ny_quant

I think it makes perfect sense ti tax wealth rather than the income, which is (mathematically) the derivative of wealth.

From:

aka-human.livejournal.com

Очевидно статью Вы не читали.

From:

I've skimmed it. Nothing I have not seen before.

From:

old-sam.livejournal.com

There's a good thread on Quora about it: https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-US-imposed-a-wealth-tax-which-would-take-5-annually-from-holdings-of-families-worth-100-million-or-more-Would-this-fund-the-deficit-and-improve-the-economy

Basically, if you try to excise wealth tax from Besos, it would cause a crash in the Amazon stock and likely general stock market crash.

--
Cohen the Barbarian

From:

e2pii1.livejournal.com

have you seen before this ?

"
A recent paper by Stephen Rose at the Urban Institute looks at different studies across the economic spectrum. Rose reports that the findings by Piketty and Saez are outliers. It must be their French technique.

This matters because the widespread embrace of the Saez/Piketty/Zucman narrative about income inequality fuels the recently growing enthusiasm for a wealth tax in America. It would be a shame to base our tax policy on a flawed academic fad. In addition, an extensive academic-literature review performed by Scott Winship — who now heads the Social Capital Project for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress — and published in 2013 in National Affairs reveals that there is “little basis for thinking that inequality is at the root of our economic challenges, and therefore for believing that reducing inequality would meaningfully address our lagging growth, enable greater mobility, avert future financial crises, or secure America’s democratic institutions.”
"

From:

Actually, it is not. The derivative of wealth includes unrealised capital gains which are not part of income for current US tax purposes. These are not taxed in the US or any other reasonable country for a number of reasons, including that they are too easy to manipulate. The same applies to wealth.

From:

This is a reasonable point and perhaps the strongest point against the wealth tax. However, the derivative of wealth is also quite easy to manipulate. That's why we see people like Trump not paying any taxes for years.

From:

The increment of wealth is not taxed currently so it does not matter if it is easy to manipulate or not.

Manipulating realised gains is quite a bit harder than unrealised because it at least requires some transactions and cash flows.

Manipulating consumption spending is harder still and this is why countries that are collecting much higher shares of GDP as taxes have VAT.

Another argument against wealth taxes which is not mentioned there is that unlike realised gains it often hits people with illiquid assets so hard that the situation becomes untenable without extensive exceptions.

From:

> Manipulating realised gains is quite a bit harder than unrealised because it at least requires some transactions and cash flows.

Fair point. Still, it is entirely possible to manipulate cash flows.

VAT is easy to implement but it is a highly regressive tax.

On the other hand, people with high wealth benefit more from the state protecting their property and hence should pay more for that service.

From:

It is not obvious that people with modern high wealth, which is often abroad/offshore/crypto/non-tangible really benefit that much from state protection.

From:

I think they do. If you have, say, a stake in a public company, you benefit from the various regulations and disclosure rules that essentially make your money harder to take away. And certainly countries with stronger legal systems are preferable for keeping your money.

From:

Disclosure rules have absolutely nothing do to with how easy it is to take wealth away. In most large public corporation the actual assets are usually hidden away in layers of subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are privately held, so even if public ownership of a corporation would somehow magically protect the ownership rights, this protection would not have worked for most companies.

From:

Perhaps. Still most large companies are stable at least partially because they operate under stable rules in developed countries.

From:

No it doesn't and no it isn't (necessarily). E.g. your wealth can be concentrated in precious metals, land or bitcoin and yield no income at all.

From:

I did not get your point. If you have a ton of gold stored in a bank vault, why should you not pay a tax?

From:

nefedor.livejournal.com

That’s a wrong question. The right one is: why should you? ;)

From:

The more property I have, the more benefit I derive from the government and laws protecting my property. I think it is fair that a percentage of that should go to support the functioning of the law system, etc.

Notice that this benefit is tied to the amount of property, not the income.

From:

Я уже заплатил государству за все услуги когда с меня взяли income tax по максимальной ставке. Из того что осталось я купил брусок золота и продолжил его в сейф в банке, которому я и плачу за рент и охрану моего золота. Могу даже застраховать. А от государства мне ничего больше в связи с этой покупкой не надо.

From:

The idea would be to _replace_ the income tax with wealth tax.
I am not in favor of the Warren's plan, it seems too arbitrary.

Edited Date: 2019-10-12 03:47 pm (UTC)

From:

Это чья идея? Уж точно не Уоррен. Так что я не понимаю при чем здесь это.

Но уж раз начали, то скажу, что идея мне кажется ещё худшей, чем всё остальное поскольку такой подход поощряет потребление и наказывает за сбережения.

From:

This is the real wealth tax idea. Not sure who came up with it first.

> поощряет потребление и наказывает за сбережения.

I don't see anything wrong with it. We want rich people to invest in areas with maximum return. If you have a ton of gold in a vault, it does not help anyone do anything productive.

Notice that charitable endowments are required by law to spend certain percentage of their assets.

From:

// This is the real wealth tax idea

What a great idea. Why would anyone want to own a house and pay extra taxes under such a law? Our own anything fit that matter?

// I don't see anything wrong with it.

That don't meant there ain't nothing wrong. If all my property is taxes I'd want no property at all. I'd rather spend all my money on food, drink out vacation rather than endlessly subsidize the government.

From: