5 ms·

That's why I'd be in favor of wealth (rather than income) taxes. If I was to earn $100mm net this year I could sit on my ass for the rest of my life, effective

That's why I'd be in favor of wealth (rather than income) taxes. If I was to earn $100mm net this year I could sit on my ass for the rest of my life, effectively taking me out of the motivated labor pool. That much money would probably take my kids out of the pool too even though the hypothetical lazy brats would grow up spoiled and highly undeserving. A wealth tax rate of 10% per year (halving my wealth every ~7 years) would encourage me to carry on thinking of new things, and make sure that my descendants wouldn't get a free ride. For comparison: Wealth tax 10%, 100mm in year 0, 50mm left in year 7, incentive to keep working to stop the pile shrinking. Income tax 50%, 50mm in year 0, 50mm left in year 7, no incentive to work.

dkokelley 18y ago
I don't really like this plan. First of all it would be near impossible to enforce, because if you were to make $100mm net this year you would move it all to a place where it is untouchable by the wealth tax. You might change citizenship or find some other loophole to hide your assets from the wealth counters. Second, retirement would have to be looked at entirely differently. I assume the retired would only be taxed at a much lower rate, or not at all. But assigning any wealth tax on the retired implies a government mandated death age, just like a government mandated retirement. See: 'The Giver' Finally, if you knew that your liquid wealth would be taxed at a certain rate, wouldn't you spend it on something? Houses, cars, stocks? What if Mark Zuckerberg was taxed on his artificial wealth? He can't really sell his FB shares to pay for it. If people knew that they HAD to keep 10% of their millions liquid for the rest of their life they would be less likely to invest it, since eventually they would need it. I like the unique way of looking at the issue, but I think it's ultimately unworkable.

dkokelley 18y ago

I don't really like this plan. First of all it would be near impossible to enforce, because if you were to make $100mm net this year you would move it all to a place where it is untouchable by the wealth tax. You might change citizenship or find some other loophole to hide your assets from the wealth counters. Second, retirement would have to be looked at entirely differently. I assume the retired would only be taxed at a much lower rate, or not at all. But assigning any wealth tax on the retired implies a government mandated death age, just like a government mandated retirement. See: 'The Giver' Finally, if you knew that your liquid wealth would be taxed at a certain rate, wouldn't you spend it on something? Houses, cars, stocks? What if Mark Zuckerberg was taxed on his artificial wealth? He can't really sell his FB shares to pay for it. If people knew that they HAD to keep 10% of their millions liquid for the rest of their life they would be less likely to invest it, since eventually they would need it. I like the unique way of looking at the issue, but I think it's ultimately unworkable.