I'm not disputing the claim that few people are able to save and invest into having a stake in the means of production.

However, if your goal is to increase stakeholdership, how would a policy that explicitly disincentivizes that behavior fix anything?

▲

smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why do I get the feeling that you would never field the structurally identical complaint against disproportionately taxing labor and consumption, even though that's a much more prominent feature of our current tax policy?

In any case, taxes do not go into a black hole, no matter how much the right likes to encourage this self-serving fiction. Taxes generally get spent down the economic ladder and move people up the economic ladder, increasing their marginal propensity to save. People must have money if you want them to save money.

Even more concretely: reversing the policies which dissolved the middle class might reasonably be expected to restore the middle class, or at least slow their demise.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

svachalek 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How does it disincentivize "stakeholdership"? Are people expected to say, please don't make me rich, because I'd have to pay 1% of it?

▲

notahacker 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets.

But the point isn't to increase stakeholdership so much as to stop privileging stakeholders with very low effective tax bills relative to mere workers, which means that there's a lot less cause for concern about those workers not owning their means of production

	▲	tengbretson an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets. To whom are the selling? The buyers would be only those that can make efficient enough returns to offset this tax due to their existing systemic advantages, like economies of scale or regulatory lobbying. This would accelerate consolidation. > But the point isn't to increase stakeholdership so much as to stop privileging stakeholders with very low effective tax bills relative to mere workers At this point I think there is ample evidence that policy in this country does not move forward without the consent of these so-called privileged stakeholders. If you take that as a given, why would you support handing these people an economic machine gun to point at your future self?
	▲	gruez 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets. Even assuming this is true, then what? Do you think the average joe is going to suddenly buy alphabet or meta stocks because bill ackman or ken griffin sold their shares to buy bigger yachts?