By 
Introduction
I predict that to reduce the federal deficit, pay for extraordinary government spending on defense and infrastructure, protect the viability of Social Security, fund a substantial tax cut for lower- and middle-class citizens, and narrow the widening wealth gap among the great majority of Americans and the 1 percent, the Trump Administration will introduce a one-time tax on assets of more than $15 million by the end of the year.
The estate tax will apply to personal property, including owner-occupied homes; cash, bank deposits, money market funds, savings in insurance and pension plans, investment in real estate and unincorporated businesses and corporate stocks, financial securities and personal trusts. However, liabilities (primarily mortgages and other loans) will be deducted from equity accounting. For this reason, the one-time levy might more accurately be called a net worth tax.
I hope that Trump and his minions expand the basic idea to a one-time variable wealth tax. While it should start with a 15% tax on net wealth of $15 million, it should increase as follows:
- 25% on 20 million.
- 30%over 30″
- 35%over 40″
- 40% over 50″
- 45% over 60″
- 50% over 70″
- 60%over 80″
- 70%over 90″
- 75%over 100″
- 80% over 500″
- 50% over $1 billion
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to go any further. The super 1 percentages could Swift Boat me and the merits of the net worth tax forecast if they extend beyond $1 billion. Also, I don’t want to be the Eugene Debs or the Upton Sinclair of wellness, although of course I admire them immensely.
There are many more taxpayers whose net worth is well below even the lowest net tax rate envisioned in Trump’s long-awaited proposal. Once this plan gains escape velocity — that is, gets the kind of attention that a single Trump tweet on Twitter attracts — there will be no stopping it. Any legislator who opposes will be defeated; Fox News commentators and other critics will lose caste.
You may be surprised to learn that Donald Trump himself proposed a flat estate tax of 14.25% on the net worth of individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more in 1999. Trump claimed that his proposal would generate $5.7 trillion in new taxes, which could be used to eliminate the national debt.
Robert Miles, an expert on the sage of Omaha and one of the most respected investors of all time, Warren Buffett, tells me that Mr. Buffett is likely to favor the making of the Ardell forecast and the Ardell Rules on rates. tax rates for the very rich Warren Buffett put forward a not dissimilar idea as part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The plan would have applied a minimum tax rate of 30 percent to people who earn more than a million dollars. dollars a year.
According to a White House official, the new tax rate would have directly affected 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
Buffett’s Rule: Raise $20 billion from the ultra-rich (50,000 earning $1,000,000+) by requiring a 30% tax rate (same as the middle class). Net Effect of Buffett’s Rule: Reduce the tax burden of 20 million struggling families by $1,000 each.
Besides, Buffett solves the budget deficit in 5 minutes (actually, in a 43-second video):
George Will recently lamented the kind of society that is being discussed in current (and past) futuristic novels. He noted that they envision a government system of transferring income from those who do things to those who don’t. That, he says, suggests that half the country would support the other half.
An associate named Bruce Midgett believes this is correct in theory, but wrong in numbers. It’s more like ten percent of the country would support the other ninety percent, as they are expected to. His wealth was not accumulated in a vacuum. Bruce added this to the conversation”
However, others see few options: it will follow logically. The late Harold Tascher suggested as early as the mid-1950s that with continued rapid technological advances and business growth, the labor force needed to sustain a healthy and growing national economy cannot reach full employment. This will require some restructuring in the ways wealth is acquired and disposed of to ensure the dignity of all citizens. Tascher believed that the combined wealth of the country could easily cover this contingency without causing hardship for anyone.
Another, Warren Buffett, pointed out that we will need fewer and fewer people in our workforce to produce the products and services for our future economic needs. Buffett went on to suggest that the only solution to that situation was a progressive tax system that recognized the fact that some people will want to be in the workforce and others will prefer to go fishing. He also concluded that the nation had more than enough combined wealth to undertake such a conversion to accommodate such an eventuality.
None of these propositions strip anyone of the ability to earn obscene amounts of income or inherited wealth. We know the problem; We have the need. We have the wealth to solve the problem and address the need. And please, damn the labels. Call it what you want, but evaluate it for what it is: consideration for the value of each individual and an effort to raise that value to its fullest potential for both individuals and society.
It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this concept, if Trump presents it as I predict he will. If he wants money to spend on necessary programs, he has few options.