dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Are you KIDDING?

Look around you! Our roads are falling apart. Our schools look like crap. Bridges collapsing. "Deferred maintenance" is the norm. We underfund the IRS so they can't do their jobs. Cuts, cuts, cuts is what you want?

The private sector has proven it cannot be trusted to pay living wage jobs for the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Running everything "lean and mean" has produced almost endless desperation. I cycled 30 miles in San Jose on Tuesday past endless homeless camps. This is now the NORM. Despite being dead-center in Silicon Valley, yet homeless by the thousands. How does that make ANY sense? All thanks to the attitudes like you that we cannot trust governments to spend money well. I say we fail to trust them enough.

I live in Oakland where so much is crumbling. City jobs are hard to come by. Yet City infrastructure is falling apart. Many of our public spaces are now maintained by volunteer labor. Why? Let's PAY folks needing jobs to do this work and let everyone enjoy their weekends instead. Americans work enough hours on the clock, we shouldn't be asked to donate more hours to work - especially unpaid! We need to be spending BILLIONS a year to restore our city to what it was and could be. And this means thousands and thousands of living wage, secure jobs with full benefits and retirement (even, god forbid, PENSIONS?!!!) packages. THAT'S what gives people prosperity, not cuts, cuts, cuts.

We need FAR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING to rebuild this country.

---

You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

Voters approved Measure Q a number of years ago to fix everything, but it did not. They also approved a 1% increase in the local sales tax to 9.75%

The City Manager makes $400,000 a year and she recently re-negotiated a new contract with the police officers union that allows for starting Officers salaries to begin at $200,000.

Meanwhile, the Concord Public Works Dept is understaffed and its "streets division" has a crew of 3, responsible for 325 miles of roads in a city of 125,000.

The problem isnt a LACK OF SPENDING.

The problem is mismanagement

---

Agree and a big part of this is accountability.

These positions like City Manager are not elected positions so they are not accountable to the voters. Most of the public mistakenly believes that the Mayor is responsible for this stuff. These City Managers make big bucks as you point out and they often don't even live in or near the city they work in. They just keep moving around from gig to gig destroying new cities as they go.

As dysfunctional and corrupt as state and federal governments are it is our local government that is most corrupt. Other than perhaps a local newspaper or a few interested citizens they lack oversight. Maybe there is more oversight in LA or Chicago or Dallas but in small towns they and their cronies are raiding our coffers.

---

I tend to agree that local governments are full of waste, which largely is made up of overpayment (including benefits) of municipal workers. City Managers, police, corrections officers, and on down the road.

However, in terms of the Federal government, this kind of waste is miniscule compared to the overall budgets we are talking about. Defense? Yes, let's cut defense. Unfortunately defense spending is incredibly popular among democrats and republicans at the local congressional level.

If we are talking about waste, fraud, and abuse at the Federal level (still, after 40 years of rising debt), please give me specifics and dollar amounts.

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.

---

I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.

---

No Saudi Arabia = no petrodollar.

If you thought things were bad in terms of budget, taxation, inflation etc, you ain't seen nothing yet.

---

Think most people are starting to read the tea leaves way different, with tech and banks staring to have problems. I'm now guessing you will see calls for stimulus (tax cuts for business and spending) in the next couple months.

As many of us have posted before, wealth taxes face legal, political and practicality issues. If the wealthy want their life styles, why don't we tax that with use taxes on luxury items? Just food for thought, since that type of activity by the super wealthy is not subject to the economic cycles, unlike income taxes for example.

Do you think some billionaire cares if he has to pay some extra money to use his yacht or other toys?

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Are you KIDDING?

Look around you! Our roads are falling apart. Our schools look like crap. Bridges collapsing. "Deferred maintenance" is the norm. We underfund the IRS so they can't do their jobs. Cuts, cuts, cuts is what you want?

The private sector has proven it cannot be trusted to pay living wage jobs for the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Running everything "lean and mean" has produced almost endless desperation. I cycled 30 miles in San Jose on Tuesday past endless homeless camps. This is now the NORM. Despite being dead-center in Silicon Valley, yet homeless by the thousands. How does that make ANY sense? All thanks to the attitudes like you that we cannot trust governments to spend money well. I say we fail to trust them enough.

I live in Oakland where so much is crumbling. City jobs are hard to come by. Yet City infrastructure is falling apart. Many of our public spaces are now maintained by volunteer labor. Why? Let's PAY folks needing jobs to do this work and let everyone enjoy their weekends instead. Americans work enough hours on the clock, we shouldn't be asked to donate more hours to work - especially unpaid! We need to be spending BILLIONS a year to restore our city to what it was and could be. And this means thousands and thousands of living wage, secure jobs with full benefits and retirement (even, god forbid, PENSIONS?!!!) packages. THAT'S what gives people prosperity, not cuts, cuts, cuts.

We need FAR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING to rebuild this country.

---

You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

Voters approved Measure Q a number of years ago to fix everything, but it did not. They also approved a 1% increase in the local sales tax to 9.75%

The City Manager makes $400,000 a year and she recently re-negotiated a new contract with the police officers union that allows for starting Officers salaries to begin at $200,000.

Meanwhile, the Concord Public Works Dept is understaffed and its "streets division" has a crew of 3, responsible for 325 miles of roads in a city of 125,000.

The problem isnt a LACK OF SPENDING.

The problem is mismanagement

---

Agree and a big part of this is accountability.

These positions like City Manager are not elected positions so they are not accountable to the voters. Most of the public mistakenly believes that the Mayor is responsible for this stuff. These City Managers make big bucks as you point out and they often don't even live in or near the city they work in. They just keep moving around from gig to gig destroying new cities as they go.

As dysfunctional and corrupt as state and federal governments are it is our local government that is most corrupt. Other than perhaps a local newspaper or a few interested citizens they lack oversight. Maybe there is more oversight in LA or Chicago or Dallas but in small towns they and their cronies are raiding our coffers.

---

Terrific post.
100% spot on.

And case in point for Concord, the City Manager lives in HAYWARD.

dajo9 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.

---

I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.

---

No Saudi Arabia = no petrodollar.

If you thought things were bad in terms of budget, taxation, inflation etc, you ain't seen nothing yet.

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

US control over Saudi Arabia, GCC, Iraq is not about securing US energy independence, it's about making sure that the world energy trade is conducted in US dollars, that Japan, Korea or India buy their oil in US$, maintaining the primacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

This means in practical terms that the demand for US$ greatly exceed the basic needs of the US domestic economy. US deficits have been subsidized by Saudi Arabia selling its oil in US$ and pegging the Riyal to the US$ since the early 70s, as well as Japan, Nigeria or Thailand buying and selling goods in US$.

One of the main reasons the US regime changed Saddam is that he went off the US$ and started trading his oil in Euros. Same with Qaddafi, who was trying to set up a gold and oil-backed regional currency in the African Sahel.

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

One of the best solutions for our current economic woes is to go back to one of the policies that Made America Great (economically, for white men & their families): the 35+% Corporate Earnings Tax.

That rate is designed to be an incentive for corporations to invest in their own operations. Higher wages & salaries for Workers, greater investment in training & education, more investment in capital equipment, increased economic activity, and a stronger economy are all the result of increasing the Corporate Earnings Tax Rate.

With effective Corporate Earnings Tax Rates close to zero for many corporations, and with impoverished Consumer Markets, companies are buying back their shares because the expected ROI from investing in their own operations is so low.

So instead of investing in increasing capacity and increasing supplies to remedy supply shortages, corporations are saying, "Let the supply shortages continue, and let the Workers pay."

It'll be interesting to see how much of the current demand for shares is coming from corporate buybacks. A few years ago, it was 70%. It might be higher today.

---

I really don't think you can just re-create what worked in the past. Capital and business are much more mobile than they used to be. With its abundance of tech and entertainment business, I think California, in particular, would get ripped by corporate rates over 35%.

In the near term I think we need to tie acces to our capital markets to a wealth tax. Pay to play, if you will.

Dreaming bigger, it would be ideal to have an alliance of free nations that support each other in defense, trade, and tax policy. But truly free nations. No Saudi Arabias and Chinas. Then, possibly, we could go back to a 35+% corporate tax rate.

---

No Saudi Arabia = no petrodollar.

If you thought things were bad in terms of budget, taxation, inflation etc, you ain't seen nothing yet.

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

US control over Saudi Arabia, GCC, Iraq is not about securing US energy independence, it's about making sure that the world energy trade is conducted in US dollars, that Japan, Korea or India buy their oil in US$, maintaining the primacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

This means in practical terms that the demand for US$ greatly exceed the basic needs of the US domestic economy. US deficits have been subsidized by Saudi Arabia selling its oil in US$ and pegging the Rial to the US$ since the early 70s, as well as Japan, Nigeria or Thailand buying and selling goods in US$.

One of the main reasons the US regime changed Saddam is that he went off the US$ and started trading his oil in Euros. Same with Qaddafi, who was trying to set up a gold and oil-backed regional currency in the African Sahel.

---

Those countries all need a strong dollar (so we buy their product) more than we need a strong dollar. Let them trade in euro. That would be the best thing to happen to U.S. manufacturing since World War II.

Did someone just mention the DoD Budget?

In regards to CEO Compensation.... if we were to exclude the Elon Musk's and Tim Cook's of the world and assume that the avg pay for a Fortune 500 CEO is roughly $40 million, we get to $20 Billion for the entire Fortune 500. Yawn.

A new F-35 Jet Engine runs $6 BILLION.

And that price tag swells to $40 BILLION when one includes maintenance costs.

As someone said in an earlier post . . .

Priorities.

DiabloWags said:

---

Did someone just mention the DoD Budget?

In regards to CEO Compensation.... if we were to exclude the Elon Musk's and Tim Cook's of the world and assume that the avg pay for a Fortune 500 CEO is roughly $40 million, we get to $20 Billion for the entire Fortune 500. Yawn.

A new F-35 Jet Engine runs $6 BILLION.

And that price tag swells to $40 BILLION when one includes maintenance costs.

As someone said in an earlier post . . .

Priorities.

---

Total US wealth is around $145 trillion.

40% of this wealth or around $60 trillion is held by the top 1%, a percentile that's around a net worth of $14 million.

A 1% wealth tax on this segment represents about $600 billion/year...


And as far as corporate taxes, getting to the offshore tax havens would be a good start.

The Top 5% of American earners already pay 63% of all Federal income taxes.

dajo9 said:

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

Actually, there is strong evidence that oil production out of the Permian Basin has peaked. There are signs that frackers have drained their catalog of good wells. Shale companies' biggest and best wells are producing less oil.

The top 10% of wells drilled in the Delaware portion of the Permian are producing 15% less oil last year, on average, than the top wells in 2017.

Thats problematic.

DiabloWags said:

---

The Top 5% of American earners already pay 63% of all Federal income taxes.

---

I agree that higher income earners do pay their fair share, I am talking about a new tax revenue stream from very high net worth individuals based on wealth, not income. Something like a progressive wealth tax peaking at 1% on net worth above say $25M-$50M. This would bring in hundreds of billions per year.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

Actually, there is strong evidence that oil production out of the Permian Basin has peaked. There are signs that frackers have drained their catalog of good wells. Shale companies' biggest and best wells are producing less oil.

The top 10% of wells drilled in the Delaware portion of the Permian are producing 15% less oil last year, on average, than the top wells in 2017.

Thats problematic.

---

Canada, with the world's 3rd largest proven oil reserves, has more than enough oil to cover US needs for many decades to come.

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think


https://bigthink.com/the-present/wealth-tax/

Cal88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

The Top 5% of American earners already pay 63% of all Federal income taxes.

---

I agree that higher income earners do pay their fair share, I am talking about a new tax revenue stream from very high net worth individuals based on wealth, not income. Something like a progressive wealth tax peaking at 1% on net worth above say $25M-$50M. This would bring in hundreds of billions per year.

---

Making progress on the income tax side. But for taxing ultra wealth - well I'm for that, and Cal getting all five star players, puppies and kittens for everyone, and I love the tooth ferry.

A good portion of the wealth is outside the country and inaccessible (this gets to the Wags points about financial literacy). There is a network to tax treaties. The US doesn't let other countries tax assets in our country, and no one else is letting us do this to assets in their country. You can try to tax worldwide income (as opposed to assets) of your citizens, but they stop being your citizens - just ask Scandinavian countries. Then there is all this stuff on domicile and where stock is attributable to, and the poli-sci disconnect with the business world between the situs of a company and the situs and the legal jurisdiction of intangible assets such as stock or patents that bleed wealth outside the US and allow the Swiss, Malta of whatever your offshore heaven is to tax instead of the US. It really would be an arrogant view that the United States gets to tell every other county to change the way business and taxes are conducted. Biden initially tried getting the world allies to have a minimum tax on what he labeled wealth .. how well did that go?

There is the problem about wealth taxes being unconstitutional. So you want to guess how long it takes to get a constitutional amendment completed? Not to mention the political will. There are all sorts of issues with how to value wealth. No one really has a wealth tax on actual wealth - you might want to ponder why that is the case? I'm not going to go through all the issues, but if you think there is tax avoidance on income taxes, just wait.

This is so much a Bernie Sanders type conversation. Sure my tax plan doesn't legally or practically work, but it is a starting place. But no one starts at that place Bernie. They start where Joe Biden, Schumer, McConnell and McCarthy want them to start.

Now I suspect your response to that is I just want the ultra- billionaires to pay his fair share, whatever that may be. And in concept you are right. The question is how best to do this. A wealth tax is intuitive, but is not happening in our life time, or probably any life time, and I could fill up pages why people with technical backgrounds say that.

The are legal and practical ways of attacking some wealth tax avoidance, but politically they may be losers. You could try a use tax on luxury items. Add the concept of a reinvigorated inheritance tax that can't be avoided, coupled with no step up in tax basis. Reducing how much the wealthy can pass on to heirs will reduce the concentration of wealth, but will piss off a lot of big donors, which is why Biden after a call with large donor Widow Jobs backed-off his original plan when he took office. Eliminating the preferential tax treatment of capital gains with low basis also be more effective in taxing the next generation when they sell the appreciated assets, but you better means test and inflation adjust this or most people will get pissed when they sell the parental house. And this a lower hanging fruit - achievable with controlling two houses of Congress and the Presidency, assuming there is political will. You can hold to this wealth tax aspiration, but realize it always will be an aspiration.

bearister said:

---

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think

---

Why would anyone trust a French guy with your money?

Are you kidding me?

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

Cal88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

Actually, there is strong evidence that oil production out of the Permian Basin has peaked. There are signs that frackers have drained their catalog of good wells. Shale companies' biggest and best wells are producing less oil.

The top 10% of wells drilled in the Delaware portion of the Permian are producing 15% less oil last year, on average, than the top wells in 2017.

Thats problematic.

---

Canada, with the world's 3rd largest proven oil reserves, has more than enough oil to cover US needs for many decades to come.

---

I believe most Canadian oil is "dirty". The gains need to come on the demand side.

dajo9 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or the oil trading world in the least. Every passing year our energy independence should increase, given the correct leadership. If the world uses dollars less, the U.S. will become more competitive in manufacturing and agriculture. There is no cliff. Only trade-offs.

---

Actually, there is strong evidence that oil production out of the Permian Basin has peaked. There are signs that frackers have drained their catalog of good wells. Shale companies' biggest and best wells are producing less oil.

The top 10% of wells drilled in the Delaware portion of the Permian are producing 15% less oil last year, on average, than the top wells in 2017.

Thats problematic.

---

Canada, with the world's 3rd largest proven oil reserves, has more than enough oil to cover US needs for many decades to come.

---

I believe most Canadian oil is "dirty". The gains need to come on the demand side.

---

Dirtier than fracking? Doubtful.

DiabloWags said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

In other words, the Fed is trying to crash the economy. It's the "killing the village in order to save it" philosophy that we saw in the Vietnam debacle.

It appears to be succeeding.

---

1.) The FED is not responsible for increasing economic supply chains. Thats the job of the Administration and Congress.

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply given the recent job growth numbers for January (+504,000) and February +311,000)... not too mention retail sales of +3.0% and consumer spending of +1.8% for January, and a 0.9% increase in wages over the prior month.


https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-spending-surges-january-inflation-accelerates-2023-02-24/

---

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply...

Maybe you haven't noticed the collapse of cryptocurrencies and the failure of SVB (the 16th-largest bank in the U.S.), but sure -- everything's just fine....

Reagan identified government not as the solution to the problem, but as the problem itself. Too bad he didn't blame poor government, instead of all government. So it's not surprising where this has devolved to.

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

In other words, the Fed is trying to crash the economy. It's the "killing the village in order to save it" philosophy that we saw in the Vietnam debacle.

It appears to be succeeding.

---

1.) The FED is not responsible for increasing economic supply chains. Thats the job of the Administration and Congress.

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply given the recent job growth numbers for January (+504,000) and February +311,000)... not too mention retail sales of +3.0% and consumer spending of +1.8% for January, and a 0.9% increase in wages over the prior month.


https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-spending-surges-january-inflation-accelerates-2023-02-24/

---

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply...

Maybe you haven't noticed the collapse of cryptocurrencies and the failure of SVB (the 16th-largest bank in the U.S.), but sure -- everything's just fine....

---

Youre terribly myopic.

No one cares about cryptocurrencies.
FTX killed crypto credibility. Not the FED.

And it doesnt sound like you have any clue why SVB failed.

Hint: It had nothing to do with a WEAK economy. Quite the opposite.

DiabloWags said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

In other words, the Fed is trying to crash the economy. It's the "killing the village in order to save it" philosophy that we saw in the Vietnam debacle.

It appears to be succeeding.

---

1.) The FED is not responsible for increasing economic supply chains. Thats the job of the Administration and Congress.

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply given the recent job growth numbers for January (+504,000) and February +311,000)... not too mention retail sales of +3.0% and consumer spending of +1.8% for January, and a 0.9% increase in wages over the prior month.


https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-spending-surges-january-inflation-accelerates-2023-02-24/

---

2.) The economy has proven to be quite resilient and is not falling apart as you imply...

Maybe you haven't noticed the collapse of cryptocurrencies and the failure of SVB (the 16th-largest bank in the U.S.), but sure -- everything's just fine....

---

Youre terribly myopic.

No one cares about cryptocurrencies.
FTX killed crypto credibility. Not the FED.

And it doesnt sound like you have any clue why SVB failed.

Hint: It had nothing to do with a WEAK economy. Quite the opposite.

---

Is there a "nutshell" version of why SVB failed? Classic "strorybook" reason for a bank failure is that there is a loss of confidence in the bank and suddenly everybody wants to withdraw their money. However, another reason could be if they are simply losing money, unable to make a profit,

I heard the higher interest rates were a factor: How's that?

Did it matter as well that they were more of a bank for high tech, as opposed to where Mom and Pop put their savings?

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/svb-financial-banks-deposits-fdic-3ed610c3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-were-the-regulators-as-svb-crashed-35827e1a?st=90prmv7xlym5fsb&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

Cal88 said:

---

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

---

Okay,

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.
Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

You want to pick-on my comment on no real tax on actual wealth. There is a very canned response to all that, and it is even easier that the response on the "American" Shell executive versus the allegedly underpaid French executive. But rather than go there, France has property taxes which they call wealth taxes, and wow, it is really shocking that French citizens are forced to pay property taxes. The Swiss Canton tax on "wealth" on limited assets, which no one pays. Switzerland is the land of the highest per capita billionaires in the world. What you probably didn't realize is that anyone with means negotiates with the Swiss federal authorities, your Canton, your bankers and their tax authorities, and the SOP is to have a tax agreement going in, with the idea of that your tax is determined by the amount of assets you bring to the country. I know, I have negotiated them for clients. Oh wait, there is Italy that taxes you on your "wealth" of one asset (guess which one?). And I guess if you google wealth taxes you find an out of date map, you think Netherlands has a wealth tax, but they don't. Gone. Did I leave someone out? Yes, good old Spain new socialist Spain, just reintroduced a new wealth tax. Okay, they don't call it a wealth tax, they call it an asset tax. And it will be over Spain. Oh wait, no actually it will be over 60% of Spain. And well it is on certain net assets. Real estate, savings, cars, jewelry, pieces of art (even though there are some exemptions here), boats, and other investments (but not your business or stock of your business). Then you reduce your debts. Now let me ask you a question, how is that anyway different than what I advocated about taxes on luxury items? It certainly isn't going to impact billionaires whose net value is in their business or the stock of their business. So can we agree that no one really charges a tax on true wealth or is there another tax on google you would like to actually look at the details for?


What I really don't get is the rest of us talk about Billionaires paying no taxes being a driver of inequality or unfairness, and you are talking about chasing inequality by adding $1 million dollars from a taxpayer who is not even close in new worth to the folks we are talking about? Really? I would rather have the guy spend the extra $1 million making jobs. The other bizarreness is the concept that if the US guy becomes a citizen of another country he somehow leaves? Just think about all those rich Canadian actors who live in SoCal (bad humor intended).

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen? I just offered some ideas that can get way beyond $ 1 million a taxpayer, and could actually happen if there was a political will. What is wrong with them? Is there some type of mantra that people just have to repeat "wealth tax" w/o understanding why that tax will never happen?

wifeisafurd said:

---

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen?

---

Probably because theyve never ever made any significant money in their life and they are jealous.

bearister said:

---

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think


https://bigthink.com/the-present/wealth-tax/

---

Penetrating legal analysis there Bearrister. And this gets beyond the constitutional arguments how?

The academic must have modeled the tax after the successful wealth tax now used [fill in country]. BTW, being from France, what would he tell Macron when the Macron complains his wealth tax violates France's tax treaty with the US? Come on, you can go beyond simply posting fluff articles. I know you can anwer some simple questions...

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

---

Okay,

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.
Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

You want to pick-on my comment on no real tax on actual wealth. There is a very canned response to all that, and it is even easier that the response on the "American" Shell executive versus the allegedly underpaid French executive. But rather than go there, France has property taxes which they call wealth taxes, and wow, it is really shocking that French citizens are forced to pay property taxes. The Swiss Canton tax on "wealth" on limited assets, which no one pays. Switzerland is the land of the highest per capita billionaires in the world. What you probably didn't realize is that anyone with means negotiates with the Swiss federal authorities, your Canton, your bankers and their tax authorities, and the SOP is to have a tax agreement going in, with the idea of that your tax is determined by the amount of assets you bring to the country. I know, I have negotiated them for clients. Oh wait, there is Italy that taxes you on your "wealth" of one asset (guess which one?). And I guess if you google wealth taxes you find an out of date map, you think Netherlands has a wealth tax, but they don't. Gone. Did I leave someone out? Yes, good old Spain new socialist Spain, just reintroduced a new wealth tax. Okay, they don't call it a wealth tax, they call it an asset tax. And it will be over Spain. Oh wait, no actually it will be over 60% of Spain. And well it is on certain net assets. Real estate, savings, cars, jewelry, pieces of art (even though there are some exemptions here), boats, and other investments (but not your business or stock of your business). Then you reduce your debts. Now let me ask you a question, how is that anyway different than what I advocated about taxes on luxury items? It certainly isn't going to impact billionaires whose net value is in their business or the stock of their business. So can we agree that no one really charges a tax on true wealth or is there another tax on google you would like to actually look at the details for?


What I really don't get is the rest of us talk about Billionaires paying no taxes being a driver of inequality or unfairness, and you are talking about chasing inequality by adding $1 million dollars from a taxpayer who is not even close in new worth to the folks we are talking about? Really? I would rather have the guy spend the extra $1 million making jobs. The other bizarreness is the concept that if the US guy becomes a citizen of another country he somehow leaves? Just think about all those rich Canadian actors who live in SoCal (bad humor intended).

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen? I just offered some ideas that can get way beyond $ 1 million a taxpayer, and could actually happen if there was a political will. What is wrong with them? Is there some type of mantra that people just have to repeat "wealth tax" w/o understanding why that tax will never happen?

---

Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

---

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.

---

Not well-versed on that aspect, but I assume Warren did do her homework there, for once?

Quote:

---

-Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
-Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
-Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

---

-Technical issues not valid, as this form of taxation has been successfully implemented in other countries.
-No political will = politicians paid off. And are the countries abandoning it because it didn't work, or because of oligarchs holding more sway over the political process in most EU countries?
-Doesn't matter where the wealth is, you are taxing the individual who owns it.

Tax treaties? Very funny. If we can blow off our allies' pipelines, we can blow off their tax treaties.

bearister said:

---

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think


https://bigthink.com/the-present/wealth-tax/

---

This even better.

Love this quotes - hope '88 is reading this.

"Europe's wealth taxes are irrelevant to the United States: it is easy to move around the European continent to find more favorable tax laws" And the implication from Frenchie is that is must not be a problem it the US, because the wealth taxes will work.

This guy says he was an architect of the Sanders and Warren tax plans, which is a surprise because they were really different. Sorta like the French soccer coach designing the offsense to lead the football team into the Super Bowl. Play this tape nationally and I can guarantee the Democrats like Sanders will never win an election. The guys says tax charities. The guy says let's pay taxes with private stock of your business and make the government your partner and then have the govenrment sell the equity to see its real value. Let's start with Bearister's law practice! The guy is a complete and utter nimrod when it comes to understanding business. And what is his tipping point, well he is just an economist so it is not his decision, but let's say hypothetically say taking away 70% of someone's wealth. So I say we let Bearister donate 70% of his wealth and let's see if how the wealth tax works.

What also is interesting, besides watching a bunch of journalists actually hammering their guest, IS THE GUY NEVER SAYS WHY WEALTH TAXES WILL WORK. What he says is billionaires pay lower tax rates, something all of us have been *****ing out. Okay, maybe '88 will go a lot lower on net worth. The default is, I guess,
that economic inequality has to be associated with poverty. Inequality has to be the flip side of wealth, because otherwise how do wealth taxes help? Maybe Bearister can tell us rather than linking an article?

But poverty and inequality are not the same thing. Reducing wealth doesn't eliminate poverty. Poverty rates have sometimes risen during periods of relatively stable levels of inequality and declined during times of what Piketty shows are rising inequality. The idea that gains by one person necessarily mean losses by another reflects a zero sum view of the economy that is simply untethered to history or economics. The premise behind capitalism is the economy is not fixed in size, with the only question being one of distribution. Rather, the entire pie can grow, or it can shrink, or it can theoretically stay stable, but usually we seem to have business cycles. We give people incentive and thus we have the world's largest economy. The relationship between poverty and inequality remains unclear, in part because the number of variables, such as economic growth, social payments, racial discrimination, international competition, immigration, technology changes, etc. are dynamic. That said, the official poverty rate in the United States has been relatively stable since the mid1970s, though there is greater income inequality, which is different than wealth inequality, which is increasing.



We can take on each of Sander' and Warren's wealth tax policies one by one and argue, but collectively at least for Sanders, they would be catastrophic for the economy, causing huge transitional shock as well significantly shrink gross domestic product by discouraging work and investment with higher taxes and by replacing private ownership in some industries with less efficient public or simply stupid ownership. It's pretty clear that the French dude doesn't have clue, or else he could tell everyone on the show why the tax plan would work in this country? He simply didn't have an answer other than billionaires pay less percent in taxes.

Finally, there are whole bunch of posts on bad vs good government. But what Frenchie wants to do is move huge amounts of money from successful people to the goverement thinking somehow that will create prosperity. And yet there are others posts that inequality skews the political process in ways that benefit the wealthy and penalizes the poor. There is certainly some merit to this argument. The federal government can and does dispense favors to those with connections to the levers of power, whether they be unions, business or wealthy donors. IT ALWAYS HAS. But Frenchie wants to move all that money from private investment to the government to spend. I hope some of you some irony in this given your prior posts.

This also ignores that a key component in this equation is whether the inequality results from normal freemarket forces or from governmentdispensed favors, or both. Regulation often provides monopoly power to the biggest players. And then there is people using the government subsidies or benefits to make money. By most measures, government cronyism is a far smaller contributor to inequality in the United States than in many other countries, such as say Russia, Malaysia, or Ukraine. Or France. U.S. industries, and therefore some fortunes, benefit from government action that most voters want. And it is undeniable that politically derived benefits are far more likely
to go to those who already have wealth, power, and the connections that flow from them. But there is little to suggest that wealth inequality is the cause and that elites in society will always have access to the government regardless of the level of wealth inequality. Just ask Putin and his buddies about government redistribution.

The French have different views on unions, government roles, lobbyists, influence, redistribution, nobility, and many, many other things that don't fit with the US. Listen to the tape and get a first hand lesson.

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

---

Okay,

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.
Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

You want to pick-on my comment on no real tax on actual wealth. There is a very canned response to all that, and it is even easier that the response on the "American" Shell executive versus the allegedly underpaid French executive. But rather than go there, France has property taxes which they call wealth taxes, and wow, it is really shocking that French citizens are forced to pay property taxes. The Swiss Canton tax on "wealth" on limited assets, which no one pays. Switzerland is the land of the highest per capita billionaires in the world. What you probably didn't realize is that anyone with means negotiates with the Swiss federal authorities, your Canton, your bankers and their tax authorities, and the SOP is to have a tax agreement going in, with the idea of that your tax is determined by the amount of assets you bring to the country. I know, I have negotiated them for clients. Oh wait, there is Italy that taxes you on your "wealth" of one asset (guess which one?). And I guess if you google wealth taxes you find an out of date map, you think Netherlands has a wealth tax, but they don't. Gone. Did I leave someone out? Yes, good old Spain new socialist Spain, just reintroduced a new wealth tax. Okay, they don't call it a wealth tax, they call it an asset tax. And it will be over Spain. Oh wait, no actually it will be over 60% of Spain. And well it is on certain net assets. Real estate, savings, cars, jewelry, pieces of art (even though there are some exemptions here), boats, and other investments (but not your business or stock of your business). Then you reduce your debts. Now let me ask you a question, how is that anyway different than what I advocated about taxes on luxury items? It certainly isn't going to impact billionaires whose net value is in their business or the stock of their business. So can we agree that no one really charges a tax on true wealth or is there another tax on google you would like to actually look at the details for?


What I really don't get is the rest of us talk about Billionaires paying no taxes being a driver of inequality or unfairness, and you are talking about chasing inequality by adding $1 million dollars from a taxpayer who is not even close in new worth to the folks we are talking about? Really? I would rather have the guy spend the extra $1 million making jobs. The other bizarreness is the concept that if the US guy becomes a citizen of another country he somehow leaves? Just think about all those rich Canadian actors who live in SoCal (bad humor intended).

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen? I just offered some ideas that can get way beyond $ 1 million a taxpayer, and could actually happen if there was a political will. What is wrong with them? Is there some type of mantra that people just have to repeat "wealth tax" w/o understanding why that tax will never happen?

---

Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

---

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.

---

Not well-versed on that aspect, but I assume Warren did do her homework there, for once?

Quote:

---

-Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
-Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
-Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

---

-Technical issues not valid, as this form of taxation has been successfully implemented in other countries.
-No political will = politicians paid off. And are the countries abandoning it because it didn't work, or because of oligarchs holding more sway over the political process in most EU countries?
-Doesn't matter where the wealth is, you are taxing the individual who owns it.

Tax treaties? Very funny. If we can blow off our allies' pipelines, we can blow off their tax treaties.

---

Yes, I would concur on the not well-versed part. Sander's bill would DOA even if he, rather than Trump won the election. Warren's wealth tax is martially different from a legal standpoint than Sanders, and to her credit, she acknowledged that two Supreme Court cases probably would have to be overturned for her legislation to survive, but she thought judges would be appointed who might do that.the Part to the problem is the constitution expressly says that the taxes have be in direct proportion, which is why there even had to be an amendment for income taxes. The Roberts court, now with its 6-3 conservative majority, is not going to do the times have changed thing so we are going to ignore the express language of the constitution.

As for the comment about pipelines and treaties, what a bunch of rubbish.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I've had a chance to review Biden's budget plan and I support it though it will raise my own taxes. It will help reduce income inequality and be good for the country's finances. It isn't as good as Warren's plan which would tax wealth instead of boosting high end marginal rates.

There are better ways to go about improving America's financial situation from an economic standpoint but the staunch defense put up against taxing wealth means higher taxes on income. I'd rather see lower marginal income tax rates and wealth taxes but this will do as a compromise with the staunch defenders of the tax sanctity of wealth. Until people realize taxing wealth is the way out of this mess, the affluent will continue to be soaked.

---

Why is more taxes the default response? Why shouldn't cleaning up or eliminating spending on wasteful and/or ineffective programs that don't work be the first response?

Rather than politicians constantly asking for more, why not better use of what they've already got?

---

I'm all for it. Please be specific about the programs you want to cut and the dollar amounts.

---

Let's start by halving the amount of athletic directors

---

And football and basketball coaching staffs, too!!!

DiabloWags said:

---

You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

---

I suspect this is asinine!
#3 worst? Laughable!
I drive concord roads all the time. No problem!!

Have you ever been to Ann Arbor?

DiabloWags said:

---

bearister said:

---

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think

---

Why would anyone trust a French guy with your money?

Are you kidding me?

---

Great. Let's assess people by their accent, their nationality, or their skin color.
Great job!

If you want to slam zucman, do so on basis of his proposals. Use arguments.

That's just so weak, and wrong.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

---

Okay,

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.
Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

You want to pick-on my comment on no real tax on actual wealth. There is a very canned response to all that, and it is even easier that the response on the "American" Shell executive versus the allegedly underpaid French executive. But rather than go there, France has property taxes which they call wealth taxes, and wow, it is really shocking that French citizens are forced to pay property taxes. The Swiss Canton tax on "wealth" on limited assets, which no one pays. Switzerland is the land of the highest per capita billionaires in the world. What you probably didn't realize is that anyone with means negotiates with the Swiss federal authorities, your Canton, your bankers and their tax authorities, and the SOP is to have a tax agreement going in, with the idea of that your tax is determined by the amount of assets you bring to the country. I know, I have negotiated them for clients. Oh wait, there is Italy that taxes you on your "wealth" of one asset (guess which one?). And I guess if you google wealth taxes you find an out of date map, you think Netherlands has a wealth tax, but they don't. Gone. Did I leave someone out? Yes, good old Spain new socialist Spain, just reintroduced a new wealth tax. Okay, they don't call it a wealth tax, they call it an asset tax. And it will be over Spain. Oh wait, no actually it will be over 60% of Spain. And well it is on certain net assets. Real estate, savings, cars, jewelry, pieces of art (even though there are some exemptions here), boats, and other investments (but not your business or stock of your business). Then you reduce your debts. Now let me ask you a question, how is that anyway different than what I advocated about taxes on luxury items? It certainly isn't going to impact billionaires whose net value is in their business or the stock of their business. So can we agree that no one really charges a tax on true wealth or is there another tax on google you would like to actually look at the details for?


What I really don't get is the rest of us talk about Billionaires paying no taxes being a driver of inequality or unfairness, and you are talking about chasing inequality by adding $1 million dollars from a taxpayer who is not even close in new worth to the folks we are talking about? Really? I would rather have the guy spend the extra $1 million making jobs. The other bizarreness is the concept that if the US guy becomes a citizen of another country he somehow leaves? Just think about all those rich Canadian actors who live in SoCal (bad humor intended).

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen? I just offered some ideas that can get way beyond $ 1 million a taxpayer, and could actually happen if there was a political will. What is wrong with them? Is there some type of mantra that people just have to repeat "wealth tax" w/o understanding why that tax will never happen?

---

Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

---

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.

---

Not well-versed on that aspect, but I assume Warren did do her homework there, for once?

Quote:

---

-Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
-Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
-Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

---

-Technical issues not valid, as this form of taxation has been successfully implemented in other countries.
-No political will = politicians paid off. And are the countries abandoning it because it didn't work, or because of oligarchs holding more sway over the political process in most EU countries?
-Doesn't matter where the wealth is, you are taxing the individual who owns it.

Tax treaties? Very funny. If we can blow off our allies' pipelines, we can blow off their tax treaties.

---

Yes, I would concur on the not well-versed part. Sander's bill would DOA even if he, rather than Trump won the election. Warren's wealth tax is martially different from a legal standpoint than Sanders, and to her credit, she acknowledged that two Supreme Court cases probably would have to be overturned for her legislation to survive, but she thought judges would be appointed who might do that.the Part to the problem is the constitution expressly says that the taxes have be in direct proportion, which is why there even had to be an amendment for income taxes. The Roberts court, now with its 6-3 conservative majority, is not going to do the times have changed thing so we are going to ignore the express language of the constitution.

As for the comment about pipelines and treaties, what a bunch of rubbish.

---

The US can and does impose its will on the rest of the world in for instance the sanctions regimen against countries like Iran, fining French bank BNP nearly $10 billion for instance. Countries like Switzerland, the Caymans or Cyprus have had to toe the line when the US threatens to lower the boom, every time. Yet somehow that political muscle vaporizes when it comes to the possibility of taxing ultrarich citizens??


On the constitutionality of wealth tax, the American Bar Association disagrees with you:


August 08, 2019 Policy Point
A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*

"As most readers who follow the 2020 campaign proposals are aware, Elizabeth Warren has proposed an annual wealth tax of 2% for wealth greater than $50 million and 3% for wealth greater than $1 billion. Various pundits have said that the tax is "probably unconstitutional"1 and that the Supreme Court could "stop the wealth tax dead in its tracks."2

Warren's wealth tax is constitutional under the standards laid down by the Founders, as this article will demonstrate. Apportionment of a wealth or land tax by population would now require the injustice of substantially higher tax rates in poorer states: when that happens, under the Founders' standards, the tax is not a direct tax for which apportionment is required. Apportionment was not written to protect wealth from assault, as proponents of its unconstitutionality now claim, but rather to reach wealth by what was thought to be the best then available measure of wealth.

The Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 4, requires that a "direct tax" must be apportioned among the states by population.3 For the Founders, a necessary element to be a direct tax is that apportionment among the states by population must be reasonable and just. Thus import taxes (the impost), excise taxes, duties, carriage taxes and now real estate and wealth taxes have been expelled from the definition of direct tax, sometimes by the operation of ordinary language and sometimes by Supreme Court decision."

cont'd
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

We already have a wealth tax in place, on real estate, in the form of property taxes.

FWIW, I think Warren's 2% on wealth above $50M and 3% above $1B is too high, I would put it at a reasonable 1% above $50M, which would keep it in a very manageable territory and not be high enough to prompt capital flight.

Back of the envelop calculation above says it would bring in hundreds of billions in taxes. I am not a proponent of big government, I just think we should shift a small fraction of the income tax burden on ultrahigh wealth individuals, it's more fair and it makes sense given that this is where most of the overall wealth has gone the last few decades.

concordtom said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

bearister said:

---

Would a wealth tax in America work? Yes, argues Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman. - Big Think

---

Why would anyone trust a French guy with your money?

Are you kidding me?

---

Great. Let's assess people by their accent, their nationality, or their skin color.
Great job!

If you want to slam zucman, do so on basis of his proposals. Use arguments.

That's just so weak, and wrong.

---

I was being sarcastic.
But it looks like it triggered you.

Actually, if youre aware of Zucman's policies and assumptions, its not even worth debating his claims. You dont appear to be familiar with him, while "wifeisafurd" and I clearly are

Let us all know when you catch up and figure out how unrealistic and FLAWED Zucman's policies are, and the assumptions that those policies are based on.

concordtom said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

You clearly havent been to Concord, which has been consistently ranked as one of the Top 3 middle sized Cities that has the worst rated roads in the Country.

---

I suspect this is asinine!
#3 worst? Laughable!
I drive concord roads all the time. No problem!!

Have you ever been to Ann Arbor?

---

Whats comical is how out of touch you are Tom.

Apparently, you havent been on Monument, Meadow, Market, or Treat Blvd the last several years.

https://eastcountytoday.net/study-concord-and-antioch-have-roughest-roads-in-the-country/

https://patch.com/california/concord-ca/concord-roads-ranked-see-how-they-compare-rest-bay-area

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

FYI France has had a long-running wealth tax, as do many other European countries, including Switzerland (at the state/canton level), Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc. The problem with the French law is that it is too aggressive, starting at relatively low levels, currently kicking in for people with a portfolio of above ~$1.4M at an annual rate of 0.5% with an exemption on the first ~$900,000.

Holland has an interesting wealth tax structure, where they tax wealth at 1.2% but exonerate capital gains, which looks like a tax break on the very rich.

WIAF - would a US citizen with a net worth of $200 million skip the country, sell his US assets and never come back over an annual tax of $1M-$1.5M? The US can impose its will on the Maltas and Switzerlands of the world, especially when it comes to its own citizens abroad, in fact it already does. We also can (and do) track any financial transaction across much of the world through SWIFT and other mechanisms.

---

Okay,

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.
Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

You want to pick-on my comment on no real tax on actual wealth. There is a very canned response to all that, and it is even easier that the response on the "American" Shell executive versus the allegedly underpaid French executive. But rather than go there, France has property taxes which they call wealth taxes, and wow, it is really shocking that French citizens are forced to pay property taxes. The Swiss Canton tax on "wealth" on limited assets, which no one pays. Switzerland is the land of the highest per capita billionaires in the world. What you probably didn't realize is that anyone with means negotiates with the Swiss federal authorities, your Canton, your bankers and their tax authorities, and the SOP is to have a tax agreement going in, with the idea of that your tax is determined by the amount of assets you bring to the country. I know, I have negotiated them for clients. Oh wait, there is Italy that taxes you on your "wealth" of one asset (guess which one?). And I guess if you google wealth taxes you find an out of date map, you think Netherlands has a wealth tax, but they don't. Gone. Did I leave someone out? Yes, good old Spain new socialist Spain, just reintroduced a new wealth tax. Okay, they don't call it a wealth tax, they call it an asset tax. And it will be over Spain. Oh wait, no actually it will be over 60% of Spain. And well it is on certain net assets. Real estate, savings, cars, jewelry, pieces of art (even though there are some exemptions here), boats, and other investments (but not your business or stock of your business). Then you reduce your debts. Now let me ask you a question, how is that anyway different than what I advocated about taxes on luxury items? It certainly isn't going to impact billionaires whose net value is in their business or the stock of their business. So can we agree that no one really charges a tax on true wealth or is there another tax on google you would like to actually look at the details for?


What I really don't get is the rest of us talk about Billionaires paying no taxes being a driver of inequality or unfairness, and you are talking about chasing inequality by adding $1 million dollars from a taxpayer who is not even close in new worth to the folks we are talking about? Really? I would rather have the guy spend the extra $1 million making jobs. The other bizarreness is the concept that if the US guy becomes a citizen of another country he somehow leaves? Just think about all those rich Canadian actors who live in SoCal (bad humor intended).

Why try to keep pushing something that will never happen? I just offered some ideas that can get way beyond $ 1 million a taxpayer, and could actually happen if there was a political will. What is wrong with them? Is there some type of mantra that people just have to repeat "wealth tax" w/o understanding why that tax will never happen?

---

Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

---

Never mind there can't legally be a federal wealth tax.

---

Not well-versed on that aspect, but I assume Warren did do her homework there, for once?

Quote:

---

-Never mind all the technical and valuation issues with a tax on actual wealth (and the history of countries abandoning attempting to do so).
-Never mind there is no political will for a wealth tax
-Never mind all the wealth offshore and unavailable to the US under countless tax treaties.

---

-Technical issues not valid, as this form of taxation has been successfully implemented in other countries.
-No political will = politicians paid off. And are the countries abandoning it because it didn't work, or because of oligarchs holding more sway over the political process in most EU countries?
-Doesn't matter where the wealth is, you are taxing the individual who owns it.

Tax treaties? Very funny. If we can blow off our allies' pipelines, we can blow off their tax treaties.

---

Yes, I would concur on the not well-versed part. Sander's bill would DOA even if he, rather than Trump won the election. Warren's wealth tax is martially different from a legal standpoint than Sanders, and to her credit, she acknowledged that two Supreme Court cases probably would have to be overturned for her legislation to survive, but she thought judges would be appointed who might do that.the Part to the problem is the constitution expressly says that the taxes have be in direct proportion, which is why there even had to be an amendment for income taxes. The Roberts court, now with its 6-3 conservative majority, is not going to do the times have changed thing so we are going to ignore the express language of the constitution.

As for the comment about pipelines and treaties, what a bunch of rubbish.

---

The US can and does impose its will on the rest of the world in for instance the sanctions regimen against countries like Iran, fining French bank BNP nearly $10 billion for instance. Countries like Switzerland, the Caymans or Cyprus have had to toe the line when the US threatens to lower the boom, every time. Yet somehow that political muscle vaporizes when it comes to the possibility of taxing ultrarich citizens??


On the constitutionality of wealth tax, the American Bar Association disagrees with you:


August 08, 2019 Policy Point
A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*

"As most readers who follow the 2020 campaign proposals are aware, Elizabeth Warren has proposed an annual wealth tax of 2% for wealth greater than $50 million and 3% for wealth greater than $1 billion. Various pundits have said that the tax is "probably unconstitutional"1 and that the Supreme Court could "stop the wealth tax dead in its tracks."2

Warren's wealth tax is constitutional under the standards laid down by the Founders, as this article will demonstrate. Apportionment of a wealth or land tax by population would now require the injustice of substantially higher tax rates in poorer states: when that happens, under the Founders' standards, the tax is not a direct tax for which apportionment is required. Apportionment was not written to protect wealth from assault, as proponents of its unconstitutionality now claim, but rather to reach wealth by what was thought to be the best then available measure of wealth.

The Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 4, requires that a "direct tax" must be apportioned among the states by population.3 For the Founders, a necessary element to be a direct tax is that apportionment among the states by population must be reasonable and just. Thus import taxes (the impost), excise taxes, duties, carriage taxes and now real estate and wealth taxes have been expelled from the definition of direct tax, sometimes by the operation of ordinary language and sometimes by Supreme Court decision."

cont'd
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

We already have a wealth tax in place, on real estate, in the form of property taxes.

FWIW, I think Warren's 2% on wealth above $50M and 3% above $1B is too high, I would put it at a reasonable 1% above $50M, which would keep it in a very manageable territory and not be high enough to prompt capital flight.

Back of the envelop calculation above says it would bring in hundreds of billions in taxes. I am not a proponent of big government, I just think we should shift a small fraction of the income tax burden on ultrahigh wealth individuals, it's more fair and it makes sense given that this is where most of the overall wealth has gone the last few decades.

---

Again, you actually need to look at the materials, because once again your are factually wrong.

The ABA doesn't take positions on things like this. What you did was find an op-ed article by some liberal law professors who think the current case law should be overturned. What they are trying to say, no doubt in an appeal to conservative justices, is that the prior cases misunderstood the intent of the founders, and here Justice Alito is writings a long time ago that say that. There is a view on certain member on the Supreme Court follow in the steps of Thomas and Scalia to be a strict constructionist, to apply the text only as it is written, which emphasize judicial restraint to the original meaning of constitutions and laws.

Given what I perceive to be your politics, this is the last thing in the world you want SCOTUS to stat to decide cases on. You might win a battle, but you will lose the war.

What I'm suggesting to you are there other ways to skin a cat (sorry about the trite metaphor). You don't want to listen to someone with sent 40 years of his life dealing with taxes for a living, fine. But you are going to get no where legally, politically, practically, or anywhere else trying to sell people on a true wealth tax. No one objects to having what in essence is a use tax on certain asset classes, such as real estate taxes, and exempting people based on certain things like income. But again, that really isn't a wealth tax is it, even if you label it a wealth tax?