4 ms·

If you wanted to tax the wealth.. have a wealth tax? It's a thing in countries including Norway and Switzerland, and similar things exist in others (e.g. Italy

If you wanted to tax the wealth.. have a wealth tax? It's a thing in countries including Norway and Switzerland, and similar things exist in others (e.g. Italy taxes assets in some weird non linear way).

Matumio 3y ago
Yes there is a wealth tax in Switzerland, but... it would have to be much higher to make a difference. Raising it will not pass a referendum, which it practically has to in Switzerland. It has one big advantage, though: official numbers about wealth distribution. I think micro taxation on all transactions (including at ATMs) would work better. Easier to explain, harder to avoid since you tax both sides of each transaction.
- Panzer04 3y ago
  This is what a GST/VAT is, but far less disruptive. Taxing transactions that don't actually exchange ownership would be bonkers.
- wh0knows 3y ago
  Aren’t these taxations generally regressive given poor people spend ~100% of their income and ultra rich people spend <1%. So you’re taxing the poor person on all of their money but barely taxing the rich person.
janalsncm 3y ago
Makes sense to me. We already have a wealth tax of sorts. It’s called “property tax” which is mostly a house tax. We can tax other property too, including virtual assets such as shares.
scoofy 3y ago
This is a scheme to tax capital gains, not wealth. The point of this prescription isn't that "the rich have too much money," it is that we have gotten to the point where some of the largest capital gains go untaxed, period. The idea that a gain isn't a gain until the asset is sold is nonsense. That'd literally be like saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett never made a dime on any of their stock that they are giving the charity. It's a ludicrous conception of capital gains, but it's exactly the one we use.
- riffraff 3y ago
  I answered the way I did cause you wrote "if we wanted to tax this wealth". Which is the point, really, cause nobody cares about the small person who got a 1000% return on 50$ of Bitcoin, we care about massive assets owned by a tiny minority who is able to dodge capital gains tax even if their asset growth is only 4% per year.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    Let's say you have $1,000,000, and you by a share of Bershire or whatever that increases to $3,000,000. A capital gains tax taxes the $2,000,000 unrealized -- but eventually effective -- gain. A wealth tax taxes the $3,000,000 estimated net worth. There is a real distinction. A real reason to incentivize productive capital, and that is you get to keep what you've earned. The point I'm trying to make is only that people should pay taxes, and an unrealized capital gain from literally 40 years ago isn't some unknowable investment outcome... it's a capital gain.
- remich 3y ago
  Our system would make sense if it was the case that the literal only way to turn and asset into money was to sell it. But, because assets can instead be used as collateral for loans, asset owners (overwhelmingly the wealthy in the U.S.) get to have their cake and eat it too.
  - vmladenov 3y ago
    I’ve never understood this reasoning. Loans need to be repaid at some point, so one must realize some income to pay them back, at which point they will owe tax.

Matumio 3y ago

Yes there is a wealth tax in Switzerland, but... it would have to be much higher to make a difference. Raising it will not pass a referendum, which it practically has to in Switzerland. It has one big advantage, though: official numbers about wealth distribution. I think micro taxation on all transactions (including at ATMs) would work better. Easier to explain, harder to avoid since you tax both sides of each transaction.

Panzer04 3y ago
This is what a GST/VAT is, but far less disruptive. Taxing transactions that don't actually exchange ownership would be bonkers.
wh0knows 3y ago
Aren’t these taxations generally regressive given poor people spend ~100% of their income and ultra rich people spend <1%. So you’re taxing the poor person on all of their money but barely taxing the rich person.

janalsncm 3y ago

Makes sense to me. We already have a wealth tax of sorts. It’s called “property tax” which is mostly a house tax. We can tax other property too, including virtual assets such as shares.

scoofy 3y ago

This is a scheme to tax capital gains, not wealth. The point of this prescription isn't that "the rich have too much money," it is that we have gotten to the point where some of the largest capital gains go untaxed, period. The idea that a gain isn't a gain until the asset is sold is nonsense. That'd literally be like saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett never made a dime on any of their stock that they are giving the charity. It's a ludicrous conception of capital gains, but it's exactly the one we use.

riffraff 3y ago
I answered the way I did cause you wrote "if we wanted to tax this wealth". Which is the point, really, cause nobody cares about the small person who got a 1000% return on 50$ of Bitcoin, we care about massive assets owned by a tiny minority who is able to dodge capital gains tax even if their asset growth is only 4% per year.
- scoofy 3y ago
  Let's say you have $1,000,000, and you by a share of Bershire or whatever that increases to $3,000,000. A capital gains tax taxes the $2,000,000 unrealized -- but eventually effective -- gain. A wealth tax taxes the $3,000,000 estimated net worth. There is a real distinction. A real reason to incentivize productive capital, and that is you get to keep what you've earned. The point I'm trying to make is only that people should pay taxes, and an unrealized capital gain from literally 40 years ago isn't some unknowable investment outcome... it's a capital gain.
remich 3y ago
Our system would make sense if it was the case that the literal only way to turn and asset into money was to sell it. But, because assets can instead be used as collateral for loans, asset owners (overwhelmingly the wealthy in the U.S.) get to have their cake and eat it too.
- vmladenov 3y ago
  I’ve never understood this reasoning. Loans need to be repaid at some point, so one must realize some income to pay them back, at which point they will owe tax.