3 ms·
"Someone's wealth should not be eroded by tax" Why not? They are paying for something. Should someone's wealth not be eroded by rent? The cost of food? Absolu
by Applejinx 6y ago
"Someone's wealth should not be eroded by tax"
Why not? They are paying for something. Should someone's wealth not be eroded by rent? The cost of food?
Absolutely someone's wealth should be eroded by tax. If they're so damn clever they'll make more. If they're not, the erosion will quickly diminish along with the wealth, making their future efforts much more significant.
Lazy shiftless wealth absolutely should be eroded. Erosion is the nice way: you can also try for the nasty way if you like.
- crispyporkbites 6y agoI think it’s hard to get people to vote for a tax that will take money they have already acquired away from them. Reducing their potential for future earnings seems a lot more realistic to me.
- erichocean 6y agoMost countries phrase it like this: you owe 30% tax on a presumed 4% gain on your 100K. That's an identical amount to a 1.2% tax on 100K, but phrased in a way that I think meets your objections.