5 ms·

Many of the ultra-wealthy have little or no income. What needs to be taxed is wealth, not income.

naasking 5y ago
I don't entirely disagree, but current political and economic structures aren't designed well enough for a wealth tax.
silicon2401 5y ago
I disagree, at least not with so simple an implementation. I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes. There should be at least a minimum threshold where wealth is completely untaxed so that people can live freely and not have to work until they die. Enough for a house, some property and land, and a retirement fund. I'd consider it more justifiable to tax someone like Bill Gates with billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, but it's just unnecessary for taxes to be absolutely inescapable.
- mstipetic 5y ago
  Won’t that just increase prices of the things you’ve mentioned? I feel we should somehow work to become more distributed instead of forcing people to come to large cities because all the opportunity is there
  - sklearncowboy 5y ago
    I think the main problem is we think that power laws are not natural and that nature distributes everything on a normal distribution. That is true for the height of humans. Most other things with humans, not so much.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes." I am against a system in which some escape work while others do not.
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?
    - gugagore 5y ago
      What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate? ^- is another awfully slanted question.
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        > collectivism Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.
        gugagore 5y ago
        You either missed my point or you are making my point. It is hard to tell!
        naasking 5y ago
        > Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".
        silicon2401 5y ago
        There's a difference between collectivism and cooperation. I contrast collectivism with individualism; i.e. valuing the collective over the individual vs valuing the individual over the collective. I want to live in an individualist society, not a collectivist one.
- LargeWu 5y ago
  Most of the wealth tax proposals I've seen don't even kick in until you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think anybody needs to be worried about those people having to work until they die.
- sklearncowboy 5y ago
  Isn't the problem though that any time you introduce a threshold the threshold gets gamed? A tax on people making $400k a year causes a giant spike in people making $399k a year. I think no matter what you do, bad unintended consequences will occur.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    > I think no matter what you do, bad unintended consequences will occur. I agree, and that's why I don't freak out when we have inequality. It's unavoidable for as long as we allow humans to grow based on genetic lottery rather than pre-approved personalities. No matter what system you have, if I'm smart and selfish enough, I'll find a way to exploit it for my benefit at least, and maybe go out of my way to harm others if I'm sadistic, too.
f38zf5vdt 5y ago
A wealth tax will fail for the same reason the income tax has failed. The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles and strut up to the tax authority saying, "See? I own very little." It becomes the legislative cat and mouse game, which governments lose when up against those with massive assets with which to lobby. There is not a good answer that I have found to the taxation issue. Wealth is self-sustaining over the short term like advantageous mutations are self-sustaining in biological systems.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  > The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles In Elizabeth Warren's proposal, they would be subject to a 40% exit tax on the wealth that they moved. If they didn't pay the exit tax, that would be fraud.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    As with most laws, the intention is noble but the outcome may not be. Every time a new law seems to be passed "strengthening" the tax code, it seems mysteriously effective against those who can't afford to pay a law firm's retainer and a lobbying group's salaries.
  - frockington1 5y ago
    Who would wait long enough after that bill passed to keep their wealth in America? The second it went through congress the money would start pouring out
    - jlmorton 5y ago
      To be clear, in Warren's wealth tax proposal, it doesn't matter where the wealth is located. If you're an American citizen, you would be required to pay the tax on all of your wealth above $50 million, no matter where it is. The alternative is to move your money overseas and renounce your American citizenship, at which point you would owe a 40% exit tax. One could certainly hide their assets overseas, but that would be tax fraud, and if discovered would result in prison time for both accountant and wealthy individual.
wsc981 5y ago
I agree as well. Also, luxury goods (yacht, private airplane, (maybe) jewellery, etc...) should be taxed much heavier than bare necessities (food, clothing). I believe some basic amount of wealth should be tax free (e.g. x-amount of square meter living space per person in a household, a car with value up to 25.000 USD perhaps, etc...). I also believe many ultra-wealthy people setup foundations to control their wealth after their deaths, avoid paying inheritance tax and keep wealth inside the family by being able to decide who is on the board of such foundations. Foundations are also used to peddle influence. I believe for these reasons that donations to foundations should not be tax exempt.
HWR_14 5y ago
The wealth have increased asset value instead of income. If we can capture that, that's probably sufficient.

I don't entirely disagree, but current political and economic structures aren't designed well enough for a wealth tax.

I disagree, at least not with so simple an implementation. I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes. There should be at least a minimum threshold where wealth is completely untaxed so that people can live freely and not have to work until they die. Enough for a house, some property and land, and a retirement fund. I'd consider it more justifiable to tax someone like Bill Gates with billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, but it's just unnecessary for taxes to be absolutely inescapable.

mstipetic 5y ago
Won’t that just increase prices of the things you’ve mentioned? I feel we should somehow work to become more distributed instead of forcing people to come to large cities because all the opportunity is there
- sklearncowboy 5y ago
  I think the main problem is we think that power laws are not natural and that nature distributes everything on a normal distribution. That is true for the height of humans. Most other things with humans, not so much.
pmoriarty 5y ago
"I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes." I am against a system in which some escape work while others do not.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?
  - gugagore 5y ago
    What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate? ^- is another awfully slanted question.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      > collectivism Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.
      - gugagore 5y ago
        You either missed my point or you are making my point. It is hard to tell!
      - naasking 5y ago
        > Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".
        silicon2401 5y ago
        There's a difference between collectivism and cooperation. I contrast collectivism with individualism; i.e. valuing the collective over the individual vs valuing the individual over the collective. I want to live in an individualist society, not a collectivist one.
LargeWu 5y ago
Most of the wealth tax proposals I've seen don't even kick in until you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think anybody needs to be worried about those people having to work until they die.
sklearncowboy 5y ago
Isn't the problem though that any time you introduce a threshold the threshold gets gamed? A tax on people making $400k a year causes a giant spike in people making $399k a year. I think no matter what you do, bad unintended consequences will occur.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > I think no matter what you do, bad unintended consequences will occur. I agree, and that's why I don't freak out when we have inequality. It's unavoidable for as long as we allow humans to grow based on genetic lottery rather than pre-approved personalities. No matter what system you have, if I'm smart and selfish enough, I'll find a way to exploit it for my benefit at least, and maybe go out of my way to harm others if I'm sadistic, too.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

A wealth tax will fail for the same reason the income tax has failed. The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles and strut up to the tax authority saying, "See? I own very little." It becomes the legislative cat and mouse game, which governments lose when up against those with massive assets with which to lobby. There is not a good answer that I have found to the taxation issue. Wealth is self-sustaining over the short term like advantageous mutations are self-sustaining in biological systems.

jlmorton 5y ago
> The extremely wealthy will move their wealth into complex multinational financial vehicles In Elizabeth Warren's proposal, they would be subject to a 40% exit tax on the wealth that they moved. If they didn't pay the exit tax, that would be fraud.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  As with most laws, the intention is noble but the outcome may not be. Every time a new law seems to be passed "strengthening" the tax code, it seems mysteriously effective against those who can't afford to pay a law firm's retainer and a lobbying group's salaries.
- frockington1 5y ago
  Who would wait long enough after that bill passed to keep their wealth in America? The second it went through congress the money would start pouring out
  - jlmorton 5y ago
    To be clear, in Warren's wealth tax proposal, it doesn't matter where the wealth is located. If you're an American citizen, you would be required to pay the tax on all of your wealth above $50 million, no matter where it is. The alternative is to move your money overseas and renounce your American citizenship, at which point you would owe a 40% exit tax. One could certainly hide their assets overseas, but that would be tax fraud, and if discovered would result in prison time for both accountant and wealthy individual.

wsc981 5y ago

I agree as well. Also, luxury goods (yacht, private airplane, (maybe) jewellery, etc...) should be taxed much heavier than bare necessities (food, clothing). I believe some basic amount of wealth should be tax free (e.g. x-amount of square meter living space per person in a household, a car with value up to 25.000 USD perhaps, etc...). I also believe many ultra-wealthy people setup foundations to control their wealth after their deaths, avoid paying inheritance tax and keep wealth inside the family by being able to decide who is on the board of such foundations. Foundations are also used to peddle influence. I believe for these reasons that donations to foundations should not be tax exempt.

HWR_14 5y ago

The wealth have increased asset value instead of income. If we can capture that, that's probably sufficient.