← Back to context

Comment by Havoc

5 hours ago

I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post.

For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth.

The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income tax

The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that this is harsh compared with income tax when people who pay more than half their much lower income in overall taxes whilst working 60 hour weeks and actually worrying about paying bills.

There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives, the difficulty of paying tax bills from illiquid intangible wealth or even quantifying it, and whether it's really a good thing to pressure people building a company to sell much of it off, but telling income tax payers that an effective tax rate of 20% is high isn't one of them...

  • > The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers

    This is untrue btw

    50% of people in the US pay effectively no net taxes

  • > There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives

    If the US and the EU introduced a wealth tax then it would be relatively difficult for the capital flight fears to materialise. But yeah, the trouble with wealth taxes is that wealth (i.e. capital) is mobile.

    Which is why land and property taxes are probably the most effective way of taxing wealth.

    • Switzerland has cantonal wealth taxes, as does Norway and afair Spain. Italy, Belgium, Netherlands have a somewhat equivalent one on money held in securities or savings accounts. It's not that big of a deal if the rate is low enough.

    • Most of us would not prefer to follow the EU into irrelevancy. If they were the model for how we should be running things how come they are not the ones running the show on innovation?

I'm not sure how there is a societal problem with "run-away levels of wealth".

We have societal problems around food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs, &c; but people with extreme wealth are not bidding up sandwiches, studio apartments, &c, &c. If we "solve" their wealth by taking it from them and giving it to the government, what does that help? What good is the government going to do with that? Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living.

> you do need something more extreme

That's how you end up with an over-regulated country where people doing great things for the country's economy start choosing a different country to build their dreams in.

It's also how you drive the currently-wealthy to other countries to spend and invest their fortunes in.

The possibility of being ultra-wealthy is a huge reason to build awesome shit in the US that creates millions of jobs and brings the US economy ahead.

  • This nefarious logic has been used for 50 years to justify ever worse austerity and tax breaks for the wealthy. And look at the situation today: pedophile oligarchs rule the world while we fight for scraps. The West has no future, unless we start aggressively redistributing wealth.