3 ms·

Taxes.

jaggederest 9y ago
I back-of-the-enveloped recently that you could replace all federal and state revenue with a 50 basis point annual tax on total wealth.
- qubex 9y ago
  The problem is a relative handful of super-wealthy people can quickly relocate to more moderate tax regimes and take a huge chunk out of your tax revenue. Call it the Depardieu Effect if you wish. Unfortunately one must target the less mobile elements of society disproportionately.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > The problem is a relative handful of super-wealthy people can quickly relocate to more moderate tax regimes and take a huge chunk out of your tax revenue. Fine. Then leave. But then you don't get to participate in the market. This isn't that hard a problem. If you make the money in the US, you get taxed in the US. If you leave the US, you don't get to take the money made in the US with you. The problem is the lack of political will to close those loopholes that allow otherwise to occur.
    - qubex 9y ago
      I get your reasoning and some could even be sympathetic to your point of view (up to a point), but a few brief moments of consideration will certainly serve to illustrate that what you are advocating is totally impractical. How does one define (let alone implement) the denial in participation in the domestic market? Do you mean that companies with foreign shareholders can no longer trade? Do you mean that the opinions of foreign nationals can no longer be aired and/or commented? Do you mean that foreigners cannot be employed by organisations that participate in the economy? Do you mean that foreigners can no longer purchase from or sell to national firms?
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    The vast majority of wealth in this country is real assets, good luck "relocating" land and buildings :) Even if they do leave, someone still owns it.
    - qubex 9y ago
      That is also fraught with difficulty. Most wealth (not GDP) is indeed in real assets... and these assets are obviously owned. They're typically owned by companies, not by individuals (directly), which is why in the response I gave below I mention foreign shareholders. If somehow you mange to exclude them you have dozens of other loopholes and contractual mechanisms to contend with, the most obvious being leasing by the property company of a real asset owned by a bank, wherein the lessee in turn sublets the asset out. If you get past that you have to deal with the fact that in a very real sense these assets constitute the bulk of wealth because their prices are high, and that if you make it extremely difficult (or undesirable) to own them the price will plunge as current owners try to sell off their assets and get cash to take out, and nobody with the relevant criteria to own them has enough funds to buy them. That in turn would wipe trillions off wealth, hundreds of billions off GDP, and send the banking system into a new systemic cardiac arrest demanding of bailouts in because the assets underlying their outstanding loans no longer cover the risk they're exposed to.

Taxes.

I back-of-the-enveloped recently that you could replace all federal and state revenue with a 50 basis point annual tax on total wealth.

qubex 9y ago
The problem is a relative handful of super-wealthy people can quickly relocate to more moderate tax regimes and take a huge chunk out of your tax revenue. Call it the Depardieu Effect if you wish. Unfortunately one must target the less mobile elements of society disproportionately.
- bsder 9y ago
  > The problem is a relative handful of super-wealthy people can quickly relocate to more moderate tax regimes and take a huge chunk out of your tax revenue. Fine. Then leave. But then you don't get to participate in the market. This isn't that hard a problem. If you make the money in the US, you get taxed in the US. If you leave the US, you don't get to take the money made in the US with you. The problem is the lack of political will to close those loopholes that allow otherwise to occur.
  - qubex 9y ago
    I get your reasoning and some could even be sympathetic to your point of view (up to a point), but a few brief moments of consideration will certainly serve to illustrate that what you are advocating is totally impractical. How does one define (let alone implement) the denial in participation in the domestic market? Do you mean that companies with foreign shareholders can no longer trade? Do you mean that the opinions of foreign nationals can no longer be aired and/or commented? Do you mean that foreigners cannot be employed by organisations that participate in the economy? Do you mean that foreigners can no longer purchase from or sell to national firms?
- jaggederest 9y ago
  The vast majority of wealth in this country is real assets, good luck "relocating" land and buildings :) Even if they do leave, someone still owns it.
  - qubex 9y ago
    That is also fraught with difficulty. Most wealth (not GDP) is indeed in real assets... and these assets are obviously owned. They're typically owned by companies, not by individuals (directly), which is why in the response I gave below I mention foreign shareholders. If somehow you mange to exclude them you have dozens of other loopholes and contractual mechanisms to contend with, the most obvious being leasing by the property company of a real asset owned by a bank, wherein the lessee in turn sublets the asset out. If you get past that you have to deal with the fact that in a very real sense these assets constitute the bulk of wealth because their prices are high, and that if you make it extremely difficult (or undesirable) to own them the price will plunge as current owners try to sell off their assets and get cash to take out, and nobody with the relevant criteria to own them has enough funds to buy them. That in turn would wipe trillions off wealth, hundreds of billions off GDP, and send the banking system into a new systemic cardiac arrest demanding of bailouts in because the assets underlying their outstanding loans no longer cover the risk they're exposed to.