5 ms·

That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr. It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover t

by Msw242 5y ago

That says wiping out all social programs and raising taxes on those over 1m/yr in income would cover 15k/yr. It seems like 45tn in asset seizures would cover the additional 15k/yr for around 10 years. But I would be very worried about the impact on capital markets and company formation. I would immediately leave the US if this kind of seizure got through the House and looked like it might pass the Senate.

wonderwonder 5y ago
The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the billionaire / millionaire class.
- totony 5y ago
  This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    Sure, but we were specifically talking about a 100% wealth rax scenario. Very likely not a realistic scenario
    - dopidopHN 5y ago
      It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “lost”. Sorry if it’s obvious but the catastrophic scenario you are describing seems to correspond to “let’s take all the rich folks money, all of it” Source on high historical tax rate in the US around 1950 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
      - Msw242 5y ago
        Holy crap how are your comments not greyed out? Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality) Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...
        dopidopHN 5y ago
        I don’t know what is the wealth tax you are referring to and I don’t see it referenced in my comment. I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché. Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )
        labcomputer 5y ago
        `wonderwonder` said that a 100% wealth tax was unprecedented and not a realistic scenario. Then you replied "It actually happened not that long ago, in the US" and cited that the US used to have a 90% marginal income tax bracket. A 90% marginal income rate is not in the same universe as a 100% wealth tax rate.
        dopidopHN 5y ago
        I see now. Thanks for pointing it out.
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        lol, we are on the same page. I am not suggesting it as an real option I am stating it to describe the insanity of the people who think that just taxing the rich will supply all the money we need. I am using the example of a 100% wealth tax to show there is just not enough money to do everything that is desired. That regardless of taxation we would have to print money.

by Msw242 5y ago

wonderwonder 5y ago

The stock market would go to zero as there would be no one capable of buying that stock and pretty much no demand either. People would know that their assets can be seized whenever the government wants. 401k's and retirement accounts would be wiped out. Pension funds would go bankrupt overnight. I feel like this is the scenario that so many overlook when they call for massive wealth taxes or the abolishment of the billionaire / millionaire class.

totony 5y ago
This is hyperbole. Removing loopholes and taxing the top 5% more will not destroy society. Just like taxing the middle class didn't make them stop working, or made them work shitty jobs just to not pay taxes.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Sure, but we were specifically talking about a 100% wealth rax scenario. Very likely not a realistic scenario
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    It actually happened not that long ago, in the US. And the country did not collapsed. It actually entered a era or unparalleled prosperity ( but that had little to do with taxes ) In 1945 tax rate was around 90% IIRC Honest question : you do understand that a 100% tax rate means that 100% of revenu are taxed correct. ( as opposed to 100% are taken by the state ). Of those 100% only a percentage of it is actually “lost”. Sorry if it’s obvious but the catastrophic scenario you are describing seems to correspond to “let’s take all the rich folks money, all of it” Source on high historical tax rate in the US around 1950 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
    - Msw242 5y ago
      Holy crap how are your comments not greyed out? Marginal income tax rate of 90% != Wealth tax (for which we haven't even tested constitutionality) Also, nobody paid close to 90% thanks to generous loop holes and strategic tax avoidance: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-...
      - dopidopHN 5y ago
        I don’t know what is the wealth tax you are referring to and I don’t see it referenced in my comment. I was pointing out a historical period where taxes were setup differently than now. We tend to forget it was the case; and it seems to be out of the collective psyché. Indeed in 2022 nobody pays close to 90%. I was referring to the 1945 to 1960 period. ( see linked article, nice read )
        labcomputer 5y ago
        `wonderwonder` said that a 100% wealth tax was unprecedented and not a realistic scenario. Then you replied "It actually happened not that long ago, in the US" and cited that the US used to have a 90% marginal income tax bracket. A 90% marginal income rate is not in the same universe as a 100% wealth tax rate.
        dopidopHN 5y ago
        I see now. Thanks for pointing it out.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      lol, we are on the same page. I am not suggesting it as an real option I am stating it to describe the insanity of the people who think that just taxing the rich will supply all the money we need. I am using the example of a 100% wealth tax to show there is just not enough money to do everything that is desired. That regardless of taxation we would have to print money.