The peculiar thing about all of that is that none of the candidates, including those who held office for decades, have objected to much of it. One would think that the best way to differentiate oneself from the pack would be to espouse or emphasize something that would highlight the differences, but they all seem determined to do what college kids did 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today: that is, prove their non-conformity by conforming to those around them. It is beyond us why one of the candidates hasn't been wise enough to call out the enormously expensive, economically foolish, counter-productive, and just plain harmful proposals, and to stand up for the policies, attitudes, and values that made America the great country it is. Candidates have always managed to find things wrong with current policies without chucking the whole structure away, but the current crop seems intent on radical transformation that would leave us with a completely different system, and would guarantee everything. Too bad not even one of those Democrats has the good sense to ask where the money comes from when our tax rates hit 70% and employers have to pay $15 an hour and grant multiple other goodies, and the government somehow makes up the difference; and we still have to maintain an Army, Navy, and Air Force, highways, parks, a court system, and all those other things government does. As Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have said, socialism works until one runs out of other people's money. And while a lot of these proposals might not be "pure socialism," they definitely trend in that direction, and enlarge the public sector by shrinking the private sector. We are hopeful that at least one will tell the others that all of those wish lists are impossible, but so far our hopes have been unrealized.
Senator Wyden's idea would fit right in, and it's a wonder he hasn't declared his own candidacy. While scanty on details, his idea would be that taxes would be owed on the value of an asset (such as but not limited to, stocks, real estate, a home, collectibles, precious metals, or whatever else struck someone's fancy) each year. Now the tax is owed only when the item is sold (and the gain "realized"). And for sure he would grant exemptions for "the little guy" and so forth, but there wouldn't be much point in his proposal if it didn't bring in a substantial amount of revenue; which of course the government would spend wisely and prudently and would never waste.
Well, put us in the group that thinks the idea is expensive, foolish, counter-productive and just plain harmful, no matter what formula he uses to impose it, and we hope that the only reason he proposed it is so that every one of the Democrat candidates for president will denounce it, thus establishing at least a little degree of economic literacy. But we doubt it, and we bet none of them will.