| |
| ▲ | mikrl 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the rationale is that if you have unrealized gains, there is a high likelihood that you are well off, and can therefore be pressured into reifying your economic potential into a resource that the government can appropriate (ie money) It’s not a straightforward tax like income tax, it’s more of a class based tax that has some aspects in common with income / CG taxes. It makes sense when you consider that the capital owning class is and was always the most well off, even more so than aristocrats, since the Industrial Revolution anyway. | | |
| ▲ | thrw42A8N 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What a nice way to preserve feudal classes. It'd be just terrible if someone not rich attempted startups. | | |
| ▲ | vidarh 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Having started companies in Norway without being rich at the time, it's not generally remotely a problem. The wealth tax is low, and it only kicks in over a threshold. If you can't afford to have your company pay you enough or lend you money to cover the wealth tax at the point where it starts to become a challenge, then your company is likely a shitty investment. There can be extreme corner cases where it's a challenge, but it's extremely rare. | |
| ▲ | mikrl 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t support these kinds of taxes but I think that is also a little hyperbolic. Poll taxes, and even flat taxes can also be seen as unjust taxes on ‘money you do not have’ when you subtract the cost of life from someone’s income. This one is novel in the modern era because it only substantially negatively affects capital owners, rather than wage / fixed income earners. As both capital owner and wage worker though, I just see it as yet another potential headwind… and yes, there are class dynamics at play that go beyond the economy and up into political power and the state. | | |
| ▲ | thrw42A8N 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it substantially negatively affects people who don't have any capital. People who do can deal with it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | danudey 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the issue that these laws are trying to solve (and perhaps not with sufficient nuance) is that the ultra-rich get paid in stock or options, which then go up in value. Those "unrealized gains" aren't taxable (because they're only theoretical at this point), but they're still able to go to the banks and borrow against those gains anyway to fund their lifestyle tax-free. Obviously you need to be a bit sane about it; I have "unrealized gains" by virtue of having stock options in a company, but while I'm paid well I'm definitely not rich by any stretch. I'm just some dude with stock. |
|
