The United States needs a regulatory innovation that allows broad benefit actions that nonetheless have specific losers.

▲

treetalker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I propose inordinate taxes on corporations and very wealthy individuals.

▲

renewiltord 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, a direct pull from the Fascist Manifesto. Bold attempt. I think it’s probably good for some state to actually put this into play so that we can see whether it is indeed broad benefit with specific losers. I’m rooting for California’s proposition just to see what happens, actually.

It’s limited so it’s not a huge tax on corporations, just on the billionaires but I think it would be good to see. There are other states so if we’re wrong America won’t suffer.

Personally I’d like to see the tax set at a million dollars and include all unrealized gains including being the beneficiary of a trust or owning land and so on. But this prop will be a good start.

▲

philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's crazy to tax unrealised gains. You pay tax based on money you don't have, just a bureaucrat's decision as to how much your portfolio went up.

▲

triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I take it you've never heard of property taxes?

▲

renewiltord 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I think so too. But if we’re going to tax them I think setting the limit to 5x median American wealth is fine. That way it impacts a broad enough base that it’s not two wolves and a sheep sitting down to dinner.

▲

hypeatei 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That's arbitrary and would still cause issues. You'd cause a mass liquidation event and discourage investing or create a bunch of winners in the tax accounting industry. Unrealized capital gains tax is very unserious and IMO just populist drivel.

	▲	triceratops 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You'd cause a mass liquidation event What if the tax could be paid with assets instead of currency? And the assets went into some kind of sovereign wealth fund?

▲

pavel_lishin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you be more specific?

	▲	renewiltord 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yep. I think the common thread between NIMBY success, bus stops everywhere, and an 8 hour planning meeting to decide if there are too many ice cream shops in the Mission are that we need unanimity to get going. By contrast, AVs are in production on the streets of SF despite local opposition because we decided these decisions are made at the state level. I’m looking for a legislative mechanism that moves things from the former to the latter.