Imagine taxing assets instead of income.

[Peak_Oil]

The richest 1% would pay an enormous portion of the tax burden. The lowest paid workers would pay essentially nothing.

Is that fair?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Welcome, Peak Oil. :^)

Wouldn't it be hard to assess everything though? And it would also require going into people's homes and making sure that they only have what they say they have.

It would be a royal pain, I should think. :(

[Baltimoreboy]

2. It's impossible

Are you going to come into my home and assess whether I have antiques, art or jewelry?

[theboss]

3. I would be interested to see how Ted Kennedy would vote on that proposal

Just sayin'.

But I like the idea.

[porphyrian]

4. Yes and No

On its own, it is not fair. However, considering the amount of taxes the wealthiest in this country manage to avoid paying, it is.

[rangerfan]

5. How about a consumption tax?

Those who consume the most pay the most.

[Vickers]

6. That's the one I agree with

Hard to avoid, too.

[alonso_quijano]

7. How is this different from the (very regressive) sales tax? n/t

[rangerfan]

9. Everything is taxed. There are no exemptions.

[alonso_quijano]

19. That makes it more regressive (worse) than a sales tax! n/t

[ret5hd]

10. so, those who spend 100% of their income...

just struggling to get by, pay taxes on 100% of their income.

but those who spend 10% of their income buying trips to bermuda, new lamborginis, etc...only pay taxes on 10% of their income.

GOD, you're a GENIUS! You've convinced ME!

[Peak_Oil]

11. No. Regressive. Poor spend their entire paycheck, thus get taxed

on everything. The rich spend a much lower proportion of their income. They invest a great deal, which comes back to them as capital gains (favorably taxed), dividends (favorably taxed), or ordinary income (taxed same as the poor).

My idea is to put the greatest tax burden on the wealthiest.

Tax bank accounts, real estate, investments in the stock market/bond market, etc. Make it a felony to move capital overseas to avoid the tax. I'm not sure, but I don't think felons can vote, own firearms, or serve as CEO's of public corporations. I don't think they can hold public office at certain levels.

It would be tough to serve in law enforcement if you have a felony record, too.

[Worst Username Ever]

8. Hard to say

It is hard enough to accumulate assets, I would hate to make it harder for the average american to do so. Of course, if income was not taxed under 100K, the average american could probably accumulate assets faster. It would have to be a fairly nuanced tax. Consumtion tax makes more sense. I am really uncomfortable taxing savings, since it could encourage americans to save even less than they do.

[Peak_Oil]

13. The tax could be very low, you know. Bill Gates has how many billion?

He personally owns approximately the same amout of wealth as the poorest 140 million US citizens. His personal asset tax could replace the income tax on the poorest 140 million people. Easily. I don't think it would punish the poor anywhere close to as much as our current bushed-up tax system does.

[Worst Username Ever]

16. Not a Nader fan BUT...

He has the idea of putting a 1/4 cent tax on each transaction in the stock market. Seeing as there are a billion transactions a day, and they are usually in the amount of thousands of dollars, I that would be a tax that could make sense.

[GiovanniC]

12. Hello, Swiss Bank Accounts for Dubya & Friends

You know it's true.

[Cat Atomic]

14. I'm all for reducing the tax burden on the middle class, but

I believe that paying taxes is an essential part of representative government.

If people don't pay taxes, they aren't as interested in how the money is spent. They also have next to zero clout.

[Speck Tater]

15. Tax greed, rudeness and stupidity.

Smart people who are generous and thoughtful wouldn't have to pay any taxes, but the IRS would collect more money than the government could possibly spend from the rude, stupid and greedy majority.

[wadestock]

17. You're on the right track.....

The reason you are right is possibly not obvious to people at first.

Because of the capitalistic system we live in....and its corresponding progressive tax rate which does NOT tax the wealthy at a high enough rate....we have a system where money is going AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE....READ THAT RATE....TO THE TOP.

SO....

There is more money being heaped at the top at an ever increasing rate...make sure you get that part of it right.

The ASSETS at the top are a good indicator of that process. Salaries are an indicator...but the ASSETS are even a better indicator of the amassing of wealth at the top.

Meanwhile...you could compare this to a very stark and troublesome indicator which is ASSETS of the middle class...which have constantly shrunk (except for a short spurt in the 90s) since 1975.

I've brought this up a number of times and no one has ever commented on it or even acknowledged the history accuracy of this. Trump ran for president the last time around for a very brief stint ....and he said you could tax the ASSETS of the top 1%.....just a one time tax and .....

PAY OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT....which was about 5 Trillion at the time.

Do some simple math. The total assets in that 1% could be as high as 50 Trillion dollars. That number should blow your mind. The average person has no clue about this number. Actually the so called "experts" have generated estimates that I've seen that range anywhere from about 10 Trillion to 50 Trillion....still an astonishing amount.

Now you do realize that the neo-cons are actually trying everything in their power to avoid taxes on assets....in particular the removal of the "death tax". So we're up against quite a battle here.

I would consider a number of possible formulas that would be amenable to the public...but this must be sold in a very careful manner or else you get the typical screams of class warfare...which we know is another form of reverse logic.

I think the best first step towards spreading some wealth back into the middle and lower taxes is to first do what Kerry said...raise the upper rate from 35 to 39%...but then impose a tax on the UPPER UPPER eschelon.....of 50%. This means that 99.9% of all the aspiring entrepreneurs out there won't be affected....very sale-able to swing vote and perhaps a certain percentage of republicans who aren't entirely brain dead.

You may have heard recently on CNN on the floor there will be a bill to consider taxing those making over 1M in order to come up with some money for veterans. I applaud that...but it's too piecemeal and a more substantial true balance must be considered.

[Abe Linkman]

18. Of course it's fair. It's the very fairest. Old idea & great idea.

It's called a wealth tax. In a fair society, we wouldn't be socializing costs and privatizing profits. What we would do is eliminate ALL regressive taxes (payroll, sales, license fees etc.).

Ted Kennedy would NOT vote for such a tax. He only represents the so-called liberal wing of the only viable political party in the U.S.:
The Property Party.

[TexasSissy]

20. A lot of assets ARE taxed, aren't they?

Real estate, personal property, capital gains.

If you tax, say, money just sitting in a savings account, you'd be taxing the SAME money over and over again, wouldn't you? But then, myhome is taxed over and over again. So maybe there's no difference. Hmmmmm.