There are asset taxes: excise and real estate taxes. At the federal level, the graduated income tax seems a kind of asset tax.Now it's interesting that the idea of wealth tax is floated even in the US. — ssu
Now it's interesting that the idea of wealth tax is floated even in the US. I haven't followed it closely, but at least Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed it. If somebody knows more about this, it would be interesting to hear your comments. All I can say is that if a wealth tax is implemented in the US, the only winners are the tax advisors and the wealth managers, who will have a great new market for their services! — ssu
make the majority of their money through owned assets [i.e. wealth], not through income — Maw
Seems that libertarian socialists understand the point. Of course these are sales / income / capital gains taxes. And here the discourse and the problems and incentives are closer to the ordinary debate around taxation than with a wealth tax.As a libertarian socialist I agree that wealth taxes are a horrible idea. Any taxes should be at time of sale, so the market can reveal the actual value; therefore, income taxes. And ideally, they should only be levied, if at all, on unearned income, i.e. from rent. — Pfhorrest
That's how any new tax is introduced.Both Bernie and Warren's Wealth Tax don't really start hitting meaningful numbers until you get into the .01% wealth bracket, whose assets obviously shadow than $200K. Their proposed wealth tax increases sharply as you travel further down the funnel of the ultra-wealthy (i.e. .001% through the top 400 wealthiest Americans). The top 1% of wealth owners also make the majority of their money through owned assets [i.e. wealth], not through [labor] income, so yes, that should be taxed. — Maw
I'm not sure from which lands you hail, but it sounds like a tax on wealth above 200k is obviously stupid (200k is nowhere near "rich"; not even visible to the naked eye when compared with the wealth of the "super rich"). — VagabondSpectre
I'm giving you just an example of what a heavily taxed welfare state is like. On the other hand I have free universal health care and have studied in the university a master's degree without having to pay any tuition costs ever. If I would be broke, unemployed and would have no home, the welfare system would provide me small but decent housing. I wouldn't have to beg on the street. So I guess that's a plus. And the conservatives are just fine with all that. What they aren't fine with is a wealth tax.I'm straining to make the link between your own anecdote and American wealth gaps — VagabondSpectre
My personal anecdote shows the problem when estimated wealth, not income, is taxed — ssu
That is a wealth tax, if the properties are taxed on market value, not on a lower price. — ssu
The reason why the amount was 200K in USD was that then 5 Finnish marks was 1 USD or so, hence that 200K was 1 million Finnish marks. Hence the tax was deliberately a tax on millionaires. If you got wealth worth a million FIM, why shouldn't you pay? Millionaires ought to pay wealth tax!!! And now a labour union would introduce a wealth tax on everything over 100K Euros with the exception, of course, of one's home. Simple reason, the vast majority of people don't have wealth over 100K besides their home.
And let's make another thought experiment: Let's assume that everybody had to pay a wealth tax. So if your unemployed and your home is foreclosed, but you still have this minibus (that the government decides is worth 9K) where you sleep, well, have to pay 90$. Wouldn't that sound fair? — ssu
I think that the tax revenues of a wealth tax would be dismal and likely be squandered of in foreign wars or in a currency crisis when the rich scramble away with their money. So it's not a great idea in my view. — ssu
at least this way the middle and lower classes get something. — VagabondSpectre
Given the impending economic vulnerabilities of climate change and the end of oil, governments and the working class is set to lose even more bargaining power against them — VagabondSpectre
So tax people highly on their unearned income (rent, interest, etc) and you should be covered on accounting for people gaining wealth by having wealth, without any of the problems of taxing people just for having wealth. — Pfhorrest
That's how any new tax is introduced. — ssu
It's first small and doesn't apply to the commoner. And especially with the wealth tax every time it is marketed that it doesn't matter for the commoner.So above you were talking about 0,001% of the population, that's 3 280 people (if I count correctly), you are talking about about really a small group of people. Let's just think that the tax was only for them. How do you think that the next wealthiest person, the American 3281st richest guy (likely), would feel? Would the 30 000th richest guy feel secured also? How about the 3 millionth rich guy or girl? Or the 30th millionth rich guy or girl? Top decile wealth is on average still 1,1 million USD, so you are still talking about millionaires. The 30 million are still a small minority. — ssu
Amazon is actually an amazingly efficient business, but the amount of money Besos can extract from it is unethical — VagabondSpectre
Why do you think it’s unethical? — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.