And even if it does stop them... so what? Are they actually that interesting compared to good living standards for everyone?

▲

entrope an hour ago | parent [-]

We've seen what happens when people decide to confiscate wealth with promises of good living standards for everyone. It has never delivered on those promises, always lowered median living standards, and usually led to lots of deaths. I can't think of a single example where recovery from a confiscatory regime has taken less than 40 years, except arguably Cambodia, and most of them are still ongoing. Do you want Democratic Kampuchea as a best-case outcome?

▲

viraptor an hour ago | parent [-]

> We've seen what happens when people decide to confiscate wealth with promises of good living standards for everyone.

This is how taxes work. I'm not sure why you jumped from one extreme of the US to the other extreme of Cambodia, ignoring the quite normal end successful middle.

	▲	entrope an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Taxes generally do not promise good living standards for everyone. Usually they come with promises of public infrastructure, some kind of safety net, and some other benefits. How did wealth taxes work out for Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden? They also didn't promise good living standards for everyone, yet still found that wealth taxes were worse than not having them.