3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAt 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 agoNo 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.