6 ms·

Wealth and Taxes

49 points by deafcalculus 7y ago

whiteeyedwolf 7y ago
Option one. $400,000 retirement. Purchase BTC, claim a loss after it moves down even 0.03% in most places of the world, move to bermuda, convert BTC to Bermudian dollar, pay 0% income and 0% federal tax. Purchase property, enjoy golf courses and beaches all day. Option two. $350,000 retirement. Go to Thailand, get a beach house, and live off the currency conversion rate, enjoy the beach. Option three. Personal favorite. $900,000 Leverage XAU/USD based on fundumentals alone at 70x leverage in week long swing trades, averages per trend about $10k a week per $100k on 70x leverage. (PrimeXBT is a great low fee place) Other fantastic investments are buying vending machines and putting them in laundromats, cost $3,200 for one and to stock it and they average $600 a month. Buy a functional AirBNB with a loan. Sources to look at, Robert Kiyosaki's 4 business quadrants. Remember, wealth does not have to be a number, its not all about money, its about freedom. Best of luck from a BTC millionaire, ~wolf
- whiteeyedwolf 7y ago
  The downvotes on this are pretty funny, the highlight? I'm relaxing on a beach, you are not XD
Retric 7y ago
This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth.
- war1025 7y ago
  > This completely misses the political angle. The political angle that your comment does play to is the reason why many people find the "income inequality" argument rings hollow. The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda. Often the people on the picket lines are in the income classes of the "doctors" in your example. Sure they don't have near the influence of a robber baron, but they're worlds ahead of a lowly immigrant landscaper.
  - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
    > The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda. With all due respect I don’t think this is true. Besides, as income level goes up, people are more likely to be a blue voter than a red voter[1], a fact people have a hard time believing. Arguably 2016 was the poor, lower middle class (one of the least represented demographics in America) rising up and rejecting globalism. They affected change, was it not the kind that you expected? After all, what class do people think the “deplorables” are? A bunch of rich dentists? 1. https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/ https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identific...
    - war1025 7y ago
      > as income level goes up, people are more likely to be a blue voter than a red voter That's precisely my point. Income inequality is a Democrat talking point.
      - bronco21016 7y ago
        Are you mixing up red vs blue? I think most people tend to assume that as ones income increases they’re less in favor of a tax system that decreases income inequality.
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      What figures are you intending to quote from your link? I was surprised by your comment as I'd seen data showing that Obama Vs Romney had a clear trend of richer people voting Republican (the crossover point was around 70K). I knew educated people had swung towards Clinton and away from Trump, but I didn't think it was enough to change that overall result. Looking at your source, the family income section seems to agree with my assumptions. Am I missing something? Edit: I see there's a small blip in the detailed family income above 150,000 for combined dem/lean dem (though more identify as republican than democrat)
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  Of course he misses the political angle, if he discussed it, soon enough people would clamour for the revolution. There is William Hinton's book Fanshen, a personal account of the author of the Chinese revolution in a rural village. One of the early chapters describes the struggle for power, and how money is converted into power. It's recommended reading, you don't have to agree with his political opinion, but it does give the backstory.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth. Tax rates decrease at the very top of the income spectrum because our tax codes make a deliberate choice to preferentially tax investments and capital gains. You’re assuming that choice is the result of “corrosive” factors, namely the wealthy having more political power. But that’s a loaded assumption. Most economists agree that preferential tax rates on capital gains is better for the economy. That’s why almost every tax code in the developed world has that feature. I don’t think you can just assume the only reason for that is the super wealthy having disproportionate political power.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    Already the Brookings Institution (center, center-left, center-right, depending whom you ask) disagrees: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lower-tax-rate-capital-gains https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lo...
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Brookings tends to be mainstream American Democrat, which on tax issues is solidly to the left of the developed world consensus. (The US is the highest in the OECD for how much of tax revenue it derives from progressive taxes. Democrats are seriously proposing wealth taxes, which are unusual in Europe and were recently eliminated in France and Sweden.) Here is an interesting article on NPR on a politically diverse set of economists agreeing that corporate and income taxes should be eliminated: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-....
      - HarryHirsch 7y ago
        That NPR article is a very strange collection. # 2: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Right now, large employers receive a group discount from whatever insurance provider they choose. So to bring down healthcare costs in the US, which are 4 times that of the civilized world, this motley crew of economists suggests to eliminate the group discount. That'll work. # 3: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Yes, Joe Plumber's firm pays corporate tax in PA, but any multinational with a decent lawyer pays no tax anywhere. Incorporate in Bermuda, license the IP. In the interest of fairness one could abolish corporate tax, but one could also come down on tax oases. Why isn't that even suggested? # 4: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes We are supposed to have a consumption tax instead. The wealthier you are, the more likely are to invest. Less wealthy people do not have that luxury, what comes in goes out that month. It seems to be an attempt to shift the tax burden away form the politically connected class. It's not convincing at all, there's too many aspects missing from the discussion to be taken seriously.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The article is definitely not "missing" the political angle; that part is addressed. The point is that it's indeed a question about politics, not economics. By advocating that people having 1 billion in assets should have some of their assets taxed away, you're essentially saying that our political processes are so screwy that on average, someone with say, 1 billion in assets can be expected to use the flaws of our political processes to inflict real, actual damages on the order of, say, $100M on third parties (compared to the most feasible alternative outcome) and that they should be paying restitution for those expected damages. While this may be in fact an appropriate description of a number of countries outside the highly-developed West, it definitely doesn't describe, say, Western Europe, or even the U.S.! Our current President is an exceptional case, he's nowhere close to the norm of all billionaires, and policy should not be set as if he was.
  - delusional 7y ago
    Why does a tax have to be proportional to "real, actual damages"?
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      I'm not saying that all taxes have to be like this. There are other possible arguments for taxing assets, despite the fact that, prima facie, any tax on assets is double taxation and quite highly distortionary of the economy (far more than, e.g. taxes on pure rents, consumption taxes or taxes on labor income). But our existing taxes tend to account for these arguments reasonably well. So if you want to propose some extra tax on wealth, it had better be based on something tangible. And it just doesn't seem to me that this is true of what's being proposed wrt. the U.S.
      - Retric 7y ago
        First, Art and collectibles are also given preferential tax treatment and have no kinds of double taxation. Anyway, unrealized capital gains are untaxed as they compound, which might be ok except inheritance and gifts under 10m for couples are also untaxed creating a giant loophole allowing for very low lifetime tax rates. It’s the same issues as companies keeping giant piles of cash offshore rather than issuing dividends. Tax loopholes create economic issues which a low AMT actually helps smooth out without creating excessive burdens. Another solution is to tax all capital gains and have an investment tax break of some kind, which allows earned income to be invested without excessive taxation relative to capital gains. PS: Couples being assumed as people have 2 parents.
- hash872 7y ago
  1. Changing how campaign contributions/PACs function seems like a more reasonable way to change this than simply pursing a quasi-communist means of dragging wealthy people down, in the hopes that with less money they'll have less influence over the political system. I'm kind of sympathetic to 'wealth taxes will give us more income for programs to better society', but when it turns out to outright retributive 'taking money away from some people is an aim in and of itself', I get pretty concerned. No societies that are explicitly & punitively about punishing the wealthy seem to function particularly well 2. If wealthy people like the Koch brothers are going to be taxed anyways, they may spend more of their wealth on campaign contributions simply because they'll lose the money either way. If it's 'use it or lose it', why not keep spending more on dark money PACs or whatever?
- larnmar 7y ago
  So should we tax people based on their political power? A heavily-read blogger might have thousands of times more ability to affect the political landscape than an eccentric billionaire. If you were to do a scatter plot between wealth and ability to affect the political landscape I believe you’d find they were correlated but not that heavily; the things that give you political pull include charisma, eloquence, and gregariousness. If we are concerned with cancelling out the ability of the wealthy to influence politics should we not also be doing something about charismatic individuals?
crazygringo 7y ago
Is there a tl;dr or any context whatsoever? There's absolutely no introduction or conclusion to this article that tells me what the author is trying to explain, or what angle he's taking or why. Also this is "part II" of a 3-part article... I'm curious if there's a reason I'm missing as to why this is being submitted instead of parts I or III? I'm just 100% lost here... :S If anyone could help explain the context for this submission, it would be much appreciated.
rayiner 7y ago
This criticism of Saez and Zucman is extremely important. The media has latched onto their studies because it fits certain talking points. But their conclusions are far from universally accepted among economists. More importantly, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, you have to appreciate that these measurements are not simple, and are based on choices that are not obvious. Saez and Zucman, for example, exclude transfer income like the earned income tax credit from income. Under their methodology, even a very redistributionist economy, such as one with a high guaranteed minimum income, would look unequal because those transfer payments aren’t included in income. How you measure things changes the results. Measuring pre-tax income shows inequality growing. Measuring income after taxes and transfers shows it growing slower. Measuring consumption shows it more or less stable since the 1960s: https://voxeu.org/article/consumption-and-income-inequality-us-1960s https://voxeu.org/article/consumption-and-income-inequality-.... There are good reasons to consider each of these measures. (Though I’d argue that measuring consumption is the most relevant to every day well being.)
lend000 7y ago
There are definitely problems with most wealth tax proposals, but I think the author understates the generational differences in opportunity that emerge from massive wealth inequality. As I stated in another thread, perhaps the best solution would be to combine the two for a wealth-based income tax. If you're already worth 20M, should you be paying a higher rate on your 500k in interest than if you just sold your first company for 500k and previously had nothing? I think that's a reasonable way to address income inequality in the long run without forcing people to liquidate assets, especially those like Elon Musk who have most of their wealth tied into companies they actively manage or people whose entire net worth is tied up in historical family properties. The current system is broken, but mostly because the income/capital gains tax/AMT need to be graduated on a far different system than today. Right now, making 510k places a single person in the top federal tax bracket, while there are people making 10,000 times that some years. If there isn't a high bracket that is rarely achieved in practice (10B+/year for example), then the brackets are probably broken. Right now we have a sharp cliff where it is very difficult to become a millionaire, but once you get a few million it becomes far easier to multiply wealth.
- vearwhershuh 7y ago
  Until we address the monetary system I don't see how much else matters in restraining the elites. Generational wealth will just move even more so into non-taxable things like art, favors, interlocking directorships, foundations and so forth. I'd like to see a georgist tax regime[1] and monetary expansion managed via a citizens dividend. But the current monetary system will only be pried from the cold-dead hands of our elites, so I'm not optimistic. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
  - lend000 7y ago
    Georgism is an interesting approach to what could be handled by externality taxes in capitalism, but it seems like it would have challenges attaining accurate price discovery of naturally derived resources. Regardless, I think the obvious flaws in our current system make a very big difference and should be addressed, rather than holding out for a utopian pipe dream.
forrestthewoods 7y ago
Question for the group. Working backwards, what percent of GDP do you think should be taxed by the local+state+federal government? Relatedly, what % of GDP should be spent by the government each year? Right now the US spends 36% and taxes 32%. That.. seems pretty reasonable to me? Maybe a little high tbh. I definitely don't think the government should be spending more than 50%. I'm curious what other folks think. Working backwards, what should total spending/taxes look like? Then how do you get there?
whiddershins 7y ago
Tax income over a longer time window, and you get closer to a wealth tax without all the problems. The longer the time window, the more it is a wealth tax.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  If you're going to do that, why not tax consumption instead? And do note, you can have a progressive consumption tax. It doesn't have to be a burden on the worst off.
yonran 7y ago
John Cochrane makes some very good points on measurement errors by Saez and Zucman and how much of what they're measuring is actually reduced interest rates. I wish that progressives used a similar framework that they did 100 years ago--to tax unearned income (land rents, monopolies, windfalls) while encouraging earned income. If you care about unearned vs earned income, then it does make sense to try to tax the asset holders whose assets ballooned in value due to reduced interest rates over the past decade.

49 points by deafcalculus 7y ago

Option one. $400,000 retirement. Purchase BTC, claim a loss after it moves down even 0.03% in most places of the world, move to bermuda, convert BTC to Bermudian dollar, pay 0% income and 0% federal tax. Purchase property, enjoy golf courses and beaches all day. Option two. $350,000 retirement. Go to Thailand, get a beach house, and live off the currency conversion rate, enjoy the beach. Option three. Personal favorite. $900,000 Leverage XAU/USD based on fundumentals alone at 70x leverage in week long swing trades, averages per trend about $10k a week per $100k on 70x leverage. (PrimeXBT is a great low fee place) Other fantastic investments are buying vending machines and putting them in laundromats, cost $3,200 for one and to stock it and they average $600 a month. Buy a functional AirBNB with a loan. Sources to look at, Robert Kiyosaki's 4 business quadrants. Remember, wealth does not have to be a number, its not all about money, its about freedom. Best of luck from a BTC millionaire, ~wolf

whiteeyedwolf 7y ago
The downvotes on this are pretty funny, the highlight? I'm relaxing on a beach, you are not XD

Retric 7y ago

This completely misses the political angle. Someone with 1 billion in liquid assets can affect the political landscape more than 1,000 people with 1,000,000$ in assets. Similarly to how someone making 50 million per year has more than 1000x the disposable income of someone making 50k/year. That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth.

war1025 7y ago
> This completely misses the political angle. The political angle that your comment does play to is the reason why many people find the "income inequality" argument rings hollow. The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda. Often the people on the picket lines are in the income classes of the "doctors" in your example. Sure they don't have near the influence of a robber baron, but they're worlds ahead of a lowly immigrant landscaper.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  > The piss-poor are too caught up trying to survive to have much of a political agenda. With all due respect I don’t think this is true. Besides, as income level goes up, people are more likely to be a blue voter than a red voter[1], a fact people have a hard time believing. Arguably 2016 was the poor, lower middle class (one of the least represented demographics in America) rising up and rejecting globalism. They affected change, was it not the kind that you expected? After all, what class do people think the “deplorables” are? A bunch of rich dentists? 1. https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/ https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identific...
  - war1025 7y ago
    > as income level goes up, people are more likely to be a blue voter than a red voter That's precisely my point. Income inequality is a Democrat talking point.
    - bronco21016 7y ago
      Are you mixing up red vs blue? I think most people tend to assume that as ones income increases they’re less in favor of a tax system that decreases income inequality.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    What figures are you intending to quote from your link? I was surprised by your comment as I'd seen data showing that Obama Vs Romney had a clear trend of richer people voting Republican (the crossover point was around 70K). I knew educated people had swung towards Clinton and away from Trump, but I didn't think it was enough to change that overall result. Looking at your source, the family income section seems to agree with my assumptions. Am I missing something? Edit: I see there's a small blip in the detailed family income above 150,000 for combined dem/lean dem (though more identify as republican than democrat)
HarryHirsch 7y ago
Of course he misses the political angle, if he discussed it, soon enough people would clamour for the revolution. There is William Hinton's book Fanshen, a personal account of the author of the Chinese revolution in a rural village. One of the early chapters describes the struggle for power, and how money is converted into power. It's recommended reading, you don't have to agree with his political opinion, but it does give the backstory.
rayiner 7y ago
> That’s what’s corrosive about wealth inequality. It’s why the marginal tax rate declines at very high incomes. It’s not about doctors vs landscapers because doctors don’t have political power relating to wealth. Tax rates decrease at the very top of the income spectrum because our tax codes make a deliberate choice to preferentially tax investments and capital gains. You’re assuming that choice is the result of “corrosive” factors, namely the wealthy having more political power. But that’s a loaded assumption. Most economists agree that preferential tax rates on capital gains is better for the economy. That’s why almost every tax code in the developed world has that feature. I don’t think you can just assume the only reason for that is the super wealthy having disproportionate political power.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  Already the Brookings Institution (center, center-left, center-right, depending whom you ask) disagrees: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lower-tax-rate-capital-gains https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lo...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Brookings tends to be mainstream American Democrat, which on tax issues is solidly to the left of the developed world consensus. (The US is the highest in the OECD for how much of tax revenue it derives from progressive taxes. Democrats are seriously proposing wealth taxes, which are unusual in Europe and were recently eliminated in France and Sweden.) Here is an interesting article on NPR on a politically diverse set of economists agreeing that corporate and income taxes should be eliminated: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-....
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      That NPR article is a very strange collection. # 2: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Right now, large employers receive a group discount from whatever insurance provider they choose. So to bring down healthcare costs in the US, which are 4 times that of the civilized world, this motley crew of economists suggests to eliminate the group discount. That'll work. # 3: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Yes, Joe Plumber's firm pays corporate tax in PA, but any multinational with a decent lawyer pays no tax anywhere. Incorporate in Bermuda, license the IP. In the interest of fairness one could abolish corporate tax, but one could also come down on tax oases. Why isn't that even suggested? # 4: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes We are supposed to have a consumption tax instead. The wealthier you are, the more likely are to invest. Less wealthy people do not have that luxury, what comes in goes out that month. It seems to be an attempt to shift the tax burden away form the politically connected class. It's not convincing at all, there's too many aspects missing from the discussion to be taken seriously.
zozbot234 7y ago
The article is definitely not "missing" the political angle; that part is addressed. The point is that it's indeed a question about politics, not economics. By advocating that people having 1 billion in assets should have some of their assets taxed away, you're essentially saying that our political processes are so screwy that on average, someone with say, 1 billion in assets can be expected to use the flaws of our political processes to inflict real, actual damages on the order of, say, $100M on third parties (compared to the most feasible alternative outcome) and that they should be paying restitution for those expected damages. While this may be in fact an appropriate description of a number of countries outside the highly-developed West, it definitely doesn't describe, say, Western Europe, or even the U.S.! Our current President is an exceptional case, he's nowhere close to the norm of all billionaires, and policy should not be set as if he was.
- delusional 7y ago
  Why does a tax have to be proportional to "real, actual damages"?
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    I'm not saying that all taxes have to be like this. There are other possible arguments for taxing assets, despite the fact that, prima facie, any tax on assets is double taxation and quite highly distortionary of the economy (far more than, e.g. taxes on pure rents, consumption taxes or taxes on labor income). But our existing taxes tend to account for these arguments reasonably well. So if you want to propose some extra tax on wealth, it had better be based on something tangible. And it just doesn't seem to me that this is true of what's being proposed wrt. the U.S.
    - Retric 7y ago
      First, Art and collectibles are also given preferential tax treatment and have no kinds of double taxation. Anyway, unrealized capital gains are untaxed as they compound, which might be ok except inheritance and gifts under 10m for couples are also untaxed creating a giant loophole allowing for very low lifetime tax rates. It’s the same issues as companies keeping giant piles of cash offshore rather than issuing dividends. Tax loopholes create economic issues which a low AMT actually helps smooth out without creating excessive burdens. Another solution is to tax all capital gains and have an investment tax break of some kind, which allows earned income to be invested without excessive taxation relative to capital gains. PS: Couples being assumed as people have 2 parents.
hash872 7y ago
1. Changing how campaign contributions/PACs function seems like a more reasonable way to change this than simply pursing a quasi-communist means of dragging wealthy people down, in the hopes that with less money they'll have less influence over the political system. I'm kind of sympathetic to 'wealth taxes will give us more income for programs to better society', but when it turns out to outright retributive 'taking money away from some people is an aim in and of itself', I get pretty concerned. No societies that are explicitly & punitively about punishing the wealthy seem to function particularly well 2. If wealthy people like the Koch brothers are going to be taxed anyways, they may spend more of their wealth on campaign contributions simply because they'll lose the money either way. If it's 'use it or lose it', why not keep spending more on dark money PACs or whatever?
larnmar 7y ago
So should we tax people based on their political power? A heavily-read blogger might have thousands of times more ability to affect the political landscape than an eccentric billionaire. If you were to do a scatter plot between wealth and ability to affect the political landscape I believe you’d find they were correlated but not that heavily; the things that give you political pull include charisma, eloquence, and gregariousness. If we are concerned with cancelling out the ability of the wealthy to influence politics should we not also be doing something about charismatic individuals?

crazygringo 7y ago

Is there a tl;dr or any context whatsoever? There's absolutely no introduction or conclusion to this article that tells me what the author is trying to explain, or what angle he's taking or why. Also this is "part II" of a 3-part article... I'm curious if there's a reason I'm missing as to why this is being submitted instead of parts I or III? I'm just 100% lost here... :S If anyone could help explain the context for this submission, it would be much appreciated.

rayiner 7y ago

This criticism of Saez and Zucman is extremely important. The media has latched onto their studies because it fits certain talking points. But their conclusions are far from universally accepted among economists. More importantly, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, you have to appreciate that these measurements are not simple, and are based on choices that are not obvious. Saez and Zucman, for example, exclude transfer income like the earned income tax credit from income. Under their methodology, even a very redistributionist economy, such as one with a high guaranteed minimum income, would look unequal because those transfer payments aren’t included in income. How you measure things changes the results. Measuring pre-tax income shows inequality growing. Measuring income after taxes and transfers shows it growing slower. Measuring consumption shows it more or less stable since the 1960s: https://voxeu.org/article/consumption-and-income-inequality-us-1960s https://voxeu.org/article/consumption-and-income-inequality-.... There are good reasons to consider each of these measures. (Though I’d argue that measuring consumption is the most relevant to every day well being.)

lend000 7y ago

There are definitely problems with most wealth tax proposals, but I think the author understates the generational differences in opportunity that emerge from massive wealth inequality. As I stated in another thread, perhaps the best solution would be to combine the two for a wealth-based income tax. If you're already worth 20M, should you be paying a higher rate on your 500k in interest than if you just sold your first company for 500k and previously had nothing? I think that's a reasonable way to address income inequality in the long run without forcing people to liquidate assets, especially those like Elon Musk who have most of their wealth tied into companies they actively manage or people whose entire net worth is tied up in historical family properties. The current system is broken, but mostly because the income/capital gains tax/AMT need to be graduated on a far different system than today. Right now, making 510k places a single person in the top federal tax bracket, while there are people making 10,000 times that some years. If there isn't a high bracket that is rarely achieved in practice (10B+/year for example), then the brackets are probably broken. Right now we have a sharp cliff where it is very difficult to become a millionaire, but once you get a few million it becomes far easier to multiply wealth.

vearwhershuh 7y ago
Until we address the monetary system I don't see how much else matters in restraining the elites. Generational wealth will just move even more so into non-taxable things like art, favors, interlocking directorships, foundations and so forth. I'd like to see a georgist tax regime[1] and monetary expansion managed via a citizens dividend. But the current monetary system will only be pried from the cold-dead hands of our elites, so I'm not optimistic. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- lend000 7y ago
  Georgism is an interesting approach to what could be handled by externality taxes in capitalism, but it seems like it would have challenges attaining accurate price discovery of naturally derived resources. Regardless, I think the obvious flaws in our current system make a very big difference and should be addressed, rather than holding out for a utopian pipe dream.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

Question for the group. Working backwards, what percent of GDP do you think should be taxed by the local+state+federal government? Relatedly, what % of GDP should be spent by the government each year? Right now the US spends 36% and taxes 32%. That.. seems pretty reasonable to me? Maybe a little high tbh. I definitely don't think the government should be spending more than 50%. I'm curious what other folks think. Working backwards, what should total spending/taxes look like? Then how do you get there?

whiddershins 7y ago

Tax income over a longer time window, and you get closer to a wealth tax without all the problems. The longer the time window, the more it is a wealth tax.

zozbot234 7y ago
If you're going to do that, why not tax consumption instead? And do note, you can have a progressive consumption tax. It doesn't have to be a burden on the worst off.

yonran 7y ago

John Cochrane makes some very good points on measurement errors by Saez and Zucman and how much of what they're measuring is actually reduced interest rates. I wish that progressives used a similar framework that they did 100 years ago--to tax unearned income (land rents, monopolies, windfalls) while encouraging earned income. If you care about unearned vs earned income, then it does make sense to try to tax the asset holders whose assets ballooned in value due to reduced interest rates over the past decade.