I tend to agree, but it’s not exactly unheard of. France(as has been mentioned), Switzerland, Netherlands, and Indiaall have wealth taxes on people over a certain threshold of wealth. They seem to be in the 1-2% range at the high end.
Two things: Kobal2’s point was that a rich guy will be listened to simply by virtue of being rich. Doesn’t require spending anything.
Secondly, if all he does is donate to a particular candidate, I don’t believe he’d pay any taxes on the transaction. It’s then entirely possible he could have his property taxes lowered as a result, offsetting the money he spent on the campaign.
Keep in mind that for the scenario in the OP, Bricker doesn’t plan to earn any more income (quitting his job) so for the next 40 years he’s going to be bleeding away his savings. If as an example he spends $50 a week paying a toll on a highway, that’s $24,000.
Now that I think of of it, he has a pretty strong incentive to support any politician that would reduce the capital gains tax rate to 0%. Or any such offer that would allow him to earn untaxed income.
I believe the standard is the same as tipping - when you order a politician you traditionally give the Government that brings him to you 5-10%, but of course some skinflints will object to even that…
We have a wealth tax. As noted about, that’s what our estate taxes do-- determine a person’s wealth, and take a percentage of it as tax. Because wealth is accumulated over a lifetime and notoriously hard to measure, it makes sense to only worry about how to calculate it once in a lifetime, and to do so at death, so that no living person loses the house that they’re living in to a wealth tax. (Leaving aside, I suppose, the idea that an adult son or daughter of the deceased might still be living there, but since the estate currently needs to so valuable to qualify for current estate taxes, I can’t get too worked up about it.) It might be wise to exempt one family home or farm from estate tax calculations, to avoid taking the family home away from a family, or to raise the rates at which estates are taxed to increase revenue and minimize the formation of wealth-based inherited aristocracy, but the simple matter is that a) we already have a wealth tax and b) I believe we should continue to have one in very much the same fashion that we do now.
Well, people listened (for a while, at least) to… what’s his name, guy has an autonomous toupee… Donald Trump ! That’s the one. Donald Trump came out and spoke, and spoke staggering amounts of truly retarded shit. Yet people took him seriously, and put him on TV. All because he has lotsa money. Hell, he doesn’t even really have lotsa money, he’s just good at putting on the front that he’s a wildly successfull businessman. Which he really, really isn’t.
I don’t believe he spent a cent on any of this, in fact he probably made off like a bandit in speaker fees. Ask yourself: what are the chances of Joe the **Bricker **achieving same without the lure of not-entirely-ill-gotten gains ?
As long as you’re talking about imaginary nonsensical scary taxes, why not tell us there is going to be a socialist Kenyan antichrist tax?
I can see that the latest State of the Union address frightened you, but try not to make everything more scary than it actually is. You’ll keep yourself up at night.
Trump leveraged his existing fame, from books and plastering his name on buildings, hotels, casinos, clouds, and urinals. If Bricker became famous for being the man who put his winnings in the closet, I can see him maybe having influence. Especially if he gets a TV show. After all, as an economic policy it is not much stupider than what is being mentioned in Republican debates.
Fame counts as an asset also.
All right, I’ll sport you a Donald Trump, but what about "son of"s for example ? Even if **Bricker **is adamant about keeping his mouldering 80M in a sock drawer, Bricker Jr. is sure to be constantly surrounded by fawning sycophants, all tripping over themselves to do him favours, helping him out, laugh at his lame jokes, inviting him to their parties – *investing *in him. Waiting for **Bricker *to keel over. And aren’t we all ?
$80M sitting in your bank account is like a gravity well. It’s a lead weight on the rubber sheet of society.
In turn, social enterprises can be set up and flourish on that. Hell, that’s half of a celebrity gossip rag’s income source: pictures of people whose parents have more money then the human mind can conceive. And it of course turns into a feedback loop since the more famous you get, the more your picture’s in the paper, the more famous you get.
Ain’t no tax on that though.
There probably should be. If only to make the Kardashians and the Osbournes vanish from the public eye.
- I don’t actually mean that. The opportunity was just too good to pass up.
Now spending by donating to a candidate (or setting up a Super PAC) would definitely give him clout. And you are right, untaxed clout is possible. But not without spending. Hell, we even read about how Google didn’t have any clout until they hired lobbyists, despite their fame and money.
Not if he planned to keep the money in his mattress.
Sorry, haven’t read all of the responses, so this has probably already been covered:
Well, presuming your bedroom is in your house, you will probably be paying property taxes and the like. Also, if you plan to buy anything other than some food items, you’ll be paying taxes on those things. Luxury items especially will be taxed. Since you won’t have an income, presumably (having quit your job), you won’t have to pay income tax or social security taxes. I THINK you’ll still be obligated to pay some state and local taxes, though those will mostly be the already mentioned property taxes or luxury taxes (depending on where you live…if you live in Virginia I’d advise leasing your high priced cars and boats and such :p).
Morally you shouldn’t run for president, from what I understand. But realistically and LEGALLY, your taxes will be pretty minimal, especially if you don’t go hog wild with your purchases. I’d invest in a gun, at a minimum, if you are going to stack $80 million in your closet though…and a really, REALLY big house, since that’s got to take up a lot of room. Where will you put your shoes?
-XT
That is more long term thinking than I’d expect from this bunch. And I should direct you to that treatise on behavioral economics “Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out,” The Derek & the Dominoes version if you wish.
In turn, social enterprises can be set up and flourish on that. Hell, that’s half of a celebrity gossip rag’s income source: pictures of people whose parents have more money then the human mind can conceive. And it of course turns into a feedback loop since the more famous you get, the more your picture’s in the paper, the more famous you get.
[/quote]
People who expect to make money from being famous have PR agents. Otherwise fame is fleeting.
Sure, no income taxes, if he just keeps the money in cash.
He’ll pay appropriate sales taxes as he spends it.
No, it would not. A national sales tax is collected at the time of a sale. If you save your money and don’t spend it, you don’t pay any tax on it.
A savings tax would be like a property tax or the Islamic zakat - it’s a tax on assets you possess.
Several people have asked about morality. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Despite what some people claim, nobody is taxed to punish them. People are taxed for the same reason McDonalds charges people for cheeseburgers - because you’ve got to pay for things.
We have a government. And outside of a few fringe anarchists and libertarians, most of us agree that having a government is a good idea. So we have to pay for the cost of having a government. And taxes is how we collect money to pay those costs.
Maybe you’re unhappy about some of the things the government pays for. Maybe you’re unhappy about some of the particular taxes that are collected. But we’re a democracy - and part of living in a democracy is accepting things you might not like when the majority voted for it. If you can’t accept those rules, you might as well leave America.
So it’s not morality. Taxes are just something you pay for something you bought just like you pay for groceries.
Except when a Republican is running for President, right?
Do you really believe that? As a counter, we have a variety of sin taxes meant to discourage negative behavior. And we have dozens of tax deductions and credits to reward good behavior.
I’ll remember you said that the next time people vote for lower taxes.
Also not true, this is a terrible analogy. If it were true we’d all pay a head tax of 1/320millionth of the federal budget. Instead, we tax income earners, and not even all of them, the bottom two quintiles have a negative tax rate. As has been so often repeated, a lot of Americans are getting their groceries for free.
Funny how the tax burden is always preferable to the “being poor” burden.
[QUOTE=erislover]
Funny how the tax burden is always preferable to the “being poor” burden.
[/QUOTE]
What’s equally funny is that rich people, even immoral ones like Romney, don’t just pile their money in the closet and avoid having to pay any tax on it at all. 
-XT
I am a Republican.
I just don’t feel that obligates me to be an idiot.
I think Czarcasm is still waiting for a cite for that…
I must have missed it…does he want a cite Romney being immoral, or for Romney piling millions in his closet? Or that if you piled it up that you wouldn’t have to pay taxes on the piles of cash?
-XT