4 ms·

This is wrong. The redistributed tax money doesn't magically disappear. Almost 100% goes back into the economy because the people receiving it actually need the

This is wrong. The redistributed tax money doesn't magically disappear. Almost 100% goes back into the economy because the people receiving it actually need the money for various things. It is much more likely that the wealthy will use the same money instead to buy another yacht or private jet, which while also providing some jobs is ultimately a net waste for society. Not that yachts should be banned, but economic policy should never encourage such spending.

nradov 6y ago
The US introduced a "luxury tax" on yachts in 1991. It was a disaster and basically killed the domestic boat industry (many jobs lost) because wealthy buyers just went offshore. A general wealth tax may be fine, but targeting particular industries like yachts is a terrible idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  Certainly, I just used yachts as an example.
- rswail 6y ago
  Which is why a wealth tax is a better approach than "penalty" taxes on yachts or jets. Would the high end suppliers of luxury items see a reduction in the very small numbers of people able to buy their top end products? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Probably no in the scheme of the entire economy or even the luxury industry affected. People downgrading from their $100m yacht to a modest $95m yacht isn't going to destroy the yacht industry.
- rockinghigh 6y ago
  There are a lot of caveats to this observation. The tax was levied during a recession, at a time when yacht sales had already declined sharply (from 16,000 in 1987 to 9,100 in 1990 for $100k+ boats).
- alexashka 6y ago
  Are you going to bemoan the job loss of pyramid builders if/when some rich schmuck decides to spend half his net worth on building a pyramid too? (A yacht is a modern pyramid) Job loss is a net positive in many cases.
  - dpoochieni 6y ago
    I cannot even begin to understand the entitlement and lack of touch of this post. Curious, how do you survive without a job?
    - alexashka 6y ago
      Jobs are not magic resource humans can't do without. Jobs are a temporary, unpleasant condition of having to do shit you'd rather not do, because some idiot schmucks decided wage slavery is a natural progression from outright slavery and serfdom. Why do I or anyone need to do unpleasant work unless it fulfills irrefutably necessary needs of my community, such as agriculture, medicine, construction of shelter, raising children etc. Building yachts, pyramids and I'd argue the majority of the 'work' being done in cities world-wide is not fulfilling communal necessities and should therefore be abandoned. This is not some pipe dream, it is an inevitable conclusion - humans don't like living in a system where their natural desires are constantly suppressed or left unfulfilled. There'll come a 'prophet' of sorts that will explain the human condition plainly and simply, explain where humans have gone wrong for thousands of years and propose viable alternatives enabled by science and technology that will seem obvious in hindsight. It will involve humans getting to be their animal selves and live simpler, happier lives, enabled by advanced science and technology that serve human needs, not individual needs of idiot schmucks with an inferiority complex.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Please explain how advanced technology will make life simpler. And if no one has a job, will that technology appear by magic?
        6y ago
neutronicus 6y ago
Well, probably another house, but yes.
giantg2 6y ago
Not really disagreeing, but you seem to be implying that the non-wealthly would use money on needs as opposed to wants and also that the money would not be used for societal waste. I think part of that's true to an extent - eg how many ovens or microwaves can one billionaire need. There are plenty of normal people who waste money on things that do not improve society, such as TVs, expensive vacations, fancy new cars, and so on instead of using that money for education, healthcare, etc or using that time for productive activities like volunteering, growing a vegetable garden, etc.
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  That's true and a fair point. I was mostly responding to the part about money not entering the economy again, I was then lazy and introduced another topic into the discussion without comparing both sides.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
It doesn't magically disappear in the same way that an incandescent lamp is 100% efficient if your goal is to heat your house as well as light it. The distinction isn't really meaningful unless you're trying to sell incandescent bulbs. Most people would consider money directed at things that don't benefit the citizens (graft, boondoggles, arguably a bunch of things on the defense budget) more than the money would have had it stayed in the hands of whoever had it in the first place. Obviously graft and pork trickles down but does it really trickle down more than a chunk of money in a bank account but does it really trickle down more than if it had been spent on a yacht? Is hand-waving away efficiency (relative to whatever goal you're spending toward) losses as some sort of under-handed welfare really something we want to accept?
OldHand2018 6y ago
> Not that yachts should be banned, but economic policy should never encourage such spending. Yachts and private jets are obvious symbols of unequal wealth, but they are also objects that require huge amounts of ongoing spending that goes into the pockets of middle class workers. Making sure a yacht or jet is ready to go when and where it is wanted requires a few full-time jobs. As strange as it may sound, I don't think economic policy should discourage such spending. Perhaps just be neutral on it?

nradov 6y ago

The US introduced a "luxury tax" on yachts in 1991. It was a disaster and basically killed the domestic boat industry (many jobs lost) because wealthy buyers just went offshore. A general wealth tax may be fine, but targeting particular industries like yachts is a terrible idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States

Swenrekcah 6y ago
Certainly, I just used yachts as an example.
rswail 6y ago
Which is why a wealth tax is a better approach than "penalty" taxes on yachts or jets. Would the high end suppliers of luxury items see a reduction in the very small numbers of people able to buy their top end products? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Probably no in the scheme of the entire economy or even the luxury industry affected. People downgrading from their $100m yacht to a modest $95m yacht isn't going to destroy the yacht industry.
rockinghigh 6y ago
There are a lot of caveats to this observation. The tax was levied during a recession, at a time when yacht sales had already declined sharply (from 16,000 in 1987 to 9,100 in 1990 for $100k+ boats).
alexashka 6y ago
Are you going to bemoan the job loss of pyramid builders if/when some rich schmuck decides to spend half his net worth on building a pyramid too? (A yacht is a modern pyramid) Job loss is a net positive in many cases.
- dpoochieni 6y ago
  I cannot even begin to understand the entitlement and lack of touch of this post. Curious, how do you survive without a job?
  - alexashka 6y ago
    Jobs are not magic resource humans can't do without. Jobs are a temporary, unpleasant condition of having to do shit you'd rather not do, because some idiot schmucks decided wage slavery is a natural progression from outright slavery and serfdom. Why do I or anyone need to do unpleasant work unless it fulfills irrefutably necessary needs of my community, such as agriculture, medicine, construction of shelter, raising children etc. Building yachts, pyramids and I'd argue the majority of the 'work' being done in cities world-wide is not fulfilling communal necessities and should therefore be abandoned. This is not some pipe dream, it is an inevitable conclusion - humans don't like living in a system where their natural desires are constantly suppressed or left unfulfilled. There'll come a 'prophet' of sorts that will explain the human condition plainly and simply, explain where humans have gone wrong for thousands of years and propose viable alternatives enabled by science and technology that will seem obvious in hindsight. It will involve humans getting to be their animal selves and live simpler, happier lives, enabled by advanced science and technology that serve human needs, not individual needs of idiot schmucks with an inferiority complex.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Please explain how advanced technology will make life simpler. And if no one has a job, will that technology appear by magic?
      - 6y ago

neutronicus 6y ago

Well, probably another house, but yes.

giantg2 6y ago

Not really disagreeing, but you seem to be implying that the non-wealthly would use money on needs as opposed to wants and also that the money would not be used for societal waste. I think part of that's true to an extent - eg how many ovens or microwaves can one billionaire need. There are plenty of normal people who waste money on things that do not improve society, such as TVs, expensive vacations, fancy new cars, and so on instead of using that money for education, healthcare, etc or using that time for productive activities like volunteering, growing a vegetable garden, etc.

Swenrekcah 6y ago
That's true and a fair point. I was mostly responding to the part about money not entering the economy again, I was then lazy and introduced another topic into the discussion without comparing both sides.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

It doesn't magically disappear in the same way that an incandescent lamp is 100% efficient if your goal is to heat your house as well as light it. The distinction isn't really meaningful unless you're trying to sell incandescent bulbs. Most people would consider money directed at things that don't benefit the citizens (graft, boondoggles, arguably a bunch of things on the defense budget) more than the money would have had it stayed in the hands of whoever had it in the first place. Obviously graft and pork trickles down but does it really trickle down more than a chunk of money in a bank account but does it really trickle down more than if it had been spent on a yacht? Is hand-waving away efficiency (relative to whatever goal you're spending toward) losses as some sort of under-handed welfare really something we want to accept?

OldHand2018 6y ago

> Not that yachts should be banned, but economic policy should never encourage such spending. Yachts and private jets are obvious symbols of unequal wealth, but they are also objects that require huge amounts of ongoing spending that goes into the pockets of middle class workers. Making sure a yacht or jet is ready to go when and where it is wanted requires a few full-time jobs. As strange as it may sound, I don't think economic policy should discourage such spending. Perhaps just be neutral on it?