5 ms·

I like that Piketty is super aggressive with some of the ideas and I generally support the idea that a baseline is set for everyone that is some kind of equaliz

I like that Piketty is super aggressive with some of the ideas and I generally support the idea that a baseline is set for everyone that is some kind of equalizer (even though it will never be perfect) that covers income/health/education. However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
> However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth. It seems straightforward to employ those versed in valuing various stores of wealth for the implementation of a wealth tax. Certainly, some assets might be more difficult to value than others (art, antiques, exotic vehicles, certain business ventures), but a value can be determined nonetheless. Real estate? Financial instruments? Effortless and automatable.
- averros 7y ago
  The "luxury goods" have all been taxed already via sales/VAT and corporate income taxes. Real estate is taxed via real estate taxes. Additionally taxing financial instruments is simply stupid: the capital gains taxes already tax them. I strongly suspect that Piketty is as ignorant of basics of tax law as he's totally ignorant of basic economics.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > art, antiques, exotic vehicles, That's what insurance company are (perhaps) for: what are they covered for? That's what you tax them at.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > That's what insurance company are (perhaps) for: what are they covered for? That's what you tax them at. There's also this idea, which could be useful for discouraging undervaluing assets for a wealth tax: the owner puts a value on the asset, and the tax authority has the option of purchasing it for that price. If someone tries to cheat the system by severely undervaluing their assets, their bluff can be quickly called.
    - foogazi 7y ago
      Why would a “tax authority” be buying property? Sounds like we are overthinking the problem and coming up with unreal scenarios
      - ardy42 7y ago
        > Why would a “tax authority” be buying property? Basically, to disincentivize under-reporting the property's value for tax purposes. Many, many business manage to get away with egregious undervaluing to avoid property taxes today. For instance (IIRC) Apple values some of its headquarters buildings at $1 for tax purposes using an egregious tax theory, and they've gotten away with it for some time. They wouldn't do that if Cupertino could literally force a sale of that building for $1, it would be too risky for them.
Barrin92 7y ago
>However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth. the radicalXChange people have revitalized a somewhat older idea, harberger taxation. The mechanism is relatively straight forward, people self-assess the value of their stuff and pay a periodical tax on it. At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity. Point being that if someone sets the price at above market rate, they're reducing allocative efficiency (by exercising monopoly power over their property) so they pay a tax. If goods are exchanged at market rate, then that improves the utilization of the property.
- kortilla 7y ago
  That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value. My home may only be worth 200k on the open market but I absolutely do not want to be forced to sell it for that (or anywhere near that) because of how disruptive that is to my life.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    > That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value yes, that's the point (or rather the other way around). Taxing you for exercising a monopoly over a property that you only like for sentimental value, while someone else might put the property to productive use if they could purchase it at market rate is exactly the desired effect. As a practical example, if you say, own a single home on a large plot of land in the middle of a city that desperately needs denser housing, then this tax imposes a cost on you if you self-assess the value highly / are unwilling to sell.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity So you start a company. In addition to all the risks of a start-up, you have to deal with having to fire selling the shop if someone questions your assessed value? What do you think would happen when a powerful entity and a less-powerful entity disagree?
  - 7y ago

toomuchtodo 7y ago

> However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth. It seems straightforward to employ those versed in valuing various stores of wealth for the implementation of a wealth tax. Certainly, some assets might be more difficult to value than others (art, antiques, exotic vehicles, certain business ventures), but a value can be determined nonetheless. Real estate? Financial instruments? Effortless and automatable.

averros 7y ago
The "luxury goods" have all been taxed already via sales/VAT and corporate income taxes. Real estate is taxed via real estate taxes. Additionally taxing financial instruments is simply stupid: the capital gains taxes already tax them. I strongly suspect that Piketty is as ignorant of basics of tax law as he's totally ignorant of basic economics.
throw0101a 7y ago
> art, antiques, exotic vehicles, That's what insurance company are (perhaps) for: what are they covered for? That's what you tax them at.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ardy42 7y ago
  > That's what insurance company are (perhaps) for: what are they covered for? That's what you tax them at. There's also this idea, which could be useful for discouraging undervaluing assets for a wealth tax: the owner puts a value on the asset, and the tax authority has the option of purchasing it for that price. If someone tries to cheat the system by severely undervaluing their assets, their bluff can be quickly called.
  - foogazi 7y ago
    Why would a “tax authority” be buying property? Sounds like we are overthinking the problem and coming up with unreal scenarios
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > Why would a “tax authority” be buying property? Basically, to disincentivize under-reporting the property's value for tax purposes. Many, many business manage to get away with egregious undervaluing to avoid property taxes today. For instance (IIRC) Apple values some of its headquarters buildings at $1 for tax purposes using an egregious tax theory, and they've gotten away with it for some time. They wouldn't do that if Cupertino could literally force a sale of that building for $1, it would be too risky for them.

Barrin92 7y ago

>However, creating a practical wealth tax seems a bit tricky especially in terms of assessing wealth. the radicalXChange people have revitalized a somewhat older idea, harberger taxation. The mechanism is relatively straight forward, people self-assess the value of their stuff and pay a periodical tax on it. At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity. Point being that if someone sets the price at above market rate, they're reducing allocative efficiency (by exercising monopoly power over their property) so they pay a tax. If goods are exchanged at market rate, then that improves the utilization of the property.

kortilla 7y ago
That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value. My home may only be worth 200k on the open market but I absolutely do not want to be forced to sell it for that (or anywhere near that) because of how disruptive that is to my life.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  > That’s dumb because it taxes people for sentimental value yes, that's the point (or rather the other way around). Taxing you for exercising a monopoly over a property that you only like for sentimental value, while someone else might put the property to productive use if they could purchase it at market rate is exactly the desired effect. As a practical example, if you say, own a single home on a large plot of land in the middle of a city that desperately needs denser housing, then this tax imposes a cost on you if you self-assess the value highly / are unwilling to sell.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> At any point in time, anyone can force the sale of said commodity So you start a company. In addition to all the risks of a start-up, you have to deal with having to fire selling the shop if someone questions your assessed value? What do you think would happen when a powerful entity and a less-powerful entity disagree?
- 7y ago