3 ms·

>If you impose a wealth tax at the national level, rich people will leave America and ambitious people will never come here to begin with. America will no longe

>If you impose a wealth tax at the national level, rich people will leave America and ambitious people will never come here to begin with. America will no longer be the land of opportunity. Has this happened in Switzerland? Would it happen in the US if we had a wealth tax of 0.001%? Obviously not. It likely would if we had a wealth tax of 100%. An income tax should do more to dissuade ambitious people than a wealth tax. A wealth tax only kicks in once you've accumulated wealth, and income tax slows that accumulation in the first place. We already have a national income tax. That doesn't seem to slow down immigration. > If you study the fall of the roman empire, you will find people abandon huge estates to just start over away from roman taxes. I know that it's fashionable in some circles to compare every non libertarian move the US makes to "The fall of the Roman Empire", but honestly people can't agree on what economic lesson to take from the great depression, do you really think we are going to be able to agree on what lessons to learn from the economy of the late Western Roman Empire?

andrewtbham 6y ago
> An income tax should do more to dissuade ambitious people than a wealth tax That is wrong. I don't think you understand the power of compounding. That is the whole point of all of this... wealth compounds. Wealth taxes compound negatively. Read about Benjamin Franklin and his obsession with compounding interest. I learned it in school.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  ”negative compounding" doesn't really do anything for your argument. All else being equal, the taxes amount would go down each year. Paying a .1% weath tax on a billion dollars for 60 years is cheaper than paying a flat 100,000 per year for 60 years. Any disencentive of the wealth tax comes from paying higher taxes, not from any "compounding" of the taxes.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    >Paying a .1% weath tax on a billion dollars for 60 years is cheaper than paying a flat 100,000 per year for 60 years. Do you mean 1,000,000 a year? Because: 60 * 100,000 = 6,000,000 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 * 0.999^60 = 58,263,738 Also, keep in mind that if you want to actually have the money, you will pay the income taxes on top of that.
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      I missed a zero, but you missed the point completely. A wealth tax is simply about higher taxes for those with assets. The compounding nature of that tax reduces the taxes over time so there is nothing to complain about in terms of "compounding". This seems way less egregious than property taxes, which don't go down, are assessed regardless of how much equity the owner has, and are directed at assets that often have far less liquidity than stocks.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Yes, they compound negatively, meaning that as you are taxed, all else equal in the future you will be taxed less. And it's possible to avoid a wealth tax in easy ways.

andrewtbham 6y ago

> An income tax should do more to dissuade ambitious people than a wealth tax That is wrong. I don't think you understand the power of compounding. That is the whole point of all of this... wealth compounds. Wealth taxes compound negatively. Read about Benjamin Franklin and his obsession with compounding interest. I learned it in school.

shkkmo 6y ago
”negative compounding" doesn't really do anything for your argument. All else being equal, the taxes amount would go down each year. Paying a .1% weath tax on a billion dollars for 60 years is cheaper than paying a flat 100,000 per year for 60 years. Any disencentive of the wealth tax comes from paying higher taxes, not from any "compounding" of the taxes.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >Paying a .1% weath tax on a billion dollars for 60 years is cheaper than paying a flat 100,000 per year for 60 years. Do you mean 1,000,000 a year? Because: 60 * 100,000 = 6,000,000 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 * 0.999^60 = 58,263,738 Also, keep in mind that if you want to actually have the money, you will pay the income taxes on top of that.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    I missed a zero, but you missed the point completely. A wealth tax is simply about higher taxes for those with assets. The compounding nature of that tax reduces the taxes over time so there is nothing to complain about in terms of "compounding". This seems way less egregious than property taxes, which don't go down, are assessed regardless of how much equity the owner has, and are directed at assets that often have far less liquidity than stocks.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Yes, they compound negatively, meaning that as you are taxed, all else equal in the future you will be taxed less. And it's possible to avoid a wealth tax in easy ways.