3 ms·

> Wealth provides financial security to an even greater degree than high current income. Yes, but unless you're talking about a wealth tax in excess of 10%, th

by whack 9y ago

> Wealth provides financial security to an even greater degree than high current income. Yes, but unless you're talking about a wealth tax in excess of 10%, this is not going to change. Someone with multiple millions of dollars in diversified investments will always be financially secure, unless we're considering drastic measures like a communist revolution. Regarding all the benefits of wealth you mentioned, note how these benefits only arise when the investor liquidates his investment. Hence my point that instead of taxing wealth when it is being productively invested, tax the wealth at the point of liquidation instead. I'm also in favor of high estate taxes, but that's an entirely different tangent.

sokoloff 9y ago
I don't seek to eliminate wealth; that's a terrible policy IMO. Moderating its growth and concentration only slightly is far less disruptive or fraught with unintended/unknowable consequences. An annual wealth tax of 10% would wipe out most wealth concentrations within 50 years. I think such a level is absurdly too high, though. Looking at Switzerland as an example, I think 0.25% to maybe as much as 1% range is far more reasonable (roughly in range with their wealth taxation today) with a per-household exemption of $1MM or thereabouts [to prevent nuisance calculations over $10 in taxes]. > note how these benefits only arise when the investor liquidates his investment "essentially devoid of the concerns of financial catastrophe" is a tremendous benefit that confers to the wealth holder without need of spending the wealth.
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  In the Netherlands there is about 30% tax on financial returns and an additional 1.2% tax on assets (wealth) above a certain threshold.
  - sobani 9y ago
    The 1.2% tax on assets is the 30% tax on financial returns. It's just that at some point the government was like: "math is hard, let's go shopping^w^w assume the average return in 4%".

by whack 9y ago

sokoloff 9y ago

I don't seek to eliminate wealth; that's a terrible policy IMO. Moderating its growth and concentration only slightly is far less disruptive or fraught with unintended/unknowable consequences. An annual wealth tax of 10% would wipe out most wealth concentrations within 50 years. I think such a level is absurdly too high, though. Looking at Switzerland as an example, I think 0.25% to maybe as much as 1% range is far more reasonable (roughly in range with their wealth taxation today) with a per-household exemption of $1MM or thereabouts [to prevent nuisance calculations over $10 in taxes]. > note how these benefits only arise when the investor liquidates his investment "essentially devoid of the concerns of financial catastrophe" is a tremendous benefit that confers to the wealth holder without need of spending the wealth.

jiggunjer 9y ago
In the Netherlands there is about 30% tax on financial returns and an additional 1.2% tax on assets (wealth) above a certain threshold.
- sobani 9y ago
  The 1.2% tax on assets is the 30% tax on financial returns. It's just that at some point the government was like: "math is hard, let's go shopping^w^w assume the average return in 4%".