So your argument is that something that takes in 500m in its useful lifetime shouldn't net the creator more than something that takes in only 100k in its useful lifetime? Yes, big content X that churns out mega movies that have more staying power than indy film y would make more money, but now instead of that mega company X holding onto everything for 10 lifetimes they are forced to releases it. If this is structured to kick in with normal lifespans accounted for then it shouldn't really hurt the indy side of things.

▲

nwiswell 7 months ago | parent [-]

My argument is

1) that something that takes in 500m in its useful lifetime should not be subject to a lower tax rate than something that takes in only 100k in its useful lifetime (in fact it should be subject to a higher tax rate, in line with income tax policy);

2) something that takes in 500m should not automatically be entitled to a longer useful lifetime than something that takes in 100k.

Unfortunately both things are true for this proposal. #1 can be ameliorated by offering an income tax credit, but #2 is fundamental.

▲

nine_k 7 months ago | parent [-]

I honestly don't understand why #2 is bad. Can you please explain the logic and values behind your reasoning? No irony here, just a desire to learn.

	▲	nwiswell 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Because it drives inequality. We're proposing a policy that explicitly benefits large owners of capital over small ones. Inequality is a natural outcome of capitalism, and critically it will get worse without limit unless there is significant policy intervention (ref. Capital in the Twenty-First Century). Existing progressive income taxes are not sufficient, even in Europe where they are far more aggressive. So from a policy perspective, this is exactly the opposite of what is desired.