wealth tax

Bernie Sanders' Wealth Tax Would Be Bad for Workers

The Vermont socialist has always claimed to be a champion of the working class. But over time, his wealth tax would fall heavily on ordinary Americans.


Over the last several weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has risen to the top of the Democratic presidential polls in key early states. It is plausible that he will win both the Iowa caucus next week and the New Hampshire primary a week later. 

Sanders recent rise is the culmination of a lifetime in politics preaching democratic socialist ideals. And although the particulars of his political vision have shifted in largely unacknowledged ways over time, one throughline has remained remarkably consistent: Sanders has always pitched himself as being a champion of the working class. 

Yet Sanders has proposed a major new tax on wealth that, over time, would come to be paid mostly by workers, depriving them of more than a trillion dollars in wages. Sanders' plan to help the working class would, instead, make the working class worse off. 

Sanders has touted himself as pro-worker and pro-middle class throughout his presidential campaigns. "This campaign," he said in 2015, "is about the struggling middle class." In a speech defending socialism last year, he warned about the dangers of wealth-fueled oligarchy. "It is not just that the very rich are getting much richer. It is that tens of millions of working-class people, in the wealthiest country on earth, are suffering under incredible economic hardship, desperately trying to survive." Sanders' message has been consistent and clear. If he is president, the wealthy will have less, and the working class will have more, in the form of new social spending funded by taxing the rich. 

To that end, Sanders has proposed taxing not only the income of the very well off, but their wealth, in the form of a tax that starts at 1 percent annually on married couples with net worths of $32 million and increases to an 8 percent annual tax on wealth above $10 billion. Although the wealth tax is probably not as central to his campaign as it is to the presidential ambitions of his rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), Sanders' wealth tax is actually more aggressive, imposing a higher top rate, and hitting smaller concentrations of wealth. 

The purpose of Sanders' wealth tax is twofold: first, to fund new government spending on social programs; second, to reduce the fortunes of the very rich and prevent others from amassing wealth in the future. 

As with Warren's wealth tax, there are practical problems: Administering wealth taxes is inherently difficult, in part because it requires tracking and evaluating unique assets, like art and real estate. The wealthy have resources that could and probably would be used to legally avoid the tax. There are serious reasons to believe a wealth tax would raise far less than the $4.6 trillion over a decade that backers estimate—perhaps less than half, according to some estimates—which is one reason why a majority of nations with developed economies that have implemented wealth taxes over the last several decades have abandoned them. 

The prospect that a wealth tax intended to fund an expansion of government social programs might raise far less tax revenue than anticipated should, on its own, be a cause for working class concern. Even if those programs become popular and politically untouchable, finding the revenue to sustain them would be a challenge. And if an initial effort to fund them by taxing the wealthy failed, the incomes and assets of less well-off households would probably enter the discussion. (It is worth noting that the Nordic countries that Sanders often positions as models of social democracy tend to tax middle-income households far more aggressively than the United States does.) Deficit politics may be out of vogue, but at a certain point, some amount of basic fiscal sustainability becomes necessary. And the Sanders agenda, which would start with a government-run health coverage plan that, by the candidate's own estimate could cost $40 trillion over a decade, would test even the staunchest deficit denialism. 

But consider another possibility: What if Sanders' wealth tax raised roughly the amount of revenue promised? Even if that were the case, there is good reason to believe it would still end up hurting the working class, who would, over time, end up paying it in the form of lost wages. 

Strictly speaking, the Sanders wealth tax would be paid only by a relatively small number of wealthy families and individuals. But that doesn't necessarily reveal the full extent of the tax's impact on the broader economy. And according to a recent study by former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Gordon Gray, both of whom are now affiliated with the conservative policy organization American Action Forum (AAF), the effects of a wealth tax would extend throughout the economy, reducing the supply of capital and decreasing investment, which would negatively impact worker pay. 

Sanders' wealth tax would cost workers about $1.6 trillion over a decade, they estimate. Over time, as the impact of the tax grew, workers would end up implicitly shouldering about 63 percent of the burden. The wealthy would indeed have less wealth, but workers would come out behind as well. Sanders, the champion of the working class, would effectively be taxing the working class he claims he wants to support. 

It's possible, of course, that these projections, which rely on complex macroeconomic simulations, are off by some degree. But there's little question about the basic underlying mechanism. The very wealthy, almost by definition, control much of the supply of capital, which funds investment, innovation, and, thus, productivity growth. Without investment in productivity-enhancing activities, which allow workers to produce more with the same effort, wages tend to stagnate, affecting workers throughout the income spectrum. 

Nor can the wealth tax be justified on the grounds that its negative effects would be swamped by the benefits of government spending. Yet as Holtz-Eakin said on a recent AAF podcast, even if you believe this is the case, that merely suggests proponents of such spending should find a less economically destructive way to raise the revenue for such spending. 

Because in the end, that's what a wealth tax is: a policy of economic destruction. Its intellectual backers have been explicit in advertising that it is designed to destroy and prevent fortunes, noting how much less wealthy some of the world's richest people would be today if a wealth tax had been in effect over the last several decades. But destroying or preventing fortunes ultimately means destroying or preventing useful and productive investments and innovations, the founding and growth of businesses that employ workers, and the development of services that make the lives of average people better. 

Warren's wealth tax is a gimmick policy designed to support her wonk-populist image as much as it is an actual proposal designed to support an agenda of upper-middle-class protectionism. Sanders' wealth tax is similarly revealing: It's a practical nightmare that he has wildly oversold and overpromised. And if it somehow worked, it would only take down the wealthy by taking down everyone else in the process.

NEXT: D.C. City Council Candidate Hoping Voters Will Look Past FBI Raids on His Home, Corruption Allegations, Recent Forced Resignation From City Council

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wealth is investments: businesses, warehouses, mines, oil rigs, assets of all sorts. Wealth is NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming pools full of gold coins and jewelry. Art, yachts, airplanes, vehicles, and houses make up much less than 10% of wealth.

    Any tax on wealth requires selling enough of that wealth to pay the tax. But the only people who can buy that wealth are the other rich who are also under pressure to sell enough wealth to pay the tax. It’s a buyer’s market, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d be lucky to get half the nominal price.

    All that wealth sold means less wealth to invest in new companies, new products, new markets, expansion plans, upkeep, and new technology. Something’s got to give, and jobs is a big target. Automation will look better and better. Overseas investments and secret bank accounts will look better and better.

    The economy would dive.

    1. Sounds to me like a plan for gradual nationalization of the entire economy. I wouldn’t be surprised if, upon the entirely foreseeable disaster from stock sales, etc., the benevolent government decided it would be willing to accept shares, etc. instead of cash.

      1. Wouldn’t surprise me either. Fear of the inevitable inept management would send share prices into the toilet. The ensuing stock market crash would make 1929 look like the good old times.

        1. I mean, it’s not like Sanders wasn’t openly advocating for collective ownership of the means of production; he just tempered his wording once it proved too unpopular on a national scale.

      2. There’s an alternative scenario in which foreign banks/corporations/billionaires/governments swoop in and buy up all the liquidated assets at tax time.

        Just because it’s a path to nationalization doesn’t mean it’ll be transitioning ownership to this nation…

        Another possible outcome would be that those with enough wealth to face the tax would just shift it all into their family foundation “charity” that’s already in place to dodge the estate tax before their death and thereby shield themselves from not only the wealth tax, but make their future cap gains subject to only the 1% rate that the earnings of such foundations are subject to. Has any think-tank ever tried to quantify what amount of income/cap-gains tax is lost every year due to a century of the largest fortunes being sequestered into such corporations because of the estate tax (which itself generates a pittance in terms of revenue)?

    2. FYI – Scrooge mcduck swam in his yuuge vault, he did not fill his swimming pool with gold.

      1. Eh. If he swam in it, it was a swimming vault then. Same thing, and the socialists would be glad to fill either with blood.

    3. If you can only sell an item for half its nominal value, that means its new value is now half of what it was initially valued at. So by the next year when the tax man comes around your wealth has already been reduced by half, so they only get to collect half the tax

      Naturally, to keep up revenues, Bernie will have to double the tax rates, starting the whole vicious cycle of devaluation over again

      1. Part of what I was implying, and should have made explicit, is that determining the true value, and hence what 1% or 2% or 8% is, is a fool’s errand, one which the government will be glad to participate in. There of course will be many many lawyers arguing over phony sales at half price. It’s just another reason to hand over the stock and deeds instead of selling them to raise cash. Nationalization ho!

        1. But think about all the good government jobs, and the good jobs in law and accounting, that will be created as part of the administration of this tax. And Bernie and his Top Men know better ways to spend this money than on yachts and jewelry. Those workers can be retrained to work on caring for the poor and the destitute, which will make them feel much more valued and appreciated.

    4. Wealth is NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming pools full of gold coins and jewelry.

      It is in my fantasy world. But with more hookers and blow.

    5. It seems that Bernie believes it’s more important to redistribute “wealth” than to grow the economy or improve living standards (except for perhaps the poor). He’s the guy who said “we” don’t need so many choices of deodorants at the store. He probably thinks innovation that leads to improved living standards is over-rated at this point in history. He also must think that average (at best) health care for all is more “fair” than the system we have now. Put another way, I suspect Bernie is okay with the trade-offs between taxing wealth and the damage to our economy and future innovation – and he’s more honest about it than Warren – who keeps up her shrill lectures, still wanting us to believe that her fantasy revenue numbers will be achieved with no damage to the economy or any need to increase taxes on the middle and upper middle class.

      1. His real endgame is to reduce “inequality”, which has always been easier to accomplish by making everyone poor than by allowing everyone to get rich; especially when there’s an ancillary goal of maximizing the portion of the electorate that’s permanently dependent on the State (which makes incumbency easier for anyone willing to claim that their opponent just wants to leave everyone out in the streets to starve and die).

    6. “If you tax the plutocrats we’re *dooooooooomed*.”

      Switzerland has a wealth tax and is doing fine.

      I invite the plutocratic shills of Resaon to up their game and think 3 seconds before posting how taxing wealth will inevitably lead to extinction.

    7. I’m old enough to remember those dark ages when a single breadwinner could afford to be able to pay “federal income tax”, buy a house, raise a family, pay the bills on time, buy a new car every few years, and still have money left over to hide from the Conservative donor class in a “Socialist” creation called a savings account.

      That was before the economic terrorists who hate us for the freedoms that strong unions, high marginal tax rates on the parasite class, and proper financial regulations gave us until the economic terrorists used the economic upheaval caused by the oil embargo to launch their jihad against the middle class and shared prosperity.

      Us old farts can remember how bad it was for workers anf the country when there was tax sanity:

      Congressional Research Service – Tax Rates and Economic Growth

      • 1950-1970 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 84.8%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 3.86%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.93%
      • 1971-1986 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 51.8%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 2.94%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.32%
      • 1987-2010 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 36.4%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 2.5%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.23%

      1. The government could get away with high marginal tax rates because the growth was higher. Higher tax rates don’t result in higher economic growth.

      2. Pick them cherries, Kuni.
        Did you assemble that pile of shit by yourself or find it on some brain-damaged lefty site?

  2. Because in the end, that’s what a wealth tax is: a policy of economic destruction. Its intellectual backers have been explicit in advertising that it is designed to destroy and prevent fortunes, noting how much less wealthy some of the world’s richest people would be today if a wealth tax had been in effect over the last several decades.

    Do the followers of these “economists” who design such plans believe that destroying a fortune makes other people wealthier? Or is it really just raw envy, “I want you to be poorer even if it makes me poorer?”

    1. Pure self destructive envy.

    2. It’s made Sanders pretty wealthy.

      1. Notice his proposed taxes are set in a way that he wouldn’t be taxed more heavily than he already is.

        I’m sure it’s just math working in his favor, no communist would ever decide he was more equal than his comrades.

    3. Ugly resentment.

  3. A tax designed to eliminate the thing taxed probably should not be counted on for a long term revenue stream.

    1. A tax designed to eliminate the thing taxed probably should not be counted on for a long term revenue stream.

      ^ This.

      Even if the tax did produce $4.6T in revenue over the next ten years, what are you going to do for the next ten years? Or the remaining $35.4T he needs to fund his plans?

      At 8% per year on everything over $10B, there won’t be anyone who has anything left over $10B after about 12 years.

      At which point, of course, that threshold will need to be lowered to, say, $6B. Then in 12 years, when no one has over $6B anymore . . .

      1. “At 8% per year on everything over $10B, there won’t be anyone who has anything left over $10B after about 12 years.”

        That’s not exactly correct. Most wealth on that order is in productive assets which would tend to grow. That being said, 8% is higher than long term stock growth and much higher than stock growth minus inflation.

        It’s a policy designed to eliminate anything over $10B in the long haul. The obvious result would be people spending vast amounts of money to get the law overturned. And much of that money would go to politicians, of course. Then the Left will freak and try to pass laws to restrict the flow of money. Which won’t work or will have unintended consequences. A lot of the remaining money will migrate out of the country as the rich find legal ways to shelter their assets.

        1. Productive assets need investment to grow, not devestment. Anyone who has to divest himself of 8% of his assets is not going to be investing anything where US politicians cab get their grubby little hands on them.

          1. Not only that, but when billionaires have to sell off 8% of their assets to pay the tax, who is going to buy it? Not other billionaires, they have to sell too. Not millionaires, they can’t afford it. Assets will necessarily have to be liquidated below their assessed value, causing them to lose significant value by the next assessment. The 10B+ households would likely lose more of their money to devaluation than to the tax itself

            1. And that will provoke plenty of charges that the rich bastards are purposely selling below value in sweetheart deals with their friends.

            2. “”who is going to buy it?””

              Who said anything about buying it?
              You can’t pay the bill, the government will take the assets. Starting with things they are repurpose on their own, like cars and boats. Or sell to foreign entities.

              1. things they can repurpose..

        2. Will the proceeds of asset sales needed to pay the wealth tax be exempt from income/cap-gains tax in his world?

          Imagine compounding a wealth tax of 8% with a 70% marginal income tax (with the addition of no preferential rate on long-term gains); now you’re looking at needing to liquiate 20-30% of assets to generate enough “take-home” proceeds to cover the tax bill. That haul to destroy the big fortunes gets a lot shorter if they choose to take with both hands.

    2. I mean, it can be if you just blame the kulak wreckers for your system going wrong, and use that for ever more draconian control…

    3. Now do wages and capital gains.

  4. The increased cost to the “working class” would be immediate in many cases. Investments in real estate are enormous. Rental and lease costs, for private dwellings, businesses, factories, etc, would, by necessity, go up immediately. Those who own the real estate in which their businesses and factories are housed, would not be far behind. Just one example.

    And, of course, when the wealth tax fails to bring in the necessary revenue, the “wealth ceiling” will be lowered. And lowered again. And yet again.

  5. Strictly speaking, the Sanders wealth tax would be paid only by a relatively small number of wealthy families and individuals.

    Just like, as promised 100 years ago, the income tax is limited to a handful of wealthy families and individuals.

    1. So it’s totes cool to abuse the minority?

  6. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗

    1. I prefer ASCII art of nude women.

  7. The lede on this article is simultaneously the simplest and most self-evident assertion in the history of Reason magazine, and at the same time, the most complex analysis Suderman has ever performed.

  8. I wonder how many of this country’s dedicated socialists have ever done any work harder than sipping a latte.

    1. They just sit around on their couch.

    2. Cognitive dissonance burns a lot of calories.

    3. Hey, shouting at capitalists (and each other) is hard work!

    4. Haha. That’s funny cuz they wonder the same thing about billionaires.

  9. Damn that spell check, keeps putting in socialist when I try to type communist.

  10. You know, when you point out that aggressive malignant brain tumors are bad for middle-class teenagers you sort of seem to be leaving open the possibility of an interpretation that perhaps other sorts of aggressive malignant tumors might not be so bad or that aggressive malignant brain tumors might not be bad for everybody. There’s no possible scenario under which Bernie Sanders isn’t just bad, period. His proposed wealth tax and its effects on workers is just one very small part of it.

  11. “”Even if those programs become popular and politically untouchable, finding the revenue to sustain them would be a challenge. “”

    We are having that problem now with Social Security and Medicare.

  12. Better to be equally poor than unequally rich.

    1. That’s why he loves Venezuela so much, at least they don’t have billionaires.

      1. Except for Hugo’s daughter.

      2. Everyone in Venezeula’s a billionaire, that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee.

  13. Bernie’s wealth tax would also be bad for Reason.com’s billionaire benefactor Charles Koch. And I want him to keep as much of his hard-earned money as possible.

    Of course, we need to consider the possibility that President Sanders would be unable to implement his entire agenda. I suspect the wealth tax wouldn’t happen. Know what would happen though? President Sanders would be much closer to the Koch / Reason immigration agenda than President Drumpf.


    1. “Bernie’s wealth tax would also be bad for Reason.com’s billionaire benefactor Charles Koch.”

      That’s not really a problem. Charles Koch is 84. He’ll be dead before the government can manage to get too much of his money.

  14. Bernie Sanders Wealth Tax Would Be Bad For Workers

    I going to just leave this here.

    1. Hey, some of the workers would be rewarded for their loyalty during the revolution. The rest get a free re-education, so it’s really a win-win.

  15. “Administering wealth taxes is inherently difficult, in part because it requires tracking and evaluating unique assets, like art and real estate.”

    And it is inherently unconstitutional.. small issue you seemingly missed.

  16. Bernie and Liz would rob the most productive to give more to the lesser productive in society. This is evil and immoral.
    So far, however, they are keeping their wealth tax percentage within the range where most ultra-wealthy would not have to sell assets to meet their new tax. For example, someone with, say, $100 million in assets is likely earning $4 million in interest or dividends on it annually (if not, they probably need a new financial adviser.) If Bernie nips them for $2 million more taxes, their immediate step would possibly be to dismiss some of the landscapers, tutors, tennis coaches, part time jet rental, nannies, personal trainers, charitable organizations, and other non-essential ordinary folks for whom the earnings of the ultra-rich cascade down to. And these folks will suffer too and probably not benefit by the largesse (less government fees) that Bernie will
    distribute to the poor.

    1. It’s the tax on wages and capital gains that tax the *productive*.

      A tax on *wealth* simply taxes those who have more property being protected by the State. Simply *owning* is not productive.

      1. Why do people with wealth have an obligation to be “productive”? If I want to let my money sit around and be lazy, like me, what’s it to you?

        1. You’re not under any obligation to be “productive”.

          But tax policy should be evaluated for how it changes incentives *compared to the alternatives*. We tax productive use of time and wealth over unproductive use. That’s a perverse incentive structure.

      2. So you support getting rid of the income tax?

        1. Shifting tax burden away from productive activities of Americans to unproductive activities and foreigners.

          To tax, from first to least,
          Emperor Xi
          Capital gains

          This is the opposite from Reason’s status quo.

  17. Why did the Roman Republic fail? Because the ABSOLUTE WEALTH TAX Rome had for centuries failed, when the Roman Republic went global. Globalization enabled the wealthiest to escape the 100% wealth tax (roughly at 30 million dollars). As the plutocrats got wealthy above the limit, they were able to buy politicians (Tribunes of the People), and then private armies. Rome never recovered, becoming ever more inegalitarian, fascist, then monarchic, and finally theo-fascist, ripe for military collapse.
    One could argue that the fundamental reason for taxation is to prevent the plutocratic effect, where a few end up with all the wealth and power. The Roman Republic was the longest Republic ever… Thanks to its wealth tax. Let’s do the same! (Details on my site.)

    1. ^ None of this is true.

    2. Switzerland has a wealth tax. Not exactly a shithole country.

      There’s nothing written in the stars saying that wages and capital gains should be taxed, but wealth should not be. It’s a perverse tax policy to tax the productive more heavily than the unproductive.

      The plutocrats have had both parties dancing a faux argument over taxing the “rich” by *income* taxes, while laughing their asses off over their untaxed *assets*.

      “Flat tax! Flat tax!” scream the Republican plutocrat shills.

      Sure. Flat tax on wealth.

      1. Said the guy with no money.

        1. Not an argument.

  18. I don’t see any possible way a wealth tax would not be inflationary, which would ultimately be a hidden tax on the middle class and poor anyways.

    more dollars chasing goods and services, while simultaneously discouraging investment. gee, what could go wrong?

    1. The braindead argument at Reason is always “the tax has a negative consequence”. No duh. They all do.

      It’s funny how that argument never comes out when we’re talking about working class wages.

      Much like they bemoan taxing Emperor Xi’s slave produced geegaws, while maintaining radio silence on the tax on wages.

      Reason’s Tax Preferences Ranked
      Tax the wages of Americans.
      Tax the capital gains of American investors.
      Tax the wealth of American plutocrats.
      Tax the geegaws of Emperor Xi.

      Tax *productive Americans* first, tax the American and global plutocrats last.

      1. You look good in green, but envy is not productive.

        1. Not an argument.

  19. If the uber-rich are heavily taxed, they will likely stop making large donations to charities, who will become increasingly dependent (controlled) by government. Only those charities that are compliant (submissive) to political regulators will see any money.

    1. “Mustn’t tax the plutocrats because then they’ll throw us less in alms.”


  20. Basic law of economics: tax things you want to discourage.

    Basic law of socialists: wealth is bad.

    Basic law of pop media: act surprised at the obvious.

    So Bernie wants to tax our wealth away and Reason gets all excited. Good to know that the laws still apply.

    1. We currently tax the *productive* ownership over unproductive ownership, and *labor* over both.

      If we want more *productive* action, tax wealth more and productivity action less.

      1. “We currently tax the *productive* ownership over unproductive ownership, and *labor* over both.”

        1. Not an argument.

  21. Not a single fucking government ‘solution’ has ever worked as intended.
    Why do the fucking assholes keep thinking they will?

  22. The amounts of taxes only on the wealthy proposed by Sanders are tiny compared to what the wealthy were paying before Reagan began the destruction of the middle class with his tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax increases on the wealthy are not “a policy of economic destruction.” To the contrary, tax cuts for the wealthy have destroyed our middle class and must be overturned.


      Haha. You ugly.

    2. ‘The amounts of taxes only on the wealthy proposed by Sanders are tiny compared to what the wealthy were paying before Reagan began the destruction of the middle class with his tax cuts for the wealthy…”

  23. Buffalo teachers and administrators have already begun studying the 1619 material so they can implement it into their curricula. The NPR story correctly notes that the essays examine “lesser-known consequences of slavery,” like “how plantation economics led to modern corporate, capitalist culture.”

  24. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……. Read more

  25. Let’s be clear here, if he becomes the nominee, you’re still going to vote for him though, right?

  26. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started…….
    HERE YOU GO >>> Click Open The Site

  27. The unintended yet completely not unforeseen outcome is that foreign ownership of American wealth takes place. All the wealthy Americans will have to sell to somebody come tax time, and they can’t sell to other wealthy Americans since they are also having to pay taxes, so foreign investments buy things up. And they won’t have to pay taxes on their wealth since the US has no jurisdiction over most of them (maybe the few foreign investors who live in the US, but not the bulk of them).

    And before you say “but property taxes are assessed on a type of wealth”, property taxes are different because foreign entities still have to pay them and if they don’t the property can be seized. The tax is attached to the property itself and has no regard for how much the owner makes. As for an owner of a specific share of Amazon stock owned by a foreigner, the US government has no idea if it’s owned by a ‘middle class’ foreigner or a foreign billionaire. And even if they knew, they have no way of accurate way of assessing that persons wealth.

    1. A corporate flat tax on wealth doesn’t need to know who owns the shares.

  28. When Reason don’t cover Trump, it’s like their minds are jolted back into reasoned place.

    Trump is the least of America’s problems.

    The shit Grandpa Gulag and Warren are pimping are far – FAR – worse because it comes in the form of ‘compassionate democratic socialism’ but socialism, as we know, becomes communism.

    By doing this, they start the process. Didn’t Marx say it takes a couple of centuries to over turn the system?

    And wait. There’s more. You got illiberal Trotskyites in the wings in the form of illiberal asshats like AOC. They truly believe the rich need to be punished for their ‘ill-gotten’ wealth.

    You have to intellectually pummel them at every turn into their shitty left-wing ideas are turned into pulp.

    To wit as put here:

    “The purpose of Sanders’ wealth tax is twofold: first, to fund new government spending on social programs; second, to reduce the fortunes of the very rich and prevent others from amassing wealth in the future.”

    The first part is stupidity, the second much more sinister.

    The unintended consequences can easily be imagined if this commie were to get his thieving hands on free peoples. ‘Make everyone equally miserable’ as they say.

    The Democrat party, if they’re smart, will look inward and purge this poisonous disease or else it will spread and eventually destroy it from within.

    1. Another case where even when the Left is right, they’re wrong.

      A wealth tax is a good idea. It’s a better tax than an income tax or capital gains tax.

      That Bernie is motivated by his desire to eat the rich and dole out #freestuff doesn’t make a wealth tax a bad idea, anymore than a criminal’s desire to shoot people makes guns a bad idea.

  29. Good luck clearing the hurdle placed in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution. This would a clear and direct violation and would require an amendment, just like the income tax did.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.