5 ms·

Confiscating money if people have too much according to some weird heuristic is inherently unreasonable.

by Bootvis 5y ago

geysersam 5y ago
It's a tool to investigate and deincentivize corruption. Not some state income tax.
- grey-area 5y ago
  Putin is the most corrupt individual on earth who has stolen billions from his country and runs a mafia state. this law is not to ‘deincentivize corruption’, but I guess it might help stave off state bankruptcy for another week.
  - throwaway89219 5y ago
411111111111111 5y ago
Not necessarily, it depends as always. Heavily penalizing accumulation of cash like that could be reasonable, but doing it without announcing it at least a year forward makes it hard to argue that it's anything but a cashgrap. But the idea issue is viable if the explicit goal is to make high cash reserves impossible. People would instead have to invest and various accounts (I.e. pension plans etc) have to be exempt. So it's theoretically reasonable if the economy is suffering because the wealth is never being spen, but that sounds like a very unlikely situation to occur in today's consumption society.
- csomar 5y ago
  > Heavily penalizing accumulation of cash like that could be reasonable, but doing it without announcing it at least a year forward makes it hard to argue that it's anything but a cashgrap. Penalizing accumulation of cash (ie: negative rates) vs. Seizing cash are completely different things.
- imtringued 5y ago
  I advocate for a negative interest rate so that well developed econonies are no longer under an artificial pressure to grow at the expense of sustainability and other economies. However, that doesn't mean the proposed mechanism i.e an explicit wealth limit is actually reasonable. By the way an economy suffering because the wealth is never spent is the root cause of every single economic depression in history. Bill Gates is rich enough that he could never spend it all. Today's consumption society is just an unsustainable method of avoiding a depression. All money saved must be invested because nobody tells the wealthy to stop playing the accumulation game. A negative interest rate would get rid of the need to increase debt.
lowkey 5y ago
And yet that is exactly what happened to people who held savings in bank accounts in Cyprus after the GFC when the government decided the banks needed a bailout more than the people needed a retirement.

Confiscating money if people have too much according to some weird heuristic is inherently unreasonable.

geysersam 5y ago

It's a tool to investigate and deincentivize corruption. Not some state income tax.

grey-area 5y ago
Putin is the most corrupt individual on earth who has stolen billions from his country and runs a mafia state. this law is not to ‘deincentivize corruption’, but I guess it might help stave off state bankruptcy for another week.
- throwaway89219 5y ago

411111111111111 5y ago

Not necessarily, it depends as always. Heavily penalizing accumulation of cash like that could be reasonable, but doing it without announcing it at least a year forward makes it hard to argue that it's anything but a cashgrap. But the idea issue is viable if the explicit goal is to make high cash reserves impossible. People would instead have to invest and various accounts (I.e. pension plans etc) have to be exempt. So it's theoretically reasonable if the economy is suffering because the wealth is never being spen, but that sounds like a very unlikely situation to occur in today's consumption society.

csomar 5y ago
> Heavily penalizing accumulation of cash like that could be reasonable, but doing it without announcing it at least a year forward makes it hard to argue that it's anything but a cashgrap. Penalizing accumulation of cash (ie: negative rates) vs. Seizing cash are completely different things.
imtringued 5y ago
I advocate for a negative interest rate so that well developed econonies are no longer under an artificial pressure to grow at the expense of sustainability and other economies. However, that doesn't mean the proposed mechanism i.e an explicit wealth limit is actually reasonable. By the way an economy suffering because the wealth is never spent is the root cause of every single economic depression in history. Bill Gates is rich enough that he could never spend it all. Today's consumption society is just an unsustainable method of avoiding a depression. All money saved must be invested because nobody tells the wealthy to stop playing the accumulation game. A negative interest rate would get rid of the need to increase debt.

lowkey 5y ago

And yet that is exactly what happened to people who held savings in bank accounts in Cyprus after the GFC when the government decided the banks needed a bailout more than the people needed a retirement.