3 ms·
Property tax is already a form of a wealth tax. The estate tax was a one-time wealth tax. It is true that wealthy people do get around many rules but that is no
by handmodel 6y ago
Property tax is already a form of a wealth tax. The estate tax was a one-time wealth tax. It is true that wealthy people do get around many rules but that is not a reason to not have a property tax or to never have an estate tax tax - largely they still pay as paying a lot to move money around is often times not worth it.
The government doesn't have to use your "dollar more effectively than you" if you have different goals. If the government wants to build a school and you don't want a school you don't get to choose not to pay taxes for the school. Other than just increasing the national debt (which I'm for) we tax people. A wealth tax would be a way to either increase revenue to increase spending OR increase revenue so that other forms of revenue can be cut.
- starik36 6y ago> increasing the national debt (which I'm for) Sigh. Let's kick the can down the road some more.
- beamatronic 6y agoIf 2008 taught us anything, the money printer solves all problems. It’s all imaginary anyway.
- medium_burrito 6y agomoney printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
- RickJWagner 6y agoI see that often at 'Bogleheads.org'. Is it a cultural reference from somewhere?
- torstenvl 6y agoThat is a terrible take-away from 2008. Are you accounting for any of the (gestures broadly) terrible consequences of that course of action?
- Dylan16807 6y agoLike what? Generally the terrible consequences came from the situation leading up to 2008, not the money printing that happened post-crash.
- handmodel 6y agoI agree. The biggest takeaway that economists tookaway from 2008 was that not enough money was handed out. It is why at the beginning of the pandemic the Fed was aggressive. It is why Powell said there was way more risk of doing too little than too much: https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-10-06/fed-chairman-powell-warns-of-dire-consequences-of-doing-too-little-to-boost-economy https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-10-06/fed-... If the government had boosted unemployment in 2008 along with more stimulus we would have gotten closer to full employment before early 2020. I cannot think of a single bad consequence that happened in 2008 because the government spent too much. Is the gesture to the fact that all the banks didn't totally implode?
- torstenvl 6y agoManipulation of the monetary supply is not a necessary condition for Keynsian stimulus. In fact... https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-difference-between-keynesian-economics-and-monetarist-economics.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-differe... Whether a government engages in stimulus is orthogonal to whether it engages in aggressive monetarism. It is, in fact, possible to increase expenditures without tanking the global reserve currency. Indeed, the two are at odds so long as we rely on deficit spending, since our willingness to tank the dollar's value on a whim lessens others' desire to loan money to us denominated in dollars. Furthermore, our demonstrated willingness to devalue our debts undermines our moral high ground when we criticize China for its exchange rate manipulation, and makes China less likely to set much store by our financial ties, freeing them to take more aggressive actions... as we've seen since 2008 by its actions in Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Taiwanese airspace.