I predict that the president will outline a huge tax increase and that the majority of Americans will support him.


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 decrease the growing wealth gap among the vast majority of Los Americans and 1 percent, a one-time tax on assets of more than $ 15 million will be introduced by the Trump Administration by the end of the year.

Wealth tax will apply to personal assets, 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 actions, financial securities and personal trusts. However, liabilities (mainly mortgages and other loans) will be deducted from equity accounting. For this reason, the one-time tax could be more accurately referred to as a net worth tax.

I hope Trump and his cohorts expand the basic idea to a single variable wealth tax. While it should start with a 15% net worth tax of $ 15 million, it should increase as follows:

  • 25% more than 20 million.

  • 30% more than 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% more than $ 1 trillion

I’m not sure it’s a good idea to go any further. The super 1 percent could Swift Boat and the net wealth tax forecast merits if it were to extend beyond $ 1 billion. Also, I don’t want to be the Eugene Debs or Upton Sinclair of wellness, although of course I admire both immensely.

There are far, many more taxpayers whose net worth is well below even the lowest net tax rate envisioned in Trump’s proposed proposal. Once this plan gains escape velocity – that is, it gets the kind of attention that a single Trump tweet on Twitter gets – there will be nothing to stop it. Any legislator who opposes will be defeated; Fox News commentators and other critics will lose their caste.

You may be surprised to learn that Donald Trump himself proposed a one-time wealth tax of 14.25% on the net worth of individuals and trusts worth $ 10 million or more in 1999. Trump claimed his proposal would generate $ 5.7 trillion in new taxes. that could be used to eliminate the national debt.

Robert Miles, an expert on the Omaha sage and one of the most respected investors of all time, Warren Buffett, told me that Mr. Buffett will likely favor the realization of the Ardell forecast and the Ardell Rules on tax rates for the very rich. Warren Buffett put forward a not-too-different 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 $ 1 million 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 demanding a 30% tax rate (same as the middle class). Net effect of Buffett’s rule: Reduce the tax burden of 20 million families with difficulties by $ 1,000 each.

As an aside, Buffett solves the budget deficit in 5 minutes (actually in a 43 second video):

George Will recently lamented the kind of society talked about in futuristic novels today (and past). 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, wrong in numbers. It’s more like ten percent of the country would support the other ninety percent, as you would expect them 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 as early as the mid-1950s suggested that, with continued rapid technological advancements and business growth, the workforce needed to maintain a healthy and growing national economy cannot achieve 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 country’s combined wealth could easily cover this contingency without harming 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 economic needs in the future. 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 eventuality.

None of these proposals deprives anyone of the possibility of obtaining 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, to hell with labels. Call it what you like, but evaluate it for what it is: a consideration for the worth 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 you want money to spend on necessary programs, you have few options.