Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:24 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
The idea that people would need to sell their assets to pay their wealth taxes is absurd. I don't need to mortgage my house to pay my property taxes. The businesses whose books I've kept didn't need to sell their printing presses, or warehouse conveyors in order to pay the personal property tax.
You're assuming that everyone's income/cash flow is commensurate with their wealth, which isn't always the case, especially when the wealth is increasing independently from anything the holder is doing.

Case in point- in my part of Dallas, real estate values skyrocketed in the past few years. To the point where many homes are now valued at 2-3x what they were valued at as recently as say... 2012. This wasn't due to any sort of amazing new amenities in our part of town, or anything that really changed; it's just one of those weird things that occasionally happens in free markets.

That changes your property tax liability significantly, and not everyone living there was necessarily prepared to have their property taxes increase significantly. I don't know for sure if anyone had to move because they couldn't pay their taxes, but I wouldn't be surprised if some did.

And the other thing is that your comment is mostly predicated on the idea that the investments are doing well. You're right in that if you're making 9% on your investments, paying 2% to the government isn't a huge deal. But if for some reason we have another 2008-style financial crisis and recession, you'd still be on the hook for that 2%, even though you might not even be making that return. Or if you happen to have a large ownership stake in one company because you're the founder, or owner or whatever. If it's not doing well, you'd still be on the hook personally for some percentage of its value, even if you're not actually profiting from it.
  #52  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:44 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
You're assuming that everyone's income/cash flow is commensurate with their wealth, which isn't always the case, especially when the wealth is increasing independently from anything the holder is doing.

Case in point- in my part of Dallas, real estate values skyrocketed in the past few years. To the point where many homes are now valued at 2-3x what they were valued at as recently as say... 2012. This wasn't due to any sort of amazing new amenities in our part of town, or anything that really changed; it's just one of those weird things that occasionally happens in free markets.
Remember that the proposal is for the wealth tax to kick in after the first fifty million dollars in wealth. So your megamansion in Dallas that's worth, say, $2.5 million isn't going to trigger the tax.
  #53  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:50 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
To the OP, they'll use cutting-edge retrospective and prospective formulaic valuation methods. Clear?

Jargon, sure, but it's not that arcane. Retrospective valuation involves poring over the historic data re:"how much have things of this nature been exchanged for in the past X years" ; prospective valuation is using models to try and predict how things of this nature will likely be sold for in the near future based on current trends and expectations.
Not sure what "formulaic value" means, it seems to be an economics theory term but my eyes glaze over so fast trying to read articles about it, it's not even funny.
  #54  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:50 AM
Trom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,555
Not that I have any sympathy for the guy, but how would this tax work in the case of someone like Adam Neumann and WeWork. Two months ago everyone valued WeWork in the neighborhood of $40bn. That valuation is now looking to be down 80%-90%. Would tax refunds be issued?
  #55  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:00 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
As for the idea that it is too burdensome to count up all one's wealth. Bank statements, statements and tax forms from investment holdings (stocks and bonds), property tax assessments for real property, and insurance policy valuation for other assets (art, cars, gold toilets, etc.). The wealthy have a pretty good idea about how much wealth they have.
Yeah. All the moreso that a) they have little people to take care of that stuff and b) they use their wealth as a scoring system between each other when extravagant spending doesn't suffice...
  #56  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:24 PM
Running with Scissors is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
"From whatever source derived" seems to be under-utilized. We should do better at taxing all incomes at a similar rate. Something like, after a $100,000 personal exemption, tax [i]all[i] income at 50%.
That might fly in Iowa, but in NYC, $100,000 is barely enough to get by.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #57  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:17 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 13,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
A direct wealth tax could be problematic, but couldn't you approximate it through a hefty capital gains tax, due immediately rather than waiting for the asset to be sold? Wealth doesn't sit around, it makes money. I don't know that there wouldn't be pitfalls, but imagine that the average fortune of $50 million appreciates by 3% every year. Wouldn't, then, a 67% tax on all capital gains over $1.5 million be, effectively, a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million?
The problem with this is that wealth also loses money. That why capitals gains are declared only when they are realized. Before that, it's all a paper fantasy. In some cases, the valuation has a catch-22: If Bill Gates decided to buy Greenland and tried to sell all his Microsoft stock at one time, the value would drop like a rock.

However, I would be in favor of doing away with a capital gains tax rate, and tax gains as ordinary income. I would be personally hurt by this but this is one of the big reasons that Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
  #58  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:17 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Errrr no. That's not anywhere near it.
I mean I can't speak to the other 11, but what we French have found is that the ultrarich are really whingy about it. Then we have found that our President really likes him some rich people.



One of my friends used to be a tax auditor so I can ask him if need be. But as a guess I expect "average market value" to be the answer.
The French Wealth tax was found to increase tax revenues by .5%. The french government estimated that 10,000 people left France as a result of the tax and that those people were worth 35 billion dollars.
It is estimated that the small amount of tax received along with the loss of other taxes from the people who moved away the wealth tax cost the French government about 7 billion euros a year in revenue.
  #59  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:21 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
The problem with this is that wealth also loses money. That why capitals gains are declared only when they are realized. Before that, it's all a paper fantasy. In some cases, the valuation has a catch-22: If Bill Gates decided to buy Greenland and tried to sell all his Microsoft stock at one time, the value would drop like a rock.

However, I would be in favor of doing away with a capital gains tax rate, and tax gains as ordinary income. I would be personally hurt by this but this is one of the big reasons that Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
Buffett only pays a lower tax rate than his secretary if you ignore his part of the taxes his business pays. His secretary is also one of top 5-10% of earners in America soshe pays at the highest income tax rate, while he has structured his compensation to be almost all in unrealized capital gains.
  #60  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:29 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
The wealthy have a pretty good idea about how much wealth they have.
What is your evidence for this? I don't have a good idea about my not-all-that-complicated wealth; the value of a business is not the sum of its accounts and material assets.
  #61  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:30 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running with Scissors View Post
That might fly in Iowa, but in NYC, $100,000 is barely enough to get by.
Living in NYC is, for the most part, a choice.
  #62  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:39 PM
Running with Scissors is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Living in NYC is, for the most part, a choice.
Using that logic, living anywhere is a choice, and NYC isn't the only place where the problem lies; almost anywhere in California or Hawaii would be similar. The fact of the matter is that the cost of living varies significantly between different areas of the country, and having such a low cutoff is impractical.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #63  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:01 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running with Scissors View Post
Using that logic, living anywhere is a choice
Exactly. And therefore location is irrelevant when it comes to federal tax policy.

Last edited by Ruken; 10-23-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #64  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:15 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Exactly. And therefore location is irrelevant when it comes to federal tax policy.
It is short-sighted to think of it that way. High income areas of the country are extremely productive, but to the extent that middle class people are driven out of them due to cost, that leads to bad national outcomes. Now, it's a very difficult problem to craft policy that takes into account the cost of living across the US, but it takes Trump-level lack of insight or interest to actively disregard the situation.
  #65  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:16 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Exactly. And therefore location is irrelevant when it comes to federal tax policy.
It seems like the opposite conclusion is the most valid one, given those premises.
  #66  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:09 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
A wealth tax isn't just about getting money from the rich. It's also to discourage large inactive holdings. Think Scrooge McDuck's money vault that he goes swimming in occasionally. A wealth tax puts a cost on hording that money. So Scrooge can either invest that money so it outweighs the wealth tax or he can accept it being slowly bled back into the economy.
Aside from the fact no one really has a big safe full of inactive money, if there really is a bunch of inactive money sitting around, forcing it back into the economy has the obvious effect of causing inflation in direct proportion to the amount of money being chased out of hiding.

Money you remove from circulation is, in terms of the money supply, basically vanished, at least if it sits in hiding long enough. Making it reappear increases the money supply.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #67  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:45 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It is short-sighted to think of it that way. High income areas of the country are extremely productive, but to the extent that middle class people are driven out of them due to cost, that leads to bad national outcomes. Now, it's a very difficult problem to craft policy that takes into account the cost of living across the US, but it takes Trump-level lack of insight or interest to actively disregard the situation.
Fine, but you'd want to set a cutoff that would indicate upper class/rich pretty much anywhere. Setting it to a value that's basically what a family with two working parents making the average wage makes is absurd.

I'd set my cutoff at something like 200-250k. That's enough to be considered well off anywhere in the country, including NYC/SF, but not so low that you're going to put a huge dent in people who aren't necessarily having a lot of spare cash.
  #68  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:59 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
A "wealth tax" impresses me as far more complicated than inheritance taxes/restrictions on trusts. No need to get it from everyone every year, so long as you collect it once a generation.
The money was already taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
  #69  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:03 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It is short-sighted to think of it that way. High income areas of the country are extremely productive, but to the extent that middle class people are driven out of them due to cost, that leads to bad national outcomes. Now, it's a very difficult problem to craft policy that takes into account the cost of living across the US, but it takes Trump-level lack of insight or interest to actively disregard the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
It seems like the opposite conclusion is the most valid one, given those premises.
Living in a high cost of living region is an optional luxury.
  #70  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,514
Bone, there's no chance that any policy any politician is proposing could conceivably lead to triple or quadruple taxation, because 3 or 4 times is far too low a number. By my back-of-the-envelope estimate, most money ends up getting taxed about 50 times. The only way to get the number down to 3 or 4 is if you either stop all transactions after a dollar has changed hands 3 or 4 times, or grow the money supply so quickly that after 3 or 4 transactions, the money you had is dwarfed by new money. Either one would be absolutely disastrous for the economy.
  #71  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:09 PM
Running with Scissors is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
What is your evidence for this? I don't have a good idea about my not-all-that-complicated wealth; the value of a business is not the sum of its accounts and material assets.
One time for tax purposes I needed to determine the value of furnishings in a rental home I owned. This was difficult enough and it ended up being mostly guesswork. It's one thing to determine the value of cash, bonds or stocks held in accounts, but the difficulty in determining the value of other assets is going to make this next to impossible to implement. Options? Artwork? Other collections? Real estate? Is the government going to force everyone to pay for appraisals for all their privately-held assets?
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel

Last edited by Running with Scissors; 10-23-2019 at 04:10 PM.
  #72  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:13 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Living in a high cost of living region is an optional luxury.
This is not on topic to what I wrote.
  #73  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:16 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
The money was already taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
If you get paid $50,000, and get levied one tax of say, 22%; and then another tax of say, 6.2%; and then a third tax of say, 2.9%; why should I care that your income was subject to TRIPLE TAXATION!?!?!?!!?

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-23-2019 at 04:17 PM.
  #74  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:40 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is not on topic to what I wrote.
People choosing less luxurious areas to live, as I have done, is not a "bad national outcome."
  #75  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:52 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
The money was already taxed when it was earned.
I have little interest in "why should?" nonarguments, but the above is not necessarily true. My father "earned" a share of stock at $1, now worth $100. Also bought a table for cheap that is now considered an antique with some inflated value. Call it $10-->$200 just to keep the numbers round. No additional money was earned there.

But as to taxing once vs every year, once is certainly simpler. Is simple valuable? YMMV. Although as it stands I would likely pay zero taxes on any of the above that I inherit and immediately sell due to basis reset.
  #76  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:55 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
People choosing less luxurious areas to live, as I have done, is not a "bad national outcome."
Shoot from the hip tax policy is a bad national outcome.
  #77  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:23 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
What is your evidence for this? I don't have a good idea about my not-all-that-complicated wealth; the value of a business is not the sum of its accounts and material assets.
Hire a better accountant to fix your balance sheet. Are you someone that has over $30 million on assets? If not then this tax won't apply to you.

I'm an accountant, this sort of financial analysis is not difficult, it's basic.
  #78  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:27 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
The money was already taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
All money is taxed multiple times. Why do I have to pay property tax every year? This is an absurd argument. What if the wealth in question is from oil, or other resource extraction? What if it's inherited?
  #79  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:32 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running with Scissors View Post
One time for tax purposes I needed to determine the value of furnishings in a rental home I owned. This was difficult enough and it ended up being mostly guesswork. It's one thing to determine the value of cash, bonds or stocks held in accounts, but the difficulty in determining the value of other assets is going to make this next to impossible to implement. Options? Artwork? Other collections? Real estate? Is the government going to force everyone to pay for appraisals for all their privately-held assets?
Every company I've ever worked for, and every client I have now, has a listed of fixed assets and the current depreciated value of those assets. You have furniture in a rental unit? Amortize it over seven years. Done. It's older than seven years? What is the maximum percent you can amortize according to the ppt laws in your state? Done. Or value it at zero. Done. You don't know what you paid for it? Next time write it down. Your poor bookkeeping practices are not a good argument.
  #80  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:33 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,109
There are a few sort-of feasible ways to do a wealth tax and not get tripped up by hard-to-value assets, but they all cause pretty major distortions that may or may not be worth it.

1. Just tax the value of some types of assets. Like, it's easy to value real property, publicly traded stocks, etc. All the weird stuff just doesn't get taxed. The problem is that this gives the rich a huge incentive to invest in things that are hard to value. You can extend the set of things that can be valued by hiring an army of accountants, but only to a point. The more comprehensive the list of valuation formulae is, the more incentive there is to create new and arcane financial instruments that are not well approximated by the formula. Like, sure WeWork as a company is apparently hard to value within an order of magnitude, but that's nothing. Wow much harder would the AA tranche of a synthetic WeWork CDS for sunny Tuesdays on the south side of the buildings be?

Giving the financial system as a whole an extra 2% a year of earnings to devise instruments so complicated that no one can figure out what they're really worth seems unwise. We tried it about a decade ago and it went badly.

2. Require the owner of any asset to declare a value for it, and make that value binding on them to sell. Like, if you say your Monet is worth $2.1m and someone shows up with a briefcase, you have to either sell it to them or raise your valuation (and presumably pay some back taxes on the new correct valuation). There's a lovely economic efficiency and simplicity argument for this. The market can figure out the price of everything all the time! But it has some sweeping societal implications and about 99% of people who don't have a PhD in economics hate them.

Making capital gains be taxed as normal income (indexed to inflation) gets you almost all the value of taxing the rich more with very little nonsense and is a much better idea. And Constitutional.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 10-23-2019 at 07:34 PM.
  #81  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:39 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,609
I'm still not seeing how this tax is in any way constitutional if not apportioned.
  #82  
Old 10-23-2019, 07:54 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,156
It's possible that implementation of this tax would include a constitutional amendment to permit it. So I don't think there's any reason to get hung up on the constitutional question.
  #83  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:25 PM
Running with Scissors is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It's possible that implementation of this tax would include a constitutional amendment to permit it. So I don't think there's any reason to get hung up on the constitutional question.
Well then, let's be realistic. It's never going to happen.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #84  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:36 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,156
With or without an constitutional amendment, the proposal is a long shot.
  #85  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I'm still not seeing how this tax is in any way constitutional if not apportioned.
This was linked on the first page by LHoD:
American Bar Association Policy Point: A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*



(basically the definition of "direct tax" has long been gutted and the Supreme Court has long moved away from the one decision that might make this tax unconstitutional.)

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-23-2019 at 09:12 PM.
  #86  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:54 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This was linked on the first page by LHoD:
American Bar Association Policy Point: A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional
By Calvin H. Johnson, John T. Kipp Chair in Corporate and Business Law, University of Texas*



(basically the definition of "direct tax" has long been gutted and the Supreme Court has long moved away from the one decision that might make this tax unconstitutional.)
That is an inaccurate summation of both the law journal article LHoD posted and the current state of the law. The journal article is part scholarly work and part position paper and it advocates a radical return to the precedent under Hylton v United States 3 US 171 (1796). Their problem is that Hylton was just a terribly reasoned decision. The Court relied on the most obviously flawed logic and showed outright hostility to the plain language of the Constitution. At one point, one Justice characterized the apportionment rule itself as "radically wrong." Think about that. They actually referred to a part of the Constitutional text itself as "radically wrong."

And the courts have in fact shown no indication of moving away from the standard under Pollock and it has been reaffirmed and cited numerous times in other decisions at all levels. And as far as the current Court, even the authors acknowledge that they have affirmed that standard as recently as Sebelius. So no, everything indicates that any wealth tax on Real or Personal Property would be a direct tax and subject to apportionment. The article is their argument on why a wealth tax should be Constitutional, not on why it is in fact Constitutional under current law.

Last edited by DirkHardly; 10-23-2019 at 10:55 PM.
  #87  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:15 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The French Wealth tax was found to increase tax revenues by .5%.
Oh well, it's only 4 billion euros...

Quote:
The french government estimated that 10,000 people left France as a result of the tax and that those people were worth 35 billion dollars.
And those people are the worst kind of antisocial scum, should be denounced as such and possibly even have their remaining French assets nationalized. It's not like there's no established precedent for seizing the castles of rich parasites fleeing to England... Let them earn the wealth they self-evidently deserve from their PO box in the Caimans, yeah ?

Mind you, if repealing the ISF had been the only "but rich people ! " move by the Macron administration, I would have maybe characterized it differently. But when the sum aggregate of LREM policies is demonstrably overwhelmingly in favour of the 1% and detrimental to everyone else, and when the absolute tosser is dead set on privatizing the National Lottery (which is both problematic in its mere existence, but also a strict money maker for the government) it's difficult to not think of him as the "président des riches". It becomes *extremely* difficult when the abolition of the ISF was coupled with a tax on diesel fuel to make up for the lost revenue - a tax which overwhelmingly affects the poor and the rural. But it's cool, it's cool, they can't leave the country so...
  #88  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:19 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
The money was already taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
I really don't get this argument. "Because we need the money" that's why. If you can mentally come to terms with any taxation being justified or justifiable to begin with, then what's so oogyboogy about "double taxation", exactly ?
  #89  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:20 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It's possible that implementation of this tax would include a constitutional amendment to permit it. So I don't think there's any reason to get hung up on the constitutional question.
Ummmm, yes we should. The standard is much higher for an amendment. The law itself could pass with only majorities in both houses and a Dem president. Not so with an amendment.
  #90  
Old 10-24-2019, 06:32 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Hire a better accountant to fix your balance sheet. Are you someone that has over $30 million on assets? If not then this tax won't apply to you.

I'm an accountant, this sort of financial analysis is not difficult, it's basic.
This isn't accounting. You can't tally the assets of Amazon and give me its worth based on a balance sheet. Because it's publicly traded, we can tally its market cap, but most companies aren't publicly traded. This is why valuation is an expensive undertaking that nobody in their right mind performs annually.

An accountant shouldn't need that explained.

And whether or not the tax applies to me is irrelevant. The OP doesn't ask whether it does it should; the OP asks how valuation is supposed to work. You obviously don't know. The wealth of the rich is not a sum of fixed assets on a balance sheet.
  #91  
Old 10-24-2019, 06:46 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Giving the financial system as a whole an extra 2% a year of earnings to devise instruments so complicated that no one can figure out what they're really worth seems unwise. We tried it about a decade ago and it went badly.

2. Require the owner of any asset to declare a value for it, and make that value binding on them to sell. Like, if you say your Monet is worth $2.1m and someone shows up with a briefcase, you have to either sell it to them or raise your valuation (and presumably pay some back taxes on the new correct valuation). There's a lovely economic efficiency and simplicity argument for this. The market can figure out the price of everything all the time! But it has some sweeping societal implications and about 99% of people who don't have a PhD in economics hate them.
Oh oh there's a name for this. I read about in the context of real estate, where you declare your property's value and are then forced to sell if someone makes an offer.

Can't find the name but Eric Posner and Glen Weyl have a book on it that I haven't read: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/sh...adical-markets

Probably a discussion for another thread.
  #92  
Old 10-24-2019, 07:44 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
This isn't accounting. You can't tally the assets of Amazon and give me its worth based on a balance sheet. Because it's publicly traded, we can tally its market cap, but most companies aren't publicly traded. This is why valuation is an expensive undertaking that nobody in their right mind performs annually.

An accountant shouldn't need that explained.

And whether or not the tax applies to me is irrelevant. The OP doesn't ask whether it does it should; the OP asks how valuation is supposed to work. You obviously don't know. The wealth of the rich is not a sum of fixed assets on a balance sheet.
Are we talking about your business or are we talking about Amazon? Are we talking about a publicly traded company or a sole proprietor? We can value your business based on it's balance sheet. We can do the same for Amazon. I think you are getting hung up on different methods of valuation. You can say my house's value is its tax assessed value, its insurance value, or what I can sell it for. The government says my house is worth its tax assessed value, and that is what my property taxes are based on.

If the government is taxing your wealth, per the position of Warren, they will have formulaic methods to determine the value of your assets. Since this tax is not a business tax, it won't require anyone to decide if Amazon is worth its market cap or its balance sheet, it will require that we determine how much Amazon stock Jeff Bezos holds and what the value of that stock is. Maybe the formula will be a three month average. Maybe it will be a closing price on a certain day. Maybe it will be the value on his 1099-DIV.

Valuation is only expensive if you are trying to sell your company, either to one party or to the public. It's expensive for me to hire an appraiser to tell me how much my house is worth. I did it once 15 years ago, when I bought my house. I don't need to do this every year to pay my property tax. It's expensive for my city to revise the tax assessed value of my house. They don't do it every year. They've done it twice in 15 years. If I feel they have overvalued my house, and thus are charging me too much in property tax, there exists a process for me to appeal.

This would not be an annual process where you start from scratch valuing every asset. Most assets will already be valued. Real property, securities, cash all already have a value attached to them. Other property that would be taxed, perhaps art, already has an insurance value. I can't imagine that anyone is going to ask Jeff Bezos to value his wardrobe, so maybe the super wealthy start to hide all their wealth in very expensive sneakers.
  #93  
Old 10-24-2019, 09:25 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Are we talking about your business or are we talking about Amazon? Are we talking about a publicly traded company or a sole proprietor? We can value your business based on it's balance sheet. We can do the same for Amazon. I think you are getting hung up on different methods of valuation. You can say my house's value is its tax assessed value, its insurance value, or what I can sell it for. The government says my house is worth its tax assessed value, and that is what my property taxes are based on.

If the government is taxing your wealth, per the position of Warren, they will have formulaic methods to determine the value of your assets. Since this tax is not a business tax, it won't require anyone to decide if Amazon is worth its market cap or its balance sheet, it will require that we determine how much Amazon stock Jeff Bezos holds and what the value of that stock is. Maybe the formula will be a three month average. Maybe it will be a closing price on a certain day. Maybe it will be the value on his 1099-DIV.

Valuation is only expensive if you are trying to sell your company, either to one party or to the public. It's expensive for me to hire an appraiser to tell me how much my house is worth. I did it once 15 years ago, when I bought my house. I don't need to do this every year to pay my property tax. It's expensive for my city to revise the tax assessed value of my house. They don't do it every year. They've done it twice in 15 years. If I feel they have overvalued my house, and thus are charging me too much in property tax, there exists a process for me to appeal.

This would not be an annual process where you start from scratch valuing every asset. Most assets will already be valued. Real property, securities, cash all already have a value attached to them. Other property that would be taxed, perhaps art, already has an insurance value. I can't imagine that anyone is going to ask Jeff Bezos to value his wardrobe, so maybe the super wealthy start to hide all their wealth in very expensive sneakers.
Of course I'm getting hung up on different methods of valuation; that's the entire point of this thread! Yes, this is a business tax; she says right there in her summary that she's going after closely held businesses, i.e. most businesses.

My old dentist sold his practice, not so much for the space and equipment, but for the valuable patient base. I have clients with value primarily in their IP and know-how. Small consulting shops gobble each other up all the time, not for their laptops and printers. Those valuations are non-trivial and expensive. Not to mention volatile. And not an accounting tally.

Most companies aren't publicly traded. Private businesses are a far larger chunk of the wealthy's wealth than of everyone else's wealth. So since she intends to tax that wealth, how does she plan to measure it? That's what the OP asks, and it doesn't look like you know.

The local government says how much my house is worth for local tax purposes. Their rules for valuation are different from the neighboring communities'. And their estimate is nowhere close to the one (with laughable methodology) I paid for when I bought the place. Has Warren explained how she intends the IRS to handle this? No, she has not.

Is she valuing pension? Unclear. She's sure eyeing 401ks. Claims on future SS and Medicare benefits? Probably not.

Yes, there are multiple ways to value valuable things. That's not news to anyone. What we're trying to figure out here is how:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
(A) How ya gonna value assets?
As I mentioned, the IRS already has rules for valuation for inheritance. She wants them to develop new rules, but does not touch on where the current rules are deficient or how they will be changed.

And to everyone else, whether the proposal is effective or fair is immaterial here since we don't really know what the proposal is.
  #94  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:23 PM
chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,075
IMO - A wealth tax will only encourage more cheating and would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

Why is a consumer tax not something that is on the democratic radar?

As a registered democrat myself, i do not understand how a consumer tax is considered a republican concept (as many of my friends inform me).

A consumer tax gives the individual more flexibility in when and how they are taxed as well as taxing more proportionally based on income as billionaires are taxed on their yachts, ferraris and beach homes while the average Joe is taxed on bread and milk.

I know there is more nuance than the above, but you get my point.
  #95  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
IMO - A wealth tax will only encourage more cheating and would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

Why is a consumer tax not something that is on the democratic radar?

As a registered democrat myself, i do not understand how a consumer tax is considered a republican concept (as many of my friends inform me).

A consumer tax gives the individual more flexibility in when and how they are taxed as well as taxing more proportionally based on income as billionaires are taxed on their yachts, ferraris and beach homes while the average Joe is taxed on bread and milk.

I know there is more nuance than the above, but you get my point.
In my understanding, a national sales tax is generally opposed by progressives because it would serve to increase the tax burden on the very poor (barring some sort of automatic rebate, or something like that).
  #96  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:37 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Oh oh there's a name for this. I read about in the context of real estate, where you declare your property's value and are then forced to sell if someone makes an offer.

Can't find the name but Eric Posner and Glen Weyl have a book on it that I haven't read: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/sh...adical-markets

Probably a discussion for another thread.
Yes, it is a fascinating concept. And I'm one of the 1% of non-economics PhD holders who thinks it's probably a good idea, but I recognize that I'm in an extreme minority and it's absurdly unlikely to ever happen. I would participate in a thread on the pros and cons of it if you started one.
  #97  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:44 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
It's unconstitutional and overly complex. Let's just bring back a meaningful estate tax.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #98  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:55 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 13,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
It's unconstitutional and overly complex. Let's just bring back a meaningful estate tax.
I guess it's another thread but I oppose estate taxes, as well as gift taxes (even though I am not affected by them). I think that a transfer of assets that does not create economic value should not be taxed.
  #99  
Old 10-24-2019, 01:06 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
The point of the estate tax is that generational wealth transfers are anti-merit and if we are going to fund a government, it should be by taxing people who haven't done anything to earn their money.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #100  
Old 10-24-2019, 02:33 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Yes, it is a fascinating concept. And I'm one of the 1% of non-economics PhD holders who thinks it's probably a good idea, but I recognize that I'm in an extreme minority and it's absurdly unlikely to ever happen. I would participate in a thread on the pros and cons of it if you started one.
I don't know enough yet. I'll add the book to my list. Or some shorter source.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017