Amen brother- -the only way to solve this is a Guaranteed Basic Income across the board... With maybe a 50-60% tax on the rich, we don't need to go all the way up to 80%. They'll get it back probably in loopholes, and business breaks anyways.
It would cost considerably less and thus higher taxation would be less of a concern (as a way to stifle more money from the rich to the poor).
Do you still like the idea if it's more expensive rather than less?
I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better.
You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.
What does that mean? Income, capital gains? Also, what prevents them from moving out of the jurisdiction? Instead, wealthy people should be encouraged to immigrate to the jurisdiction (brining their skills and capital with them).
What about getting rid of the loopholes, business breaks, income tax and move to a (very) progressive consumption tax? Then drop much of the current inefficient and convoluted entitlement programs and replace with basic income.
Exit tax, having to give up citizenship.
> (brining their skills and capital with them).
What skills does the inheritance class have exactly? Why do we want to incentivize the hoarding of wealth?
What creates more jobs:
100k investment in your company
10k new customers for your company
>(very) progressive consumption tax?
So we want to provide disincentives to consume? We want to incentivize saving money over spending money? Seems like a negative for the economy - people will consume less, or they will consume elsewhere.
What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere, say purchasing a yacht in spain - then having it delivered to their US home. How about buying a BMW in germany, having it shipped to the US.
This is something a poor person cannot do, but a rich person can. Especially on the types of goods we would most want to tax based on consumption (luxury goods)
So now you are hurting the local economy by depressing local consumption, hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption, meanwhile the rich can easily afford to avoid taxes and have things shipped from overseas.
This is borderline fascism. A modern day Berlin Wall. Besides, the US already charges an exit tax for those who relinquish their citizenship (which is a growing trend - and it's not rich people doing it).
> What skills does the inheritance class have exactly?
I agree this is a problem, and a growing one. But I think you over estimate the % of wealth by inheritance vs. earned. Either way, I'd rather have these folks living, spending and investing that money in my community.
> We want to incentivize saving money over spending money?
Yes, people would consume less and save more. This is a good thing as thrift vs. debt would be encouraged. Debt payments transfer money the banking class and contribute to the up/down economic cycles.
> What will likely happen is, a wealthy person can avoid consumption tax by purchasing something lavish elsewhere
Not likely except perhaps on small portable items. Anyways, you can't just purchase a vehicle overseas and register it in the US due to differences in vehicle safety. And import tariffs can be modified to mitigate.
> ...hurting the poor the most by adding taxes to consumption...
This is why it must be very progressive. Basic necessities should be either tax free or close to it. And used goods sold person-to-person (non retail) should not be taxed at all.
In fact, this would be better for low income folks. Instead of taxes withheld from each paycheck, only to be returned at the end of the tax season but with no interest payed, they'd get all of their paycheck.
Overall, this encourages thrift and introduces more control over how much tax one pays. It also gives conscientious objectors a legal way to reduce their tax. That's pretty powerful if you're say against the war in Iraq or against planned parenthood.
Oh, and illegal immigrants and those participating in black market activities are instantly brought into the taxation system as there is no longer such a thing as income tax avoidance. There's billions on the table here.
One possible way to fund it is through a land value tax. Another possible way to fund it is through income tax.
Utopian ideas such as that are predestined to failure because human nature doesn't work the way you think it does.
You can raise taxes as much as you want. The wealthy don't care. Why should they? They can just leave. Look at the UK. They tax the bejesus out of people. Now count how many wealthy UK entertainers (selected for having acquired new wealth, as opposed to old family money that's more or less tied to the land) emigrate after they score.
So who's going to fund your basic stipend after you tax away the wealthy and the corporate taxpayer?
Those are exactly the people we want to tax higher.
the nouveau riche generally actually do something to earn money, the trust-fund/inheritance class produces very little benefit but captures vast amounts of wealth.
Also, London has ever increasing real estate costs specifically because of all of the ultra rich foreign investors buying property in London. That seems to run counter to your claim that rich people will flee anywhere with high taxes.
Also to leave the country, you would have to pay an exit tax. You will also have to relinquish your US citizenship.
Those are two costs that i would bet the vast majority of the wealthy would not be willing to pay, no matter what the current tax climate is.
Citizenship that guts your wealth is not worth having. Any number of countries that don't have such avaricious tax laws would be happy to have a new, monied resident to spend money there.
Absentee Landowners. I'll bet the Irish are laughing up their sleeves at England being reduced to foreign ownership.