If Government has the power to tax "wealth" of 50 million at X% then theoretically

Could they not tax any level of wealth at any percent? Furthermore if much of a persons wealth is tied up in their company or business then isn’t a wealth tax also a means for government to take away ownership of ones company/business?

If government truly has this power then doesn’t government genuinely have the power to take over the entire economy of they ever deem it necessary?

The government also has the power to declare war on any nation they so choose. They could, in fact, declare war on each nation on the planet.

What do you think the chances are that this happens?

(well, outside of a Trump presidency - we are in an unusual situation right now)

1 Like

Currently government does not have the power to tax wealth. So what I am doing is considering the hypothetical.

If government truly has this power then doesn’t government genuinely have the power to take over the entire economy of they ever deem it necessary?

This power isn’t theoretical, and has already been used in wartime.

1 Like

Could you provide a link as to when and what was taxed? Also what is being proposed has nothing to do with war.

Examples here are sometimes seen at the state level. For example, mansion taxes place a higher tax rate on real estate transfers of high value real estate than more modest abodes…

We always need to look at unintended consequences. A few might be:

  • increasing the willingness of high net worth people to take on debt to artificially lower tax exposure

  • difficultly in accurately assessing net worth

  • relocation of high net worth people abroad

Most people (I think) see an issue with having a lower effective tax rate for our 400 wealthiest families than the bottom half of the US, but I’m not sure this is the best remedy to that situation.

ABA has an interesting take:

Putting the constitutionality aside, I’m not sure we have the capability to do this correctly.

As far as I can tell it didn’t really answer my question: Could they not tax any level of wealth at any percent? Furthermore if much of a persons wealth is tied up in their company or business then isn’t a wealth tax also a means for government to take away ownership of ones company/business?

I don’t think the US has ever levied a “wealth” tax - property taxes and estate taxes could be considered exceptions of course).

Interesting stuff out there on recent wealth tax experiences in France and Belgium…

I posted a couple of links in another thread about this. Here is a quote from another source I just found:

“In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn’t raise much revenue.”

It all sounds wonderful to the ignorant masses but never produces the utopia it promises.

Government can force you to buy a private product under threat of imprisonments, so they can pretty much do anything.

Well even in the worst countries those in positions of power always seem to be doing quite well.

Remember that the Income Tax when first introduced was to be a temporary tax only on the richest of the rich.

How has that worked out for us?

Not because of the income tax. Somehow we managed to defeat one of the two of the most powerful military establishments in Europe and take their new world colonies without it as well as winning the Mexican-American war.

The government only has the power if people elect representatives who utilize it and/or legislate it. “The government” isn’t really a singular thing.

Really? Do you have a link to that?

Trump did not ban any guns. Bump stocks are not guns. They are an accessory.

You are mistaken. The ruling only affeced the stock, not the gun it may be attached to. If you had one on a gun when the EO was issued, the only thing you had to turn in or destroy was the stock. The gun you had installed it on is still yours.

No … no more than a suppressor is a gun. “Treated as” is not the same thing as “is.” No matter what word play was used, stocks are not guns.

If anyone cares enough to fight it, it should fall in court as an illegal taking violating the constitution.