4 ms·

Inequality isn't there because the rich hoard actual dollar bills in their basement. What you suggest would affect the poor and middle class more than the rich.

• Ygg2 10y ago
  True, there would need to be other methods to deal with super rich, although they'd just escape jurisdiction into other states. I don't think poor/middle class would be that badly affected. With money taxed, you have a lot of incentive to give that money away, to avoid paying cost.
  • fpig 10y ago
    You have an incentive to exchange dollar bills for some other form of assets. This is easier for the rich, and richer people tend to hold a lower percentage of their wealth in cash. So the system you propose is regressive; it is actually less redistributive than some kind of flat tax. The idea is just incredibly stupid as a way to redistribute wealth.
    • Ygg2 10y ago
      Well, it did prove itself as a prototype once: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Expe... Government still gets to redistribute whatever taxes it accrues.
      • fpig 10y ago
        No it hasn't, absolutely nothing on those pages is an argument against anything I wrote. Not only can the rich easily avoid this system, they don't even need to do anything because today, the rich already hold almost all of their assets in non-cash form. So your idea doesn't work even if the rich literally to do nothing about, they are already safe before you even start. Yes, the government can redistribute money of poor and middle class people that was collected this way back to them.
        • Ygg2 10y ago
          I never said it is enough to reduce inequality. You'd have to heavily tax luxury goods, so the rich would have to convert some of their assets to cash, to pay for their taxes. Sure it won't make rich into middle class, but it is possible.