3 ms·

Not big fan of taxes in general but I find the whole 'wealth' tax to be especially odious. Why not call it what it is, a pre-death estate tax? If the governme

by beezle 6y ago

Not big fan of taxes in general but I find the whole 'wealth' tax to be especially odious. Why not call it what it is, a pre-death estate tax? If the government is to tariff/tax, it should be done at the time of use or income generation/realization one time. Unfortunately double jeopardy laws seem not to apply to capital.

throwaway2245 6y ago
Tax is not a one-time contract nor a punishment, as you are presenting it to be. It's a democratic agreement about how society should be run. Another democratic agreement is that you are allowed and encouraged to own capital. (That's why it's called 'capitalism', to distinguish it from other possibilities)
notacoward 6y ago
> Not big fan of taxes in general Statements like that never augur well for what follows. > Why not call it what it is, a pre-death estate tax? Do you have a cogent objection to estate taxes? Many would consider them the fairest of all possible taxes, since your property rights - past, present, and future - evaporate at death. > it should be done at the time of use or income generation/realization Why? What's the rationale, besides personal benefit/preference? Taxing money in motion reduces motion, which is hardly a good thing except when the motion itself is illusory arbitrage (e.g. HFT). > double jeopardy laws Double jeopardy is a concept of criminal law applied to humans. It's certainly the wrong term here, and arguably the wrong concept. Even your own "time of use" standard leads to the same money being taxed multiple times. Why should it be any different when assets are held instead of exchanged (see above about money in motion)? Henry George and others have made eloquent arguments for taxing wealth - especially land - instead of income. It has been tried many places and times, generally with good results. Do you have any substantive counterargument, or just random phrases plucked from a pseudo-libertarian website?

by beezle 6y ago

throwaway2245 6y ago

Tax is not a one-time contract nor a punishment, as you are presenting it to be. It's a democratic agreement about how society should be run. Another democratic agreement is that you are allowed and encouraged to own capital. (That's why it's called 'capitalism', to distinguish it from other possibilities)

notacoward 6y ago

> Not big fan of taxes in general Statements like that never augur well for what follows. > Why not call it what it is, a pre-death estate tax? Do you have a cogent objection to estate taxes? Many would consider them the fairest of all possible taxes, since your property rights - past, present, and future - evaporate at death. > it should be done at the time of use or income generation/realization Why? What's the rationale, besides personal benefit/preference? Taxing money in motion reduces motion, which is hardly a good thing except when the motion itself is illusory arbitrage (e.g. HFT). > double jeopardy laws Double jeopardy is a concept of criminal law applied to humans. It's certainly the wrong term here, and arguably the wrong concept. Even your own "time of use" standard leads to the same money being taxed multiple times. Why should it be any different when assets are held instead of exchanged (see above about money in motion)? Henry George and others have made eloquent arguments for taxing wealth - especially land - instead of income. It has been tried many places and times, generally with good results. Do you have any substantive counterargument, or just random phrases plucked from a pseudo-libertarian website?