Comment by cryptonector
9 years ago
+1.
And whence the money for the share? Taxes. So this is just a UBI.
This, like all UBI proposals, seems like a way to dress up a massive tax hike: "but you'll be getting your share of GDP!". The only way to get me to like a UBI is to have UBI replace absolutely all (and I do mean all) welfare programs so that we can just haggle at every election over one headline UBI number + necessary taxes. And the initial UBI and tax rates would have to be no more burdensome than the current total of welfare it would replace, and preferably significantly less burdensome than that. Many UBI proponents, of course, would not mind this because they'll aim to ratchet up the UBI and taxes for it in a way that becomes culturally irreversible -- and that's a reason to be against UBI.
And incidentally, all instances of "soak the rich" in American history have actually been "soak those who aren't rich but have high incomes". The truly wealthy have no income as such -- instead they have capital. And why don't we just tax capital? Well, because every time it's been tried anywhere it's been a disaster for the overall economy: capital (and wealthy people) flees.
I'm ready for the downvotes, by the way.
Bragging that you are ready for downvotes is like wearing a codpiece to the beach.
Anyway, talk of UBI in the US is pretty silly when you look at how many people would rather not have the government do things like help people access health care.
Also, this is why the fantastically wealthy tend to be for increasing the income taxes: they pay none of that, but they pay those incomes, the growth of which they hope is restrained by higher marginal taxes.
Trust capitalism, but not capitalists.
There are wealth taxes in Switzerland, Norway, France, and the Netherlands, amongst others in Europe.
They've been repealed in countries like Sweden and Austria, not because they were disasters, but because exceedingly wealthy people have a lot of influence. That's the only story.
As such your claim that no such taxes exist is wrong; and your claim that they've been a disaster is also fallacious.
p.s. your "ready for downvotes" nonsense is such immature nonsense. You said an untrue thing that HN audiences wish were true, and then pretended you're being brave. You're a joke.
Can you show us a comparison of GDP growth rates, before and after wealth taxes were promulgated (and, where it happened, repealed)? Also, please, a comparison of GDP history between countries that have and lack wealth taxes.
Near as I can tell Europe has lagged way behind the U.S. in economic growth since the 1980s. I remember back in the 90s when catching up to the U.S. was stated goal of the incipient EU. How did that go? How does that relate to overall tax rates, public spending as a proportion of GDP? Are fertility rates artificially lowered by a high tax burden? Are they improved by the welfare state? Or is something else the matter with Europe?
I think "disaster" is an appropriate adjective for wealth taxes.
> Can you show us a comparison of GDP growth rates, before and after wealth taxes were promulgated?
Two hours before saying that, you said:
> ...every time it's been tried anywhere it's been a disaster for the overall economy: capital (and wealthy people) flees.
1 reply →
No, you show it.
I already showed that you were completely lying about wealth taxes not existing anymore. Only a fool would trust a proven liar like you.
Man, I love you.
You state a total falsehood (that there are no wealth taxes), and a second falsehood that is, admittedly, subjective, (claiming that they were a disaster).
I point out that you were completely wrong about the objective claim you made, and you ignore that but demand evidence that I prove you were wrong about the other one, too? No way dude, you already proved that you're not here for an honest debate.
I think "disaster" is an appropriate adjective for your integrity.
Not informed enough to comment on the others, but the wealth tax in France had a massive backlash and likely impacted their economy for the worse. The mistrust of the French Government due to this is affecting their bid to replace London as the financial capital of Europe. People are very, very wary of moving there.