4 ms·

It will start as a wealth tax on billionaires but within five years it will be a wealth tax on anyone with a net worth greater than 100k. That’s how these thing

It will start as a wealth tax on billionaires but within five years it will be a wealth tax on anyone with a net worth greater than 100k. That’s how these things go. Take a look at the history of the history of the federal income tax for an example. It started in 1913 as a mere 1% on the lowest income earner. By 1918, the lowest bracket was 6%. Now it’s 10%. You’ll have to do some adjusting for inflation, but this document lists every federal income tax bracket over the past 150 years: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_r...

pradn 5y ago
Well, maybe. People do vote. You can look at the strong opposition local and state level politicians see with any property tax or state income tax increase. There's a built-in regulating mechanism. Taxes are usually one of the top issues that swings elections from one party to another, so the democratic regulating mechanism works somewhat well, I believe. It's not an obscure topic that can escape democratic oversight, like subsidies for lumber harvesting in a few counties in Montana, for example.
thomastjeffery 5y ago
> Look, this slippery slope argument was valid, so the one I'm making now must be too! I'm not convinced.
caeril 5y ago
Valid point, but I'd note that it's backed off significantly since WW2, when top tax rates were close to 90%. Tax rates seem to more closely track actual government funding requirements than they do any sort of moral justification of such. The only reason congress is considering this is that TSY yields are starting to creep up, making government funding through debt more expensive. If 10y yields were still tracking around 1%, none of this noise would be here.

4 ms·

It will start as a wealth tax on billionaires but within five years it will be a wealth tax on anyone with a net worth greater than 100k. That’s how these thing

by hnuser847 5y ago

pradn 5y ago
Well, maybe. People do vote. You can look at the strong opposition local and state level politicians see with any property tax or state income tax increase. There's a built-in regulating mechanism. Taxes are usually one of the top issues that swings elections from one party to another, so the democratic regulating mechanism works somewhat well, I believe. It's not an obscure topic that can escape democratic oversight, like subsidies for lumber harvesting in a few counties in Montana, for example.
thomastjeffery 5y ago
> Look, this slippery slope argument was valid, so the one I'm making now must be too! I'm not convinced.
caeril 5y ago
Valid point, but I'd note that it's backed off significantly since WW2, when top tax rates were close to 90%. Tax rates seem to more closely track actual government funding requirements than they do any sort of moral justification of such. The only reason congress is considering this is that TSY yields are starting to creep up, making government funding through debt more expensive. If 10y yields were still tracking around 1%, none of this noise would be here.