4 ms·

The simplest solution is a wealth tax. Once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you are taxed for it. So for instance you might be taxed 50% of your wealth

The simplest solution is a wealth tax. Once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you are taxed for it. So for instance you might be taxed 50% of your wealth above $1 billion, annually. You might be taxed 25% of your wealth above $100 million (up to the next cutoff, so a billion in this hypothetical). You might be taxed 10% of your wealth above $10 million but below the next cutoff, and so on. We could even take this further and make it illegal to have too much money. But like all laws, what ultimately matters is enforcement. Currently the IRS doesn't even make much attempt to go after the rich for tax evasion, so writing stricter laws is irrelevant if we don't enforce the laws we already have. I'm not saying this is perfect but it is a simple solution that directly addresses the issue of wealth inequality.

satvikpendem 4y ago
What is wealth? How do you define it? How can you tax it? If it's in stocks, what does it mean to tax it? If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? It's not as simple as "make it illegal to have above X amount of money" because it's not really even money at that point, no one has X billion in cash lying around, it's tied to some physical asset. This is just one problem to your statement, there are many others.
- OnlineGladiator 4y ago
  This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. And to answer your "gotcha" question you do get taxed on stocks in this scenario. If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. There are plenty of other tax alternatives that are also quite simple, you just seem to be unhappy with anything that isn't perfect.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    > If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. No, that's the entire point of having the discussion. If the solution can't answer even these types of questions, then there's no point having the discussion, because it breaks down even upon initial examination. > This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. Sure, I agree in giving more money to the IRS, indeed that's happened recently, but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains.
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      > but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains You are completely missing the point of the conversation you started. Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else. Anyway, I don't think that you're arguing in good faith and I'm moving on with my day. Cheers.
      - satvikpendem 4y ago
        Okay, no worries. It seems you wanted to reply to me but then are unable to show anything regarding your viewpoint when I ask questions about it, even, yes, in the hypothetical, so it's not worth my time to ask any questions either.
      - johndunne 4y ago
        I think you two peeps discussion illustrates the root problem with the whole issue to taxation and wealth. We start out with ideas for solving it, but quickly the scale of the mess that is the ‘wealth system’ quickly busts pretty much any solution. Trying to appreciate the true scale of the problem and any solutions becoming quickly impossible. And I think this is by design. It protects the system for the wealthiest…
      - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
- peterashford 4y ago
  "What is wealth? How do you define it?" I think I've done myself an injury from rolling my eyes too hard. Tax departments have this incredibly hard question covered, for some time now
  - Kiro 4y ago
    No, they do not have this question covered. Look at the few countries that actually have a net wealth tax and how inadequate their calculations are. This is not a solved problem by any means. Better luck next time you try to roll your eyes.
- danaris 4y ago
  > What is wealth? How do you define it? Anything you own with a quantifiable monetary value. Yes, even if that value is not fixed. > If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? Yes. > If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? No. How does that even make sense? The answers to these questions are easy, people you just don't like them, because they mean that those who have a lot and feel like they "got it fair and square" suddenly have to (gasp) contribute to society rather than hoarding all of that money to themselves. Even though you start to hit massive diminishing returns in terms of effect on your actual lifestyle once you're getting up into the million range, and see barely any effect at all of additional wealth or income once you're past, say, 100 million. It becomes just a dollar-denominated high score, so that you can feel smug about How Great A Businessman You Are, while millions of people starve on the streets unnecessarily.
  - swexbe 4y ago
    So if your company tanks the day after the tax year cut off you're suddenly stuck with billions in debt and no assets? Seems like a pretty good reason to put your money elsewhere.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

satvikpendem 4y ago

What is wealth? How do you define it? How can you tax it? If it's in stocks, what does it mean to tax it? If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? It's not as simple as "make it illegal to have above X amount of money" because it's not really even money at that point, no one has X billion in cash lying around, it's tied to some physical asset. This is just one problem to your statement, there are many others.

OnlineGladiator 4y ago
This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. And to answer your "gotcha" question you do get taxed on stocks in this scenario. If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. There are plenty of other tax alternatives that are also quite simple, you just seem to be unhappy with anything that isn't perfect.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  > If you want to nitpick that every solution isn't as simple as fizzbuzz then there's no real point having a discussion. No, that's the entire point of having the discussion. If the solution can't answer even these types of questions, then there's no point having the discussion, because it breaks down even upon initial examination. > This is what the IRS is for. It's one of the only government organizations that actually makes more money than is put into it. So we'd just give them more money and resources to do their job, which would include wealth evaluation. Sure, I agree in giving more money to the IRS, indeed that's happened recently, but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains.
  - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
    > but even they are not going to tax unrealized capital gains You are completely missing the point of the conversation you started. Everything we're discussing is a hypothetical. In this scenario, they would tax that and everything else. Anyway, I don't think that you're arguing in good faith and I'm moving on with my day. Cheers.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Okay, no worries. It seems you wanted to reply to me but then are unable to show anything regarding your viewpoint when I ask questions about it, even, yes, in the hypothetical, so it's not worth my time to ask any questions either.
    - johndunne 4y ago
      I think you two peeps discussion illustrates the root problem with the whole issue to taxation and wealth. We start out with ideas for solving it, but quickly the scale of the mess that is the ‘wealth system’ quickly busts pretty much any solution. Trying to appreciate the true scale of the problem and any solutions becoming quickly impossible. And I think this is by design. It protects the system for the wealthiest…
    - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
peterashford 4y ago
"What is wealth? How do you define it?" I think I've done myself an injury from rolling my eyes too hard. Tax departments have this incredibly hard question covered, for some time now
- Kiro 4y ago
  No, they do not have this question covered. Look at the few countries that actually have a net wealth tax and how inadequate their calculations are. This is not a solved problem by any means. Better luck next time you try to roll your eyes.
danaris 4y ago
> What is wealth? How do you define it? Anything you own with a quantifiable monetary value. Yes, even if that value is not fixed. > If I own a company worth X billion, does that mean I have to sell my shares to withdraw enough cash to pay my taxes, thereby tanking the value of my own company? Yes. > If I pay a lot in a downturn but my company does better in a boom, will I get refunded the extra tax I paid? No. How does that even make sense? The answers to these questions are easy, people you just don't like them, because they mean that those who have a lot and feel like they "got it fair and square" suddenly have to (gasp) contribute to society rather than hoarding all of that money to themselves. Even though you start to hit massive diminishing returns in terms of effect on your actual lifestyle once you're getting up into the million range, and see barely any effect at all of additional wealth or income once you're past, say, 100 million. It becomes just a dollar-denominated high score, so that you can feel smug about How Great A Businessman You Are, while millions of people starve on the streets unnecessarily.
- swexbe 4y ago
  So if your company tanks the day after the tax year cut off you're suddenly stuck with billions in debt and no assets? Seems like a pretty good reason to put your money elsewhere.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]