3 ms·

I mean, sure if you completely ignore investment returns; otherwise your numbers are bogus. The “safe” rate of retirement drawdown is generally accepted as 4%

I mean, sure if you completely ignore investment returns; otherwise your numbers are bogus. The “safe” rate of retirement drawdown is generally accepted as 4% because inflation, bad years in the markets etc. In case it isn’t obvious, taxing wealth is basically taxing the older people in society, because they had more of a chance to accumulate wealth. Hitting people at retirement with a 25% marginal tax increase is just wrong and an unworkable policy proposal. Piketty’s proposal may work in countries with functional pension schemes, but not in the U.S. where personal wealth accumulation is necessary to extent a solid middle class lifestyle into retirement.

Epa095 3y ago
Use 4% then. You're left with 280k (400-120) a year. That's 9 times the median US income, and very close to being in the top 5% income. Not to mention that capital tax is usually lower than income tax. Even ignoring investment returns completely, $10M is enough for anyone to live extremely comfortable the rest of their life, just using this money! Taxing the very rich (as the top 1% is) is reasonable, also when they are retired. You speak as if the money itself can't be used, only the returns. As if it's somehow 'not a lot of money' if it's not possible to live indefinitely on the capital gains alone. But I agree that it's unworkable, but only because this is a powerfull group (wealth is power after all). I think it's completely unrealistic for that reason alone. But it's a good idea, and $10M is a lot of money.