I agree wholeheardly with the idea of an asset tax, although my version might not kick in until $10 million or so (and indexed for inflation annually once put into effect). The reason is threefold. One, it would bring in large amounts of money. Two, it would discourage hoarding assets. If someone makes, say, $20 million a year, they would be encouraged by the tax code to spend most of it somehow on depreciable items, helping the economy in the process. You might have certain classes of assets, such as charitable endowments, which are exempt. Three, it would probably discourage paying huge salaries in the first place because the person really couldn't hold on to most of the money. This in turn would either result in lower prices, or more equitable pay between the lowest and highest paid employees. In the end, $10 million (in 2011 dollars) is plenty enough for anyone to live well. Sure, all the huge estates, yachts, other things the super wealthy spend their money on might no longer exist, but I can't see how that would be a bad thing. Money is like food. None is bad, some is good, a lot causes more problems than it solves. The societies that frown on accumulating excess wealth are usually the ones which end up surviving in the long haul. I've heard the mantra "greed is good". To some extent it is because it motivates people to do something productive instead of remaining idle (lack of motivation to produce is a big flaw of communist systems). Like anything else in life though, there should be limits. Once you make your $10 million, step aside and give someone else a chance instead of going for $100 million or a billion. You can still live fantastically on that $10 million (which can grow with inflation without being taxed further) for the rest of your days.
