4 ms·

There are plenty of things in existence that took more than 15 tries to get right. It is silly to dismiss something because it has failed the last 15 times. If

There are plenty of things in existence that took more than 15 tries to get right. It is silly to dismiss something because it has failed the last 15 times. If wealth taxes are beneficial and a good goal to work towards for a society, then it might be worth it to try for a 16th or even a 17th time until someone figures it out. Human flight took plenty of tries too, but it was something we deemed beneficial, so we figured it out.. eventually. Anyway, Property taxes are a kind of wealth tax, as are capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. All three of those are wide spread and well established.

aetherson 7y ago
Capital gains taxes are income taxes, not wealth taxes.
toasterlovin 7y ago
The person you’re responding to isn’t saying we should dismiss wealth taxes out of hand. They are saying that 100% of the evidence so far is that they do not work. So the burden of proof is on the person in favor of them.
- jacobr1 7y ago
  Right, the proposal for try 16 needs to say: we are we succeed this time because tries 1-15 had flaw X and we have remedy Y that overcomes it.
- timoth 7y ago
  15 countries failing doesn't actually seem to be 100% of the evidence so far. What about Argentina, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Italy (and BC in Canada) listed here as currently having wealth taxes?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Yeah, my comment was about the argument, not about the actual facts. I don't actually know anything about the facts.
  - cc439 7y ago
    Those are asset taxes (with the exception of Italy's 0.15% foreign investment value tax) and it's not hard to hide wealth in liabilities/investments. The über wealthy would barely be affected by such laws should they be enacted in the US while those most affected would be the unlucky few who managed to buy a family sized home in a Californian metro suburb and farmers. I know the "inhereted wealth (estate) taxes kill family farms" is a Republican trope but a tax on assets would disproportionately affect those who own real property and outside of the wealthiest urban centers and their elite suburbs, that would be people who own hundreds or thousands of "cheap" acreage. I have a friend who recently took over his family's 1,200 acre, certified organic dairy farm and a 0.75% asset tax would almost assuredly have him call it quits and sell off to a regional Wal-Mart-tier agribusiness. He only nets ~$100k/yr off of property assessed at $2m and lopping ~$15k/yr off his take home income would be enough incentive, in my opinion, for him to go back to hos $80k/yr industrial equipment sales job.

aetherson 7y ago

Capital gains taxes are income taxes, not wealth taxes.

toasterlovin 7y ago

The person you’re responding to isn’t saying we should dismiss wealth taxes out of hand. They are saying that 100% of the evidence so far is that they do not work. So the burden of proof is on the person in favor of them.

jacobr1 7y ago
Right, the proposal for try 16 needs to say: we are we succeed this time because tries 1-15 had flaw X and we have remedy Y that overcomes it.
timoth 7y ago
15 countries failing doesn't actually seem to be 100% of the evidence so far. What about Argentina, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Italy (and BC in Canada) listed here as currently having wealth taxes?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Yeah, my comment was about the argument, not about the actual facts. I don't actually know anything about the facts.
- cc439 7y ago
  Those are asset taxes (with the exception of Italy's 0.15% foreign investment value tax) and it's not hard to hide wealth in liabilities/investments. The über wealthy would barely be affected by such laws should they be enacted in the US while those most affected would be the unlucky few who managed to buy a family sized home in a Californian metro suburb and farmers. I know the "inhereted wealth (estate) taxes kill family farms" is a Republican trope but a tax on assets would disproportionately affect those who own real property and outside of the wealthiest urban centers and their elite suburbs, that would be people who own hundreds or thousands of "cheap" acreage. I have a friend who recently took over his family's 1,200 acre, certified organic dairy farm and a 0.75% asset tax would almost assuredly have him call it quits and sell off to a regional Wal-Mart-tier agribusiness. He only nets ~$100k/yr off of property assessed at $2m and lopping ~$15k/yr off his take home income would be enough incentive, in my opinion, for him to go back to hos $80k/yr industrial equipment sales job.