3 ms·

I don't think an income tax that punishes people for making too much money is the right way to go about it. How about instead of punishing people for being rich

by mljoe 10y ago

I don't think an income tax that punishes people for making too much money is the right way to go about it. How about instead of punishing people for being rich, discourage the filthy rich from spending money on the frivolous. For instance, set up a luxury tax on expensive cars, private jets and jet fuel, first class transportation and primary residences and hotels that are way above the average value for an area. On the other end, have tax credits (not just a tax deduction) for contributing to charitable causes, or for taking business risks that drive innovation.

mahyarm 10y ago
The thing about the rich is they can hire people to make loopholes out what you just described and the financal incentive to do so.
vosper 10y ago
I think it might be great to encourage the rich to spend as much as possible. Don't the expensive cars, private jets, and first class transportation support whole networks of businesses, and provide employment?
- coldtea 10y ago
  Not that much. For an average rich person, most of their assets are not spend for living/luxury, and they can't realistically be unless said rich are extremely extravagant. So, unless they are actively invested in some sort of productive scheme, they are just sitting there (e.g. as huge estates, savings etc.). In any case, it's much better for the economy to have a large middle class, than the equivalent money in fewer rich persons.
- simonh 10y ago
  Yes, but you also need to look at the products of those people's labor and other things that labor could be used for. Do we need more people building and crewing luxury yachts, or building and operating hospitals and sheltered accommodation? In both cases people are paid to do work, but the products of that work are very different. But in practice much of the wealth of super-wealthy people is actually either tide up in the value of the businesses that they own, which are often doing economically valuable things, or is invested in useful enterprises (shares), or funds useful activities (bonds). It's not as though the net wealth of Warren Buffet is all being thrown on hookers and blow. There are already ways to direct the spending of the wealthy towards more productive uses, such as consumption taxes on luxury goods. But if they take their wealth to other countries with laxer consumption taxes, there's no a lot we can do about it. So we're back to the libertarian argument. At some point you get into questions of freedom and individual rights.
  - Nevermark 10y ago
    The problem is not that their are rich people buying nice things. The problem is when poor or middle class people are unable to improve their situation or lose ground. The only time rich people are a problem for poor people is when rich people are able to corrupt government to tilt the playing field their way. This is a problem of corrupt politicians and lack of anti-corruption law. I think people underestimate how many economic difficulties are not caused by economic effects, but by corrupt politicians who are permitted to stack the deck against the average person as a way to fund their campaigns or rack up post-governance favors.

by mljoe 10y ago

mahyarm 10y ago

The thing about the rich is they can hire people to make loopholes out what you just described and the financal incentive to do so.

vosper 10y ago

I think it might be great to encourage the rich to spend as much as possible. Don't the expensive cars, private jets, and first class transportation support whole networks of businesses, and provide employment?

coldtea 10y ago
Not that much. For an average rich person, most of their assets are not spend for living/luxury, and they can't realistically be unless said rich are extremely extravagant. So, unless they are actively invested in some sort of productive scheme, they are just sitting there (e.g. as huge estates, savings etc.). In any case, it's much better for the economy to have a large middle class, than the equivalent money in fewer rich persons.
simonh 10y ago
Yes, but you also need to look at the products of those people's labor and other things that labor could be used for. Do we need more people building and crewing luxury yachts, or building and operating hospitals and sheltered accommodation? In both cases people are paid to do work, but the products of that work are very different. But in practice much of the wealth of super-wealthy people is actually either tide up in the value of the businesses that they own, which are often doing economically valuable things, or is invested in useful enterprises (shares), or funds useful activities (bonds). It's not as though the net wealth of Warren Buffet is all being thrown on hookers and blow. There are already ways to direct the spending of the wealthy towards more productive uses, such as consumption taxes on luxury goods. But if they take their wealth to other countries with laxer consumption taxes, there's no a lot we can do about it. So we're back to the libertarian argument. At some point you get into questions of freedom and individual rights.
- Nevermark 10y ago
  The problem is not that their are rich people buying nice things. The problem is when poor or middle class people are unable to improve their situation or lose ground. The only time rich people are a problem for poor people is when rich people are able to corrupt government to tilt the playing field their way. This is a problem of corrupt politicians and lack of anti-corruption law. I think people underestimate how many economic difficulties are not caused by economic effects, but by corrupt politicians who are permitted to stack the deck against the average person as a way to fund their campaigns or rack up post-governance favors.