Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", sykesix asked the members: "What do you do if you arrive early at movie besides go to the snack bar?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (44) |
Author: Carpian ✶🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 88920 
Subject: Re: For old buds on this board, you there albaby?
Date: 11/04/26 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
Here's a possible plan: tax every share of stock owned for more than 1 year at 0.1% of it's current value at COB on 12/31. The tax is due every year. So that would be $1000 for every million in stock assets. But exempt any stocks that are part of 401k plans or IRAs with values less than 10 million dollars.

Any good? Workable? I could agree to it, and I'm not exactly poor.


That's certainly workable. Publicly traded stocks are easy to value, but is it fair to single them out? I haven't spent any time looking at the details of how people's net assets might be valued for a wealth tax, but I know enough to know that it can get awfully tricky, particularly at the higher levels. A lot of assets are not so easy to put an exact value on, like private business interests, real estate, works of art, etc. The California Proposition that failed actually excluded real estate, since there is already a state law limiting taxes on real estate (Proposition 13 from many years ago). Then there's also potentially issues with hiding assets in someone else's name, etc.

Income is easier to get right, although that can be manipulated as well, particularly at the higher levels.

I'm not necessarily blanket opposed to a wealth tax, but the devil is in the details. I've never given it much thought, but I'd prefer to see some sort of graded percentage, similar to income tax. With the California Prop, that was not the case. It was a flat 5% on anyone with net worth over $1B. But the tax looked to apply to the full net worth, creating a loophole where someone with a net worth of $1.01B would be subject to the tax and have to pay a $50M tax, while someone with "only" $0.99B would not be subject to the tax and would come out better off overall. That's not a good design.

We have such great wealth in this country, we should be able to provide basics like health care and some sort of minimal housing to our populace. But instead we're giving tax cuts to billionaires while cutting benefits for the not so well off. As I saw someone write the other day, "We are solving the wrong problems".
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Carpian here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 88,852 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (44) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community | Privacy