https://www.hoover.org/research/colonia ... -1607-1700In 1638, the General Court in Massachusetts required all freemen and non-freemen to support both the commonwealth and the church. Direct taxes took two forms: (1) a wealth tax and (2) a poll, or head tax, which in some instances evolved into or included an income tax.
The wealth tax was based on what was known as the country “rate,” which amounted to a property tax. Government officers carried out assessments, or sometimes the process involved self-assessment subject to audit, on the value of raw and improved lands (meadow, plowed, and hoed land), goods, stock used in trading, boats and other vessels, mills, and other visible assets. Each year, the three units of colonial government — the province, the county, and the town or village — drew up a list of proposed expenditures. To support these governments, a rate of tax was applied to the assessments to generate the requisite funds, resulting in a colony rate, a county rate, and a town or village rate.
Seems to me the concept is not so radical after all. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea, but the idea that it is somehow liberal or communist is not supported by history. It's just another tool the government can use to raise money. It should be debated on its merits, not emotional reactions over how and where it originated.
Personally, I think a wealth tax is something worth looking at. One of the main issues with our current tax structure is that very high net worth individuals actually end up paying lower effective tax rates than middle class people. That doesn't seem fair. If a wealth tax can help even that out so the very wealthy pay at least the same rate as the rest of us, I think that would generally be a good thing for society. But I think it'd have to be carefully crafted to consider its impact on the economy. I think it's certainly a better solution than trying to raise the capital gains tax, which it seems to me would have a greater negative impact on the economy and markets.
