3 ms·
There is no need to put a hard limit, just an effective limit by having a general wealth tax. Money flows to where money already is, that's inevitable in a capi
by moccachino 8y ago
There is no need to put a hard limit, just an effective limit by having a general wealth tax.
Money flows to where money already is, that's inevitable in a capitalist market economy. There's no need to change that, but progressively bigger piles of wealth should be progressively higher taxed to keep them in check, thus ensuring a competitive market.
Edit: I guess I should have known mentioning wealth tax would get people nervous.
But this is not about taxing your old grandma for her paid-off house. This is about small but increasing percentage, starting at maybe $1M-10M and really kicking in at $1B and above. You can then abolish dividend taxing (that's only fair) and perhaps income tax altogether.
- scotty79 8y agoTaxing general wealth would be enough if you just wanted money. But what you want is rather change in the behaviour of the wealthy. You want them to take away their money out of real estate market so that it does not inflate the prices. You could achieve that through progressive real estate tax. This would make holding and renting large amounts of real estate less profitable in comparison to other things rich invest their money into. They would sell so prices would drop and individual ownership would rise.
- moccachino 8y agoI don't mean this specifically as a solution to expensive housing, just a general solution to super disparate wealth inequality. The point is not to get more money for the state (income tax could be abolished to offset) but to put a natural negative feedback mechanism on wealth accumulation, instead of the positive feedback mechanism that exists today and makes the uber rich own the world.
- scotty79 8y agoI don't think that the sheer fact of some people being incredibly wealthy does much harm and it also can do some good. When the money lands in the hands of rich people it essentially leaves the economy same way as if it was just burned because they won't be giving that money back to real world economy anytime soon. It just lowers inflation a bit so everything becomes a bit cheaper than it otherwise would be. Rich people being rich is fine. Them buying luxuries for their money or gambling (casinos, stock market, startups) does very little harm and even some good because some of their money comes back to other people and few of them do something good with it. The problem starts only when their money touches the parts of economy that are shared by other people because they drive the prices up by buying large amount of stuff and hoarding. Things like property or food or raw materials or land. We just need to make those activities unprofitable for them.
- moccachino 8y agoSure, I've actually got nothing against rich people or even the idea of super rich people. But the whole system is set up in such a way that if you're wealthy you own the world and have to actively screw up to not get wealthier. The system just needs a tiny self-correction mechanism. And the problem with immense wealth is not raising inflation or anything like that, that is market stuff that will correct itself. The problem is buying your way into policy control, and people/corporations that are so powerful that not even the law dares touch them.
- rstupek 8y agoRobert Kraft may have to disagree with you on your last assertion that the law can't touch rich people.
- moccachino 8y agoThe law won't touch rich people where they care, their money. Why are there still tax havens? Why do corporations still make special tax exemption deals? Why are tax loopholes not as aggressively fought as drug smuggling? And even the case you linked to, very wealthy people are much less likely to be charged with these kinds of crime as well.