31–40 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to have the same personal freedom as a billionaire. If a wealth tax is a means to accomplish that, then I'm willing to accept it.
I'd love to be as tall and athletic as an NBA player. Perhaps a height tax is in order to more fairly redistribute people along the vertical dimension.
But of course an institute called the "American Institute for Economic Research" is going to say that; from the about page, they believe in "the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government, and sound money."
And there's nothing wrong with that. It's pretty good that they stated their beliefs upfront, so at least we can see where the bias (if any) comes from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would work. But it’s a terrifying worldview that citizens should be vassals to the state instead of the other way around.
How so? Capital flight is a form of class warfare. Controls against it are the majority, workers who don’t own capital, enforcing a social contract against those who do. Of course, that will only happen in states where workers are in power. In most countries that isn’t the case and, unsurprisingly, there are weak capital flight controls.
Voluntary association and participation of individuals should be a baseline understanding.
Kind of predictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Capital flight is a form of class warfare. Controls against it are the majority, workers who don’t own capital, enforcing a social contract against those who do. Of course, that will only happen in states where workers are in power. In most countries that isn’t the case and, unsurprisingly, there are weak capital flight controls.
I guess I don't see the relevance. Are you saying any tactic or action is fair game in class warfare? Voluntary association and participation of individuals should be a baseline understanding.
Individuals associating voluntarily is a liberal fiction. Such freedom only exists if you are already wealthy. Otherwise you have to work for an owner of capital or starve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to be as tall and athletic as an NBA player. Perhaps a height tax is in order to more fairly redistribute people along the vertical dimension.
Your snarky comment fails given that height is non-transferable whereas money is? Hair transplant would be a funnier comment. Alas.
Also noticed that a lot of people are suggesting laws against capital flight, but this is also a very risky idea. Having capital that can't be moved inheritly decreases its value. You might be able to capture short term value, but you risk future investment, which could lead to a death spiral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your snarky comment fails given that height is non-transferable whereas money is? Hair transplant would be a funnier comment. Alas.
I'll own the snark (and point out that height is only non-transferable if you aren't trying hard enough, a la Harrison Bergeron), but my point stands. Life is full of situations where someone has it better off than someone else in whatever dimension you care to look at. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, which is what GP seemed to suggest in coveting the personal freedoms of a billionai…
> wealthy Norwegians took with them a total fortune of $54 billion when they left. This means that the wealth tax, which was projected to increase revenue by nearly $150 million annually, will result in about 40 percent less revenue than it currently generates So the problem is revenue from wealth tax will only be $90M instead of $150M? As opposed to $0M without the wealth tax? How does having these billionaires phys…
If anything, it seems that improving the weak controls against capital flight is all it would take to correct this problem.
> wealthy Norwegians took with them a total fortune of $54 billion when they left. This means that the wealth tax, which was projected to increase revenue by nearly $150 million annually, will result in about 40 percent less revenue than it currently generates So the problem is revenue from wealth tax will only be $90M instead of $150M? As opposed to $0M without the wealth tax? How does having these billionaires phys…
Norway already had a wealth tax and raising it resulted in less overall revenue not more. That is what the article is saying.