5 ms·

What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with

What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. There is a very strong case that one reason for sluggish economic growth is the concentration of assets and wealth in so few hands, and the continuing stagnation/decline in wealth/living standards/etc of bottom 40% of the US when measured in things like "healthcare", "education" etc. A redistributive wealth tax that was well structured could be a huge boon to GDP growth.

_jal 6y ago
Inequality is mortgaging the future for the comfort of the few.
astrea 6y ago
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded multi-family buildings? We all live in squalor for the sake of a few saved acres in a country with vast amounts of land?
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  Multi-family buildings != squalor It sounds like you've never been in an apartment building. Some are crappy, sure, but plenty are pretty nice or at least decent (the building, the apartments will be what the residents make of them).
  - astrea 6y ago
    I have lived in many apartment buildings; mostly why I hold this opinion. If my only aspiration for a future home for my family and myself is one where I have to deal with upstairs neighbors stopping and nextdoor neighbors with no respect for quiet hours, I would have very little to look forward to.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      I have as well, and that's why I have my opinion that they aren't squalor, at least not guaranteed. I lived in one crappy apartment when I was in college because it was dirt cheap. After I got a job, I spent maybe 20-40% more on apartments up to my last one (which cost a lot more, but was in a great location for me, walking distance to my MMA gym and all my hangout spots). None of them were crappy, I rarely heard my neighbors. And the only truly obnoxious neighbors were evicted after the police were called for a combination of noise and indecent exposure (their guests went skinny dipping in the apartment pool). I live in the suburbs now, and with regard to noise it's no better than the apartments except my first crappy apartment, and the brief time next to the obnoxious neighbors. My next door neighbors on one side are great, on the other side they're dicks and fight constantly and loudly. Across the street are two houses one with a muscle car and the other some kind of loud motorcycle, both are project vehicles. So I get to hear them revving their engines in the evening (too early to warrant filing a complaint, but still very obnoxious). There's nothing magical about apartments that make them bad, or houses that make them good. The best you could hope for with regard to general quality of life (particularly noise and pests caused by poor hygiene from your neighbors) is to live in the country hundreds of feet (at least) from neighbors with trees in between. But then you forfeit access to everything else since nothing is close without having to drive.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Yeah it was never about squalor for me, but unless you are in a million dollar condo with top notch sound proofing in every wall you will hear your neighbors at all hours and everything they do. Some people may love this, but I hate it. How do I know? I lived it the first 30 years of my life until I bought a house in the burbs. My quality of life is so much better now. No I didn't buy a McMansion. I have lived in bigger apartments, however I have space and nice solid walls between myself and neighbors and it's a huge % increase in quality of life not to hear other people's sex, family quarrels, or bad taco bell incidents at all hours.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not about taking single family homes away from people who really want one, but fighting the perception that it's the default. People in most countries (even most rich countries) live happily in multi-family buildings with much less space than the average American home. Most of those who believe their family needs 2000 square feet to be comfortable are simply mistaken - and we could build much higher-quality neighborhoods without the degree of suburban sprawl that mistake causes.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Center City Philly is squalor now? I'll take that over a SFH in Conshohocken with > 45 mins commute on the Schuylkill Expressway each way any day of the week! It's frightening that many people cannot imagine proper city planning when other countries (the Netherlands come to mind) demonstrate that it can be done and improves quality of life immensely.
- Lammy 6y ago
  If the wealthy want to live in a big detached house that's cool, but those types of lots/structures shouldn't be in dense space-limited urban areas. They want to have both the big house and the proximity to urban centers.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  The alternative is upzoning and land value tax which encourages density.
- aggronn 6y ago
  Alternative is to not subsidize inefficient suburban land use. That doesn't mean everyone lives in apartment buildings. It doesn't mean "ban the suburbs". It just means, if you want to live in a subdivision, you'll have to pay your share of the cost to maintain it (which is more than what you're paying now).
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Letting people decide where and how to live without deciding for them through tax structuring
- sershe 6y ago
  The alternative is that we remove most zoning and let the free market decide. We can even allow covenant-based zoning, but if your neighbors don't want to join and sell to a developer, tough luck.
wrkronmiller 6y ago
> What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. You say this, yet you don't provide a single citation for any of your arguments. > There is a very strong case that one reason for sluggish economic growth is the concentration of assets and wealth in so few hands, and the continuing stagnation/decline in wealth/living standards/etc of bottom 40% of the US when measured in things like "healthcare", "education" etc. A redistributive wealth tax that was well structured could be a huge boon to GDP growth. This seems plausible, but not self-evident. Give us evidence.
- lstmemery 6y ago
  Not the OP, but the most recent meta-analysis suggests that there is a negative correlation between inequality and growth[1]. Wealth inequality is more negatively correlated with growth than income inequality. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X15002600 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03057...
benmccann 6y ago
If you're talking about single family homes - that's a property tax, which is not what people are normally talking about when they discuss a wealth tax

_jal 6y ago

Inequality is mortgaging the future for the comfort of the few.

astrea 6y ago

> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded multi-family buildings? We all live in squalor for the sake of a few saved acres in a country with vast amounts of land?

Jtsummers 6y ago
Multi-family buildings != squalor It sounds like you've never been in an apartment building. Some are crappy, sure, but plenty are pretty nice or at least decent (the building, the apartments will be what the residents make of them).
- astrea 6y ago
  I have lived in many apartment buildings; mostly why I hold this opinion. If my only aspiration for a future home for my family and myself is one where I have to deal with upstairs neighbors stopping and nextdoor neighbors with no respect for quiet hours, I would have very little to look forward to.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    I have as well, and that's why I have my opinion that they aren't squalor, at least not guaranteed. I lived in one crappy apartment when I was in college because it was dirt cheap. After I got a job, I spent maybe 20-40% more on apartments up to my last one (which cost a lot more, but was in a great location for me, walking distance to my MMA gym and all my hangout spots). None of them were crappy, I rarely heard my neighbors. And the only truly obnoxious neighbors were evicted after the police were called for a combination of noise and indecent exposure (their guests went skinny dipping in the apartment pool). I live in the suburbs now, and with regard to noise it's no better than the apartments except my first crappy apartment, and the brief time next to the obnoxious neighbors. My next door neighbors on one side are great, on the other side they're dicks and fight constantly and loudly. Across the street are two houses one with a muscle car and the other some kind of loud motorcycle, both are project vehicles. So I get to hear them revving their engines in the evening (too early to warrant filing a complaint, but still very obnoxious). There's nothing magical about apartments that make them bad, or houses that make them good. The best you could hope for with regard to general quality of life (particularly noise and pests caused by poor hygiene from your neighbors) is to live in the country hundreds of feet (at least) from neighbors with trees in between. But then you forfeit access to everything else since nothing is close without having to drive.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Yeah it was never about squalor for me, but unless you are in a million dollar condo with top notch sound proofing in every wall you will hear your neighbors at all hours and everything they do. Some people may love this, but I hate it. How do I know? I lived it the first 30 years of my life until I bought a house in the burbs. My quality of life is so much better now. No I didn't buy a McMansion. I have lived in bigger apartments, however I have space and nice solid walls between myself and neighbors and it's a huge % increase in quality of life not to hear other people's sex, family quarrels, or bad taco bell incidents at all hours.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not about taking single family homes away from people who really want one, but fighting the perception that it's the default. People in most countries (even most rich countries) live happily in multi-family buildings with much less space than the average American home. Most of those who believe their family needs 2000 square feet to be comfortable are simply mistaken - and we could build much higher-quality neighborhoods without the degree of suburban sprawl that mistake causes.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
Center City Philly is squalor now? I'll take that over a SFH in Conshohocken with > 45 mins commute on the Schuylkill Expressway each way any day of the week! It's frightening that many people cannot imagine proper city planning when other countries (the Netherlands come to mind) demonstrate that it can be done and improves quality of life immensely.
Lammy 6y ago
If the wealthy want to live in a big detached house that's cool, but those types of lots/structures shouldn't be in dense space-limited urban areas. They want to have both the big house and the proximity to urban centers.
colinmhayes 6y ago
The alternative is upzoning and land value tax which encourages density.
aggronn 6y ago
Alternative is to not subsidize inefficient suburban land use. That doesn't mean everyone lives in apartment buildings. It doesn't mean "ban the suburbs". It just means, if you want to live in a subdivision, you'll have to pay your share of the cost to maintain it (which is more than what you're paying now).
conanbatt 6y ago
Letting people decide where and how to live without deciding for them through tax structuring
sershe 6y ago
The alternative is that we remove most zoning and let the free market decide. We can even allow covenant-based zoning, but if your neighbors don't want to join and sell to a developer, tough luck.

wrkronmiller 6y ago

> What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. You say this, yet you don't provide a single citation for any of your arguments. > There is a very strong case that one reason for sluggish economic growth is the concentration of assets and wealth in so few hands, and the continuing stagnation/decline in wealth/living standards/etc of bottom 40% of the US when measured in things like "healthcare", "education" etc. A redistributive wealth tax that was well structured could be a huge boon to GDP growth. This seems plausible, but not self-evident. Give us evidence.

lstmemery 6y ago
Not the OP, but the most recent meta-analysis suggests that there is a negative correlation between inequality and growth[1]. Wealth inequality is more negatively correlated with growth than income inequality. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X15002600 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03057...

benmccann 6y ago

If you're talking about single family homes - that's a property tax, which is not what people are normally talking about when they discuss a wealth tax