The problem with wealth taxes

[coloradoatheist]

This thread and the article that inspired it, point out the biggest problem that most people have in understanding economics, that for the most part what is good for the individual is bad for the economy as a whole.

If this is obvious anywhere it is in what economists call the Paradox of Thrift. That thrift, saving, is good for the individual but that the money that is saved leaves the economy and reduces the economy.

Likewise, it is the same for increasing home values. This is good for the individual homeowner but bad for the economy as a whole because increased real estate valuations eventually lead to increased housing costs and increased wages to cover those increased costs.

Huh? That doesn't apply to the house price. Your estimated value of your house isn't a saved value that's not being active. It's just a value. One of the problems with a house tax is the non liquidity of that wealth so in order to get it, you have to sell the asset.

But the other issue is when do taxes become too high that you avoid them.

- - - Updated - - -

Wealth taxes are a desperate attempt to make capitalism work, but of course, in a capitalist state, the really wealthy avoid paying. It is a silly and unreformable system that only the very rich like, and have their serfs vote for.

No, wealth taxes are just a way to pay the spending of government. It has its pros and cons.

 

[Jarhyn]

Huh? That doesn't apply to the house price. Your estimated value of your house isn't a saved value that's not being active. It's just a value. One of the problems with a house tax is the non liquidity of that wealth so in order to get it, you have to sell the asset.

But the other issue is when do taxes become too high that you avoid them.

- - - Updated - - -

Wealth taxes are a desperate attempt to make capitalism work, but of course, in a capitalist state, the really wealthy avoid paying. It is a silly and unreformable system that only the very rich like, and have their serfs vote for.

No, wealth taxes are just a way to pay the spending of government. It has its pros and cons.

No, wealth taxes are an approximation to the principal that continued wealth ought require continued work because wealth represents work. It has been adopted most certainly as an attempt to get more money for infrastructure but it was retained because some segment of humanity dimly perceived that it approximates an ethical rule necessary to the improvement of society.

It's not hard to understand; humans do crazy shit, and sometimes the crazy works, and then we try to figure out why it worked, because there is always a reason when things work more than once.

 

[iolo]

Huh? That doesn't apply to the house price. Your estimated value of your house isn't a saved value that's not being active. It's just a value. One of the problems with a house tax is the non liquidity of that wealth so in order to get it, you have to sell the asset.

But the other issue is when do taxes become too high that you avoid them.

- - - Updated - - -



No, wealth taxes are just a way to pay the spending of government. It has its pros and cons.

No, wealth taxes are an approximation to the principal that continued wealth ought require continued work because wealth represents work. It has been adopted most certainly as an attempt to get more money for infrastructure but it was retained because some segment of humanity dimly perceived that it approximates an ethical rule necessary to the improvement of society.

It's not hard to understand; humans do crazy shit, and sometimes the crazy works, and then we try to figure out why it worked, because there is always a reason when things work more than once.

Wealth taxes only work in times of crisis, like the time when we defeated their Fuhrer, when the very rich fear something worse unless they give the mugs something. As they get back in the saddle they stop paying, naturally, since they control the government to exploit us, and therefore think we should pay for it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Huh? That doesn't apply to the house price. Your estimated value of your house isn't a saved value that's not being active. It's just a value. One of the problems with a house tax is the non liquidity of that wealth so in order to get it, you have to sell the asset.

But the other issue is when do taxes become too high that you avoid them.

- - - Updated - - -



No, wealth taxes are just a way to pay the spending of government. It has its pros and cons.

No, wealth taxes are an approximation to the principal that continued wealth ought require continued work because wealth represents work. It has been adopted most certainly as an attempt to get more money for infrastructure but it was retained because some segment of humanity dimly perceived that it approximates an ethical rule necessary to the improvement of society.

It's not hard to understand; humans do crazy shit, and sometimes the crazy works, and then we try to figure out why it worked, because there is always a reason when things work more than once.

Wealth taxes are a couple of things. Government needs more money so it needs to get it from somewhere. So the question is where and what the impacts are for those taxes.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No, wealth taxes are an approximation to the principal that continued wealth ought require continued work because wealth represents work. It has been adopted most certainly as an attempt to get more money for infrastructure but it was retained because some segment of humanity dimly perceived that it approximates an ethical rule necessary to the improvement of society.

It's not hard to understand; humans do crazy shit, and sometimes the crazy works, and then we try to figure out why it worked, because there is always a reason when things work more than once.

Wealth taxes are a couple of things. Government needs more money so it needs to get it from somewhere. So the question is where and what the impacts are for those taxes.

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

 

[iolo]

Wealth taxes are a couple of things. Government needs more money so it needs to get it from somewhere. So the question is where and what the impacts are for those taxes.

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

Remembering that the very rich never produce anything - only steal what we produce.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

Remembering that the very rich never produce anything - only steal what we produce.

If you say so.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wealth taxes are a couple of things. Government needs more money so it needs to get it from somewhere. So the question is where and what the impacts are for those taxes.

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

FIAT currency can allow for this function, but ultimately, any situation where the money supply is 'taxed' simply to exit the currency so new can be added without problematic inflation requires more micro-management than is feasible.

Ultimately, I think that new money SHOULD enter the economy as a UBI, but that would break a lot of things very quickly, and we have nothing but a vacuum to take the place of those institutions.

Also, maybe one of the profiteers here can answer this one:
By what manner *beyond original sale of a stock from company control to the investor* does buying a stock, or even the price of those stocks, benefit a company? Please provide a concrete mechanism. It's not like a stock holder ever gets a BILL for holding a stock that he then is expected to pay.

 

[iolo]

Remembering that the very rich never produce anything - only steal what we produce.

If you say so.

If you think otherwise, tell us do!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wealth taxes are a couple of things. Government needs more money so it needs to get it from somewhere. So the question is where and what the impacts are for those taxes.

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

So governments don't tax, they just print money?

Some wealth is productive, and some less. Homes are still productive.

- - - Updated - - -

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

FIAT currency can allow for this function, but ultimately, any situation where the money supply is 'taxed' simply to exit the currency so new can be added without problematic inflation requires more micro-management than is feasible.

Ultimately, I think that new money SHOULD enter the economy as a UBI, but that would break a lot of things very quickly, and we have nothing but a vacuum to take the place of those institutions.

Also, maybe one of the profiteers here can answer this one:
By what manner *beyond original sale of a stock from company control to the investor* does buying a stock, or even the price of those stocks, benefit a company? Please provide a concrete mechanism. It's not like a stock holder ever gets a BILL for holding a stock that he then is expected to pay.

Stock gets issued all the time, we usually only hear about the IPO. It's used for compensation for employees, raising funding in primary and secondary offerings, and used in purchasing of other companies.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sovereign currency govts don't "get" their money. They create it out of thin air.

Wealth that is nonproductive, e.g. rent-seeking, should be taxed. Productive activity should have the lighter tax burden.

FIAT currency can allow for this function, but ultimately, any situation where the money supply is 'taxed' simply to exit the currency so new can be added without problematic inflation requires more micro-management than is feasible.

Ultimately, I think that new money SHOULD enter the economy as a UBI, but that would break a lot of things very quickly, and we have nothing but a vacuum to take the place of those institutions.

Also, maybe one of the profiteers here can answer this one:
By what manner *beyond original sale of a stock from company control to the investor* does buying a stock, or even the price of those stocks, benefit a company? Please provide a concrete mechanism. It's not like a stock holder ever gets a BILL for holding a stock that he then is expected to pay.

I'm not sure what you mean, but the idea is to penalize non-productive assets.

Money is created either by private credit creation or govt spending.

Job guarantee is a better solution than UBI.

 

[coloradoatheist]

FIAT currency can allow for this function, but ultimately, any situation where the money supply is 'taxed' simply to exit the currency so new can be added without problematic inflation requires more micro-management than is feasible.

Ultimately, I think that new money SHOULD enter the economy as a UBI, but that would break a lot of things very quickly, and we have nothing but a vacuum to take the place of those institutions.

Also, maybe one of the profiteers here can answer this one:
By what manner *beyond original sale of a stock from company control to the investor* does buying a stock, or even the price of those stocks, benefit a company? Please provide a concrete mechanism. It's not like a stock holder ever gets a BILL for holding a stock that he then is expected to pay.

I'm not sure what you mean, but the idea is to penalize non-productive assets.

Money is created either by private credit creation or govt spending.

Job guarantee is a better solution than UBI.

But how do a job guarantee? Does the government pay people to paint rocks and then move them from one side of the road to the other and repaint them over and over?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm not sure what you mean, but the idea is to penalize non-productive assets.

Money is created either by private credit creation or govt spending.

Job guarantee is a better solution than UBI.

But how do a job guarantee? Does the government pay people to paint rocks and then move them from one side of the road to the other and repaint them over and over?

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

The public sector is way underfunded; there's plenty of stuff to be done.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But how do a job guarantee? Does the government pay people to paint rocks and then move them from one side of the road to the other and repaint them over and over?

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

The public sector is way underfunded; there's plenty of stuff to be done.

So just to be clear...to get welfare from the government you have to work for them?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

The public sector is way underfunded; there's plenty of stuff to be done.

So just to be clear...to get welfare from the government you have to work for them?

"Just to be clear" - very funny.

You can also get govt welfare by buying Treasuries.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So just to be clear...to get welfare from the government you have to work for them?

"Just to be clear" - very funny.

You can also get govt welfare by buying Treasuries.

I wanted you to clarify what you meant about a public sector job. And if I give the government $X dollars in return for interest on that money, that isn't considered welfare in the traditional sense.

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Just to be clear" - very funny.

You can also get govt welfare by buying Treasuries.

I wanted you to clarify what you meant about a public sector job. And if I give the government $X dollars in return for interest on that money, that isn't considered welfare in the traditional sense.

It may not be considered so, but it is.

You're not giving the govt anything. You get your money plus interest back for doing nothing. Welfare.

Full employment used to be govt policy, you know. But since the rise of the monetarists, we have the "natural" rate of unemployment. Supposedly for the sake of price stability.

 

[Jarhyn]

But how do a job guarantee? Does the government pay people to paint rocks and then move them from one side of the road to the other and repaint them over and over?

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

The public sector is way underfunded; there's plenty of stuff to be done.

There is, indeed, much to be done in the public sector. That labor is also, unfortunately, generally of a form of skilled labor. Not everyone CAN do that work. UBI is better because it distributes the money equitably (people get money for nothing hence everyone, even those who do nothing, get it), and depending on the extent of the expansion of the money supply, people have to do some percentage of the available work to finish out the gap. We are moving into post-scarcity in many areas of our economy even today.

As an example, If there is only 2 hours of work available per person per day, and each person WANTS to do 4 hours of work every day, then that leaves half the people scrambling to get to do that work. With UBI, everyone has their needs met, and the folks who manage to score more work come out ahead but barely, to the point where they will be more apt to share the work. Without UBI, as many people will get 4 hours can manage it, and a bunch of people will starve to line the pockets of those who can hoard the work.

Today wee see this already: service economy workers have a snowball's chance in hell of making full time, and end up starving because the only wages are for work.

 

[Trausti]

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

All citizens already have a right to earn. Unless by "right" you mean using the coercive force of government to take from others and give to you. Then, all citizens have the right to have sex with supermodels.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The idea is simple: the currency is a simple public monopoly. All citizens should have the right to earn.

All citizens already have a right to earn. Unless by "right" you mean using the coercive force of government to take from others and give to you. Then, all citizens have the right to have sex with supermodels.

Govt does have that right. But that's not what I'm talking about. Giving a citizen a public sector job isn't taking anything from anybody.

Keep your sex fantasies to yourself, please.