4 ms·
The incentive to be wealthy is far more greater than 4% tax on wealth could be a disincentive. Beauty of this is you only pay if you are rich, not if you are po
by techsin101 8y ago
The incentive to be wealthy is far more greater than 4% tax on wealth could be a disincentive. Beauty of this is you only pay if you are rich, not if you are poor or even if you earn a lot and still have lot of expenses (medical, live in nyc, or have children etc)
- gnicholas 8y agoA perpetual 4% tax on wealth is a great disincentive to saving. It's like compounding interest, but in reverse. I would be curious to know if any politician or scholar has ever proposed relying on a single tax like this? I studied tax in law school and practiced as a tax lawyer for the better part of a decade, and I have never heard it mentioned. I'm not up on all the latest developments since I left law to build a startup, and I'd be curious to know if things are leaning in this direction now.
- techsin101 8y agoyou say that but then what about inflation .. that is worse than 4% tax now as it hurts poor more whose most savings are in cash form, and inflation doesn't really affect say land value, it automatically adjusts. While person with $3k saving becomes poorer. I forgot to add... to me ideal is this. - no artificial inflation. - fixed currency rate. - taxes on wealth only. - interest free limited loan by government. (ie. you can borrow x amount of money in lifetime, x increases if your wealth increases) That's perfect to me. The only system that can't be endlessly manipulated by conglomerate/old money/corporations/lobbyists.