5 ms·

Parent's "wealth for all" does not mean "wealth for each." Of course taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than th

Parent's "wealth for all" does not mean "wealth for each." Of course taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise, which is why they tend not do do so voluntarily. However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation?

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
A lot of these arguments also tend to elide the fact that even under the most "extreme" tax structures in place or being proposed in first-world democracies across the globe, wealthy people are still wealthy even with those taxes. In practice, no one serious is actually talking about forcing Bill Gates to give up all his money so it can be apportioned equally to every American citizen. If Gates had to pay an annual wealth tax of 2%, started with $90B (the most recent estimate of his net worth I can find), and made $2B a year (which is less than the most recent estimate of his annual wealth increase I can find), then after 20 years he would have... $93B. I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry."
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry." First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Second, as you said, it's the principle. I've got an objection to seizing people's stuff to then give away to others. There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving.
  - bandushrew 7y ago
    That is objectively wrong though, isn't it? The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes. If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately. What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it. Think of it as a reality based discussion.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Unfortunately, governments do indeed steal stuff all the time. That's why it needs to be as hyper-local as possible and why citizens should own military-grade arms. I think our arguments are jousting without clashing, so to speak, because I'm making a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.
      - bandushrew 7y ago
        Im not sure you have thought through the consequences of citizens owning military grade arms. It (arguably) removes the government as a threat, but replaces the threat with other citizens. It seems to me that history teaches that in the absence of a strong government, people are taxed by whoever is capable of becoming a strong local warlord. Somalia or South Sudan would be current examples. Im not sure how that is better?
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    > First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. > If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. The number of first-world multimillionaires brutally gunned down by federal agents because they underpaid their tax is indeed countless. I hear this is a real problem in Denmark. > This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving. Living in a society is quite a tragedy.
blackflame7000 7y ago
>taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise No taxing the wealthiest results in the wealthiest moving their capital investments elsewhere.
- Rury 7y ago
  If that's the case, then why don't we see capital always rushing to countries that have the lowest tax rates? Last I checked Japan has lots of capital investment, a large economy, a substantial wealthy class, and yet a high tax rate...
- dTal 7y ago
  This seems like an easily solvable problem, frankly. Gazillionaires don't tend to want to live in the tax havens they store their gazillions in because (surprise) they tend to be shitholes. So you just tax the movement of money in and out of the country - money is pointless if you can't spend it. The reason this isn't done isn't because it's hard, it's because the foxes are running the chicken coop.
GreenJelloShot 7y ago
> However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation? So basically it's ok to sacrifice the minority, as long as it benefits the majority, huh?
- ric2b 7y ago
  Not much of a sacrifice when it's just a higher tax rate.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

A lot of these arguments also tend to elide the fact that even under the most "extreme" tax structures in place or being proposed in first-world democracies across the globe, wealthy people are still wealthy even with those taxes. In practice, no one serious is actually talking about forcing Bill Gates to give up all his money so it can be apportioned equally to every American citizen. If Gates had to pay an annual wealth tax of 2%, started with $90B (the most recent estimate of his net worth I can find), and made $2B a year (which is less than the most recent estimate of his annual wealth increase I can find), then after 20 years he would have... $93B. I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry."

big_chungus 7y ago
> I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry." First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Second, as you said, it's the principle. I've got an objection to seizing people's stuff to then give away to others. There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving.
- bandushrew 7y ago
  That is objectively wrong though, isn't it? The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes. If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately. What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it. Think of it as a reality based discussion.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Unfortunately, governments do indeed steal stuff all the time. That's why it needs to be as hyper-local as possible and why citizens should own military-grade arms. I think our arguments are jousting without clashing, so to speak, because I'm making a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.
    - bandushrew 7y ago
      Im not sure you have thought through the consequences of citizens owning military grade arms. It (arguably) removes the government as a threat, but replaces the threat with other citizens. It seems to me that history teaches that in the absence of a strong government, people are taxed by whoever is capable of becoming a strong local warlord. Somalia or South Sudan would be current examples. Im not sure how that is better?
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. > If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. The number of first-world multimillionaires brutally gunned down by federal agents because they underpaid their tax is indeed countless. I hear this is a real problem in Denmark. > This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving. Living in a society is quite a tragedy.

blackflame7000 7y ago

>taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise No taxing the wealthiest results in the wealthiest moving their capital investments elsewhere.

Rury 7y ago
If that's the case, then why don't we see capital always rushing to countries that have the lowest tax rates? Last I checked Japan has lots of capital investment, a large economy, a substantial wealthy class, and yet a high tax rate...
dTal 7y ago
This seems like an easily solvable problem, frankly. Gazillionaires don't tend to want to live in the tax havens they store their gazillions in because (surprise) they tend to be shitholes. So you just tax the movement of money in and out of the country - money is pointless if you can't spend it. The reason this isn't done isn't because it's hard, it's because the foxes are running the chicken coop.

GreenJelloShot 7y ago

> However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfish instincts to the betterment of the nation? So basically it's ok to sacrifice the minority, as long as it benefits the majority, huh?

ric2b 7y ago
Not much of a sacrifice when it's just a higher tax rate.