3 ms·

> I think it has been, dramatically, over the last 120 years. Plenty of countries have tried radical appropriation and redistribution, and it failed spectacular

> I think it has been, dramatically, over the last 120 years. Plenty of countries have tried radical appropriation and redistribution, and it failed spectacularly every time. How about non-radical redistribution? In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Piketty puts forward the idea of a (net) wealth tax on the order of something like: * 0-10M net worth: 0% * 10-100M: 0.1% * 100M-1000M: 1% * >1000M: 2% This would allow two things: first the documentation of people's assets (and liabilities) to find their net worth for the tax regime, and second the skimming off the top of a not ridiculous amount of the assets of those that have a lot. So if you have a $1B portfolio, and manage to grow it 8% in a year, then you end up with "only" 6% growth. This still allows for incentives for people to acquire wealth, but tamps down on some of the compounding that the largest estates end up getting (there's often only so much that can be spend, so a lot of the previous year's gains just end up sitting and accumulating). The key would be for the US to get onside: by some measures it is one of the largest tax havens out there. * https://fsi.taxjustice.net/en/introduction/fsi-results https://fsi.taxjustice.net/en/introduction/fsi-results * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index It has global reach which would probably change a lot of international behaviour. Just look at FACTA: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...

_greim_ 5y ago
> How about non-radical redistribution? We arguably already have a weak form of this in capital gains. Invested wealth remains untaxed, since it's already working. Good. Liquidated investments are taxed on gains. Good. But I'd also support stronger forms of redistribution such as yearly re-taxation on uninvested wealth above a threshold, non-gains percentage tax on all liquidated investments above a threshold, a land value tax, and closing of tax loopholes. Just let invested wealth do its job!
simonh 5y ago
Sure, it’s radical but not excessively. The US had a %90 tax bracket in the post war decades (not that I’m suggesting bringing it back) and the country and economy somehow managed to survive. There are countries in Europe that have wealth taxes. I don’t think taxing more is an effective way of solving social and economic problems though and doing so doesn’t have to be cripplingly expensive. For example the US spends twice as much, per person, on health care than other OECD countries. You spend as much on health per person through the government, funded by your taxes, as Europe does just funding Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc, and then spend the same again through private health insurance. Why? Because the health insurance system drives costs across the board up through the roof. All you people with company plans you contribute thousands to, you already paid enough for a full first world health system in your taxes and got nothing for it, so you have to pay again for yourselves. Why that isn’t issue number 1 for every American tax payer is beyond understanding. So don’t take my up thread comment to mean I’m some libertarian extremist, or this comment to mean I’m a radical socialist. It’s just a matter of looking at what works.

_greim_ 5y ago

> How about non-radical redistribution? We arguably already have a weak form of this in capital gains. Invested wealth remains untaxed, since it's already working. Good. Liquidated investments are taxed on gains. Good. But I'd also support stronger forms of redistribution such as yearly re-taxation on uninvested wealth above a threshold, non-gains percentage tax on all liquidated investments above a threshold, a land value tax, and closing of tax loopholes. Just let invested wealth do its job!

simonh 5y ago

Sure, it’s radical but not excessively. The US had a %90 tax bracket in the post war decades (not that I’m suggesting bringing it back) and the country and economy somehow managed to survive. There are countries in Europe that have wealth taxes. I don’t think taxing more is an effective way of solving social and economic problems though and doing so doesn’t have to be cripplingly expensive. For example the US spends twice as much, per person, on health care than other OECD countries. You spend as much on health per person through the government, funded by your taxes, as Europe does just funding Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc, and then spend the same again through private health insurance. Why? Because the health insurance system drives costs across the board up through the roof. All you people with company plans you contribute thousands to, you already paid enough for a full first world health system in your taxes and got nothing for it, so you have to pay again for yourselves. Why that isn’t issue number 1 for every American tax payer is beyond understanding. So don’t take my up thread comment to mean I’m some libertarian extremist, or this comment to mean I’m a radical socialist. It’s just a matter of looking at what works.