7 ms·

> So you actually agree > I'm very certain you don't follow Don't say what I think for me. It's condescending, makes you look like you're more interested in c

> So you actually agree > I'm very certain you don't follow Don't say what I think for me. It's condescending, makes you look like you're more interested in cheap points, and suggests that you can't actually come up with an intellectual response. I don't think it's a good thing; I think it's better to address the root of the problem rather than the symptom; and it's worth noting when a course of action isn't going to work. Otherwise you fall prey to the classic mockery: "we need to do something! This is something. We should do it."

grey-area 6y ago
Well you’re certainly living up to your username today ;) All taxes are avoided to some extent but assets are actually easier to tax in many ways than income. If you want to have money and things it’s hard to hide that, whereas if you have capital you don’t even need income and can easily avoid taxes on it.
- generalizations 6y ago
  Hah. Yup. Easier to talk about principles than details. :) It reminds me of the new proposed tax in CA, where anyone over $N net worth has to pay M% of it per year. It'll be interesting to see if it'll help CA stay afloat, or if it contributes to the state's decline. Isn't the whole idea behind making money to build a 'nest egg'? Seems like that counts as the small-scale version of exactly what you're describing.
  - grey-area 6y ago
    At the lower end you don’t want to discourage saving of course, but I see nothing wrong with incentivising work a bit more than saving. This is not a radical proposal but a rebalancing. Re the specific tax you mention the devil is in the details but it doesn’t sound great.
  - danaris 6y ago
    No one's talking about taxing the amount of wealth that counts as a middle-class family's "nest egg". Every proposal I've heard starts up in the tens of millions, or even higher. Taxing wealth isn't some kind of rigid principle, where if you want to be able to tax Jeff Bezos you also have to tax Jane Millennial the same percent. We can, and should, and at least the vast majority of people talking about it want to, ignore regular people trying to save, and tax mega-wealth higher than moderate wealth.

grey-area 6y ago

Well you’re certainly living up to your username today ;) All taxes are avoided to some extent but assets are actually easier to tax in many ways than income. If you want to have money and things it’s hard to hide that, whereas if you have capital you don’t even need income and can easily avoid taxes on it.

generalizations 6y ago
Hah. Yup. Easier to talk about principles than details. :) It reminds me of the new proposed tax in CA, where anyone over $N net worth has to pay M% of it per year. It'll be interesting to see if it'll help CA stay afloat, or if it contributes to the state's decline. Isn't the whole idea behind making money to build a 'nest egg'? Seems like that counts as the small-scale version of exactly what you're describing.
- grey-area 6y ago
  At the lower end you don’t want to discourage saving of course, but I see nothing wrong with incentivising work a bit more than saving. This is not a radical proposal but a rebalancing. Re the specific tax you mention the devil is in the details but it doesn’t sound great.
- danaris 6y ago
  No one's talking about taxing the amount of wealth that counts as a middle-class family's "nest egg". Every proposal I've heard starts up in the tens of millions, or even higher. Taxing wealth isn't some kind of rigid principle, where if you want to be able to tax Jeff Bezos you also have to tax Jane Millennial the same percent. We can, and should, and at least the vast majority of people talking about it want to, ignore regular people trying to save, and tax mega-wealth higher than moderate wealth.