LIVEBusiness & MoneyEarly — be one of the first· 50d ago

Should the U.S. impose an annual wealth tax on fortunes over $50 million?

Discussion (7)

dagmanVoice #1Sep 6, 1:53 PM

Tax it when you earn it and spend it. Not while you're holding it. This is also a quick way to push the wealthy out of your state. Next thing you know it'll only be the non-wealthy left with the tax burden in your state.

bleurose51Voice #3Sep 7, 8:47 AM

This would be a federal tax. It would NOT push anyone out of a state. It might push people out of the country (but if Elon leaves, that would make me very happy LOL!) Personally all states should have exactly the same kinds of state taxes or better, we should eliminate state taxes entirely and just have one federal taxing authority which distributes its money to the states. 150 years ago, different taxing structures made some sense because we have a variety of interests in different states and they worked differently. Today, every state SHOULD work just about the same. That they don't is more BECAUSE of the way taxes are done, not the other way around. I.e., the structure causes a lot of the inequities.

dagmanVoice #1Sep 7, 1:57 PM↩ replying to bleurose51

Regarding federal control of all tax policy, I do think there are enough differences in state economies, costs, and preferences that some state control is helpful (hard to see states giving that up). It also creates some checks and balances, in that states can compete on tax policy, which I think is a good thing.

bleurose51Voice #3Sep 8, 1:34 AM

I don't want states competing. It has destroyed the economics of some states. Texas, which has incredible oil deposits which permit it to have no income tax whatsoever, has lured people out of cities in the Northeast and Midwest where taxes can be onerous just to avoid paying the income tax. If I moved to Texas from California (when I was working full-time) I would have gotten a ten percent raise without even making a single dollar more because of the elimination of state income taxes. Why are states "in competition" with each other? We are supposed to be a country, where everyone's rights are respected, not just depending on which state you live in. It is one of the nonsensical things about this country that I believe makes us weaker, not stronger.

dagmanVoice #1Sep 11, 11:28 PM↩ replying to bleurose51

Competition among states does provide some helpful checks and balances, I'd argue. Competition at the state level -- just like at the country level -- ensures that policy never strays too far from reasonable.

bleurose51Voice #3Sep 11, 11:56 PM↩ replying to dagman

I strongly disagree with this idea at the state level and when looking at something which is more or less common across all states, i.e., income. Not saying it is the same in all states, but everyone who works has an income and thus income taxes should be equitable across all states. Ditto for corporate taxes. Local differences can make sense, but at the larger levels, I think states should NOT be in competition with each other.

dagmanVoice #1Sep 12, 12:25 AM↩ replying to bleurose51

If we could agree that all taxation happens at the federal level, I'm with you. As long as we have state taxes, though, some checks and balances / healthy competition is good so state rates don't get out of hand.

Grab this poll for your site

Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.

<iframe src="https://groundbeat.com/embed/1741" width="100%" height="420" frameborder="0" style="max-width:520px;border-radius:14px;"></iframe>
From Groundbeat
Help us build thisWe're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.

More in Business & Money

Should the U.S. impose an annual wealth tax on fortunes over $50 million? — Groundbeat