But any real wealth tax is going to have exemptions, only apply to wealth above some threshold, and for the wealthy who structure their finances so as to have little or no taxable income, well they end up paying 20% like all the rest of us do.
It's not. That calculation would say that if you have $1000 of wealth and $5 of income your effective tax rate is 220%. It's bad math.
Your conventional income is taxed separately.
A wealth tax sort of stacks with capital gains, but capital gains is way too low anyway.
($1,000 * 1%) + ($5 * 20%) = $11 tax due on $5 income. They are separate taxes but he's expressing them both in terms of an effective income tax rate.
In this case, since you owe more taxes than income you've earned, you'll need to sell off some of your wealth to pay up.
If you have no income at all, but do have wealth, then you get a division by zero error so I do get that it's maybe absurd to frame it this way, but the premise of TFA was "how to convert between a wealth tax and an income tax" and the context is a presumed 5% return on capital.
If that $5 of ""income"" is actually capital gains, then it won't be taxed very highly, and adding another 20% is fine. The discussion of 37% + 4.5% + 20% is misdirection.
If that $5 is honest to goodness income, then on average you're also getting $5 of unrealized capital gains, which means you're not paying $2 on $5, you're paying $2 on $10. Or maybe you realize part of the gains and you're paying somewhere between $2 and $3 on $10. A much smaller impact, and that's only if someone in a medium tax bracket with 20x their income in wealth is even affected by the wealth tax at all.
Graham gets this totally wrong, adding the 20% to 37%+4.75%, which are rates applicable to labor income (and short term capital gains, but those are very rare among the most wealthy Americans). That is such a major error it is hard to take any of the argument seriously.
Edit: Updated account for short term gains.
Having your house get ‘too expensive to live in’, in fact, is a classic issue with property taxes, and was happening in California - which is exactly why prop 13 happened. And most of those locations the maximum tax is around 1-3%!
‘Wealth’ is not the same as income, because wealth is potential money, if you can sell - and if you sell, you lose access to it.
A 20% wealth tax would mean any asset which doesn’t earning free cash flow returns of at least 20% a year, or which isn’t appreciating at least 20% a year in a risk free way would be impossible to hold for anyone except the most rich people. And even they couldn’t do it for long.
I can’t think of anything which that realistically describes.
A 20% income tax reduces actual cash in hand to 80% of what you’d otherwise have, which isn’t great. But you still get the actual 80% cash in hand right now, and can use it.
You can’t have ‘80% control/ownership for the year’ of a house in a meaningful way, and especially for people actually using/relying on the asset to live, they can’t find 20% (or in most cases even 5%!) of the value in cash for the asset every year. They’d go bankrupt.
I think there's no reason why a wealth tax can't be progressive. Just making up numbers here, it could be zero for your first 30 million, and rise to some palpable amount for your first billion.
This would protect granny from being taxed out of her house, and in fact would affect relatively few salary earners.
I'm not overlooking the possibility that such a tax structure could create an effective wealth cap at some level.
The problem in California is that it's very hard to change laws. Likewise in my state, where many aspects of the tax system are constrained by the state constitution.
The biggest personal complaint I have is why should the government be getting more tax money when all they seem to use it for is blowing up random countries in the Middle East and spying on law abiding citizens for whatever random reason.
Personally, I see a big benefit of a wealth tax being lowering wealth inequality; even if the money isn't actually used for anything useful. That would at least help prevent the ultra wealthy from being able to unilaterally ruin society.
Labour is what actually creates value in society, let's tax it less and ownership more.
No, I think what that does is create an effective corporate decimation. No one has a billion in cash that I've ever heard of. When you say "tax the billionaires of their wealth" because this billionaire has $1 billion, you're talking about his shares right? Maybe in one company, maybe across many. Is he supposed to pay that in cash?
How does this even really work? He could try to sell $200 million in stock, I suppose (if that's even legal according to the SEC, though that stuff could be loosened up), but what happens when he only gets $70mil for it because the stock price tanked? Should he sell more, until he comes up with that original 20% of his "billion"?
What if instead, he just gives 20% of the shares to the government, and they get to sell them, would that count? They wouldn't even have to sell them... the government could become the shareholder, until it controlled every corporation out there. The grift and graft would be massive, nothing to go wrong there. CEOs and other top positions basically appointed by whoever gets to be on the Congressional committee. The Democrats no doubt are certain they'll be in control of it, but then they'll be hysterical when it turns out they miscalculated. Could be fun to watch while eating popcorn, at least until there is no more popcorn left because the corporation that distributed popcorn melted down.
Wealth taxes are the domain of angsty teenage marxists and other retarded children.
How much does a wealth tax collect in the US, does anyone know? Does anyone care? Is it that they've identified a need for the government have revenue and devised a fair way of having the entire nation pay for that need, or are they just hoping it will be confiscatory in the most punitive way possible?
What's the biggest amount anyone has in treasury bonds or gold? You could easily liquidate a ton of that.
> but what happens when he only gets $70mil for it because the stock price tanked? Should he sell more, until he comes up with that original 20% of his "billion"?
If the stock tanks that much while he's selling, then the company is only worth about $300 million now, and the money he owes drops to $60 million.
Though I don't see why it would tank that much.
Also normal people and the mildly rich and retirement funds and many other big sources of ownership wouldn't be taxed, so I don't see prices actually crashing.
Repeatedly pushing the "destroy the world economy" multiple times per day is most likely not going to be a "one-time thing". But who knows... maybe you're right and economics doesn't work like it has been documented to work by the world's experts for the last 100 years or so.
Especially because every push shrinks the number of people affected by the button.
Valuation hasn’t been tied or related to earnings for top stocks in at least a decade.
It isn’t ’wealth redistribution’.
Removing half or more of market demand isn’t going to be pretty.
Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing.
You want Trump and company in charge of it all? Or are we finally back to "the next time Democrats win it will be forever!" wishful thinking? I mean, even if you want to nationalize everything, it's as if you dreamt up the worst possible way to go about doing that so that they've cratered first and started hemorrhaging all their talent in the leadup.
We need a wealth tax, ONLY public financing of elections (no PAC money, no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself"), and many other reforms. Nationalizing critical industries and sectors is also something we should be pursuing.
To me, that would seem extremely difficult for Congress to pass a law restricting individual speech in this particular way that would pass First Amendment muster, and I don’t think we should be at “let’s just set aside the Constitution when it clearly says something we don’t like” because I don’t think that ends well in today’s political climate (or any other, but it’s especially bad now).
And if you think anything's going to change in November, you're going to be really disappointed.
If grandma has $50M in her house and pension, she can afford to pay a tiny tiny tiny fraction of her wealth to make sure her grandkids still have a place to live that's not falling apart.
Thank god no one is talking about this, then. According to Graham, a 20% wealth tax is equivalent to a 400% income tax.
It is clearly the case if you try to apply the income tax rate as a wealth tax using concrete real world examples.
Even a 3% property tax makes it very difficult for many normal people to own those assets in many real world economic circumstances.
The tax could be made progressive so that it doesn't impact people who can't afford it.
Someone's primary home and vehicle could be omitted from the tax.
A good way to make owning anything unaffordable though! The carve outs would just defacto set a cap for normal people. No more than one house, etc.
You can still own millions and billions of dollars of things, but you'll have to shrink your money pile over time to pay for those things if you don't have a source of income.
The higher the rate, the harder it will be to do.
At some point, only speculators with deep pockets and the desperate with enough cash flow could do it.
Please read before making replies that don't make sense in context. When I refer to 20% I'm referring the PG's characterization of a 1% wealth tax as an effective 20% income tax, not a 20% wealth tax.