9 ms·
> I think almost everybody would be better off if taxes were something like 1% of total assets rather than off the top of your income No thanks. Any discussion
by thunky 5mo ago
> I think almost everybody would be better off if taxes were something like 1% of total assets rather than off the top of your income
No thanks. Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious. Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms.
- tyg13 5mo ago> Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms. The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income. Your complaint isn't relevant to the discussion of wealth vs income taxes.
- thunky 5mo ago> The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income Derived is not the same thing. Not even close. Then why stop at 1%? Why not fork over half of your possessions to the government every year and let them spend it for you, if you trust them so much? And by the way we already have a wealth tax. Its called inflation.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo agoInflation is only a wealth tax if you invest in cash. If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation.
- thunky 5mo ago> If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation Aka put your wealth at risk or watch it disappear. And the larger point is that runaway govt spending makes it disappear faster.
- tyg13 5mo agoWhy not eliminate tax entirely, then? Is that a conclusion you'd support?
- thunky 5mo agoIf the choice is between giving the govt an portion of my net worth, a portion of my income, or nothing, I'll choose nothing. But that's not really an option is it?
- BrenBarn 5mo ago> Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious. I'd say almost the reverse. What we need most in terms of "tax reform" is to move away from thinking about taxes as solely a means of funding government operations, and towards thinking about taxes as a way of directly redistributing wealth. That is, the revenues of a wealth tax could simply be given to the non-wealthy as direct payments (possibly in the form of refundable tax credits). Unavoidably there will be some overhead, but there doesn't need to be anything for the money to be "spent on"; it can just be straight-up given to different people than those who paid it.
- thunky 5mo agoTotally agree but its not the reverse of what I said, you're still talking about changing how the government spends money.
- BrenBarn 5mo agoI would say the way to think about it is that the revenue from this tax is never the government's money. They are just administering the transfer of it from some individuals to others.
- thunky 5mo agoWe're splitting hairs but imo if the government takes money from bob and gives it to joe they own the money on between those two steps. The taxing -> spending plumbing is exactly the same as it is now. And if you disagree with that look at social security which is supposed to be your money but clearly it is not.