Forbes Magazine reports that Carl Pohlad has $2.8 billion. I'm willing to
take that figure.
2.8 billion is 2800 million. I propose the state take 10% of that, or 280
million, every year, until poor Carl is down to 100 million. Then we cut
back to $10 million a year, until he is down to 5 million, which should
be more than enough to keep him in razor blades and breakfast food.
In addition, we revive and strengthen estate taxes. The value of the
estate is known or comes to be known, and clearly can be taxed. Rather
than passing billions down to descendents who never earned a dime of it,
each could have a few million, and the rest go for schools, parks,
The main problem with huge piles of money it that the never-satisfied
owner usually invests some of it in buying government out from under the
people, and then getting public resources at bargain basement prices (a
real steal). Enough of this, and democracy is bought out, and we're back
with a few fabulously wealthy parasites, and everyone else better off
The way to stop the rich from buying government is to take away all the
surplus money they might have to buy it. Let them have the money, and some
will buy, and some officials will sell, and soon we're back with the
obscene class structure we have today.
Big money is the root of all big evil.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Carol Becker wrote:
> Mark Anderson wrote:
> > The tax incidence report only discusses income. That is one
> > of the problems with the constant focus on income; it doesn't take wealth
> > into account at all. I think that a major benefit of a progressive tax is
> > it reduces the wealth gap between people.
> Mark Anderson brings up some good points about the tax system.
> We talk about the progressively of taxes based on income because the
> government has a system of measuring income while it doesn't really have a
> system measuring wealth. If own say a diamond mine, the government doesn't
> have a system for valuing that diamond mine to determine your wealth. All
> it can really measure is the income that you derive from that asset. That
> is why progressivity of taxes is usually related to income.
> I would agree with Mark about being able to talk about taxation in
> relationship to wealth as a much better approach. How progressive a tax is
> should be discussed in terms of wealth if it is at all possible. The
> problem comes about from getting data.
> Carol Becker
> Future Member, Board of Estimate and Taxation
> 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
> Post messages to: mailto:email@example.com
> Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
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
Post messages to: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls