3 ms·
That's a wealth tax of 0.1%. On that level, it's probably a net-loss to the government just from the bureaucracy. I think we are talking here about order a coup
by davrosthedalek 6y ago
That's a wealth tax of 0.1%. On that level, it's probably a net-loss to the government just from the bureaucracy. I think we are talking here about order a couple percent, so >10 times more.
- TheDong 6y agoThe parent example was of "100,000 shares of AMZN... taxed 1,000", which matches 0.1%. I used that number since that was the number the parent comment saw as being obviously too much already, so I didn't need to use a higher number. I do think 0.1% would already be pretty appreciable. That's already several 10s of billions a year. The current budget for all of the IRS is on the order of 10s of billions now, so I really doubt adding that new tax would be a net-loss. And, of course, once you have a wealth tax and the sky doesn't fall, tweaking the number up over time is easier.
- davrosthedalek 6y agoI might be parsing the original text wrong, but 1,000 out of 100,000 is 1%. Not 0.1% ?!?
- TheDong 6y agoAh, yup, I'm an idiot. This is why my computer normally does math for me.