15 ms·

I'm not really following your question. The idea of a wealth tax is pretty straightforward. You take stock of a person's assets, take a percentage of that fig

I'm not really following your question. The idea of a wealth tax is pretty straightforward. You take stock of a person's assets, take a percentage of that figure (say 1%) and send them a bill for that dollar amount. How they choose to pay that bill is entirely up to them - they can borrow against their assets, liquidate some of them, or use cash on hand. I don't really see how control of resources factors into the equation.

Isinlor 7y ago
Control of resources factors into the equation, because dollars are intrinsically worthless. If money have intrinsic value, why not to print 1 000 000 000$ on a bill and give one to everyone? Suddenly everyone would become a billionaire. Your example is less extreme, but it is still about redistributing control. Redistributing dollars redistributes control of what people do, and how other resources are allocated. This is related to the article, because moving control of people does not create more people. As population will be getting older, there will be more old people that less young people will need to take care of. This is a fact. You could argue that redistributing wealth will lead to more efficient control of resources, and so it will make it easier to provide care. But it is still fundamentally about control of diminishing resources and increasing needs. BTW - I'm Polish and my government tries to literally pay people for having children. Around 30 000$ spread across childhood (take into account that Poles earn a lot less than Americans), and while it put a small dent in fertility rate, the number of children born in Poland is currently lower than before introducing that program.