4 ms·
Cost of education and healthcare has outpaced wage growth though, hasn't it? The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra money to spend on tho
by sirtaj 6y ago
Cost of education and healthcare has outpaced wage growth though, hasn't it? The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra money to spend on those, much more if you hold the biggest expenditures (military and social security) at the same level. So it seems that the 1% could significantly fund the things you're hoping for.
- maerF0x0 6y ago>The 2-3 months you've calculated above represent 20-25% extra That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) . remember it would degrade wealth/asset base by 100%. Not to mention the issue that you cannot spend assets the way you can cash, you'd have to find a buyer for them (such as foreign countries or the federal reserve), but then you've basically either nationalized the whole economy or sold it off to a foreign entity.
- sirtaj 6y ago> That would be a one time boost and then it'd be gone forever (not a recurring revenue) I'm not sure it has to be non-recurring. Right now the 1% (just the 1%, not all non-labour wagers) takes home around 20% of national income in the US. If this was in line with the historical 10%, that's a significant yearly sum.
- maerF0x0 6y agoyeah, we're talking past each other. I was specifically talking about a wealth tax. Income tax has different characteristics and is a different discussion point