I realize they are separate non-discrete funds, and I realize the military overburdens the discretionary spending. But there point wasn’t about wasteful discretionary spending, their point was that the Democrats in the government just wants more taxes to spend even more on the military.
4 Likes
You obviously want a more liquid and dynamic market with buying and selling (which is not the same as a volatile one), but an investor holding a stock isn’t necessarily a problem in and of itself. At the end of the day a share remains a share, and it’s better if a member of the public owns it instead of the issuing corporation. It’s not as common since index funds became popular, but older people used to hold some blue-chip shares in solid companies for decades as part of their personal retirement portfolios.
The underlying point to both our comments is that, buybacks excluded, the equities market isn’t usually included under most serious definitions of hoarding.
4 Likes
What have you got against Okies?
5 Likes
You may view it as stealing, but I view it as them contributing to the good of their country. Almost all of them say that they are happy to pay it.
I come at it from an American point of view: taxation without representation opens up opportunities for theft by a monarch or dictator or one-party state.
It’s become clear you’re not interested in a serious discussion, and probably aren’t equipped for one, so I’ll end it there.
6 Likes
And banks don’t put the money down in the vault. They lend 90% of it out. A deposit in a bank is like lending money to the bank, just at an absurdly low interest rate. It is what provides financing to the masses.
SAVES THEM? WTFBBQ!?! What are they being saved from, the poor little things?
If history is any measure, taxes are what’s going to save them from the guillotine.
The reason that those with wealth are “targeted” is that they benefit disproportionately from stable currency, trade, law enforcement, military protection, and every fucking thing the government does with those taxes.
10 Likes
Forget it, Jake. It’s Galt’s Gulch.
8 Likes
Yes indeed, for example, see page 4 of the Zurich return, about 15 lines on page 4 of the usual return, nothing too complicated, just the big items, minus debts. Typical Swiss: nice, tidy, straightforward… and if you fiddle your taxes it’s not a criminal offence, per se, but it’s also not something you want to mess with. They are a polite, accommodating, generous society, and also one with which one does not muck around.
2 Likes
Surely we want to discourage the likes of short selling and volatility on the stock market, and instead encourage long-term stable holdings.
The point with the example of the paintings is to illustrate when the asset doesn’t generate income or doesn’t generate enough to cover the cost of the tax. In the paintings example they may generate a small amount of income via being loaned to museums, enough to cover insurance, maintenance and a modest income (say, $50,000), but likely not enough income to cover a wealth tax bill levied on it.
(And someone suggest they might have to sell some paintings to fund the wealth tax bill, but part of the value may in fact come from them being part of the collection. And nevermind the issue of an effective enforced sale.)
Paintings might be a rare case, but a similar scenario of closely held company stock is more common. And while some income may be generated from the privately held shares, it’s likely to be no where near the amount needed to pay a wealth tax bill on those shares.
It seems likely that enforced sales would be required - people ultimately having to sell off assets that they don’t want to sell and which may itself harm the value, for instance if a founder CEO had to reduce their share holding, or as I previously mentioned breaking up a collection of paintings or artefacts.
And who would be purchasing these assets–shares or possessions–were they to be sold off? People wealthy enough to afford them will likely be in the same position as the seller and trying to sell their own assets to raise cash. Those wealthy enough but below the threshold of the tax may avoid buying because such a purchase may take them over the threshold and result in them also having to pay the wealth tax.
The people wealthy enough to buy up such assets without incurring the wealth tax will be non-American investors. In other words, US assets being held outside of the country, either physically or economically or both.
The global tax system needs to be fixed, mainly through simplification and clear international rules that are fit for a world in which e-commerce and the internet exists, and certainly there needs to be a debate on how government can best collect revenue. But taxing assets regardless of if and how much capital it generates in between transactions seems unworkable and likely will have so many unintended consequences.
1 Like
There are other options besides those two, and the point is that the value of a stock to the whole is in its purchase. Past that point is the value it has to the individual.
5 Likes
You guys make some great points. I’m totally convinced. Please remember that I converted when you do bring out the guillotines.
Ahh the post you replied to disappeared, so I was unaware that was their particular claim beyond the 57%, however if it was I guess all I can say is that the only legislators that love spending money on shiny new murder toys more than democrats are republicans 
.
And fwiw, I know you know the difference between discretionary and indiscretionary spending (and probably most regular mutants) but a lot of people do not. I just didn’t think the figure was so off base (Ill-structured as it was) as to warrant a ludicrously false judgement.
1 Like
The same can be said about a house: the sale benefits the whole, but past that point it only benefits the individual. Should we therefore encourage people to regularly sell their home and move so to generate property sales, rather living in the same place for decades?
2 Likes
Sadly if the guillotines come out there is no such thing as a converted rich person, and it quickly becomes not “rich person” but “political opponent”. Then “person the leader dislikes” until finally poor Robespierre himself has no head and we all get to work rebuilding.
But surely you think that the rich people who go “I pay more in taxes than you make in a year, if you return my taxes to what Reagan reduced them to then I’m leaving, then what are you going to do. You should reduce my taxes even more, because you NEED me, so it’s only fair”. Surely those people who certainly exist need to be reminded from time to time that it is possible.
Nobody is going to do a direct wealth tax in the United States, at worst it would be the indirect wealth tax of mildly higher inflation. The threat of guillotines is just blowing off steam as a response to callousness.
…out of curiosity, if someone did take over the United States and start a guillotine party, would they use actual choppy blocks or would they use drones? Do you think they would respect the borders? I mean…COULD a rich person hypothetically flee if things got that far? I assume they would cave to pacify a labor movement like last time with the new deal, but…?
Just how much risk would the rich actually accept to avoid paying taxes at Reagan era rates, with inflation below what happened in the 70s? How much harm should we take to avoid calling what is probably their bluff?
Regardless, the efficient way to tax wealth is through mild inflation, so all your concerns about liquidity in relation to a wealth tax, although perhaps understated, are purely academic.
Well I mean if Warren were in charge those concerns are purely academic. Trump also said he was going to do a direct wealth tax, and although he was just lying, he’s enough of an idiot to try and do this for real
At any rate, I think long-term it’s not reactive approaches like a wealth tax which will get us where we need to go in re: building a sustainable, climate friendly economy, at least as much because the rich will fight it tooth and nail because reasons.
I think the real meat is in proactive things like public/green/land banking, development of energy/network/production cooperatives.
At the end of the day I just don’t think it’s likely will be able to take enough from the rich to build what we need to survive climate change. I think it’s more likely that we render their concept of wealth useless.
4 Likes
Somehow I think the appropriate sense of scale in your own analogy is beyond you, because while people shouldn’t be selling their primary residence there is a global problem of non-primary residences pricing out the people living in many areas. I’ll stand by my statements about stagnant wealth.
4 Likes
