Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE: Wealth Tax -- Solve the Piketty Dilemma With Amendment XXVIII Intangible Property Tax (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Be careful how you define intangible property, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013, JamesGG, Chas 981

    because it includes minor little things like copyrights and patents, trademarks, contracts, etc. Lots and lots of ways to play foul in that area.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:43:16 AM PDT

    •  Making this apply to all intangible property (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serendipityisabitch

      is aimed, economically, to prevent using the alternative value instruments to avoid the tax.

      And as well, folding money is an intangible asset. Just like a T-Bill.

      One big argument is gold and precious metals. I'd go for gold but not stamp collections.

      You want to exclude houses and cars and furniture. But not the common "investibles." (From the Latin root, "investire" and formed similar to "audible.")

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Ryan Paul von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:23:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, no. I see what you're doing here, and I (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013, fcvaguy, ozsea1

        think I rather like it, but the very word "tangible" comes into dispute when you're talking about things of value, and especially when currency comes into the mix. Mostly because "value" isn't an inherent property of things; it derives from societal beliefs and expectations concerning the item you're valuing. Which is to say, it's an intangible.

        Go for gold and not stamp collections, and you're likely to see a sharp increase in the perceived value of stamp collections, simply because they're an exception.

        I'll stop here, because I don't want to threadjack, but I did want to point out that you're trying to deal with an area that will shift in accommodation to any laws you may pass.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:39:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nobody has mentioned BitCoin. (0+ / 0-)

          Or holding foreign stocks and bonds.

          And yes, there's hundreds of careers for smart lawyers and tax wonks, getting together a solid implementation strategy.

          Republican opposition will be led by Darryl "Car Thief" Issa.

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Ryan Paul von Koch

          by waterstreet2013 on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:47:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the tax is based on citizenship or residency, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            waterstreet2013, VClib

            foreign holdings wouldn't have any benefit (and they have terrible income tax consequences now, so there wouldn't be any reason to see capital flight).

            There are two primary objections to the tax:

            - It would have to include "all property," otherwise the tax would distort the economy.  Excepting real estate, for example, would see an enormous shift into real estate assets.

            - As a practical matter, it would require annual valuations of hard-to-value assets like family businesses etal. A simple valuation for a single small business can run from $10 - $20k. That's not insubstantial.

            •  Real estate is already taxed. Locally. (0+ / 0-)

              Family businesses are not intangible assets. Not predominately. Not a whole lot of families own hedge funds.

              And how many family holdings rise above the $10-million lower limit ??? (That limit excludes real estate.)

              "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Ryan Paul von Koch

              by waterstreet2013 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:05:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh sure they are. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib
                Family businesses are not intangible assets.
                Of course they are.  Family business ownership is evidenced by stock (or LLC interests, or partnership units, or whatever), which are, of course, intangible personal property.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site