| ▲ | tankenmate 3 hours ago |
| Isn't it just so much easier to make sure that wealth isn't concentrated in so few hands? Tax wealth, not work. And before everyone gets upset, tax serves two purposes; 1) control inflation (it in effect burns money that was issued when the govt previously paid for things), 2) disincentivises selected behaviours. and one side effect, when the govt runs a tax deficit it increases inflation, and of course the contrapositive is also true. |
|
| ▲ | jlhawn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > control inflation I think you are confusing cost inflation with an increase in the money supply. The way the US government funds deficit spending is not by increasing money supply (though it could) but by issuing debt in the form of US Treasury bonds. That is a transfer of money from bond investors to the government. No new money is made. This is distinct from the way that banks issue loans which is by creating new money in the form of credit (but that credit money gets "burned" as loan principal is paid back). So federal taxes do not actually control inflation in the way you are describing. Since federal deficit spending is not financed by increasing the money supply, it can only cause price inflation if it increases aggregate demand over the current productive capacity of the economy. An example would be paying more for healthcare subsidies when there's a shortage of doctors. Or subsidizing demand for housing with more mortgage subsidies when there's a housing shortage. Taxes could also increase inflation if they have the effect of reducing supply of some goods or services (like tariffs do). Edit: I want to mention that the Federal Reserve can and does increase money supply by buying US Treasury Bonds from banks (converting the asset into cash reserves). There are various reasons why they do this but overall it's done with their dual mandate in mind: control inflation and minimize unemployment. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | adventured 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I want to mention that the Federal Reserve can and does increase money supply by buying US Treasury Bonds from banks (converting the asset into cash reserves). Fun small print. As though that's not the exact mechanism of the brutal inflation the US has suffered the past 5-6 years. The US money supply says it all. There are no other serious buyers for $20 trillion in new garbage paper debt every ten years. It's inflation by currency destruction plain and simple and there are no other paths. It's also why gold is $5,000 instead of $500. |
|
|
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Isn't it just so much easier to make sure that wealth isn't concentrated in so few hands? Tax wealth, not work. 1. No, it's not "easier" because it's hard-if-not-impossible to accurately and objectively judge the present-value of many types of assets. Even the case most-familiar to working-class folks, property taxes, nobody really likes/trusts the outcome. 2. We don't tax work, we tax income, because actual transactions between people with "skin in the game" are harder to fake. The extent to which wages are preferred as a subset of income is separate from the wealth-vs-income split. |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > No, it's not "easier" because it's hard-if-not-impossible to accurately and objectively judge the present-value of many types of assets. Even the case most-familiar to working-class folks, property taxes, nobody really likes/trusts the outcome. You can easily get within 10% of the "real" value on most assets. And, in particular, assets like stock have a built in ticker to tell you their exact current value. This sort of evaluation happens all the time privately. For example, car insurance companies have gotten extremely good at evaluating the value of a car to determine when to simply total it. The only thing that really makes it tricky is hidden assets or assets with no market value. The likes of the richest people, who I think most of the "tax wealth" people are thinking of, have the majority of their wealth in equity. It's easy to tax the majority of their wealth. This does not need to be a perfect system to be very effective at generating revenue and redistributing wealth. | | |
| ▲ | cj an hour ago | parent [-] | | The main counterargument: You buy 1 BTC at $60k in 2024. In 2025 it’s valued at $100k, so you pay taxes on $40k gain. Now it’s 2026 and you finally decide to sell the BTC for the original price of $60k. Except you’ve paid taxes on $40k in paper gains that disappeared before you sold the asset. How do we solve that? (Replace “bitcoin” with “startup stock option” if you really want to illustrate the problem - imagine having to pay taxes on stock options you decide to never exercise) | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's capital gains, which we currently recognize on realization events (selling the asset or trading it). With current capital gains, if you sold in 2025 you'd pay the taxes on 40k at ~15% (depending) so 6k. If you repurchased it at $100k and then sold at $60k, you can claim the losses. People advocating for a wealth tax aren't pushing for a tax on gains and losses but rather the total asset value. I've seen 1% and 2% bandied about. So in 2024, you'd pay $1.2k in taxes (at 2%). In 2025, you'd pay $2k. And in 2026 you'd pay $1.2k Though, usually, there's also a minimum wealth paired with the tax. Again, I usually only see it for things like individuals with over $100M in assets. For options, it'd still be the same thing. If the strike price is $1 and the actual price is $60 and the option is vested then you'd be taxed on the $59 per option you hold. This only gets difficult if you are talking about options in a privately held company. But, again, that's not really the case for a lot of the most wealthy who the wealth tax is targeting. | |
| ▲ | jhasse 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | A wealth tax would be like 5% of the $100k, nothing to do with the gains. | | |
| ▲ | cj 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yikes. So even if I store my wealth in cash, you want it to deflate by 5% annually? How do you handle your neighbor who discovers he has a $2m Pokémon card in his closet? Is he forced to sell it to pay the 5% if he doesn’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax? It’s a messy proposition. I’ve yet to hear a clear proposal that doesn’t have sticky edge cases. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | astrange 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 2. We don't tax work, we tax income, because actual transactions between people with "skin in the game" are harder to fake. Also because taxing income (or other cash) is disinflationary. Taxing assets is inflationary because it forces sales. | | |
| ▲ | usefulcat 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Taxing assets is inflationary because it forces sales. I can see how taxing assets could result in more selling than would have occurred otherwise. But all else being equal, an increase in selling tends to put downward pressure on prices. So I don't see why an asset tax would be expected to cause inflation. | |
| ▲ | jhasse 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shouldn't sales reduce inflation because they increase supply? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fud3748 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, it’s easy to tax “wealth”. Except most wealth today is of the type where Alice owns 10 million Y and Bob decided to pay $1000 for one Y. Alice cannot possibly sell her Y for near that price, but now she will be taxed on “wealth” of $10 billion. |
| |
| ▲ | AaronM 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If someone takes a loan out against an unrealized gain, that should immediately trigger a tax event. The real solution though is for the legislative branch to not be beholden to those same people and be able to quickly and effectively close tax loopholes as they are discovered. | | |
| ▲ | cluckindan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That would instantly wipe out most leverage from the stock market, and from a casual bystander perspective, it would be a great thing. | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If someone takes a loan out against an unrealized gain, that should immediately trigger a tax event. How does that work when a house is used as collateral on a loan? Or artwork? The loans are just a symptom, the problem is in the Estate Tax, and those loans are being used as a tool to wait out the clock and then dodge dynastic taxes entirely. Remove the final loophole, and they'll stop playing weird games to get there all on their own. Plus it'll be way less-disruptive to everyone involves in regular loans for regular reasons. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is not a loophole. When you die your loans get paid off first. The money to pay off these loans would be taxed. It could delay paying taxes until you die, but you can't escape it. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The money to pay off these loans would be taxed. You're missing the loophole, it's the she "step-up basis" rule, which means that the rate of tax applied to that liquidate-to-repay is dramatically different. Compare: 1. Repaying 1 day before the owner dies: Liquidate $X, of stock, which 90% of it are capital-gains, heavily taxed. 2. Repaying 1 day after the owner dies: Liquidate $X of stock, which is now considered ZERO gains, almost no tax. > It could delay paying taxes until you die, but you can't escape it. But they did escape the taxes, or at least the "gains" portion of them! For decades, the unrealized gains in growing assets were "eventually" going to happen someday... Until, poof, all gains have been forgotten. |
|
| |
| ▲ | njarboe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed. This would get rid of borrow against gains to spend tax free. But also just get rid of the income tax, it is the worst way to tax, and do a land value tax. |
| |
| ▲ | vintermann 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's a very simple solution to that problem. Tax Alice in Y rather than in $. | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How would this work with real-estate? Probably the Y that should be taxed the most when we're talking about wealth. | | |
| ▲ | curtisf 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A lien on the property? Although almost all jurisdictions already have property taxes, so it hasn't been an insurmountable problem so far |
|
| |
| ▲ | flir 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So it would fix false valuation shenanigans too? I see that as a win/win. | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe we need a debt jubilee then. | |
| ▲ | LadyCailin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many countries have figured out a wealth tax, so this isn't an impossible problem. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | France had it for a very long time, it was very costly to recover, incentivized a lot of tax-evading behaviors, and mainly benefited tax specialists. Overall it was another useless, populist measure that did more harm than good. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you can tax stock without taxing inventory. Also the term "asset" exists and is used in accounting | | |
| ▲ | worik 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > you can tax stock without taxing inventory. How? What is the difference between "stock" and "inventory"? |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | croes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who says you need to tax the whole wealth if it in form of Ys? We all know that 10 million Ys maybe not sold for $10 billion dollars but it gives you enough leverage to buy a social network and name it Y | |
| ▲ | antonyh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Only in a system where the buyer sets the price. |
|
|
| ▲ | nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With wealth concentrated in so few hands, it's already not that easy to walk it back :-/ |
|
| ▲ | redleader55 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It would be so nice of that tax was actually "burned"(similar to proof of stake), instead of being used to fund even greater inflation. This comes in the form of a huge administration, which gets payed for providing, many times, negative value. Alternatively, it is used to pay social benefits for the sole purpose of keeping the current political party in power. |
| |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Alternatively, it is used to pay social benefits for the sole purpose of keeping the current political party in power This sounds like a 2-party government problem, not a tax problem. Plenty of countries do just fine spending that money to provide healthcare, unemployment, etc to their citizenry. Only really seems to be the US that views this as a negative | | |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh we spend that money, just on weapons or handouts to the welfare class known as the ultrawealthy. | | |
| ▲ | WillPostForFood 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Us does spend the money on healthcare, it is just very inefficient. US government spends much more per capita than any other country. 50% than the #2 country, Germany. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health... | | |
| ▲ | malfist 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But that's mostly people/companies spending on health care, not as much the government (because that'd be socialism, apparently) | | |
| ▲ | WillPostForFood an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm just talking about government spending. If you add private spending it is even more unbalanced. Just per capita government spending alone: US $12k Germany $8k UK $6k Medicaid + Medicare is 22% of all US federal spending. Defense is 13%. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't know where you're getting your numbers but according to OECD, the per capita spending in the US is 13k. That's public and private spending. I don't think your 12k per capita number is just public spending. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | astrange 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The welfare classes that the government hands money to are elderly people and children. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This can be a problem, especially for the elderly. In France the retired (pensions are publicly funded) save 25% of their income on average, and earn more than the workers. France is also the most taxed country in the OECD and most voters are either retired or will retire next decade. It's just another clientelism. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | worik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am amazed. What an incredible statement! The USA is very corrupt, true. But getting rid of the "huge administration" and burning tax receipts is not going to solve that. How could it? One of the roles of the state in a modern society should be to ensure no one is left behind to starve, wither and freeze amongst the incredible resources we (as a society) have accumulated. That takes administration. That takes resources. That is what your taxes should be used for. I agree that far too much is used to give aid to the powerful, but the solution to that should not be to condemn the weak. Burning taxes and de-funding the administration is exactly that: condemning the weak. |
|
|
| ▲ | ghurtado 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Isn't it just so much easier to make sure that wealth isn't concentrated in so few hands? Except for the fact that, without first solving the problem you responded to, yours is impossible to solve |
|
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This wouldn't stop the AMA from controlling medicine. |
|
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is overly simplistic. Most economic activity is not related to the government at all. Taxation can slow economic growth and inflation, but the government running at a deficit or surplus is neither a cause or a solution for inflation but rather a byproduct of multiple aspects of government policy. |
|
| ▲ | Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wealthy people own assets, not money. Stealing their assets doesn't reduce the money supply. Elon Musk is "rich" mainly in paper wealth. Taxes raise inflation as they increase the production costs. If you tax too much wealthy people, they will leave, and take their capital away to invest it elsewhere. This as a result will lead to inflation due to lack of available capital for production. |
| |
| ▲ | ghurtado 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you tax too much wealthy people, they will leave Are we not tired yet of the various versions of the Reaganomics boogieman? When are we going to grow out of trickle down economics mentality? | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The problem is black-and-white thinking that ignores reality. There are different kinds of wealthy people. Some built their wealth through talent and luck. Some inherited it. Some gained it through state cronyism and clientelism. Some own scarce assets (like real estate). Others created new assets (e.g., startup founders). You can dislike Elon Musk, but his owning a large stake in Tesla doesn’t make others poorer. That’s not true of a landlord who corners housing supply in a city. Wealth taxes are essentially revenge taxes without a clear objective. France tried one for years. It was costly to administer, riddled with exemptions, encouraged avoidance instead of productivity, and sustained an industry of tax specialists. The revenue was largely recycled into clientelist spending, sometimes increasing the wealth of the same elites (e.g., via housing subsidies). If the goal is to curb land hoarding, implement a land value tax. If it’s to reduce dynastic concentration, tax large single-heir inheritances more heavily and lower the rate when estates are widely divided. If it’s to reduce cronyism, cut state spending, simplify regulation, and strengthen competition. |
| |
| ▲ | mulmen an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If you tax too much wealthy people, they will leave You say this like it’s a bad thing. |
|
|
| ▲ | simplify 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Since when has raising taxes actually solved any major problem? We have enough taxes, the issue is the corrupt politicians swindling it to themselves and their cronies. |