This really does not drive the conversation forwards. This isn't an intellectually honest look at wealth taxes as people like Warren are putting forth.
Modeling a Wealth Tax
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Fuck off dude.
You can't do that on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Perhaps you don't owe "dude" better, but you owe this community better if you're posting here.
I'm dismayed to see that you've been making a habit of posting like this, as well as unsubstantive comments generally. If you keep doing that we're going to have to ban you, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart?
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#823This is so simplistic. Favorably simplistic.
Think about it this way, in a very similar, live example:
It is common practice to pay a fee of 0.5-2% to a wealth manager. In practice for many people this fee is worthwhile and wonderful - the benefit is a safely managed and vigorously growing pool of assets.
Is a wealth tax as described by the author really so different? In one case you pay a fee to the manager, in the other case you pay the fee to a more abstract/distant manager (the social system). In both cases, that small fee (small if everyone is generally competent and the wealth grows) is what empowers further growth.
No sane, logical person complains about paying $0.20 when in return they get an extra $0.30 back. In this case, I suspect the author is trying to justify receiving that hypothetical $0.30 without having contributed their initial $0.20. Embarrassingly simplistic, selfish, and self-centered.
Reading that blog post, I’m reminded of the occasional, deluded person who believes that they alone are responsible for their successes and good fortune. In reality, all successes are collective accomplishments. This is a fundamental fact about human life.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#824Earlier quoted context omitted.
>First, any wealth tax being seriously discussed has a floor and/or has marginal rates, probably starting at 1 or 5 or 10 million (or higher). Uh huh. >Second, taxes don't disappear into nothingness - they pay for civilization. But there are bad taxes. There is such a thing as too much tax. So you have to justify the wealth tax on its own merits instead of trying to pull a motte-and-bailey fallacy by pushing a wealth…
>>Second, taxes don't disappear into nothingness - they pay for civilization. >But there are bad taxes. There is such a thing as too much tax. So you have to justify the wealth tax on its own merits instead of trying to pull a motte-and-bailey fallacy by pushing a wealth tax and then arguing for the necessity of taxes when challenged. Taxes are a necessary part of a functioning modern economy. Wealth tax is not. Inde…
We can have both carbon taxes AND wealth taxes, of course. Carbon taxes seem to be an excellent way to curb carbon emissions, which is necessary, but they're also regressive, and unlikely to be sufficient to pay for the things we expect the government to provide.
PG may not be impacted by a California wealth tax, but that doesn't mean his opposition isn't self-interested. If it succeeds in California it could be taken up by other states, or the US as a whole - maybe wiser (in PG's view) to nip it in the bud.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#825Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fifth, the idea that people "will just move to another country" is very silly. If some people do leave, or start companies only in other jurisdictions, that just means there's a market opportunity for the many people who remain. You're just name-calling here, it's not "silly" just because you don't like the fact. If they leave, they actually leave, period. Sweden's left-wing majority abolished the inheritance tax(!…
It is silly. Your example isn't even about a wealth tax, it's about an inheritance tax. Sweden has a 30% Capital Gains tax (likely the vehicle for any form of future wealth tax) and seems to be doing much better than the US.
Is that right?
Sweden -- along with virtually all European countries other than Switzerland, Norway and Luxembourg -- have much poorer middle classes than most US states.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/if-sweden-left-the-eu-and-joi...
https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#826wealth tax (like most taxes) == Robbery
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#827This is simplistic to the point of absurdity, and doesn't model how any sensible wealth tax would be implemented or paid. First, any wealth tax being seriously discussed has a floor and/or has marginal rates, probably starting at 1 or 5 or 10 million (or higher). Second, taxes don't disappear into nothingness - they pay for civilization. It is clearly beneficial to everyone to live in a society where people are well…
[deleted]
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#828Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, companies don't exist primarily to pay back investors, their first objective is to contribute to society. If a company does pay back investors, that almost always means that it has contributed to society on net. Let me explain. If people don't pay for a company's products, that company will go out of business. Unlike a government, a company has little coercive power. If I refuse to use Facebook, Mark Zuck…
> If a company does pay back investors, that almost always means that it has contributed to society on net. It sounds like you're saying that profit is all that matters and you can't contribute to society without making a profit.
I simply argued that in a system where certain failure modes are ameliorated, a company that creates more value than it captures is a net benefit to society.
If I argued that strawberry cake was a net benefit to society, would you dismiss my views as "all that matters is strawberry cake and you can't contribute to society without making strawberry cake"? Of course not. So too for economics.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#829Earlier quoted context omitted.
>First, any wealth tax being seriously discussed has a floor and/or has marginal rates, probably starting at 1 or 5 or 10 million (or higher). Uh huh. >Second, taxes don't disappear into nothingness - they pay for civilization. But there are bad taxes. There is such a thing as too much tax. So you have to justify the wealth tax on its own merits instead of trying to pull a motte-and-bailey fallacy by pushing a wealth…
Do any wealth taxes being seriously discussed not have floors/exemptions for primary residences/marginal rates/whatever? Why is a wealth tax a bad tax? Why is it worse than income tax or a VAT or anything else we currently do? Many places currently have property taxes (a type of wealth tax) and they tend to work well. You need to redo your math. If your net worth is $10+ million and isn't increasing by at least ~4% a…
> Many places currently have property taxes (a type of wealth tax) and they tend to work well.
Don't forget inheritance tax/estate tax! It's a wealth tax, just applied after (or near to) death.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#830Someone forgot to model growth in the value of the asset, and/or putting the wealth to use. A wealth tax is, to an approximation, the equivalent of the "management fee" that an ETF charges, but with the revenues going to the government. If you have a bucket of money that isn't doing anything, then what value does it actually bring to the economy? Penalizing static value seems almost reasonable.
But a wealth tax also targets owners of assets that don’t appreciate. It taxes both the winners and the losers, and for the latter it’s nothing but a forced divestiture of their ownership stake. A capital gains tax, on the other hand, strictly targets those whose assets have appreciated in value. Wealth is always eventually taxed when it’s liquidated. And if it is never liquidated, then it arguably doesn’t really mat…
We should incentivize productivity (thus low income/gains taxes) but pay for goods and services (thus wealth and inheritance taxes). There is nothing beneficial for society if there are people with large amounts of poorly allocated wealth (ie not productive enough to grow faster than tax rate).