The world’s wealthiest could be subjected to higher tax rates as governments scramble to fund spending and repair their economies amid the coronavirus crisis, an economist has predicted.
Speaking to CNBC’s “Street Signs Europe” on Monday, Roger Bootle, chairman of Capital Economics, said he was concerned that some governments — including Britain’s — would assume tax rates must go up in order to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic.
[...]
The idea of introducing or increasing tax rates for society’s wealthiest has been floated by economists as the long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic becomes more apparent.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the world is set for the deepest recession since the 1930s, with the global economy expected to contract by 3% in 2020.
In a paper published last month, the IMF suggested governments should consider increasing taxes on income, property and wealth through a so-called “solidarity surcharge” as a way of funding programs to protect their economies.
Meanwhile, in an April article for the New York Times, Daniel Markovits, a law professor at Yale and author of “The Meritocracy Trap,” said a 5% tax on the wealthiest 5% of American households could raise up to $2 trillion.
“Our extraordinary battle against the pandemic should draw on the immense reserves that the most privileged among us have accumulated over decades of abundance,” he said.
“Government borrowing is tempting because debt is now so cheap. But borrowing will in the end burden the young, who are now suffering their second economic calamity in a decade. Instead, the relief effort should be funded through a one-time wealth tax imposed on the richest Americans, whose wealth has exploded alongside rising inequality.”
[...]
Taxing wealth was a core policy in Senator Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Democratic candidacy. Under Warren’s proposal, net worth between $50 million and $1 billion would have been subject to a levy of 2%, while wealth above $1 billion would have been taxed at 6%.
#1: Stoner To: A Pole (#0)
Stoner posted on 2020-05-12 07:08:49 Reply Private Reply
#2: IbJensen To: A Pole (#0)
That means the little guy who saved his money for his retirement. An IRA or two, a house, a travel trailer or boat. All added up and taxed in order to keep spending on stuff the left wants accomplished.
A whiff of gunpowder perhaps as the citizenry registers their displeasure with the absolutely awful gaggle of politicians and highly paid staffers.
IbJensen posted on 2020-05-12 08:03:27 Reply Private Reply
#3: A Pole To: IbJensen (#2)
Not really. You did not read carefully. In the most radical proposal:
"Warren’s proposal, net worth between $50 million and $1 billion would have been subject to a levy of 2%, while wealth above $1 billion would have been taxed at 6%."
As it is now, the guy you mentioned pays the main burden of taxes and he is not "worth" more than $50 million or more than $1 billion.
Look from this side, in the free market system, where protection of property is the key thing, the government is limited to the proverbial "night guard" role.
Well, if the function of the state is to protect wealth, should not the state taxes be paid by those who are wealthy? Not by the regular people who are not rich? I think it is reasonable and fair.
It is opposite to socialism, in socialism large private wealth is nationalized, while in the true free market system private wealth is protected at the expense of those who use this protection the most. Not to be paid by the sweat and toil of the poorer folk who have travel trailers.
A Pole posted on 2020-05-12 08:47:41 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: A Pole (#3)
Her tax hasn't even been implemented and already she doubled it. You can't tax yourself into prosperity.
misterwhite posted on 2020-05-12 10:59:33 Reply Private Reply
#5: IbJensen To: A Pole (#3)
IbJensen posted on 2020-05-12 11:52:03 Reply Private Reply
#6: Hank Rearden To: A Pole (#0)
Hank Rearden posted on 2020-05-13 12:31:57 Reply Private Reply