U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Well, Sondland just got his credibility destroyed.

His credibility was shaky from the jump, but it doesn't really matter. Today seems like a huge win for the Dems. They got some soundbites they could only have dreamed of:

"Yes, there was a quid pro quo"

"This wasn't a rouge operation, everyone was in the loop" (also has the email to prove it)

"We were following the president's orders"

 

Those combined paint a damning picture, and will only encourage others to break too to CYA. 

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Please.  This is fewer precautions than a mid level mob boss or drug dealer takes.  Any half competent district attorney could have the whole lot of them in prison for conspiracy if it weren't for the fact that the justice department works for Trump. 

Yes and no. You're right to point out the dynamic, but Trump isn't mid-level, he's the literal don. Only those in the inner circle can provide direct evidence of intent and wrong doing. Everyone else are various buffers. The CoS and SoS are in that circle, and they were implicated today. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

You wanted a bombshell? You might have just gotten one:

Quote

A top Pentagon official testified Wednesday that Ukrainian officials knew as early as July 25 that there was an issue with US aid to the country, undercutting a key Republican rebuttal to accusations of a "quid pro quo" linking the aid to investigations into President Donald Trump's political rivals.

In their defense of Trump, Republicans have alleged that no bribery could exist if the Ukrainians weren't aware the aid was being held.

 

But Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry that some members of her staff recalled receiving emails from the Ukrainian embassy on July 25 -- the same day as Trump's much-scrutinized phone call with the Ukrainian president.

 

"What was going on with Ukrainian security assistance?" one Ukrainian contact emailed a member of her staff, Cooper said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/david-hale-laura-cooper-public-hearing/index.html

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Leaving aside whether the existing proposals for a wealth tax are good policy (I think they aren't, based on the experiences of European countries that have tried this - the valuation compliance morass is nearly insurmountable on an annual basis among other infirmities), as currently proposed I believe they will not pass Constitutional muster (they resemble impermissible capitation taxes).  A much more realistic and actionable policy is to have a REAL estate and gift tax (where the valuation events are at least identifiable though, of course, always suspect where the property in question is private).

The yearly French wealth tax was based on the assets' market value on the 31st of December each year.
I'm not an expert and will bow to your expertise, but I fail to see why something as simple as that would not work, as long as some kind of check is made by the IRS.
And yes, this basically implies hiring more "bureaucreats" to examine valuation. But (as pointed out by socialist Gérard Filoche), given the revenue that a wealth tax can generate it isn't so absurd for the government to have a large task force whose job would be to look at valuation - and sanction fraud. The cost of the task force will pretty much always be dwarfed by the revenue generated.
As for the economic objections to a wealth tax, again, I'm more than skeptical. Éric Pichet's work on the topic is considered rather authoritative. Except when you actually read what he has to say. In the end, one's conclusions greatly depend on one's personal ideological leanings in the first place.

Let's take a look:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268381
In this famous paper, Pichet drew several conclusions:
a) In spite of numerous exemptions/loopholes/"abatements" the revenue generated by the wealth tax kept increasing.
b) Collection costs were always rather modest (under 2%) for a task force of 593 civil servants.
c) One of the biggest problems of the wealth tax was that it should have generated more. There was rampant fraud, especially due to under-assessment of assets.
--> combine b) and c) and it's difficult to see how Filoche's proposal of increasing the task force's numbers to prevent fraud doesn't make sense.

d) Fiscal expatriation was always a huge problem and was "amplified" after the "exit tax" was eliminated.
--> Now that's interesting since Pichet (despite his personal opposition to it) pretty much admits that the exit tax worked. What was the exit tax? More or less a tax on financial assets whenever someone left the country to guarantee that fiscal expatriation could not be used to dodge taxes (it was a bit more complicated than that, but I'm too lazy to go into details). And while the revenues generated by the exit tax were always low (somewhere around 100 million a year), the French equivalent of the CBO estimated that it could have eventually generated around 800 million a year AND deterred fiscal expatriation.

e) The economic cost of the wealth tax is supposed to be about 0,2% of GDP based on a loss of 200 billion over 20 years that could have been taxed and invested in the French economy.
--> This is supposed to the best objection to a wealth tax. Problem is, there are a number of glaring weaknesses in the reasoning. i) assuming 200 billion euros indeed left the country from 1998 to 2018, this movement could have been stopped simply by improving the exit tax, since Pichet himself admits that the exit tax was slowing it. ii) The -0,2% of GDP is based on a number of assumptions concerning the taxes not generated on them (*!*) and the fact that "the taxpayers involved have high incomes and therefore spend more" which is dubious, because iii) Pichet never considered that the revenue lost could be counter-balanced by using the revenue of the wealth tax for social spending (I'm working with a Keynesian perspective here). Also iv) he assumes job losses because of lost investment, but there's no way to be certain that the 200 billion would have been invested in the French economy to begin with.

Overall, Pichet's work was ironically much better at highlighting the defficiencies of the wealth tax than its negative economic consequences. In fact, as far as I know, these negative economic consequences remain to be proven. And this will always be difficult because it necessarily involves speculating about where the money that left the country would/could have been invested.

More importantly, even Pichet's work hardly condemns wealth taxes. 200 billion € over twenty years might seem huge but France's GDP is about 2,6 trillion $. Whereas the -0,2% in GDP is not only based on a number of assumptions and speculations but could at least partially be prevented through a combination of measures (a well-constructed exit tax) and investment (in the fiscal administration).
And let's say -0,2% is real. For fuck's sake that's a price I'm personally willing to pay on principle alone! In spite of supposedly "heavy" taxation, France's economy is still the 7th in the world with some of the best socialized services ever created. And let's assume -0,2% of GDP...what about the boost in GDP generated by social spending? Pichet assumes that the rich fucks would have invested in France. But the combined revenues of the wealth tax and the exit tax would reach 0,1% of GDP without even considering any multiplier effect.

Now I may be biased but based on Pichet's work, supposedly one of the best economists to have demonstrated how bad wealth taxes are... It seems to me that wealth taxes... Are fantastic on every single level: the collection costs are modest, the economic losses are reasonable, and the moral and social impact they have on a country are self-evident.

And of course, there's also the fact that the US has considerably better means than France to ensure a wealth tax is actually collected...

No offense, but from where I'm standing I strongly believe that opposition to wealth taxes is purely ideological.
 

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Are we sure Brazile isn't a double agent? Holy fuck does disaster follow wherever she shows up.

Considering she's now on FNC, maybe she's a triple agent.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Considering she's now on FNC, maybe she's a triple agent.

She seemed like she was drunk on Real Time and appeared to be ready to jump Bill's bones. 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

and appeared to be ready to jump Bill's bones. 

Yeah that got awkward.  You could see she even made Bill a bit uncomfortable.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah that got awkward.  You could see she even made Bill a bit uncomfortable.

I'd say uncomfortable, but intrigued. That's really just splitting hairs though.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No offense, but from where I'm standing I strongly believe that opposition to wealth taxes is purely ideological.

Support for wealth taxes, at least those set at confiscatory levels, is definitely ideologically driven as well.

Wojciech Kopczuk has some thoughts  on how Saez and Zucman are using data with wide margins of error combined with optimistic assumptions to get their results in their proposals, and he argues (rightly, I think) that the economic argument is weak compared to changes to other areas of tax policy.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The yearly French wealth tax was based on the assets' market value on the 31st of December each year.
I'm not an expert and will bow to your expertise, but I fail to see why something as simple as that would not work, as long as some kind of check is made by the IRS.
And yes, this basically implies hiring more "bureaucreats" to examine valuation. But (as pointed out by socialist Gérard Filoche), given the revenue that a wealth tax can generate it isn't so absurd for the government to have a large task force whose job would be to look at valuation - and sanction fraud. The cost of the task force will pretty much always be dwarfed by the revenue generated.
As for the economic objections to a wealth tax, again, I'm more than skeptical. Éric Pichet's work on the topic is considered rather authoritative. Except when you actually read what he has to say. In the end, one's conclusions greatly depend on one's personal ideological leanings in the first place.

Let's take a look:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268381
In this famous paper, Pichet drew several conclusions:
a) In spite of numerous exemptions/loopholes/"abatements" the revenue generated by the wealth tax kept increasing.
b) Collection costs were always rather modest (under 2%) for a task force of 593 civil servants.
c) One of the biggest problems of the wealth tax was that it should have generated more. There was rampant fraud, especially due to under-assessment of assets.
--> combine b) and c) and it's difficult to see how Filoche's proposal of increasing the task force's numbers to prevent fraud doesn't make sense.

d) Fiscal expatriation was always a huge problem and was "amplified" after the "exit tax" was eliminated.
--> Now that's interesting since Pichet (despite his personal opposition to it) pretty much admits that the exit tax worked. What was the exit tax? More or less a tax on financial assets whenever someone left the country to guarantee that fiscal expatriation could not be used to dodge taxes (it was a bit more complicated than that, but I'm too lazy to go into details). And while the revenues generated by the exit tax were always low (somewhere around 100 million a year), the French equivalent of the CBO estimated that it could have eventually generated around 800 million a year AND deterred fiscal expatriation.

e) The economic cost of the wealth tax is supposed to be about 0,2% of GDP based on a loss of 200 billion over 20 years that could have been taxed and invested in the French economy.
--> This is supposed to the best objection to a wealth tax. Problem is, there are a number of glaring weaknesses in the reasoning. i) assuming 200 billion euros indeed left the country from 1998 to 2018, this movement could have been stopped simply by improving the exit tax, since Pichet himself admits that the exit tax was slowing it. ii) The -0,2% of GDP is based on a number of assumptions concerning the taxes not generated on them (*!*) and the fact that "the taxpayers involved have high incomes and therefore spend more" which is dubious, because iii) Pichet never considered that the revenue lost could be counter-balanced by using the revenue of the wealth tax for social spending (I'm working with a Keynesian perspective here). Also iv) he assumes job losses because of lost investment, but there's no way to be certain that the 200 billion would have been invested in the French economy to begin with.

Overall, Pichet's work was ironically much better at highlighting the defficiencies of the wealth tax than its negative economic consequences. In fact, as far as I know, these negative economic consequences remain to be proven. And this will always be difficult because it necessarily involves speculating about where the money that left the country would/could have been invested.

More importantly, even Pichet's work hardly condemns wealth taxes. 200 billion € over twenty years might seem huge but France's GDP is about 2,6 trillion $. Whereas the -0,2% in GDP is not only based on a number of assumptions and speculations but could at least partially be prevented through a combination of measures (a well-constructed exit tax) and investment (in the fiscal administration).
And let's say -0,2% is real. For fuck's sake that's a price I'm personally willing to pay on principle alone! In spite of supposedly "heavy" taxation, France's economy is still the 7th in the world with some of the best socialized services ever created. And let's assume -0,2% of GDP...what about the boost in GDP generated by social spending? Pichet assumes that the rich fucks would have invested in France. But the combined revenues of the wealth tax and the exit tax would reach 0,1% of GDP without even considering any multiplier effect.

Now I may be biased but based on Pichet's work, supposedly one of the best economists to have demonstrated how bad wealth taxes are... It seems to me that wealth taxes... Are fantastic on every single level: the collection costs are modest, the economic losses are reasonable, and the moral and social impact they have on a country are self-evident.

And of course, there's also the fact that the US has considerably better means than France to ensure a wealth tax is actually collected...

No offense, but from where I'm standing I strongly believe that opposition to wealth taxes is purely ideological.
 

All tax policy is, at heart, ideological, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.  But I strongly disagree with a wealth tax from a tax policy perspective.

If you accept (the incorrect) assumption that there is parity between the French legal and tax system and the US system, b, c, and d are a HUGE issue in the United States.  

And, there is not parity in either the tax systems or the legal systems.  We do not have the political will or the culture to support much of an increase in tax enforcement personnel.  The litigation around valuation in the transfer pricing and estate tax areas alone in this country belies your point French experience.  I joke sometimes that transfer pricing is basically magic masquerading as truth, and that's being generous. It comes down in every case to a battle of the experts in a court case, which means that at the end of the day better lawyering and better experts prevail.  And (here's my policy/ideological argument), one of the things that a tax system should do is to provide as much certainty as possible to similarly situated taxpayers.  That is not what a system like this would do.  It is arbitrary and capricious - by picking a single date to assess "wealth" (even with a VWAP for assets).  There is no "truth" in valuation.  Picking a single moment (e.g., death) rather than a yearly test is more manageable, and frankly, I would ditch the existing estate tax and tax the recipients of the estate on the income received because what the death event is is a transfer of wealth, which is a taxable event (same with gifts - I think all gifts should be taxable).

So, in sum, and still stream of consciousness, the better answer is to fix the income tax and/or enact a VAT in this country.

 

 

 

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Support for wealth taxes, at least those set at confiscatory levels, is definitely ideologically driven as well.

3%, or even 6% is not "confiscatory."

But yes, of course there's ideology on both sides. I myself have made no secret that I am a socialist, if not something far worse.
 

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Wojciech Kopczuk has some thoughts  on how Saez and Zucman are using data with wide margins of error combined with optimistic assumptions to get their results in their proposals, and he argues (rightly, I think) that the economic argument is weak compared to changes to other areas of tax policy.

Meh. From what I understand of this article Kopczuk makes some valid points (funnily enough I strongly agree with him on inter vivos gift, since that was my objection to the last article you posted), but his case that Saez & Zucman's case is ovestated seems overstated to me.

For instance:

Quote

an increase in concentration (top 0.1%) between1981 and 2012 (last year of estate tax data) in their capitalized series was 13.1pp; in their revisedseries it was 9.7pp; in the estate tax series it was 8.3pp. Comparing 1989 and 2016 (years whenSCF is available), their two capitalization series show an increase of 8.5 and 5.8pp respectively,while the SCF plus Forbes 400 show an increase of 6.1pp, but with a very different time path inbetween. These are trillion dollar differences that tend to show higher increases using capitalizationapproach.

So there are pretty big margins of error... but Kopczuk does not dispute the concentration of wealth itself (he'd have a hard time doing that).

Similarly he raises some interesting points about the problems of a wealth tax and offers alternatives... Which are no doubt interesting (I have to confess it'd take me some time to assess them)... But I'd say he misses the main point of a wealth tax:

Quote

But what is the incremental externality-based case for wealthtaxation beyond taxing intergenerational transfers (which we already, albeit imperfectly, do)? First,recall the basic targeting prescription for dealing with externalities: if feasible, you should tax (or target via regulation, property rights, enforcement) the source of externality directly rather than its proxies. Is wealth the cause of or a proxy for problems that supporters of wealth taxation bring up? For most arguments that I can think of, it is just a proxy and alternative feasible direct instrumentsexist. Monopoly power should be dealt with by anti-trust. Political power by suitable reforms of political system. Dynastic wealth by estate taxation. Misdirected charity by reforming charitable deduction and rules applying to foundations and charities.

Wealth as a proxy rather than a cause/source of -problematic- political power? Seems highly dubious to me.
As for "reforms of political system(s)" they're certainly welcome, but political scientists would raise tons of objections to any plan on that front... Far worse than the level of objections he's raising himself against the wealth tax...

The point about the wealth tax is its simplicity. "Heteredox" economists tend to start their works by reminding the reader that economics is just a form of politics. Piketty & co are well aware of that. Kopczuk somehow seems to pretend he's not...

Certainly one can come up with complex sets of alternatives to a wealth tax. But what's the point? Why is Kopczuk so intent on finding them?

Quote

[A wealth tax] has other undesirable consequences – it encourages earlier spending, including on politics and charity; it discourages saving and investment; it endangers control of businesses by founders while shifting it toward more short-term focused outside investors; it encourages private rather than public ownership as a way to game valuation

I'm not sure early spending in charity would be a problem ; spending in politics is already the major problem we're dealing with so I'm not sure arguing that a wealth tax would cause it can be taken seriously. Discourage saving and investment? Even I know that Piketty & Saez have argued that investment does not need to be based on concentrated wealth and proposed intriguing alternatives (I'll have to find that article again).  Endangering control of businesses by founders? Sorry, I'm not going to lose sleep over that and there could definitely be ways to mitigate that anyway. As for private rather than public ownership, there can be anti-fraud measures taken against that (one French minister recently got caught doing just that with his real estate).

It seems to me Kopczuk fails at convincing the reader that there is a solid reason to seek alternatives to a wealth tax in the first place... Again, if you are ideologically disposed to agree with him he may be convincing... If you're not it seems like he's quibbling rather than really debunking.

Oh, and I could be wrong (it's definitely getting late here) but this bit at the beginning:

Quote

While theoretical arguments for no taxation of capital income in the Chamley-Juddtradition have been recently challenged (Straub and Werning, 2019), the case for heavily taxing rents is likely much stronger than the case for taxing normal return.

And this bit in the conclusion:

Quote

The tax is unlikely to fare well on administrative grounds and, in my view, the economic case for it over a mix of capital income and estate taxation is weak.

Seem to be contracting each other. At first Kopczuk seems to be presenting some sort of -false- dilemma (between taxing wealth and rents), but writes in his conclusion that the plan he's criticizing was in fact to have a wealth tax over "a mix of capital income and estate taxation" all along...
This apparent contradiction confuses me a little, maybe I'm reading it wrong...

Edit: Ah, got it. For some reason I read "on top of" instead of "over" so it's just a false dilemma/dichotomy fallacy.
Piketty especially has been very clear that Warren's plan an AOC/Sanders's are complementary and certainly not mutually exclusive. See for instance: https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/02/12/lisf-en-amerique/
Not sure why Kopczuk resorts to a fallacy in his article, he could have made his point without it...

Anyway, I won't deny that some of Kopczuk's points are valid (like @Mlle. Zabzie, he explains how difficult valuation is) and they are certainly worth thinking about.
I just don't think he manages to refute the initial economic analyses he criticizes...

But thank you for the link... and taking this exchange seriously.
 

[Rippounet]

45 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And, there is not parity in either the tax systems or the legal systems.  We do not have the political will or the culture to support much of an increase in tax enforcement personnel. 

Well yes, but talking about Warren as potentially becoming president pretty much means we assume the American political culture is changing, or can be changed.

45 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The litigation around valuation in the transfer pricing and estate tax areas alone in this country belies your point French experience.  I joke sometimes that transfer pricing is basically magic masquerading as truth, and that's being generous. It comes down in every case to a battle of the experts in a court case, which means that at the end of the day better lawyering and better experts prevail.

Ah, yes. I was kinda afraid this is what your expertise would reveal (something along those lines anyway).

This I cannot refute. If that is how valuation works in the US then a wealth tax is indeed a fantasy.

45 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And (here's my policy/ideological argument), one of the things that a tax system should do is to provide as much certainty as possible to similarly situated taxpayers.  That is not what a system like this would do.  It is arbitrary and capricious - by picking a single date to assess "wealth" (even with a VWAP for assets).  There is no "truth" in valuation.  Picking a single moment (e.g., death) rather than a yearly test is more manageable, and frankly, I would ditch the existing estate tax and tax the recipients of the estate on the income received because what the death event is is a transfer of wealth, which is a taxable event (same with gifts - I think all gifts should be taxable).

Well I certainly won't oppose taxing inheritance & gifts.

In fact, from a political and practical standpoint, attacking wealth transfers could certainly be easier than attacking wealth itself. But in order to do that you'd also have to change the political culture in the first place.

The reason I like the wealth tax is, again, because it's simple. It's simple as a political measure, but also as a symbol, a political weapon to be used to change the political landscape. Taxing transfers may be better, but earlier talk of the "death tax" kinda makes that dangerous politically...
My personal feelings aside, I think it's good that Warren does the work on "shifting the overton window." To my eyes it doesn't matter that much if the proposal is actually impractical is it starts a movement that eventually gets a more practical measure implemented.
Or is that too cynical?

 

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I myself have made no secret that I am a socialist, if not something far worse.

An academic?

[ThinkerX]

Regarding Warren's 'wealth tax.'  People here and elsewhere keep saying (correctly) that it will not pass.  However, from where I'm standing, it was never intended to pass.  Rather, it is an opening bid in a bargaining session.  Start with that, freak everybody out, ratchet down from there.  Republicans did this repeatedly to the democratic party all through the Obama years and beforehand.  There probably is some sort of tax on the wealthy - financial transactions or capital gains or some such that she can get and will pass muster.  This is just to get EVERYBODY freaked out.

[DMC]

Yeah I think it's very premature to be debating the specifics of the wealth tax.  Such a discussion is likely never going to be pertinent to reality, or at least any time soon.  I agree with Ripp and ThinkerX that it's more about changing the "Overton" window.  And more importantly, it polls really well.  It's a great heuristic, and even symbol, to indicate distaste at the perpetually increasing wealth inequality and iniquity. 

Ran's criticism that it's either unrealistic or "bad" policy doesn't really register with me.  It's certainly unrealistic, but if I started faulting presidential candidates for advocating unrealistic policies I'd have to vote for a mute.  And, of course, since it's wholly unrealistic, the merits of the policy specifics are irrelevant.

So with all that in mind, I whole-heartedly support the spirit of the wealth tax.

[DMC]

Ah.  Listening to the Dem debate because I'm a masochist.  There was a heated exchange between Booker and Biden on legalization of weed.  Biden's response eventually dovetailed into emphasizing he has the support of "the only black woman elected to the Senate."  He was obviously referring to Carol Moseley Braun, but Book and..ya know, Kamala Harris were both like "uh, no."  Oh Joe.

[The Mother of The Others]

This was the best showing for most of the candidates tonight.    I want to hump all of them.    If they could all Voltron together into one giant candidate, people would vote for that thing.    Harris is constantly fighting back murderous rage as she talks about bringing people together.   Pete is inviting black voters into his heart at this very moment.    He's above the bitterness that's taken the others.    Bernie would be like having Larry David in the oval office cracking people up with truly funny lines delivered with great timing as he spent all of your tax dollars in his first week and then didn't stop.    Joe sounds alert.    Yang has powers and continues to be the ms congeniality I'd like to drink with.   

Yes!   Real time update:  Warren hasn't forgotten the caged children!   And she said some things that were sane tonight.   Booker has the inside track on black voters, says Book.   What's funny is I'll probably vote for him more times than y'all.   Tulsi sounds weird, needs to better express her worries about military complex controlling the party, it came off as odd.   Cory just said Biden was high about his marijuana stance.   This is better than The Bachelor.   No shame & cringing tonight!   Good show.  It's too bad Amy can't get noticed.  She the closest to who we need.

[James Arryn]

I’ll say it again: he’s gotten too centrist for my tastes, but Buttigieg is easily the most credible, plausible candidate in person. I cannot believe they let him get through the racial discussion untouched. Any of the Big Three had the potential double-barrelled op of taking out a rising threat AND getting a fairly easy layup ‘strong’ moment and they all passed. I think they’ll regret it. 

[SerTarod]

10 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just got home after being out, and watched some Reublican (I missed his name) get Sondland to admit that Sondland could not say that Trump ever mentioned the Bidens to him nor connect Trump with withholding security aid from the Ukrainians for investigations into the Bidens, and that 2 assumptions plus 2 assumptions do not equal 1 fact. 

Saying assumptions are one thing,but Sondland just made things up is pretty effective.

This is the guy who said CNN's banner headline says "Sondland ties Trump and top officials to a plan to demand investigations into the Bidens" when in fact Siondland has done no such thing.

Trump is one crafty bastard. He told everyone to talk to Guiliani. He told Sondland he wanted nothing, just for the Ukrainians to do what they said they would do. 

 

Trump is being misleading here during his "Chopper Talk" event. The comment he quoted from Sondland, happed after the whistle blower report became news. 

 

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

You are a font of knowledge. That was very interesting reading!

I agree on the wealth tax issues. It's bad policy, an attempt to retroactively punish people who legally made enormous fortunes due to laxness in a variety of areas of federal policy. The way to make this an aberration is to address that laxness to prevent recurrence rather than a deliberately confiscatory wealth tax. 

To be clear, that's not at all the problem that Zabz pointed out. it is perfectly reasonable to punish those people, and she specifically proposed a mechanism - a very heavy estate tax. But the idea that because it is retroactive, or that it is somehow punishing makes it therefore bad policy is nowhere to be found in that discussion. 

And to be really clear on this - the effect that megawealthy have on a democracy is a fundamental problem. If you cannot deal with that right now, you've essentially created an oligarchy. Perhaps not this instant, but you'll be on that road. I too think Warren's wealth tax has a crazy amount of problems, but of the 99 problems being a 'retroactive punishment' is absolutely not one.

[Kalbear]

Also, @Mlle. Zabzie - I get that taxing based on the income tax nationally doesn't work. It seems like a better model would be the state and local property taxes, which as far as I know have never been held as particularly problematic. Is the problem simply that the 16th amendment does not in particular grant something like a power with respect to property or other tax? If that's the case, how does that jive with the tax and spend clause in the actual constitution? As an example, the federal government has an excise tax on each gallon of gas sold. It has nothing to do with the cost of gas, nothing to do with a person's income, etc.

Could one do an excise tax on, say, each stock sold? Or each stock option granted? Or could the federal government do something akin to a gift tax on certain areas, such as wealth transference on stock? I suspect those would be significantly closer to what is needed.