7 ms·

An interesting thought experiment for me is to imagine a wealth tax in the 0.1 to 0.5% range and figure out if the difference is might make to the different gro

An interesting thought experiment for me is to imagine a wealth tax in the 0.1 to 0.5% range and figure out if the difference is might make to the different groups. I'm a firm believer in incremental changes and experiments which is of course hopelessly politically naive.

michpoch 3y ago
You do not even need to experiment on it. Just look at any country where the wealth tax is implemented since many years, e.g. Switzerland. The solution is on the table, take it as it is and then make some tweaks.
ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
I think the tax rate they suggest in the article is 2%, which feels pretty incremental.
labster 3y ago
Often a problem in politics is that people are pretty inelastic when it comes to what they want changed. They want a program fully funded or not funded, a tax issued or no tax at all. A small wealth tax will be seen by foes as a stepping stone to further overreach, and proponents won’t want to fight the same fight again later to get what they feel is owed now. Your naïveté is not the problem, but rather partisanship means we can’t have nice things.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  Partisanship is bad but I also get the impression that all major parties in the US and UK are very uninterested in increasing taxes on their donors
blitzar 3y ago
The core problem is how you define and observe wealth. It is not like income, which is a transfer that can be observed directly. It becomes not dissimilar to the "Window tax" (not the bill gates kind) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax - a form of daylight robbery where people brick up windows of their houses.
- hugh-avherald 3y ago
  Why not just ask the taxpayer to identify the value of all their assets, with the condition that they must sell to the government at the price given, if requested? Note that in practice income is also quite complicated to pin down in tax law.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    Why not allow me to sell at the price the government insists it is valued at? Many people that live in locations with property tax would very happily sell their property at the "assessed" value rather than sell on the open market for a fraction of that price. Obviously that is before we get into the various ways to obscure ownership of trivial things like planes and yachts that is already done for various reasons.
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      > Many people that live in locations with property tax would very happily sell their property at the "assessed" value rather than sell on the open market for a fraction of that price. Citation needed. Assessed values are generally lower than market value. Furthermore, there's a growing set of data which suggests that, in many places, lower-value houses are assessed at a higher percentage of their market value than higher-value houses[0] -- that is, assessments are regressive. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjjHKIlKko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjjHKIlKko
      - blitzar 3y ago
        https://www.vlct.org/article/vermont-supreme-court-reaffirms-rule-sale-price-not-necessarily-conclusive-determining https://www.vlct.org/article/vermont-supreme-court-reaffirms... Vermont Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule that Sale Price Is Not Necessarily Conclusive in Determining Property’s Fair Market Value The appellant, Gabriel Martinez, purchased a single-family dwelling built in 2000 for $350,000 on May 5, 2017. The previous owner had purchased it for $252,000 five months earlier when its assessed value was $433,000. A 2017 town-wide reappraisal – which took place while the appellant’s purchase was pending – set the property’s grand list value at $483,400.
monlockandkey 3y ago
"Wealth tax" already exists. This can be found in Islam. Muslims have an obligatory charity called Zakat, 2.5% of your standing wealth (if you meet the threshold) directly goes to the poor. This includes what is in your bank account, savings, stocks and shares or investments you intend to sell.

michpoch 3y ago

You do not even need to experiment on it. Just look at any country where the wealth tax is implemented since many years, e.g. Switzerland. The solution is on the table, take it as it is and then make some tweaks.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

I think the tax rate they suggest in the article is 2%, which feels pretty incremental.

labster 3y ago

Often a problem in politics is that people are pretty inelastic when it comes to what they want changed. They want a program fully funded or not funded, a tax issued or no tax at all. A small wealth tax will be seen by foes as a stepping stone to further overreach, and proponents won’t want to fight the same fight again later to get what they feel is owed now. Your naïveté is not the problem, but rather partisanship means we can’t have nice things.

badcppdev 3y ago
Partisanship is bad but I also get the impression that all major parties in the US and UK are very uninterested in increasing taxes on their donors

blitzar 3y ago

The core problem is how you define and observe wealth. It is not like income, which is a transfer that can be observed directly. It becomes not dissimilar to the "Window tax" (not the bill gates kind) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax - a form of daylight robbery where people brick up windows of their houses.

hugh-avherald 3y ago
Why not just ask the taxpayer to identify the value of all their assets, with the condition that they must sell to the government at the price given, if requested? Note that in practice income is also quite complicated to pin down in tax law.
- blitzar 3y ago
  Why not allow me to sell at the price the government insists it is valued at? Many people that live in locations with property tax would very happily sell their property at the "assessed" value rather than sell on the open market for a fraction of that price. Obviously that is before we get into the various ways to obscure ownership of trivial things like planes and yachts that is already done for various reasons.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    > Many people that live in locations with property tax would very happily sell their property at the "assessed" value rather than sell on the open market for a fraction of that price. Citation needed. Assessed values are generally lower than market value. Furthermore, there's a growing set of data which suggests that, in many places, lower-value houses are assessed at a higher percentage of their market value than higher-value houses[0] -- that is, assessments are regressive. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjjHKIlKko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjjHKIlKko
    - blitzar 3y ago
      https://www.vlct.org/article/vermont-supreme-court-reaffirms-rule-sale-price-not-necessarily-conclusive-determining https://www.vlct.org/article/vermont-supreme-court-reaffirms... Vermont Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule that Sale Price Is Not Necessarily Conclusive in Determining Property’s Fair Market Value The appellant, Gabriel Martinez, purchased a single-family dwelling built in 2000 for $350,000 on May 5, 2017. The previous owner had purchased it for $252,000 five months earlier when its assessed value was $433,000. A 2017 town-wide reappraisal – which took place while the appellant’s purchase was pending – set the property’s grand list value at $483,400.

monlockandkey 3y ago

"Wealth tax" already exists. This can be found in Islam. Muslims have an obligatory charity called Zakat, 2.5% of your standing wealth (if you meet the threshold) directly goes to the poor. This includes what is in your bank account, savings, stocks and shares or investments you intend to sell.