Hard to see how the government deserves it. I guess its Willy Sutton logic: that's where the loot is.
Modeling a Wealth Tax
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#192I'm highly skeptical of the claim that such tax would discourage startup founders. Wealth tax proposals I've seen don't kick in until $50 million or $100 million. This means that there is a floor on how "poor" the government can make you via a wealth tax. This has two implications: 1. Most "successful" startup founders don't break that threshold of personal wealth. 2. For most startup founders, the startup is the onl…
> Wealth tax proposals I've seen don't kick in until $50 million or $100 million. This means that there is a floor on how "poor" the government can make you via a wealth tax. That’s just the starting point. Once people begin to figure out how to avoid it or have been tapped then the qualifier will be lowered to 40m. And then eventually 30m and do on until anyone above average is paying it. And then anyone above media…
These are all just assumption "how bad" the government will be in the future and casting fear and lies of the American dream, You too will be rich tomorrow and you don't want the government to take your money do you?
Fuck off dude.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG is talking about investing in companies, not general funds. For a founder to invest (eg., $1m) in starting a company, there is of them losing their total investment. The expected ROI needs to be fairly high to offset that. The only people who /could/ make money under such a scenario are super-rich investors making many bets that average out risk. And they wouldnt, given -- as you say -- general equity would perfor…
> For a founder to invest (eg., $1m) in starting a company Do you mean founder, or investor? I don't know any founders who invest that much into their startup. Startups are high-risk, high-return investments. If a wealth tax was introduced, wealthy people would need higher returns (as others have pointed out) to cover their tax obligations and so would invest in riskier investments. Like startups. So startup investme…
I know two startup founders who have both done that.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#194At what point can we all stop and say the federal government is 'big 'enough'? We can always find more for it to do, but I think most people here will agree the market is better, for most things, than bureaucracy. I'm all for trying different tax strategies to be more fair and efficient, but I think we need a line in the sand we won't cross before we add another potential slope to slide down.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#195I think a wealth tax sounds good, but the implementation scares me. What I worry about most with a wealth tax is calculating your wealth. Income tax is already hard enough. Now start adding up the value of your stock, your real estate, your personal property, etc. And are you committing tax fraud because you have a million dollar painting that was hanging on your parents wall for decades that you inherited and never…
How about: you're committing fraud if you bury a jar of gold coins in your back yard. What business is it of anyone elses' what you do in your own home? This idea of 'you have something; give it to us!!!' is very disturbing at some level.
Its different from other taxes, that tax an interchange with another person or entity. That is supported by society and its mechanisms, for which government (e.g. all of us) have some responsibility.
But just to start taking what I have simply because I have it, is upsetting at a very fundamental level.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does asset growth matter if you're taking n% no matter what? Edit: After reading the responses, I think people are confusing themselves with dollar amounts. If I have 100 units of X. The government takes 1 unit in the first year, 0.99 units the next, and so on. Over time my total number of units decreases. The notional value of those units can fluctuate but the absolute number of units owed to the government rema…
Because if your asset is growing at 5% and the wealth tax is taking 1%, your asset is still growing overall
Most assets do not 'grow in value'. Take a building any building. Sell it today. Sit on the cash for 50 years. How much building can you buy in 50 years? Not nearly as much.
The only reason we are even talking about wealth tax is because of the crazy unable to be funded programs some people are proposing. These programs sound nice on paper until you do the math on them. Then they realize they can not pay for it at all.
Remember wealth != cash value.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#197What a garbage, pandering article.
Assume you start a wildly successful startup in your 20s and you'd never have to work again. Assume there are no dividends. Assume you don't take income I guess? Assume there's no floor on the tax. Assume there's no capital appreciation (or at least hide it behind percentages). Then I can show you some numbers to make the mean scary government look bad.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#198I'm highly skeptical of the claim that such tax would discourage startup founders. Wealth tax proposals I've seen don't kick in until $50 million or $100 million. This means that there is a floor on how "poor" the government can make you via a wealth tax. This has two implications: 1. Most "successful" startup founders don't break that threshold of personal wealth. 2. For most startup founders, the startup is the onl…
The money ears money thing is key. A wealth tax that equals the money you can earn from having money would prevent runaway inequality due to the "rich getting richer" effect. S&P 500 has a long term annualized return of 10%. If you have a 5% wealth tax on stock you have in S&P 500 then you are still earning 5% returns (well above long term average inflation) without actually lifting a finger.
But none of the people you are trying to target with the wealth tax have their holdings in the S&P500. Instead they have close to 100% of their holdings in a single asset represented by the more diversified S&P500.
There is no guarantee that the single individual super-wealthy founder whose wealth derives from the ownership of their own company will appreciate at an annualized rate of 10%.
The two most pervasive myths about wealth among the super-rich appear to be:
1. They are sitting entirely on liquid cash
2. They are sitting entirely on highly diversified funds that enjoy 5+% annualized appreciation.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What this means is that people arguing against a wealth tax are happy to disadvantage 330m people to protect the wealth of a low number of thousands. By not giving 1% of your wealth to Africa you're disadvantaging a billion people to protect the wealth of one. It's not a disadvantage to someone that they're not getting a part of somebody else's wealth; we're not born with some divine right to other people's money.
The ability to have 100 million dollars is entirely due to the enforcement of laws that we all agree on. I think we should re-frame the wealth tax as guillotine insurance.
Enforcing those laws doesn't take a lot of money: see countries like Singapore (or America 100 years ago). In the US most tax money goes into welfare, and warfare (and I think it's hard to argue that America's current military expenditure is the minimum necessary to protect its citizens' property).
The talk of guillotines is completely out of place by the way: the French revolution was not a bunch of peasants guillotining the rich out of envy; they were guillotining the royal family, for taxing them too much!
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does asset growth matter if you're taking n% no matter what? Edit: After reading the responses, I think people are confusing themselves with dollar amounts. If I have 100 units of X. The government takes 1 unit in the first year, 0.99 units the next, and so on. Over time my total number of units decreases. The notional value of those units can fluctuate but the absolute number of units owed to the government rema…
Because if your asset is growing at 5% and the wealth tax is taking 1%, your asset is still growing overall
By the same reasoning income tax doesn't exist because people sometimes get raises. Come on.