3 ms·
That's true, the only thing I can think of is an "amplification curve" being set on whatever is paid, and that can be paid by everyone after any given period ba
by adrianwaj 5mo ago
That's true, the only thing I can think of is an "amplification curve" being set on whatever is paid, and that can be paid by everyone after any given period based on all the flows a person was involved in during that time.
So if a frugal rich person can be paying a similar amount to a poor person in overall tax looking at living expenses alone, one can also look at all the extra income the rich person gets from assets.
So this inequality/imbalance can be lessened through an amplification factor: by looking at the overall position of a person's flows.
The governments can decide how much to "squash down" down the inequality in society.
Would this address the issue raised?
The other thing interesting about a transaction tax is that individuals don't necessarily even need to be identified - only flows. That would suit the privacy-side of crypto. But I'm not sure how the final setup would look. And that could appeal to the super-rich who want to remain anonymous.
Maybe what I'm getting at is a blockchain tax: a proportion of transaction fees gets automatically routed to government coffers. Alternatively, add a staking tax as well.
This will all make more sense when more real-world assets go on-chain.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]