I agreeto Idea Tax inert wealth
Voting is Disabled

-21 votes

I disagree

Rank3870

Idea#2537

This idea is active.
Strategic Planning and Budgeting »

Tax inert wealth

Why Is This Idea Important?: Provides a new source of revenue. Improves the economy.

We know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. The truth is that the more money you put in the hands of the middle & lower classes, the more money you are circulating through your economy. People that are salaried at the mean & below spend the majority of the money they make, which in turn improves the economy, and essentially trickles up into the coffers of corporations and eventually, those with the largest investment portfolios. Investors also improve the economy, so it certainly doesn't make sense to tax their investments.

The truth is, the only money that isn't benefiting the economy is the same money that isn't being taxed: inert wealth. Wealthy individuals or corporations with large cash reserves that are not being reinvested essentially hold captive much of the value that the economy creates.

So, instead of increasing taxes on income or sales, create a tax on inert wealth. Create a few basic exclusions, such as primary residences and a reasonable lower boundary, but assess a small percentage for any money that is not invested directly. Coupled with better banking practice regulations to ameliorate the possibility that large accounts would be moved offshore (something we need anyway), we have both a new source of revinue and a way to encourage more investment into the economy.

Submitted by bwthomas 3 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (6)

  1. bwthomas Idea Submitter

    A colleague just suggested I should've gone with my working title of "eat the rich" for a more well received idea. Any thoughts?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  2. I think you're a Socialist that needs to go live in a Socialist country. People like you like you who need all the "guess work" taken out of life need to leave my and my familys money alone! Wipe your own ass.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  3. It is called inheritance tax and it has been nutted until after 2012.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  4. bwthomas Idea Submitter

    ccochran-dell:

    How is it socialism to penalize those not participating in active commerce? If anything, it's hyper-competitive, and hence hyper-capitalist; we would be *forcing* people to seek ways to make money in order to maintain their wealth.

    kdtroxel:

    Similar, but different. Inheritance tax is intended to mitigate the cumulative effects of historically wealthy familial groups. However, the mechanics of inheritance taxation is glacial in comparison to what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting would force everyone to participate in the economy to maintain wealth. No longer would the safest place for your money be in banks, where it would be (granted, slowly) whittled away. The safest place for your money, at that point, would be in a sound investment portfolio, thus adding capital to the economy.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  5. I see where your going with this now. Your part of that political thought where we replace social security with tax defered investment portfolios. Something alone those lines. One of Bush Jr. ideas for retooling the social security system.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  6. bwthomas Idea Submitter

    I didn't say anything about social security. Why must you categorize my politics to consider my idea? This idea doesn't fit with any particular political idealogy ... Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Whig, Torry, Labor, whoever.

    The point of the idea is to increase the circulation of money into the economy by 1) forcing wealth to work for it's keep, and 2) putting more money *directly* into the hands of those who are most likely to put it right back into the economy, all while 3) not reducing tax revenue.

    3 years ago
    0
    0