I suppose the main difference is philosophical, if it’s logical or fair to tax someone on unrealised gains. It problematic to me for a number of reasons. Mechanically, how and when do you assess that, and how can it be done fairly? Much more importantly though, is the political achievability, and I think you lose too many people off the bandwagon if you go down that route.
The same goal could be realised both more deterministically and in a way more palatable to the electorate by closing the loopholes you mention, thus forcing the realising of a gain (and a taxable event) as the only means of using one’s assets. In this way you don’t create a divisive wealth tax, rather you ensure that the existing taxes on capital are actually applied. This can be augmented by moving from a flat capital gains tax rate and instead taxing it progressively as income, another deterministic and more objectively fair approach.
I believe we could also implement a significantly higher inheritance tax rate, as it’s much easier to build consensus around punitive tax rates for wealth not personally generated. Why not something like 90% above $10m? There are many people that will fight taxation of entrepreneurs, claiming they’ve earned their wealth. However, it’s much harder to argue that some rich guy’s descendants who did nothing more then be born deserve huge sums of money to do fuck all.
If you do both of those, you ensure that the very wealthy pay their fucking taxes, and that huge intergenerational wealth transfers instead become huge taxable events.
To oversimplify: they can’t hide the real-world things in which they store their wealth. So for example tax land, tax stock ownership, tax pollution. Legalize heists from unreported gold hoards.
I suppose the main difference is philosophical, if it’s logical or fair to tax someone on unrealised gains. It problematic to me for a number of reasons. Mechanically, how and when do you assess that, and how can it be done fairly? Much more importantly though, is the political achievability, and I think you lose too many people off the bandwagon if you go down that route.
The same goal could be realised both more deterministically and in a way more palatable to the electorate by closing the loopholes you mention, thus forcing the realising of a gain (and a taxable event) as the only means of using one’s assets. In this way you don’t create a divisive wealth tax, rather you ensure that the existing taxes on capital are actually applied. This can be augmented by moving from a flat capital gains tax rate and instead taxing it progressively as income, another deterministic and more objectively fair approach.
I believe we could also implement a significantly higher inheritance tax rate, as it’s much easier to build consensus around punitive tax rates for wealth not personally generated. Why not something like 90% above $10m? There are many people that will fight taxation of entrepreneurs, claiming they’ve earned their wealth. However, it’s much harder to argue that some rich guy’s descendants who did nothing more then be born deserve huge sums of money to do fuck all.
If you do both of those, you ensure that the very wealthy pay their fucking taxes, and that huge intergenerational wealth transfers instead become huge taxable events.
That was one of the objections to land value taxes before property tax assessments became commonplace.
To oversimplify: they can’t hide the real-world things in which they store their wealth. So for example tax land, tax stock ownership, tax pollution. Legalize heists from unreported gold hoards.