2 ms·

Well, we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem. I'd wager there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets

Well, we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem. I'd wager there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets. I'd say the larger objection is the principle that we shouldn't be multiply taxing people. A wealth tax basically means re-taxing the same wealth every year.

mquander 7y ago
I'd wager there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets. If that's true now, it sure won't be true for long after you pass the tax!
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem It's fundamental to the problem of valuation, so probably not. > there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets Most assets are illiquid, e.g. real estate. To be clear, as a capital-markets guy, I love the idea of forcing more of the economy into the financial system. But as an American, it's totally unnecessary. Increase the take on transactions and remove the loopholes. Taxing wealth just creates artificial transactions to be taxed.
- Traster 7y ago
  Most assets might be illiquid but that's not the same thing as most billionaire's assets being illiquid, and I said, we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem. Particularly, if you look at the tech billionaires I'd wager none of them are primarily invested in real estate. Hell, if you want to be simple about it, you can just take whatever proportion you want to take and auction it. There are obviously difficulties with valuations, but that doesn't make it impossible to have a wealth tax. Take Bezos, we can just take whatever proportion of AMZN stock he has, take the market value, and calculate the proportion to be handed over. The thing you seem to be missing about a wealth tax is that it's not about taxing $17.02 or $17.03. It's about taxing $7Bn, and if you only get £6bn this year, well you're going to get more next year. It's so aggressively redistributive that the details actually don't matter as much as you expect.

mquander 7y ago

I'd wager there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets. If that's true now, it sure won't be true for long after you pass the tax!

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem It's fundamental to the problem of valuation, so probably not. > there aren't many billionaires who actually are primarily invested in illiquid assets Most assets are illiquid, e.g. real estate. To be clear, as a capital-markets guy, I love the idea of forcing more of the economy into the financial system. But as an American, it's totally unnecessary. Increase the take on transactions and remove the loopholes. Taxing wealth just creates artificial transactions to be taxed.

Traster 7y ago
Most assets might be illiquid but that's not the same thing as most billionaire's assets being illiquid, and I said, we can create a wealth tax that doesn't have that problem. Particularly, if you look at the tech billionaires I'd wager none of them are primarily invested in real estate. Hell, if you want to be simple about it, you can just take whatever proportion you want to take and auction it. There are obviously difficulties with valuations, but that doesn't make it impossible to have a wealth tax. Take Bezos, we can just take whatever proportion of AMZN stock he has, take the market value, and calculate the proportion to be handed over. The thing you seem to be missing about a wealth tax is that it's not about taxing $17.02 or $17.03. It's about taxing $7Bn, and if you only get £6bn this year, well you're going to get more next year. It's so aggressively redistributive that the details actually don't matter as much as you expect.