one, why not the other? Is tracking wealth harder than tracking income?

[fsckboy]

the stock market returns on average 7%. a 50% tax on on income means the stock market effectively returns 3.5%

a wealth tax of 1% reduces the return on the stock market for that year to 6%, but it compounds onto follow-on years; if you "wealth tax" every year, that effectively lowers the return on the market very dramatically. If the returns on the stock market are lowered dramatically, you will see a huge slowdown in the economy.

the point of this is, there isn't really such a thing as a "wealth tax", it's just a "multiplied income tax". it might be different in your head, but you're wrong, it's not different in reality. you are welcome for the free education.

the question is, why is the only thing you can think of "take money from people who have it". that's a zero sum game, no wealth creation. What makes market economies so wonderful to live in is their wealth creation.

Why does Elon have so much money? wealth creation. Here's why: without Tesla, the roads would not be empty of cars, people would just buy different cars. There are other car companies, GM, Ford, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, etc.

Tesla is not taking your money. Tesla is offering an alternative car to buy with your money. With no Tesla, you would plunk your money down on one of those other brands, but if you like Tesla's better, you buy one of those. That creates happiness, you are happier spending your money on a Tesla than on the alternatives. That's the money that Elon is collecting, GM's money and some extra for your excitement/satisfaction. And he deserves it because he created it and you are happy that he did. You would not be richer without Tesla. You would buy a different brand, and be out the same amount of money, and enjoy your car less. So when you think "we need to take Elon's money" you are essentially saying "I wish Elon didn't exist and I want the crappy Nissan for less money". That's a spiral into the ground because the other company's don't put as much value into their cars as Tesla and if you paid them less, they'd produce less.

If your response to this is "I would never buy a Tesla, I don't even like them", then I will just shake my head sadly at your inability to learn even more.

[Buttons840]

Most of your arguments are not applicable for the simple reason that 99% of people would not have a wealth tax under my proposal.

I suggested a wealth tax only on the top 1%. (Or on the top 0.1% might work better, the specific number isn't the main point.)

The top 1% didn't get there through average stock returns, so the stock arguments are not applicable. Most stock participants would not have a wealth tax.

One of the major themes of this entire thread is that retirement age will have to be raised, with some even saying that any retirement at all is unusual and unsustainable. So do please tell me more about market economics and their wealth creation. Why are we regressing in our market economy? What does it mean when the things that happen in a successful market economy aren't happening?

As for Elon. Even with my proposed wealth tax, he would still be the world richest man. Especially if he continues to run successful businesses. A wealth tax doesn't immediately erase all the wealth of those it applies to.