A wealth tax is not an obviously great idea. It’s worth having a better public debate on that topic.

bhouston 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I bet Garry Tan will find that going after him for the wealth tax won’t poll well so he will find a different angle. Thus it won’t be a debate about a wealth tax, it will just be the standard make your opponent look bad in order to unseat him.

For example: https://nypost.com/2026/02/01/us-news/stunning-number-of-cal...

▲

terminalshort 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, so what is the problem here? Why can't Gary Tan engage in standard political activity like anybody else? This is his fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.

▲

bhouston an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The issue is unlimited spending. Rich people can tilt the political system to benefit themselves by their ability to spend unlimited and then push for things that enrich themselves like lower taxes that doesn’t benefit society at large.

The biggest example of this in the US is the health system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes than other countries. There is a huge and growing gap in the us between ultra wealthy and the rest of the population and it is a virtuous circle for the ultra wealthy with their ability to spend unlimited in politics.

▲

amarcheschi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The more money you have, the more means you have to engage in political activity not like anybody else but with a weight which far exceeds one

▲

terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-]

So what? The constitution guarantees you equal rights under the law and an equal vote in each election. It does not guarantee you equal political influence. Same as you have the right to freedom of speech and of the press, but you are not guaranteed an audience.

▲

amarcheschi an hour ago | parent [-]

So some people might feel slightly annoyed by this.

I don't know if you don't find this absurd, but a bunch of pedophile protecting people have shaped the actual presidency and are continuing to do so. Feeling slightly annoyed is the least offensive way I could put it

▲

terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-]

And you have every right to express that annoyance without fear of prosecution. I find the Epstein affair to be very underwhelming. Running a prostitution ring is criminal, and rich men (or poor men) fucking a 17 year old (or 18 year old) prostitute is gross, but not particularly surprising, and isn't even pedophilia. If Epstein had been in Nevada and not the US Virgin Islands and his youngest girls were a year older, it wouldn't even be illegal.

	▲	amarcheschi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The files I'm referring to aren't talking about 17yo people, and you know this very well

▲

toraway an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Who's stopping him? Are we all required to be cheering him on for it too?

▲

terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-]

No one is stopping him, but they would be if the people in this comment section had their way. You are absolutely not required to cheer him on, and in fact you have the right to oppose him. But that isn't happening here. Nobody in these comments is exercising their first amendment rights to argue against any of his political opinions. They are using their first amendment rights to argue that the government should use its monopoly to restrict Gary Tan's right to make his argument at all.

	▲	toraway an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I am not seeing that anywhere from the OP in the chain of comments you replied to.

▲

sa-code 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve heard about a borrowing tax as an alternative, because that’s when paper money becomes spending money

I would love to see that discussed

	▲	terminalshort 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I want to do some improvements on my house. So I take out a home equity loan. Oops! Actually since my house is worth $500K more than when I bought it, now I have to pay $100K to the government since the gain is now realized by using the asset as collateral!

▲

pbreit 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The only reasonable argument I can think of is that the fantastic wealth accumulated at the top was substantially driven by the $37 trillion of debt the USA finds itself in. And it needs to be clawed back somehow.

	▲	terminalshort an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's actually much simpler than that. We need to pay down the debt, and because the rich have most of the money they are going to need to do most of the paying down whether or not they directly are responsible for it or benefited from it. It's simple math. But what does this have to do with a wealth tax? The entire concept is stupid. Income an capital gains rates can be increased.

▲

asveikau 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like public discussion of this has been outgoing since around 12 years ago when Thomas Piketty's book came out.

▲

mattmanser 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really see any other solution, can you explain it?

The ultra-rich are taking too great a share of every nations wealth. And they keep taking more.

Taxes are the only option to redistribute wealth.

Or are you talking about enabling strong unions and anti-monopoly laws with teeth to reverse the growth?

As I doubt Garry's in favour of that either.

	▲	terminalshort an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Taking? From who? They got this money by appropriation and not by mutually agreed upon transactions?