ii iv viii
Logo3 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

NEW - In 2016 the 2-4-8 Tax Blend will become 2-4-8 Tax Choice
The "choice" would allow all taxpayers to choose an income tax rate between 8% and 28% paired with a net wealth tax rate of 2% going down to zero. Wealth taxes paid would reduce Estate and Gift taxes (also set at 28%). This would encourage wealthy individuals to pay some net wealth taxes as a form of inexpensive life insurance.


C - Corp
4% VAT
8% Income

Two articles about God's Plan for Taxing Wealth:
[No mention of knocking the taxman (St. Paul) off his high horse]

Huffington Post, March 8, 2012

Memo to Presidential Candidates: Redistribution of Wealth Is a Divine Commandment
by William O’Brien

William O’Brien is Coordinator of The Alternative Seminary. He opines:

... The economic teachings of the covenant, then, begin by expanding the seven-day cycle of Sabbath to the seventh year -- the Sabbatical Year -- when the entire community is to let the land lie fallow, forgive all debts, and free all slaves or bondservants (Lev. 25:1-7, Deut. 15). The land was to be given a periodic rest, and any tendencies toward creeping oppression or bondage were to be released. Then, every seventh of seven years was the Jubilee Year, in which, in addition to the sabbatical provisions, the land was to be redistributed back to the original tribes and families (Lev. 25:8-54).

... Are God's people commanded to -- gasp! -- redistribute wealth? Could that possibly be in the Bible, along with not committing adultery and not worshipping idols? "Redistribute the wealth" -- few words are more noxious or notorious to American sensibilities. No notion is more blasphemous to our free market ideology. And yet, God said it, and, the believer must assume, God means it. ...

... Or, for religious Americans who claim to take seriously the Bible as a revelation of God's will (and conservative U.S. Christians are hardly shy in making such an assertion), perhaps we need to do some serious wrestling here. God's holy people are clearly and undeniably commanded to redistribute their holdings, to ensure that inequities of wealth and poverty do not corrode their community, to make sure that none of God's precious children have less than they need or more than they need.

Purim and Taxes: Paying Civilization's Price
by Ari Hart

Ari Hart is Co-founder, Uri L'Tzedek (Awaken to Justice): Orthodox Social Justice. He opines:

... The Talmud offers two different approaches to the levying of communal taxes. Either mamon - [the wealth of the payer] ... determines how much is paid, or every person pays the same amount, which is called, in talmudic parlance, a nefashot system. From the Talmud alone, it is not entirely clear when to apply the different models. ... It is unclear from these early sources whether or not mamon means a flat tax, or whether the rate of taxation is actually progressive.

... Interestingly, in a bold reading of the earlier texts, the Tzitz Eliezer assumes in his question that mamon is progressive. After an in-depth review of halakhic sources, he concludes that nearly all taxes -- for water, road repair, lights, hospitals, social services, nursing homes and more -- are assessed by mamon, which in his interpretation means progressive.

2-4-8 Response: to O'Brien

In biblical days an honest tax collector (if you could find one) would measure a man’s wealth and take a fair percentage for the king. Today’s arbitrary income tax brackets (marginal rates) are somewhat progressive but the investment class may defer or avoid taxes by simply not selling assets such as corporate stock or real estate or by taking advantage of other tax loopholes. 
Many countries have net wealth taxes to supplement both income and sales (or VAT) taxes but the wealth tax is generally confined to multi-millionaires. Before the internet age, it was very difficult to inventory and value assets – (including private businesses). Today, for the first time in history, advances in computer science and universal access to market data, make the administration of a wealth tax so easy that it could readily be applied to all taxpayers.
For example, taxing the $53 trillion in U.S. individual net wealth at 5% would yield $2.6 trillion - $400 billion more than FY 2010 federal revenue. In the alternative, a 2% net wealth tax (over a $15,000 exemption) combined with a 4% sales tax and 8% individual and corporate income tax would produce the same revenue with very low tax rates for all. I call it the 2-4-8 Tax Blend.
It would be "Divine" – rich and poor paying the same progressive fair rates (and keeping 92% of your income wouldn’t hurt).
Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA

Further 2-4-8 Response to Coments about Valuation

Last week Warren Buffett said that he would be open to a wealth tax but thought that business evaluation might be a problem. Of course, Mr. Buffett is right.

The stock value is easy to determine for a publically traded corporation but an inventory of assets would be needed for the millions of private corporations and businesses. In most cases the small businesses would be valued based upon a full liquidation of assets computation. A standard adjustment would likely be made based upon sales and earnings that go well beyond the average for the size and particular type of company (and the IRS could be expected to publish acceptable guidelines). A further (retroactive adjustment) might be needed where the business is eventually sold for an amount that is significantly different from what had been reported. A key difference with many private businesses is that the principals of the company may account for much of the value of the business and their non-contract expertise should not be valued for wealth tax purposes. The valuation does not have to be perfect to be fair.

As a final point about private business, I would support the free online public disclosure of all business wealth, sales and income tax returns. Business Tax returns do not contain trade secrets and the disclosure will certainly help to keep them honest.

Further 2-4-8 Response to Coments about Liquidity

Mr. Combs has a good point about why a wealth tax levied only against the rich (on top of a progressive income tax) is both unfair and a very bad idea. Let me repeat that I opposes any wealth tax that does not apply equally to rich and poor. Other countries with a wealth tax (on the wealthy) include Pakistan, Philippines, Switzerland, etc.

Mr. Combs mentioned wealth leaving France, but wealth cannot leave the U.S. because we have a worldwide tax jurisdiction (unlike the “territorial” jurisdiction of most European countries [and which Mr. Romney favors]).

I suspect most “Republicans” (if that is important to you) and any business minded person would find it advantageous to save 25% more salary each year in exchange for a 2% wealth tax. Because a wealth tax serves the same function as “mark to market” rules and applies to all assets (not just securities, real estate, precious metals, etc.) there is no need to artificially compute an approximate (not adjusted for inflation) income from capital gains.

2-4-8 Response: to Hart

I sponsor the website, www.TaxNetWealth.com, and agree with Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg that it is, “a progressive approach, where we tax according to the level of wealth” at the “same tax rate”. In contrast, a flat rate tax on income or sales is regressive because it ignores need and the ability of a person to pay.

[same as response to O'Brien]


Spread the word: Please let Congress know you want them to consider the 2-4-8 Tax Blend by simply tweeting "TaxNetWealth.com" or by copying any basic description and sending, faxing, or emailing it to at least one representative from each political party. Many representatives will only accept email through their individual websites.

Copyright 1985 to 2015 by Eugene Patrick Devany