- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Norway has a 1% annual tax on net wealth above $188,000 and 1.1% above $1 mms.
France had a 2% wealth tax on fortunes over 100 million Euros, ended in 2018.
UK Greens has proposed a 1% wealth tax on wealth over 10 million pounds.
30,000 New York residents left for Palm Beach and Miami Dade counties taking $9.2 billion in income.
Switzerland has a wealth tax with rates ranging from 0.1% to 0.88%.
Spain has a tax on 700k euros or more (excluding residence) rates of 0.2% to 3.5%
‘Soak the rich’ battle cry is rising from London to California
-
-
The issue with wealth taxes, for me, isn’t as much whether they should exist…I have come around on that question…it’s what to do with the money. Government destroys value at every turn.
The notion that generational wealth should be taxed no longer bothers me. The problem is that politicians get the money.
I’m starting to see wealth tax as the most direct route to Universal Basic Income, which is a problem across the board but I’m betting is where we land as AI permeates every industry and eliminates white collar jobs. I’d rather hand wealth taxes directly back to every citizen for their immediate consumption than flow it through the bureaucracy for “programs.”
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
Excellent reply, and by that I mean that I feel the same way.
I can’t recall the time I last interacted with the government in any way that seemed positive or efficient. About 20% of the time, I get the sense that the person behind the desk is interested in arriving at a positive conclusion for both of us. I have never thought dealing with any government (or non-profit for that matter) was efficient in any way.
I don’t think you can make government or non-profits efficient. The instinct isn’t there, the desire isn’t there, the knowledge isn’t there, and people go home at 5:01 p.m. When I was at Andersen, our biggest client (by far) was PG&E. They didn’t have anyone internally who knew what to do.
Here’s the problem in microcosm: I was at a post office some years back, very long line. An elderly lady walked up to the clerk (finally) and asked for a bit of tape to close off a weakly-sealed part of her parcel. The clerk behind the desk declines, and she says “just some of that tape from your dispenser right there” pointing to a tape dispenser three feet away. Bureaucrat that he is, he declines, politely. She leaves, irritated and bemused. He says loudly to his four co-workers “I wonder why she thought we would give her some tape?” They all laughed. The guy in front of me says “Because UPS does it.” Someone else says “So does Federal Express…and Emery…and Airborne.” (Note: The USPS changed their policy at some point in the past).
The government isn’t built to be efficient. It’s an employment agency for not-very-employable people who generally wouldn’t succeed in the private sector (absent the nosebleed-high people). You don’t get fired for following the rules, but you might get disciplined or fired when you try to do something different and better.
So…you’re right. What will they do with all that money? One would hope pay down the debt, or apply it to transfer payments to the elderly, sick, etc. But no, they can’t be trusted with it. They’d just waste it.
Interestingly, the government is convinced that they spend our money better than we do. Former White House employee and creator of “The West Wing” wrote this exchange:
Donna Moss: “What’s wrong with me getting my money back?”
Josh Lyman: “You won’t spend it right.”
Donna Moss: “What do you mean?”
Josh Lyman: “Let’s say your cut of the surplus is $700. I want to take your money and combine it with everybody else’s money, and use it to pay down the debt and take steps toward universal health care. You won’t like that, will you?”This is the Josh/Donna version of the “I know better than the government how to spend my money” vs. “we know better than you what to do with it” argument.
Later in the episode, Donna argues for her taxes returned to her:
Donna: What’s wrong with me getting my money back?
Josh: What do you mean?
Donna: The surplus is money the government collected from us but doesn’t need.
Josh: We’re going to need it eventually.
Donna: Give it back and collect it later.
Josh: You won’t spend it right.
Donna: What do you mean?
Josh: You’ll spend it on cigarettes and beer and tattooed boyfriends.
Donna: I’ll buy an American car.
Josh: We don’t trust you.
Donna: Why not?
Josh: We’re Democrats.
Donna: I want my money back.
Josh: You shouldn’t have voted for us.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.