4 ms·

Definitely. There's a conversation to be had about which billionaires do we want. Most Americans have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates [0], but not Jeff Bezos

Definitely. There's a conversation to be had about which billionaires do we want. Most Americans have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates [0], but not Jeff Bezos [1]. And there's good arguments for having large-scale philanthropic efforts be semi-privatized. A "punitive tax on interest income" is popular with the left because it is, on paper, very progressive and avoids taxing the poor. But in truth, I don't think people actually want fewer billionaires, they just don't want aristocratic billionaires. It also doesn't help that it's so unclear what the money would be spent on. [0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Bill_Gates https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figu... [1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Jeff_Bezos https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figu...

zozbot234 6y ago
A mildly-punitive tax on high levels of personal consumption (including imputed consumption. such as business owners using business assets for private use, etc.) would seem to be a lot less distortionary and more socially-beneficial than a punitive tax on wealth, and just as politically sensible. What it doesn't have, unfortunately, is the raw appeal of soundbites like "soak the rich!" and "you didn't build that!".
- codekansas 6y ago
  There's a cool related video of Greg Mankiw [0]. He talked about two "redistribution" schemes: 1. $1000 per month to those with zero income, phased out at 20c / dollar extra income, financed by 20% tax on all income above $60k 2. Transfer of $1000 per month to everyone, financed by 20% flat tax on income Apparently a group of Harvard students he asked were strongly in favor of the former, without realizing that the two plans are equivalent. It's all about framing. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc
dpoochieni 6y ago
That's just who has better PR (been longer at it)

zozbot234 6y ago

A mildly-punitive tax on high levels of personal consumption (including imputed consumption. such as business owners using business assets for private use, etc.) would seem to be a lot less distortionary and more socially-beneficial than a punitive tax on wealth, and just as politically sensible. What it doesn't have, unfortunately, is the raw appeal of soundbites like "soak the rich!" and "you didn't build that!".

codekansas 6y ago
There's a cool related video of Greg Mankiw [0]. He talked about two "redistribution" schemes: 1. $1000 per month to those with zero income, phased out at 20c / dollar extra income, financed by 20% tax on all income above $60k 2. Transfer of $1000 per month to everyone, financed by 20% flat tax on income Apparently a group of Harvard students he asked were strongly in favor of the former, without realizing that the two plans are equivalent. It's all about framing. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc

dpoochieni 6y ago

That's just who has better PR (been longer at it)