Terrible idea due to the arbitrary nature of wealth.
Granny's favourite painting might be worthless one day, only for the government to decide it's worth millions the next. Same with weed, guns, sugar, cars, gasoline and everything else.
What's worse is that you probably aren't making a lot of money on the aforementioned. It's literally just random stuff you own.
A wealth tax effectively means giving the politically connected carte blanche to just seize the assets of U.S. citizens. Which means the donor class is safe and the marginalized classes are most affected.>>968020>Literal opinion piece of an opinion piece on Californian economists.>Admits data might be skewed or outright wrong.
Author is Camilo Maldonadohttps://muckrack.com/camilo-maldonado/bio
dude also writes for left wing CNBC and US News. So not really a right wing article.
Study cited is by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman at the University of California, Berkeley.https://gabriel-zucman.eu/https://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/
These are part of the group that inspired the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to start advocating for a wealth tax. Pretty far left.
Anyway, the professors' more moderate proposal is to treat unrealized gains as taxable income.
This means that if you happened to own 1000$ worth of tesla stock and it surged to 5000$ before plummeting down to 600, you would have 4000$ extra "income" come next tax season even though you ended up losing value in your portfolio.
And instead of letting tesla put your money to work, some senator or congress(wo)man is going to spend it on kickbacks for their donors.
Just stick to taxing realized gains and try to figure out a different way to close the "technically broke but borrows money against their stock portfolio" millionaire+ loophole. Trying to target the billionaires is highly likely to backfire and leave them with a profit after arbitration or court.