3 ms·
The day to day value is probably not even a remotely practical metric for this sort of taxation. Average yearly value or quarterly value or something like that
by techdragon 4y ago
The day to day value is probably not even a remotely practical metric for this sort of taxation. Average yearly value or quarterly value or something like that seems much more sensible. You can’t expect anything to work if people are worried about daily price fluctuations causing them significant impact. This isn’t meant to be some sort of punishment after all, just the logical extension of steadily increasing high income tax brackets to a point where we as a society agree you don’t need any more money and the tax rate becomes 100%.
If it worked with strait income it wouldn’t be too hard but at the level of wealth we’re talking about most of the money isn’t income it’s just capital… a big pile of capital assets of value they have control over which they can leverage small portions off to take loans against for cash to do whatever they want at an interest rate lower than the rate of growth in the value of their capital assets… because they’re never a risky loan applicant and the whole system tilts towards them almost as if money had some weird form of financial gravity.
So while I’m no super genius economist and political wizard with all the answers to how it can be done, I just think it’s important we recognise that there’s a point where these people have so much money the system is broken for them and if we believe in the equality of all people, that all people are born equal, we should be trying to change the system in a way to rectify the problems their wealth causes.
There would be years of arguing all the details about trusts and percentages and inheritance and family control and super PACs and even if it’s constitutionally allowed since there’s precedent that money is speech and this could be argued to be an unreasonable restriction on the sort of speech (money) a person can have (not more than a billion dollars worth)… it’s a massively complicated question I’m just saying I think we can agree it’s well and truly kicked in by the time you have a billion dollars and maybe we can all get together and work out a way we agree on that stops people getting more power and money for free due to capital interest rate returns each day than many of us will ever have in a lifetime.
- b112 4y agoall people are born equal All people should have equal opportunity, free from prejudice, sexism, etc. But all people are not born equal. Equality in rights, does not mean people are identical. Where I live, taxes become crazy high if single, and with imcome over 100k. So I just work less. And I get paid well, for I am exceptionally good at what I do. This means that by taking more of my money, simply because I choose to excel, the government has taken part of my labour, right off the market. The skills they so very much desire, are diminished. People blather on about billionaires, and how the wealth should be redistributed. I've done the math. Take all that wealth, and in 1 year it is gone, forever, never to return, and it barely makes a dent in anything. Communism just doesn't work, because it removes that drive, that zen to compete, that desire to build from people. It just smacks of jealousy to me.