| ▲ | notahacker 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that this is harsh compared with income tax when people who pay more than half their much lower income in overall taxes whilst working 60 hour weeks and actually worrying about paying bills. There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives, the difficulty of paying tax bills from illiquid intangible wealth or even quantifying it, and whether it's really a good thing to pressure people building a company to sell much of it off, but telling income tax payers that an effective tax rate of 20% is high isn't one of them... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives If the US and the EU introduced a wealth tax then it would be relatively difficult for the capital flight fears to materialise. But yeah, the trouble with wealth taxes is that wealth (i.e. capital) is mobile. Which is why land and property taxes are probably the most effective way of taxing wealth. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jdasdf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers This is untrue btw 50% of people in the US pay effectively no net taxes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||