"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."
We already do that through income taxes, which are "progressive" placing a much higher percentage burden on higher incomes, who would already pay more than the rest of us if we had a flat tax. Progressive taxing just ads insult to injury. So, if that system of taxation (along with death taxes) isn't sufficient to take all of a persons money away (or enough of it to make them poor like the rest of us), you propose to go get the rest with another tax unfairly heaped on a person for excelling at what they do, managing their money smartly, and bettering their family. "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." You are under two mistaken impressions here. First, money in banks doesn't just sit there, as I pointed out earlier. It gets put to work, financing start-ups, business expansions, home purchases, et-c. It's good to have lots of money in banks. Second, you seem to think that there is a finite amount of money to go around. This simply isn't true. New money is created every day, and gobs of it. When I go to the bank to borrow money to start a business, the bank lends me money which in theory belongs to a depositor, but if that depositor withdraws all his money, it's still there. It's in two places at once. His account, and my new business. Then, I pay the money back over time... to the bank! Viola! New money (and hopefully wealth) created by a successful new enterprize. In my lifetime, I've owned and operated three businesses. It isn't easy. It's very hard work, but anyone can do it. "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." No. It would not encourage investing of any kind, why does anyone invest money? To make more of it. Which you would just seize. What's the point in that? Jobs are created and money flows when money is available to lend to people who dream of accumulating wealth through a new business, or expansion of business. The only way it would encourage charitable donations is by creating the attitude "at least the government won't get it!" Starting a business is hard. Harder than almost anythng else as a way to make a living. Huge risks are taken. Many business owners put their house on the line to finance a new company. Most new businesses fail within 2 years. The odds are against you if you follow this course. Owning a businesss usually means you are always working. There is no escape from your responsibilities. Those who stick to it, and excell create jobs, providing a much lower-risk living to many people. Why would anyone undertake such a monumental and dangerous task if the rewards were not greater than just to take a job? If there's a limit to how much money one can make, and the government intends to tell us how we must spend our wealth, there's no incentive whatsoever to take the risks and start a business. Without business, where does everyone (including government) get their income? Again, I want to know how much money is enough money to run a city? While I'm on the subject, I have a proposal. I suggest that our city charter be ammended to limit the (entire) city budget to a set percentage of the combined income it it's residents. This would guarantee that our government would never grow beyond our ability to pay for it. The same should be done at all levels of government. Dan McGrath Longfellow http://www.subversivepictures.com http://www.smokeoutgary.org > 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 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
