Actually, David's suggestion was to tax wealth over a certain limit. His choice was arbitrary but it could be reasonably keyed to an index which predicts the amount necessary to live off of at a comfortable level for, oh say, 70 years including inflation.
Actually, this is not a terrible idea. Any system needs energy to keep running. For an economy, money is that energy. If its all bound up and not flowing, the economy slows down. When individuals have excessive fortunes that they can not use, that money either sits and does nothing or it gathers more money to it. In these cases, it wouldn't hurt to release a portion of that money each year. Such a tax might encourage greater charitable giving or it might encourage more investment in businesses and technologies which would otherwise be considered too risky. In any case, jobs are created and money starts flowing. Robert Schmid Central > David Shove writes: >> Or a Wealth Tax. Tax not just income from this year, but all accumulated >> wealth. Annually take a certain percentage of wealth over, say, 10 >> million >> dollars. Pohlad et al could either pay or move. >> >> This would make the rich smaller, and the poor taller, so we might be >> able >> to play a fairer game on our playing fields. > > David suggests taxing savings. Money kept in savings and investments by > wealthy people fuel our entire banking system. If Pohlad (a popular target > for dislike) and the like didn't have large amounts of money in the bank, > I > wouldn't have been able to finance my home. Where do you suppose banks get > the money to lend us poor folks? > > Should a person who has worked his or her entire life building a > substantial > nest-egg to retire then have to fork over a portion of their (already > taxed) > assets every year, until they have nothing left and have to find a way to > earn money at 80, or until they have the same mediocre financial condition > as those who did not work so hard? > > Would a home, or land be included in assets? If (for example) Pohlad sold > the Twins and any other income generating businesses he has a stake in, > and > retired, would he have to give up his boat? His house? His vacation home? > How about his art and jewelery? > > Taxing wealth is counter-productive to our economy. The concept is the > product of envy, a rather ugly emotion. > > It isn't in the purview of city government to do so, any more than the > city > can tax income (thank God). > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
