2% Tax On All Wealth Over $10 Million Every Year 3% Over $20 Million

[DanieRains]

50% Tax on all hidden wealth or attempted cheating.

The wealth was stolen from me using a rigged system.

Time to pay up.

Anyone got a better plan?

[DanieRains]

1. Make It Worldwide Cheaters Go To Prison

Use the cash to get off fossil fuels an sequester carbon.

And fix the broke stuff.

They won't even miss the money.

[Moostache]

2. I'm good with a top marginal rate of 90%...seemed to be OK for post-WWII America.

But I would start with removal of all tax cuts that target and benefit the trans-generational transfer of wealth and its concurrent power. America as an idea is only workable when there is no state-sanctioned oligarchy or would be inherited aristocracy in the wings.

Every man should be free to make their fortune and to SPEND it on whatever they wish, but upon their death, the fruits of their labor to engender an aristocratic advantage onto the 4th and 5th generation after is anathema to a free state.

1) Inheritance Tax should be 95% of every dollar past the initial, tax-free $10,000,000 - if he heirs cannot convert that free $10M head start into generational wealth, then they are already too stupid to prop up and they MUST be allowed to fail and rid the country for their continued influence.

2) Wealth Tax should likewise start at a very high number, but should become nearly 100% beyond a certain, maximum salary value - I would put a sliding scale from 90% to 100% kicking in at $100,000,000 in annual wealth accumulation - NOT salary or other dodge - if you are increasing wealth and NOT paying proportionate taxes on it, then you are already being granted royalty like advantages. I am 100% opposed to generational wealth transfer in all cases.

3) The penalties for any malfeasance or cooking the books to avoid appropriate taxation will be met with enforcement that would make asset seizure of drug dealers seem very lenient by comparison. All seized assets would be auctioned off or broken down into constituent parts for scrap.

Of course, none of this will EVER happen in our current morass...I'm as likely to have angels fly out of my bum.

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. I agree completely with this

Dynastic and "Royal" families are nothing but leeches on the rest of us.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Nobody Paid 90%

Literally, nobody.
There were so many shelters, loopholes, and deductions available back then, almost nobody paid even 50%.
So, if we had a transparent 50% top tier, it would work the same.
The inheritance thing I can't accept as you've written it. If the inheritance includes, for instance, a $15 million dollar business, I'd be ok with exempting it if the family continues to operate as an ongoing concern for 12 or 15, or even 20 years.
A $15 million dollar business likely hires quite a few people, and forcing the business to sell or shutter is potentially bad for the local economy.
Now, if it's just a transfer of a portfolio, I can see a big hit on it, but 95% seems unreasonably high.
I understand your disgust with generational wealth transfers. And, I like your $100 million dollar starting point.
But, I just think your approach is needlessly punitive and doesn't need to be that aggressive to have a huge, positive impact on revenues to the federal government.
Agree in principle, not in the details.

[Moostache]

15. I hear you...let's just say I'm reticent to start too low.

I could always come down from overly aggressive starting points, but start low and it ends up nearly gnawed to the bone these days.

The lack of Universal single payer in the Obamacare debates and total dismantling of the Public Option soured me on starting any proposals too low...one of the reasons I liked Biden starting off around $4T for his programs...

[brooklynite]

4. Yes, set tax rates at levels needed to pay for desired programs.

Using tax legislation to "equalize" income is foolish.

[lagomorph777]

8. Using tax legislation to unequalize income is foolish.

And that's how it works today. It needs to be corrected.

[brooklynite]

10. Agreed; but not by having it be incorrect in the other direction.

I'll go with President Biden's judgement on this point.

[lagomorph777]

11. Me too.

[Bluethroughu]

5. Sounds great to me.

[Amishman]

6. The devil is in the details

How do you handle wealth in trusts, or held by corporations, or located in other countries?
What about valuable assets without title or tracking; such as tangible precious metals, artwork, and antiques?
Even with assets with paper trails (stocks, investment and bank accounts, property, vehicles) there are privacy concerns as well.

You need to know where the wealth is and who owns it before you can tax it, and that is an extremely difficult and complex challange.

[DanieRains]

7. Add It All Up Corporations Are Owned By People Not That Complicated Cheaters Arrested

And get the rest of the world to cooperate.

They (their governments) are getting screwed too, and they know it.

If the rich knew they would be going to prison for attempted hiding of assets it would work.

[Amishman]

9. get the rest of the world to cooperate....

I'd put the difficulty on getting the world to cooperate on a wealth tax as at least an order of magnitude higher than having major immediate action on climate change.

I can't imagine the existing tax havens cooperating, plus there is a major financial incentive to not cooperating as there would be a huge influx of capital into each country that doesn't play ball

[DanieRains]

14. Blockade?

Shouldn't be that hard.

Better than watching the Earth burn because we can't afford to fix anything.

[WarGamer]

13. Yes!!

The UK Commission on Wealth Tax studied it in depth... here's the report... quite appropriate for the US, too

https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/WealthTaxFinalReport_ExecSummary.pdf