> aka, you want a wealth tax that you yourself are not subject to, in order to pay for services that you yourself _do_ utilize. Ah, classical ad hominem. And o

> aka, you want a wealth tax that you yourself are not subject to, in order to pay for services that you yourself _do_ utilize. Ah, classical ad hominem. And on top of that based on assumptions about an pseudonymous person, which is often a difficult thing on the internet. I do have property in an area, where I am probably considered _relatively_ rich. Not in the range of the example, mind you, but I think the same should, in fact, apply to me. If people buy property like that, they want (or should want) to buy it _because_ it is where it is. So, they (or should I say, we) do profit from those services even when not there, because they do contribute to the community, where we took a stake in. What is the point in having an apartment in Paris/NYC/London if all that is left are tourists? > This is just another way to frame a selfish desire, but making it sound good because it targets somebody rich. A populous opinion imho. Popular, probably. That would be great in a democracy. "Targeting", "because they are...". Nice way of framing trying to invoke the feeling of persecution and the classical "democracy is wolves and a lamb deciding who to have for lunch". Being rich (and I fall in more in that category than poor) does not require protection. The ones with more luck on their side can contribute more than those with less. I certainly can. It shouldn't be by charity, but the necessary obligation of doing your part in society. > Tax should be levied fairly. Wealth tax is not a fair tax. I wouldn't say it is a wealth tax, it is a luxury tax. And yes, that affects more the wealthy. You can have all your wealth invested in fonds, companies, etc... and it wouldn't affect you. On a semi-related note: Why is a wealth tax not fair? Is it fairer to tax the way to become rich over being rich? I would argue the other way around. > The current tax system is pretty progressive, and there just needs to be patches to the loopholes, rather than institute wealth tax, which just causes inconveniences for the wealthy at best, and causes them to move their wealth at worst (leading to worse economic outcomes). If it is a inconvenience at best, then I fail to see how it is unfair. It would be ideal, if it is just that. And regarding moving their wealth, that is the beauty of it: You can't move your $10 million apartment in NYC.