A wealth tax isn’t radical and is long overdue. It’s just very difficult to implement since wealth is fungible and because of globalized markets it’s notoriously difficult to keep inside a particular taxing jurisdiction. It can transform itself through legal, investment, and business arrangements to hide itself. There are all sorts of unintended consequences as well. But in principle, it’s a compelling idea and should be studied more.
Tokie-Dokie on
Oh no, they’re seething. No more trickling for us.
SurroundTiny on
From the article I read yesterday, Ro Khanna is the only one seething. He went from accusing Newsom of misuse of funds to demanding investigations of every state ( using his committee in the House. ) He sounded like Newsom’s Republican opponent for governor if Newsom could run again.
Obvious_Chapter2082 on
A 5% wealth tax is absolutely radical
KrookedDoesStuff on
Alternative title: People with so much money they could never actually spend it in their lifetimes are upset that they might have to pay their share
chimarya on
How many decades have the uber rich had to fill their accounts and spread their money around in properties and hire the best lawyers to find the loopholes. It’s time they do what’s right and pay their fair share. I mean even in the 1920s tax on someone making a million dollars was around 70%. 5% is not very much considering it’s for the tippy top.
KevinDean4599 on
I would think any wealth tax that is tied to a state would be hard to implement. if it makes a significant impact on tax for a very wealthy person many would likely move to another state like Florida as their primary residence and then all that tax revenue to CA doesn’t happen. Luxury goods would just be purchased in other states as well and sales would drop enough that some of those stores like you have in Beverly Hills would close. Tax would really need to be federal so moving to another state does allow you to avoid.
7 Comments
A wealth tax isn’t radical and is long overdue. It’s just very difficult to implement since wealth is fungible and because of globalized markets it’s notoriously difficult to keep inside a particular taxing jurisdiction. It can transform itself through legal, investment, and business arrangements to hide itself. There are all sorts of unintended consequences as well. But in principle, it’s a compelling idea and should be studied more.
Oh no, they’re seething. No more trickling for us.
From the article I read yesterday, Ro Khanna is the only one seething. He went from accusing Newsom of misuse of funds to demanding investigations of every state ( using his committee in the House. ) He sounded like Newsom’s Republican opponent for governor if Newsom could run again.
A 5% wealth tax is absolutely radical
Alternative title: People with so much money they could never actually spend it in their lifetimes are upset that they might have to pay their share
How many decades have the uber rich had to fill their accounts and spread their money around in properties and hire the best lawyers to find the loopholes. It’s time they do what’s right and pay their fair share. I mean even in the 1920s tax on someone making a million dollars was around 70%. 5% is not very much considering it’s for the tippy top.
I would think any wealth tax that is tied to a state would be hard to implement. if it makes a significant impact on tax for a very wealthy person many would likely move to another state like Florida as their primary residence and then all that tax revenue to CA doesn’t happen. Luxury goods would just be purchased in other states as well and sales would drop enough that some of those stores like you have in Beverly Hills would close. Tax would really need to be federal so moving to another state does allow you to avoid.