5 ms·

This is so simplistic. Favorably simplistic. Think about it this way, in a very similar, live example: It is common practice to pay a fee of 0.5-2% to a wealt

This is so simplistic. Favorably simplistic. Think about it this way, in a very similar, live example: It is common practice to pay a fee of 0.5-2% to a wealth manager. In practice for many people this fee is worthwhile and wonderful - the benefit is a safely managed and vigorously growing pool of assets. Is a wealth tax as described by the author really so different? In one case you pay a fee to the manager, in the other case you pay the fee to a more abstract/distant manager (the social system). In both cases, that small fee (small if everyone is generally competent and the wealth grows) is what empowers further growth. No sane, logical person complains about paying $0.20 when in return they get an extra $0.30 back. In this case, I suspect the author is trying to justify receiving that hypothetical $0.30 without having contributed their initial $0.20. Embarrassingly simplistic, selfish, and self-centered. Reading that blog post, I’m reminded of the occasional, deluded person who believes that they alone are responsible for their successes and good fortune. In reality, all successes are collective accomplishments. This is a fundamental fact about human life.

misun78 6y ago
I can easily fire my asset manager, or switch to a plethora of low cost options, or manage my capital myself. How exactly will I have those options with the wealth tax if you like you said, I’m not getting that rate of return justifying the tax?
- leafmeal 6y ago
  If you're a citizen of a country, you automatically get all of the benefits that come with it: personal safety, transportation networks, infrastructure, etc.—all things that enable your business to be successful. Since you can't opt out of these benefits (without leaving the country), it makes sense that you shouldn't be able to opt out of their cost.
- arthurofbabylon 6y ago
  You won't. Sorry, but people shouldn't be able to just fire their entire society as they would a wealth manager. On second thought, I suppose you could vote or otherwise participate in politics.
  - daseiner1 6y ago
    But let me guess, it’d be immoral for parent commenter to use their wealth to participate in politics?
imgabe 6y ago
> It is common practice to pay a fee of 0.5-2% to a wealth manager. In practice for many people this fee is worthwhile and wonderful - the benefit is a safely managed and vigorously growing pool of assets. You pay that fee because the manager supposedly does something that helps your wealth grow faster than their fee. When Vanguard comes along and shows you can get the same or even better returns with a 0.04% fee instead of a 2% fee, what happens? People take their money and move to where the lower fee is. Why would it be any different for a wealth tax?
- marakv2 6y ago
  Because society helps you grow your wealth faster. Better trained workers, happy and healthy workers, a functional medical system. These are things that help your business create more wealth. As the grandfather comment said, it's wanting the 30c bonus without paying the 20c fee.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Society may make wealth in general grow faster, there is no guarantee that it will help your specific wealth grow faster. You pay a wealth manager because they manage your wealth, specifically. They examine what opportunities are suitable for you based on your goals and risk profile and seek those out. "Society" doesn't do anything like that. Let alone the fact that you are already paying taxes: income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. etc. to pay for all of the benefits that society provides. If the wealth tax is going to replace some of those, then sure maybe we can talk about whether it's more efficient or effective than any of those. If we're just going to keep piling on tax after tax "because society" maybe we should ask if society needs to get its act together and use the tax revenue it already gets more efficiently.
    - mdorazio 6y ago
      1) Your reasoning, even if potentially valid (I don't think it is) is incredibly selfish and leads to the exact scenario of rising inequality that we have today. 2) Social benefits accrue to everyone, including wealthy people. They just accrue equally to everyone rather than unequally to your specific wealth. That's an important distinction here because you're basically saying you should get favoritism for your wealth because you happen to have more of it. That's a bit of a weird stance. 3) In case it's not clear, the US doesn't currently collect enough tax revenue to actually pay for a well-functioning society. Take a look at [1]. If you want a first-world society on par with Denmark or Sweden, guess what... [1] https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues
arthurofbabylon 6y ago
Thinking more about this and taking the wealth manager analogy deeper... In the case of a wealth tax, I imagine wealthy, powerful people would play a more active role in ensuring the competence of their elected officials. They'd like that tax they're paying to go a long, long way, much as clients expect their fees to a wealth manager to facilitate the best possible work.

misun78 6y ago

I can easily fire my asset manager, or switch to a plethora of low cost options, or manage my capital myself. How exactly will I have those options with the wealth tax if you like you said, I’m not getting that rate of return justifying the tax?

leafmeal 6y ago
If you're a citizen of a country, you automatically get all of the benefits that come with it: personal safety, transportation networks, infrastructure, etc.—all things that enable your business to be successful. Since you can't opt out of these benefits (without leaving the country), it makes sense that you shouldn't be able to opt out of their cost.
arthurofbabylon 6y ago
You won't. Sorry, but people shouldn't be able to just fire their entire society as they would a wealth manager. On second thought, I suppose you could vote or otherwise participate in politics.
- daseiner1 6y ago
  But let me guess, it’d be immoral for parent commenter to use their wealth to participate in politics?

imgabe 6y ago

> It is common practice to pay a fee of 0.5-2% to a wealth manager. In practice for many people this fee is worthwhile and wonderful - the benefit is a safely managed and vigorously growing pool of assets. You pay that fee because the manager supposedly does something that helps your wealth grow faster than their fee. When Vanguard comes along and shows you can get the same or even better returns with a 0.04% fee instead of a 2% fee, what happens? People take their money and move to where the lower fee is. Why would it be any different for a wealth tax?

marakv2 6y ago
Because society helps you grow your wealth faster. Better trained workers, happy and healthy workers, a functional medical system. These are things that help your business create more wealth. As the grandfather comment said, it's wanting the 30c bonus without paying the 20c fee.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Society may make wealth in general grow faster, there is no guarantee that it will help your specific wealth grow faster. You pay a wealth manager because they manage your wealth, specifically. They examine what opportunities are suitable for you based on your goals and risk profile and seek those out. "Society" doesn't do anything like that. Let alone the fact that you are already paying taxes: income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. etc. to pay for all of the benefits that society provides. If the wealth tax is going to replace some of those, then sure maybe we can talk about whether it's more efficient or effective than any of those. If we're just going to keep piling on tax after tax "because society" maybe we should ask if society needs to get its act together and use the tax revenue it already gets more efficiently.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    1) Your reasoning, even if potentially valid (I don't think it is) is incredibly selfish and leads to the exact scenario of rising inequality that we have today. 2) Social benefits accrue to everyone, including wealthy people. They just accrue equally to everyone rather than unequally to your specific wealth. That's an important distinction here because you're basically saying you should get favoritism for your wealth because you happen to have more of it. That's a bit of a weird stance. 3) In case it's not clear, the US doesn't currently collect enough tax revenue to actually pay for a well-functioning society. Take a look at [1]. If you want a first-world society on par with Denmark or Sweden, guess what... [1] https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues

arthurofbabylon 6y ago

Thinking more about this and taking the wealth manager analogy deeper... In the case of a wealth tax, I imagine wealthy, powerful people would play a more active role in ensuring the competence of their elected officials. They'd like that tax they're paying to go a long, long way, much as clients expect their fees to a wealth manager to facilitate the best possible work.