According to a summary of the bill released by the Patriotic Millionaires—an advocacy group that helped craft the measure—the wealth tax would have four brackets:

  • 2% for all wealth between 1,000 and 10,000 times median household wealth;
  • 4% for all wealth between 10,000 and 100,000 times median household wealth;
  • 6% for all wealth between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times median household wealth; and
  • 8% for all wealth over 1,000,000 times median household wealth;

"In the unlikely event median household wealth fell below $50,000 from its current level of about $120,000, the thresholds would be fixed at $50 million, $500 million, $5 billion, and $50 billion respectively.”

The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Isn't the issue that they are currently hiding and obfuscating their income? Increasing the percentage is a great idea and all but 1% or 8% of zero is still zero.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It literally says "all wealth" and doesn't talk about income at all.

    This is exactly the kind of tax we need. I think its a very interesting idea to tie it to median wealth, though using household as opposed to individual wealth I'm not sold on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax, according to the summary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't understand what this statement says. The it's has to pick 30% of all households that make more than a thousand times the medium income? Is that lower than standard or higher? Why 30% and not 100%?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    since they took the effort to include it in the proposal, I would assume it is significantly higher. Where I live the standard often varies from state so state, because some states use a low enforcement rate to attract buissnesses ("as in yeah, our federal taxes aren't cheaper here, but we if you cheat it's not like we are gonna catch you...").

    I assume not a 100% because that would be a herculean effort and at a certain point if your chances of getting caught are high enough -and there are significant fines- you won't need 100% because the risk is high enough to make most people not cheat out of fear of getting caught.

  • source
  • parent