3 ms·

Ehhh, fleecing the Saudis is arguably productive. But yes, there are certainly wealthy people who are not more productive than an S&P 500 index fund. (this migh

Ehhh, fleecing the Saudis is arguably productive. But yes, there are certainly wealthy people who are not more productive than an S&P 500 index fund. (this might still be more productive than the US government, of course) But how do you propose to tax them and not the Bezos' and Musks of the world?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Bezos and Musk reinvested all of their wealth into their own endeavors. Craft policy to support such efforts. You still tax productive activities, just not as much as unproductive activities (such as mega-yachts or sailing teams, which are luxury goods).
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Sounds like you want a consumption tax, and not a wealth tax then?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    A little of both.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Ok, so another wealth tax question - do pensions and other such instruments count? If not, what's preventing someone from buying a large annuity and avoiding the tax? And if you do... A lot of public pensions are worth 2+ million. Are public pensions supposed to be excluded? How does that get explained to the voters?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Great questions. I think we look with a critical eye but still make generous allowances for retirement savings vehicles. Keep in mind, the problem isn't people with single digit millions of wealth, the problem is those with tens, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        But why are they a problem? Look, there's two kinds of taxes. One is to raise revenue, one is to punish behavior we don't like. Once you start describing the rich as a problem, it makes me think that this is the second kind of tax, and I really don't think that accumulating wealth, and helping out everyone else along the way by growing the economy, is something we should be punishing. If you say "the uber-rich ($10m is 99th percentile) do bad things, therefore we should tax the uber-rich", I'll really have to disagree - tax the bad things they do, not the demographic group!
        bsanr2 7y ago
        >accumulating wealth, and helping out everyone else along the way by growing the economy The latter doesn't follow the former. In fact, consolidation of wealth is a hindrance to volume of activity outside the bounds of the owner of that wealth's interests. Case-in-point: Wal-Mart has done gangbuster business over the last half century. They've grown our economy. Almost every community its touched has been devastated by this, from the destruction of other businesses within its purview; to the flooding of the market with cheap goods that - in many cases - do nothing for society in their cheapness, and which actually create issues of overconsumption and waste; to the negative effects their influence has had on the shape of welfare. It's not about what Wal-Mart does; its very existence at its size is destructive. The only positive thing it did was grow the overall economy, which is like celebrating a tumor growing your overall lean mass. The over-aggregation of wealth is the problem. A wealth tax is the direct solution (it does not have to be permanent or perennial). Wealth flight is a fantasy, and for anyone who tries, the federal government has access to the resources necessary to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        > The latter doesn't follow the former. In fact, consolidation of wealth is a hindrance to volume of activity outside the bounds of the owner of that wealth's interests. Case-in-point: Wal-Mart has done gangbuster business over the last half century. They've grown our economy. Almost every community its touched has been devastated by this, from the destruction of other businesses within its purview; to the flooding of the market with cheap goods that - in many cases - do nothing for society in their cheapness, and which actually create issues of overconsumption and waste; to the negative effects their influence has had on the shape of welfare. It's not about what Wal-Mart does; its very existence at its size is destructive. The only positive thing it did was grow the overall economy, which is like celebrating a tumor growing your overall lean mass. I would highly disagree there. The ills you describe aren't caused by Wal-Mart being big, they're from the business model itself. 100 independent companies spread across the country would be similar. > The over-aggregation of wealth is the problem. A wealth tax is the direct solution (it does not have to be permanent or perennial). Wealth flight is a fantasy, and for anyone who tries, the federal government has access to the resources necessary to make sure everyone pays their fair share. Because I certainly trust the US government not to come back to the money spigot after using a wealth tax the first time. Not. As for wealth flight - dafqu you mean it's a fantasy? Does "facebook exec renounces citizenship to avoid capital gains tax" not ring any bells?

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Bezos and Musk reinvested all of their wealth into their own endeavors. Craft policy to support such efforts. You still tax productive activities, just not as much as unproductive activities (such as mega-yachts or sailing teams, which are luxury goods).

DuskStar 7y ago
Sounds like you want a consumption tax, and not a wealth tax then?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  A little of both.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Ok, so another wealth tax question - do pensions and other such instruments count? If not, what's preventing someone from buying a large annuity and avoiding the tax? And if you do... A lot of public pensions are worth 2+ million. Are public pensions supposed to be excluded? How does that get explained to the voters?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Great questions. I think we look with a critical eye but still make generous allowances for retirement savings vehicles. Keep in mind, the problem isn't people with single digit millions of wealth, the problem is those with tens, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        But why are they a problem? Look, there's two kinds of taxes. One is to raise revenue, one is to punish behavior we don't like. Once you start describing the rich as a problem, it makes me think that this is the second kind of tax, and I really don't think that accumulating wealth, and helping out everyone else along the way by growing the economy, is something we should be punishing. If you say "the uber-rich ($10m is 99th percentile) do bad things, therefore we should tax the uber-rich", I'll really have to disagree - tax the bad things they do, not the demographic group!
        bsanr2 7y ago
        >accumulating wealth, and helping out everyone else along the way by growing the economy The latter doesn't follow the former. In fact, consolidation of wealth is a hindrance to volume of activity outside the bounds of the owner of that wealth's interests. Case-in-point: Wal-Mart has done gangbuster business over the last half century. They've grown our economy. Almost every community its touched has been devastated by this, from the destruction of other businesses within its purview; to the flooding of the market with cheap goods that - in many cases - do nothing for society in their cheapness, and which actually create issues of overconsumption and waste; to the negative effects their influence has had on the shape of welfare. It's not about what Wal-Mart does; its very existence at its size is destructive. The only positive thing it did was grow the overall economy, which is like celebrating a tumor growing your overall lean mass. The over-aggregation of wealth is the problem. A wealth tax is the direct solution (it does not have to be permanent or perennial). Wealth flight is a fantasy, and for anyone who tries, the federal government has access to the resources necessary to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        > The latter doesn't follow the former. In fact, consolidation of wealth is a hindrance to volume of activity outside the bounds of the owner of that wealth's interests. Case-in-point: Wal-Mart has done gangbuster business over the last half century. They've grown our economy. Almost every community its touched has been devastated by this, from the destruction of other businesses within its purview; to the flooding of the market with cheap goods that - in many cases - do nothing for society in their cheapness, and which actually create issues of overconsumption and waste; to the negative effects their influence has had on the shape of welfare. It's not about what Wal-Mart does; its very existence at its size is destructive. The only positive thing it did was grow the overall economy, which is like celebrating a tumor growing your overall lean mass. I would highly disagree there. The ills you describe aren't caused by Wal-Mart being big, they're from the business model itself. 100 independent companies spread across the country would be similar. > The over-aggregation of wealth is the problem. A wealth tax is the direct solution (it does not have to be permanent or perennial). Wealth flight is a fantasy, and for anyone who tries, the federal government has access to the resources necessary to make sure everyone pays their fair share. Because I certainly trust the US government not to come back to the money spigot after using a wealth tax the first time. Not. As for wealth flight - dafqu you mean it's a fantasy? Does "facebook exec renounces citizenship to avoid capital gains tax" not ring any bells?