"In my opinion" your think tank leans?
You gave one that favours big business. In this conversation, that's functionally identical; yours and mine are two sides of the same discussion.
Alternatively, it would concentrate ownership of businesses to those with the greatest cash flow, drawing both resources away from the less wealthy.
I don't think this is necessarily a huge problem, per se. What might be more a problem is the fact some people think they should have a new iPhone every year, when really they should last several. Or replace their wardrobe every season, when a well-made item of clothing should last years. I strongly suspect this is all a much greater problem.
Yes, but it doesn't need to use fossil fuels. It does, because the fossil fuel industry has thoroughly convinced enough people - and sloshed enough money into politicians' pockets - that oil is the American dream. But to replace a lot of fossil fuel use doesn't delete large quantities of wealth and investment. It simply moves it somewhere else.
If rich people can continuously put off paying taxes by using their assets as collateral for loans, and then using loans to pay off other loans, then yes, having a wealth tax does in fact create additional revenue for the government which would not otherwise be available.
Smartphones in general are tricky because once they stop getting security patches they become a liability. Apple trends toward a 6 year support cycle per device after which it is dropped. For what it is worth though, my model 11 I have had since launch in 2019 still works just fine. But I am going to have to replace it by 2026 or else I’ve got a big old cyber hole in my pocket at all times. Or at least a bigger one than they already are.
Those with over 100m in wealth are not the less wealthy. And they are the only ones who would be even theoretically encouraged to sell/ not hoard. If anything, more mobile shares could increase market accessibility.
...do you think the idea is for this to replace capital gains, as a one-off at some arbitrary point, & the same rate? What? That's the only scenario in which this paragraph makes sense.
The problem with regulating that practice away is that the US could only do so with regards to American banks, and there would still be plenty of international banks that would continue giving these loans and using stock as collateral. UK and Swiss banks are well known for being willing to skirt or outright ignore international banking regulations when it suits them.
So, chuckles will only believe Sony changed when they allow games like Stellar Blade to be released on PlayStation, but Stellar Blade itself doesn't count. The only conclusion I can reach is that fanservice of adult characters doesn't count as fanservice.
It would be taxed as the value increased, probably annually. So if you buy $100 million in stocks, and they increase to $124 in a year, you pay on the $24 million increase. If next year it grows to $150 million, you pay on the $26 million increase from the $124. Over two years, you were taxed on the $50 million increase. Currently, if you buy $100 million in stocks and sell for $150 million later, you pay capital gains tax on the $50 million increase. Either way, you are taxed on the same amount. You can tax on both, I suppose, but outside of schemes involving the wealthy person dying without selling, the same amount is getting taxed at different times, it is functionally no different than just increasing capital gains tax as far as revenue, and is just different in what the incentives are, which is why those are what we are talking about.
Do a targeted property tax specifically on holdings used as collateral at a percentage of the value they were considered collateral for, and make it come due if the loan isn't repaid within a reasonable time frame (with exceptions for primary residence, etc.). The ambiguity of asset values is answered in the loan contract itself, it pressures them to repay loans in a predictable time frame that would prevent perpetual loan schemes, and it wouldn't inherently put anyone in the position of selling their assets to pay to keep them since they already made the decision to risk them by setting them as collateral. I think that answers the problem without disincentivizing investment, and not taxing the loans themselves per se should overcome the foreign banking issue. It doesn't even have to be a modest tax, let it be punitive, it's totally avoidable and taxes behavior we actively want discouraged.
Bingo. Ideally It wouldn't be a replacement (though i think the Dems' Green Book had it as an either/or).
If the concept is that you have to earn "citizenship", usually by going through several years as a resident alien without voting rights, at least there's some logic there. However, it's a logic that fits the red/blue divorce being a full blown split into different sovereign states. Otherwise, it's just another right-winger with a disappointingly tenuous belief in democratic principles.
Perpetual mental collapsar Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for a "national divorce" between red and blue states.
Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for a 'national divorce' between liberal and conservative states
“We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” Greene, R-Ga., tweeted.www.nbcnews.com
I suppose nobody's told her that red states, as a whole, are net money sinks for the national coffers, supported by blue states. If she wants that divorce, there ain't gonna be no alimony.
Also, she wants anyone who moves from a blue state to a red state to maybe not be able to vote for half a decade.
Unless your policy drives the price down and eliminates people of the wealth you aimed at, and then it doesn't generate revenue at all.
Hold on. You're arguing that as the value increases, the price will go down?
Supply and demand. The more of something being sold, the lower the equilibrium price falls. If holding stocks incurs a cost, you need to sell. When people are selling, the price falls. Then you aren't taxing anyway. It wouldn't stop market growth entirely, but it would put a downward force on it.
Which is it now ? Either people are basically paying the same, just at different times or they actually pay more. If the first was the case, the price would not be influenced.
