That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Better to spend it while it’s whole.

That changes future value calculations, too.

These are things not to mess with lightly.

▲

triceratops 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year?

Ok? If you choose to spend a dollar instead of saving it, that implies some business will get that dollar. That implies someone will still invest in, build, and run businesses.

> These are things not to mess with lightly.

I agree. It requires a lot of thinking, discussion, deliberation and all that. But the basic math doesn't lie. We will have fewer workers in the future. Machines will make more and more stuff. If you want to continue supporting retirees as promised, then taxing the machines is the only answer.

Otherwise you'll have to break some promises to retirees and pensioners; now that's a real disincentive to save.

▲

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

Depends on implementation. For example, a wealth tax that has a "cap" at some ludicrous amount of wealth, like $10M, would effect very few people and therefore be insignificant for the average worker. So 99% of people would continue saving with no change at all to their behavior. The externalities could be nice though, since it'd distribute capital more efficiently. Sort of a general stimulant to the economy.

	▲	WarmWash an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This line of thinking though assumes it would have no impact on the largest players though. It hinges on a "calling their bluff", that high NW individuals won't change anything despite now being forced to annually liquidate assets to cover taxes. And this doesn't even touch on the immense impracticality of annually valuing assets. Or how to manage assets in illiquid markets, or how to sell 30% of a painting to cover 1% of it's mark-to-market value by year end. The reason wealth taxes never go anywhere is because when you sit down and learn what wealth is, how it works, and what is practical, it makes the most sense by far to just tax things whenever they go back to cash. Really the only genuine tax loop-hole is the step-up basis on inheritance. Everything else is just an elaborate deferral to pay taxes later.

▲

red-iron-pine 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

we have property taxes, and its taxed every year. and somehow people keep trying to buy yet more property.

plenty of incentive to put money there, ditto for saving.

a saved dollar does not stimulate the economy, either. the whole idea of microloans is that the money gets spent ASAP and goes straight into the economy

▲

thrance 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Better to spend it while it’s whole.

Yes, that's the whole point. That's a good thing. Money is meant to be spent, not be hoarded and slept on forever. Money velocity is terrible right now, capital generates more income than wages, this is neither healthy nor sustainable, and certainly isn't fair to the ones actually doing the productive work.

In the ideal society there'd be no Epstein or Thiel, everyone would have a rewarding and productive economic activity.