3 ms·

> Which means billionaires will be incented to save or invest a lot less, and consume a lot more of their wealth since they're going to lose it either way. Tha

by jorams 6y ago

> Which means billionaires will be incented to save or invest a lot less, and consume a lot more of their wealth since they're going to lose it either way. That's the goal. The idea is that society doesn't need billionaires, so you force them to get rid of their wealth. Either through taxation, or by spending it on things that benefit others.

zozbot234 6y ago
Interesting question there - do Larry Ellison's yachts "benefit others"? (And i mean beyond the immediate effect of "spending money". We should always keep in mind that opportunity cost is a thing, and that investment involves plenty of "spending" and economic activity of its own.)
- bialpio 6y ago
  They do. He's paying sales tax to buy them, he's paying for the wages for people that built then. Consumption is when the money starts to trickle down. I think I'd be ok with forcing super-rich to spend their money or taxing then above some level. Let's make the limit somewhere around GDP of a smaller European country (Slovakia - ~105bn, Ukraine - ~140bn) & tax above that.
- jorams 6y ago
  > do Larry Ellison's yachts "benefit others"? (And i mean beyond the immediate effect of "spending money". I don't think that's a useful question, though the answer is generally no. Yachts, or more generally pleasure craft, are a form of entertainment. The owner spends large and ever-growing amounts of money, funding other people's lives, in exchange for some kind of fun for themselves and their immediate circle. Larry Ellison could certainly make them benefit others by, say, using them to provide housing for the homeless, but that's not a part of the primary equation. > We should always keep in mind that opportunity cost is a thing, and that investment involves plenty of "spending" and economic activity of its own.) The economic activity of moving around vast sums of money benefits very few people, and those are generally not the people working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. That's the reason people want a wealth tax: concentrating wealth to such an extent benefits almost nobody.
  - dpoochieni 6y ago
    "funding other people's lives" is not enough? When the shipbuilder fires people, and the engine maker fires people and Larry fires the maintenance people who will fund them?
    - jorams 6y ago
      I do think it's enough. My point was that excluding money from the question is not useful, because buying a yacht is explicitly an exchange of money for entertainment.
chasd00 6y ago
"The idea is that society doesn't need billionaires" so when was the vote to declare that the line in the sand? what about millionaires? Let me guess, there are enough millionaires now that it's too big of a group to make an enemy out of. You can't say society doesn't need millionaires because there's enough that maybe someone's friend or family is a millionaire and will think "..wait a minute, that doesn't seem right". Flip it around and give the 0.01% poorest people the same treatment, society certainly doesn't need the poorest of the poor either. It makes about as much sense.
- jorams 6y ago
  > Flip it around and give the 0.01% poorest people the same treatment, society certainly doesn't need the poorest of the poor either. It makes about as much sense. Again, that's the goal. There was no vote to declare a line at 1 billion, because nobody cares about the exact number. The goal of measures like this is to reduce inequality.

by jorams 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago

Interesting question there - do Larry Ellison's yachts "benefit others"? (And i mean beyond the immediate effect of "spending money". We should always keep in mind that opportunity cost is a thing, and that investment involves plenty of "spending" and economic activity of its own.)

bialpio 6y ago
They do. He's paying sales tax to buy them, he's paying for the wages for people that built then. Consumption is when the money starts to trickle down. I think I'd be ok with forcing super-rich to spend their money or taxing then above some level. Let's make the limit somewhere around GDP of a smaller European country (Slovakia - ~105bn, Ukraine - ~140bn) & tax above that.
jorams 6y ago
> do Larry Ellison's yachts "benefit others"? (And i mean beyond the immediate effect of "spending money". I don't think that's a useful question, though the answer is generally no. Yachts, or more generally pleasure craft, are a form of entertainment. The owner spends large and ever-growing amounts of money, funding other people's lives, in exchange for some kind of fun for themselves and their immediate circle. Larry Ellison could certainly make them benefit others by, say, using them to provide housing for the homeless, but that's not a part of the primary equation. > We should always keep in mind that opportunity cost is a thing, and that investment involves plenty of "spending" and economic activity of its own.) The economic activity of moving around vast sums of money benefits very few people, and those are generally not the people working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. That's the reason people want a wealth tax: concentrating wealth to such an extent benefits almost nobody.
- dpoochieni 6y ago
  "funding other people's lives" is not enough? When the shipbuilder fires people, and the engine maker fires people and Larry fires the maintenance people who will fund them?
  - jorams 6y ago
    I do think it's enough. My point was that excluding money from the question is not useful, because buying a yacht is explicitly an exchange of money for entertainment.

chasd00 6y ago

"The idea is that society doesn't need billionaires" so when was the vote to declare that the line in the sand? what about millionaires? Let me guess, there are enough millionaires now that it's too big of a group to make an enemy out of. You can't say society doesn't need millionaires because there's enough that maybe someone's friend or family is a millionaire and will think "..wait a minute, that doesn't seem right". Flip it around and give the 0.01% poorest people the same treatment, society certainly doesn't need the poorest of the poor either. It makes about as much sense.

jorams 6y ago
> Flip it around and give the 0.01% poorest people the same treatment, society certainly doesn't need the poorest of the poor either. It makes about as much sense. Again, that's the goal. There was no vote to declare a line at 1 billion, because nobody cares about the exact number. The goal of measures like this is to reduce inequality.