While not personally opposed to a wealth tax in any philosophical sense, I do not believe it could be properly administered in a pragmatic one. All sorts of chicanery would be induced under such a system, much like that for income, only at a grander scale. Land/mineral valuations are notoriously difficult to nail down, just for starters. Off-shore wealth would also be an abyss of mis- and disinformation. Now I am all for bleeding the f*ckers dry, I just think there must be a better way out there to do it. For the life of me, however, I am flummoxed as to what that might be.
Too much money in the hands of too few while millions go without. Wealth disparity is the driver of all kinds of social ills not as common in less developed countries.
"The Washington Post (6/30/19) warns that “it’s all too likely that a wealth tax would bring in less revenue than advocates anticipate, in part because millionaires can afford the best accountants and lawyers.”
I have to agree. That and ruling class bribes to politicians is why we lost the FDR taxes of over 90% on the wealthy. Philanthropy is a specious argument against a Wealth Tax. But progressive taxation is not sustainable when billionaires own the politicians.
Economic democracy requires a fair reallocation of wealth and a return of the people’s money oligarchs stole, but its not achievable under the best government money can buy.
A Wealth Cap is the better way.
gee, media outlets reflect their owners priorities and values.
who’d a thunk it?
they did in the UK, too.
fight or die.