this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2022
12 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43406 readers
1659 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't mind capping the maximal net worth one could reach at (for example) 1 billion. And therefore tax any wealth beyond that with 100%.
This has been tried before (or rather, a wealth tax). It turns out to be extraordinarily difficult to administer, especially when people start owning a mess of companies or artwork that has to be appraised. It turns out that movement of money is the easiest thing to tax since it is an objective value.
A cliff like this also distorts behavior because people don't want to loose a bunch of wealth if they go over in one year. Imagine having one great year where your company doubles in value to $2 billion dollars, but the next year there is a crash and it halves in value. You personally are down to 0.5 billion, less than you started. Tax policy should make it difficult to remain obscenely wealthy, but not impossible.
Sure, it is complicated. But there are only so many billionaires. My countries spends way more resources on controlling the poor than a billionaire wealth tax would ever cost.
My recollection is that it costs nearly as much to administer as it provided. At a certain point, there's just not much point.
Sounds like a perfect way to make them migrate to another country. Unless others join in, it just moves the issue beyond your control.
Let them go away then. The company/properties they leave behind is better without them.