To actually legally impose anything based on total net worth, you need to actually audit net worth and get a real figure.
So, what’s wrong with that? You have a wealth tax on all wealth over $100 million. If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value. Everyone with that level of wealth already hires accountants. It’s a trivial additional burden. If your wealth is no where near the tax threshold, you don’t need to bother hiring an accountant to get a precise figure.
There is a reason that every time such a policy targeting only the wealthiest is put into place (it’s been tried numerous times over the years in a bunch of European countries)
I’m calling bullshit on this. There are all sorts of taxes that fall heavily or solely on the wealthy. The reason the wealthy don’t all leave is that they don’t actually want to live in places that have low taxes. You can get low taxes in a war-torn hellhole, but most don’t actually want to live like that.
If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value.
‘Oh, our accountant says the valuation is just under the threshold for the new tax, what a coincidence!’
It is trivially easy to shift assets around in such a way that having a net worth threshold for a given tax is basically a guarantee that no one will pay it. Many countries have tried this already, and failed. Why repeat their mistakes, instead of learning from them?
We need to remember that people, and especially the ultra-wealthy, are not inert blocks of wood that don’t react to policy changes like these.
I’m calling bullshit on this. There are all sorts of taxes that fall heavily or solely on the wealthy.
Firstly, I said “only the wealthiest”, so don’t already start nudging those goalposts by “calling bullshit” and immediately tweaking it to “heavily or solely”. Secondly, if there are so many, name three.
‘Oh, our accountant says the valuation is just under the threshold for the new tax, what a coincidence!’
Well that’s your risk to take. No different than if you cook your books now and claim lower income than you actually have. We don’t throw up our hands and conclude we can’t tax the wealthy. Maybe we need to seriously reform corporate charter law, and do things like prohibit corporations from themselves owning subsidiary companies. Reforms like that could prevent a lot of tax-dodging shenanigans.
So, what’s wrong with that? You have a wealth tax on all wealth over $100 million. If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value. Everyone with that level of wealth already hires accountants. It’s a trivial additional burden. If your wealth is no where near the tax threshold, you don’t need to bother hiring an accountant to get a precise figure.
And I’m going to say, it’s a great means to go after the assholes if they try to claim their assets are worth something different. I think we have a recent case of 34 felonies about that…
So, what’s wrong with that? You have a wealth tax on all wealth over $100 million. If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value. Everyone with that level of wealth already hires accountants. It’s a trivial additional burden. If your wealth is no where near the tax threshold, you don’t need to bother hiring an accountant to get a precise figure.
I’m calling bullshit on this. There are all sorts of taxes that fall heavily or solely on the wealthy. The reason the wealthy don’t all leave is that they don’t actually want to live in places that have low taxes. You can get low taxes in a war-torn hellhole, but most don’t actually want to live like that.
‘Oh, our accountant says the valuation is just under the threshold for the new tax, what a coincidence!’
It is trivially easy to shift assets around in such a way that having a net worth threshold for a given tax is basically a guarantee that no one will pay it. Many countries have tried this already, and failed. Why repeat their mistakes, instead of learning from them?
We need to remember that people, and especially the ultra-wealthy, are not inert blocks of wood that don’t react to policy changes like these.
Firstly, I said “only the wealthiest”, so don’t already start nudging those goalposts by “calling bullshit” and immediately tweaking it to “heavily or solely”. Secondly, if there are so many, name three.
Well that’s your risk to take. No different than if you cook your books now and claim lower income than you actually have. We don’t throw up our hands and conclude we can’t tax the wealthy. Maybe we need to seriously reform corporate charter law, and do things like prohibit corporations from themselves owning subsidiary companies. Reforms like that could prevent a lot of tax-dodging shenanigans.
And I’m going to say, it’s a great means to go after the assholes if they try to claim their assets are worth something different. I think we have a recent case of 34 felonies about that…