6 ms·

Taxing estates over 1B at 100% would move the needle a good amount. Rich people will insist that if you remove their incentive to earn more than a billion they’

Taxing estates over 1B at 100% would move the needle a good amount. Rich people will insist that if you remove their incentive to earn more than a billion they’ll stop working and I’m ok with that. There will always be plenty of non billionaires left to pick uo the slack.

jfengel 2y ago
Make it 99%. Then they will increase their wealth by $.01 for every dollar earned, which is better than $.00 for doing nothing. Logically they must continue using their special billionaire-skills because they are earning money for it. Probably at a faster rate than 99% of us. Plain economics. Surely they will make the rational choice.
- BJones12 2y ago
  The rational choice would then be to move their economic activity and the jobs involved to another country with lower taxes.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    That would already be the rational choice, if it was. There are countries with lower taxes, yet the economic activity isn't flocking to them.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    The US taxes non-resident citizens.
    - erikerikson 2y ago
      And citizens can abandon their citizenship if they feel it is worth it.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    If they think that they can be as economically productive in a different country without American citizenship, then they should indeed do that.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      Do you think that punitively incentivizing the most economically productive people to leave the country results in zero consequences?
SvenL 2y ago
I think it would better to let them renovate/build public goods like schools/libraries/streets etc. If they pay taxes I don’t think it would help society. It would require politicians which don’t use tax money to improve their wealth on their own (I know they would be taxed too but then the money is just moving on paper and not really used).
- aczerepinski 2y ago
  They can under my proposal. But if they die without having donated all their wealth their kids can’t inherit it either.

jfengel 2y ago

Make it 99%. Then they will increase their wealth by $.01 for every dollar earned, which is better than $.00 for doing nothing. Logically they must continue using their special billionaire-skills because they are earning money for it. Probably at a faster rate than 99% of us. Plain economics. Surely they will make the rational choice.

BJones12 2y ago
The rational choice would then be to move their economic activity and the jobs involved to another country with lower taxes.
- luckylion 2y ago
  That would already be the rational choice, if it was. There are countries with lower taxes, yet the economic activity isn't flocking to them.
- thfuran 2y ago
  The US taxes non-resident citizens.
  - erikerikson 2y ago
    And citizens can abandon their citizenship if they feel it is worth it.
- jfengel 2y ago
  If they think that they can be as economically productive in a different country without American citizenship, then they should indeed do that.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    Do you think that punitively incentivizing the most economically productive people to leave the country results in zero consequences?

SvenL 2y ago

I think it would better to let them renovate/build public goods like schools/libraries/streets etc. If they pay taxes I don’t think it would help society. It would require politicians which don’t use tax money to improve their wealth on their own (I know they would be taxed too but then the money is just moving on paper and not really used).

aczerepinski 2y ago
They can under my proposal. But if they die without having donated all their wealth their kids can’t inherit it either.