Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wealth tax is absurd and will never work in this country. Imagine owning a farm and all your “wealth” is invested in the land, the livestock, the machinery and the technology you need to run that farm. And then you are charged a wealth tax since - ON PAPER- you are a multi millionaire although you have very little cash equity.
You wouldn’t be in business very long. And thousands of other business owners would suffer the same fate.

My house is taxed every year.

That is not a wealth tax.

Actually it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wealth tax is absurd and will never work in this country. Imagine owning a farm and all your “wealth” is invested in the land, the livestock, the machinery and the technology you need to run that farm. And then you are charged a wealth tax since - ON PAPER- you are a multi millionaire although you have very little cash equity.
You wouldn’t be in business very long. And thousands of other business owners would suffer the same fate.

My house is taxed every year.

That is not a wealth tax.

It's a tax on the unrealized gains of what for most people is the bulk of their net worth, so functionally not that different from a wealth tax.

If anything, it's significantly more burdensome for most people than a 5% wealth tax would be for billionaires.

It isn't really an effective tax, even if it sounds nice and makes you feel good.

If you imposed a 100% tax on every single billionaire and then the next 1000 richest people, you wouldn't hit 10 trillion dollars.

All that effort and we fund the US for what? 6 months? Maybe?

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

I hadn’t thought of it like that and that is the argument that needs to be used!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

The Warren proposal only applies to people with $50 mil net worth and above. They can pay someone to figure it out.

Exactly. And it's baffling that there are people in this thread who are not in that $50m+ class who are trying to defend the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't need your help. They have already done just fine fleecing America.

GOP Priorities:
"Won't someone please think of the plight of the poor billionaires?"

It is true that the personal income tax started this way. You can't deny history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

The Warren proposal only applies to people with $50 mil net worth and above. They can pay someone to figure it out.

Exactly. And it's baffling that there are people in this thread who are not in that $50m+ class who are trying to defend the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't need your help. They have already done just fine fleecing America.

GOP Priorities:
"Won't someone please think of the plight of the poor billionaires?"

MAGA bikers siding with billionaires? Truly brainless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

The Warren proposal only applies to people with $50 mil net worth and above. They can pay someone to figure it out.

Exactly. And it's baffling that there are people in this thread who are not in that $50m+ class who are trying to defend the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't need your help. They have already done just fine fleecing America.

GOP Priorities:
"Won't someone please think of the plight of the poor billionaires?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

The Warren proposal only applies to people with $50 mil net worth and above. They can pay someone to figure it out.

Exactly. And it's baffling that there are people in this thread who are not in that $50m+ class who are trying to defend the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't need your help. They have already done just fine fleecing America.

Anonymous wrote:
Personally, I like the idea of treating that borrowing as if 200% of the borrowed amount has been monetized and subjecting the borrower to regular income tax on 200% of the value of the borrowed amount (most lenders want to have 2 to 1 asset overage on there these types of loans, thus my idea of 200%). I like this better because it is a tax that would hold only to people that borrow against unrealized gains meaning it can’t creep to lower wealth/income persons. It would be easy to account for. And it seems to solve the problem at hand. It would trip up some margin borrowing for investors, but they could be dealt with. Finally, by subjecting the borrower to regular income tax, you would actually encourage the borrower to realize the gain instead of borrowing, in order to take advantage of capital gains rates and this silly behavior should come to an end.

This is also needed. It’s absurd that these people can effectively live tax free by borrowing like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

The Warren proposal only applies to people with $50 mil net worth and above. They can pay someone to figure it out.

All taxes have always started as a tiny percentage of some big (or small, as the case may be) threshold. Eventually, taxes expand to increase the taxable base and increase tax revenue. So be careful what you ask for.

Social security was originally a 1% + 1% tax on up to $3,000 of earnings (about $68,000 in today’s dollars). Today it is 6.2% + 6.2% on up to $184,000 of earnings. Keeping dollars constant, that’s a max liability of $1,360 in 1937 to $22,800 today. That alone would put a lot of money in Americans pockets.

The same will hold true with wealth tax—it will expand and eventually ensnare more and more people. Pelosi floated taxing 401(k)s ten years ago. If the wealth tax happens it is only a matter of time before it comes for retirement accounts (including pensions).

I think a better idea is having a real and actual estate tax with teeth.

Additionally, you do need to address the fact that paper wealth that has not been monetized is borrowed against. So while the monetization event has not occurred (thus delaying tax liability to a future date), the economic utility of the unrealized gain is being realized through borrowing.

Personally, I like the idea of treating that borrowing as if 200% of the borrowed amount has been monetized and subjecting the borrower to regular income tax on 200% of the value of the borrowed amount (most lenders want to have 2 to 1 asset overage on there these types of loans, thus my idea of 200%). I like this better because it is a tax that would hold only to people that borrow against unrealized gains meaning it can’t creep to lower wealth/income persons. It would be easy to account for. And it seems to solve the problem at hand. It would trip up some margin borrowing for investors, but they could be dealt with. Finally, by subjecting the borrower to regular income tax, you would actually encourage the borrower to realize the gain instead of borrowing, in order to take advantage of capital gains rates and this silly behavior should come to an end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/08/wealth-tax-billionaire-sanders/

I guess commenting is behind a paywall.

The question that comes to mind is if a "wealth tax" doesn't make any sense in the way that Megan derived, why does the current middle-class tax make sense.

I get that the wealth is paper wealth, it's not really going to increase production of goods. But why does taxing the middle class not get the same lens? EG if we take money from the middle class then they can't use it to buy goods or services.

I feel like taxing the wealth is precisely what we want to do to solve the problem of not producing enough goods. The problem with the "paper wealth", is it is basically sitting idle. With a wealth tax if the wealthy aren't actively using their investments to produce goods(eg making more profits) then they get penalized for letting it sit idle in wealth accounts that don't do anything and are basically just rent seeking.

EG I view it as punitive for wealthy that are basically just riding a trust fund. You have to invest profitably producing goods, or it will evaporate.

The basic premise here is that profits are efficient. Profits are the idea that people pay more for the product than it took to make the item.

I think Amazons strategy of growth is precisely the problem that needs to be addressed. They aren't producing and returning profits, the companies aren't producing services efficiently. Basically, just playing island monopoly and making resources scarcer to drive paper wealth.

Yes, if a billionaire is investing in things that we don't want, we should take their money. Simple. This is beyond taxing labor or consumption. This is taxing the right to do business in our country. Think of it like a permit to operate as an economic decision maker.

One of the few things the left has going for it at the moment.

Who is we? Who gets to dictate what people want and don’t want?

Wealth Tax proposals like Senator Warren's would only impact the ultra high net worth households - the top 0.05. The "we" is the remaining 99.95% of America. Since when should the top 0.05% get to dictate to the rest of us?

Why is it that democrats never met a tax they didn’t like?
And tell me - when the value of the assets that these people pay a wealth tax on decreases, will they get a refund from previous years when they were taxed at its higher value?

No, just like they don’t take back the prior year’s fees from the fund manager.

Anonymous wrote:A wealth tax is absurd and will never work in this country. Imagine owning a farm and all your “wealth” is invested in the land, the livestock, the machinery and the technology you need to run that farm. And then you are charged a wealth tax since - ON PAPER- you are a multi millionaire although you have very little cash equity.
You wouldn’t be in business very long. And thousands of other business owners would suffer the same fate.

It has worked and worked for years.

Anonymous wrote:This is such a hollow argument. Rich people all have money managers who charge a yearly fee that is, guess what, A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS. If they can figure out how to pay that, they can pay a wealth tax.

Stocks, bonds, securities, etc are easy to value.
Other non liquid assets aren’t. Real estate, art, jewelry and other things that would fall under a wealth tax fluctuate. They are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And money managers do t deal with these.

And then there is the constitutionality question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wealth tax is absurd and will never work in this country. Imagine owning a farm and all your “wealth” is invested in the land, the livestock, the machinery and the technology you need to run that farm. And then you are charged a wealth tax since - ON PAPER- you are a multi millionaire although you have very little cash equity.
You wouldn’t be in business very long. And thousands of other business owners would suffer the same fate.

My house is taxed every year.

That is not a wealth tax.