3 ms·

You've got to get there from here. What's needed is a transition plan which ends up totally eliminating taxes from anyone that's not rich, while adjusting tax

You've got to get there from here. What's needed is a transition plan which ends up totally eliminating taxes from anyone that's not rich, while adjusting tax rates accordingly to make up the difference. IOW moving steadily in that direction without fail, each year designating more and more non-rich citizens for total tax relief in a very predictable way, both socially and financially. Rinse & repeat until there is a measurable effect on wealth inequality. Then use that measure of effect to determine next steps.

fuzzfactor 2y ago
Next steps if nothing measurable develops within a reasonable number of years, increase the rate of change until the overwhelming majority of citizens are no longer taxed whatsoever. This is the real promise of increased worker productivity benefiting the workers themselves rather than only making them pay more tax. If that big a majority could not be reached, then I guess as undesirable as it would be, it becomes necessary to start taxing wealth itself. This really shouldn't be allowed to happen though and there's no fair way to accomplish it, but at least the untaxable citizens would not have to worry, while only people who can actually afford to be squeezed step up to the plate as fairly as can be done. There should be no way that taxing of wealth could ever become permanent at all. Permanent taxes on wage income would have never been allowed if it weren't for their proposed (then later implied) temporary nature in the years it took to finally approve such a massive transfer of wealth away from those who could afford it least. Remember in the USA, free enterprise flourished like never before or after, but that was only during the period when no wage income was yet taxed. The only faintly realistic excuse for taxing wages was to use the funds only to pay down debt and reduce ongoing costs forever so that the levy could be lifted as soon as humanly possible. I do think real honest billionaires are among those who may not want anybody to be able to ascertain what their actual wealth is at any one time. That's fair too. That confidentiality could be maintained perhaps by an alternative minimum wealth tax, which only the very wealthy could easily pay, for those who do not want to disclose detailed wealth standings at their own option. After all the dust from such a seismic shift would settle, then the fixed value of the alternative minimum could be focused on to balance the books without any non-rich people having to suffer due to wastefulness and inequality, no matter how long those undesirable financial factors continue to linger. For the very rich, a fixed minimum (rather than a regulated percentage) might still be far less onerous compared to the barely-rich. That's OK, as long as the books are balanced they can still compete among themselves for dominance and stuff, as long as none of the non-rich citizens can get caught in the crossfire any more. There is no other non-revolting choice once tax rates have risen far enough beyond insignificant. The longer that unbearable taxes have been allowed to stand, the more it can be like a dam breaking when sympathies change. But taxation of wealth itself should really be avoided "at all costs", as the increasing number of non-rich are almost permanently relieved of levies in a systematic way. Rich people should be able to keep their money as long as none of the non-rich citizens are suffering because of it. This is in line with people who are already getting so worried about a possible tax on wealth, that UBI looks more urgent to them as years of increasing inequality go by.

fuzzfactor 2y ago

Next steps if nothing measurable develops within a reasonable number of years, increase the rate of change until the overwhelming majority of citizens are no longer taxed whatsoever. This is the real promise of increased worker productivity benefiting the workers themselves rather than only making them pay more tax. If that big a majority could not be reached, then I guess as undesirable as it would be, it becomes necessary to start taxing wealth itself. This really shouldn't be allowed to happen though and there's no fair way to accomplish it, but at least the untaxable citizens would not have to worry, while only people who can actually afford to be squeezed step up to the plate as fairly as can be done. There should be no way that taxing of wealth could ever become permanent at all. Permanent taxes on wage income would have never been allowed if it weren't for their proposed (then later implied) temporary nature in the years it took to finally approve such a massive transfer of wealth away from those who could afford it least. Remember in the USA, free enterprise flourished like never before or after, but that was only during the period when no wage income was yet taxed. The only faintly realistic excuse for taxing wages was to use the funds only to pay down debt and reduce ongoing costs forever so that the levy could be lifted as soon as humanly possible. I do think real honest billionaires are among those who may not want anybody to be able to ascertain what their actual wealth is at any one time. That's fair too. That confidentiality could be maintained perhaps by an alternative minimum wealth tax, which only the very wealthy could easily pay, for those who do not want to disclose detailed wealth standings at their own option. After all the dust from such a seismic shift would settle, then the fixed value of the alternative minimum could be focused on to balance the books without any non-rich people having to suffer due to wastefulness and inequality, no matter how long those undesirable financial factors continue to linger. For the very rich, a fixed minimum (rather than a regulated percentage) might still be far less onerous compared to the barely-rich. That's OK, as long as the books are balanced they can still compete among themselves for dominance and stuff, as long as none of the non-rich citizens can get caught in the crossfire any more. There is no other non-revolting choice once tax rates have risen far enough beyond insignificant. The longer that unbearable taxes have been allowed to stand, the more it can be like a dam breaking when sympathies change. But taxation of wealth itself should really be avoided "at all costs", as the increasing number of non-rich are almost permanently relieved of levies in a systematic way. Rich people should be able to keep their money as long as none of the non-rich citizens are suffering because of it. This is in line with people who are already getting so worried about a possible tax on wealth, that UBI looks more urgent to them as years of increasing inequality go by.