Remember how good the economy was in the 50’s and 60’s? Wanna guess what the tax rate on the wealthy was? It was 91%. This was the “golden age of American capitalism”, and that tax revenue kicked off a slew of public works projects that boosted the economy.
What semantics game? I asked for a source supporting the claim regarding wealth taxes. You have not provided one and a different account, not you, demonstrated they don’t know the difference between wealth and income taxes. They were confused whereas you haven’t backed your claim.
I dunno man, everything in the Wiki seems to suppirt everything I’ve said, from wealth hoarding damaging the economy to wealth taxes not leading to investment drain. It seems like those who oppose the tax don’t understand how investment economics work, nor do they understand the psychology is the VC class. They’re literally just poor people pretending they’d know what to do if they were rich.
According to an OECD study on wealth taxes, it is “difficult to firmly argue that wealth taxes would have negative effects on entrepreneurship. The magnitude of the effects of wealth taxes on entrepreneurship is also unclear”.[8]
A wealth tax serves as a negative reinforcer (“use it or lose it”), which incentivizes the productive use of assets (rather than letting assets accumulate without being used). According to University of Pennsylvania Law School professors David Shakow and Reed Shuldiner, “a wealth tax also taxes capital that is not productively employed. Thus, a wealth tax can be viewed as a tax on potential income from capital.”[60] Net wealth taxes can complement rather than replace gift taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes to increase administrability and the effectiveness of enforcement efforts.
Your first source states that it does not impact entrepreneurship which is not a point I addressed but does not support or refute your claim.
Your second source are non-experts as lawyers are not economists and this is a question of economics not law.
So again what is going on is that you do not have the level of understanding you think you do. Rather than recognizing that lack of understanding and taking a chance to learn you have decided to double down on the idea that you are correct when you have made it abundantly clear that you have no education in macroeconomics.
Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that wealth taxes have ever worked.
Remember how good the economy was in the 50’s and 60’s? Wanna guess what the tax rate on the wealthy was? It was 91%. This was the “golden age of American capitalism”, and that tax revenue kicked off a slew of public works projects that boosted the economy.
I asked fir a source that demonstrates that wealth taxes work not that higher tiers of income tax work which is what you are talking about.
Considering that you do not know the difference between these things you should be less certain as to how any of this works.
Oh, I get it… you’re gonna play the cheap semantics game.
You are dismissed.
What semantics game? I asked for a source supporting the claim regarding wealth taxes. You have not provided one and a different account, not you, demonstrated they don’t know the difference between wealth and income taxes. They were confused whereas you haven’t backed your claim.
So do you have a source?
I dunno man, everything in the Wiki seems to suppirt everything I’ve said, from wealth hoarding damaging the economy to wealth taxes not leading to investment drain. It seems like those who oppose the tax don’t understand how investment economics work, nor do they understand the psychology is the VC class. They’re literally just poor people pretending they’d know what to do if they were rich.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
Wikipedia is not a great source for things like this. In fact it does not support the notion that there is no capital flight.
Given your comments here Im not sure you are in a position to determine how educated people are on taxation.
Sounds like you’re just wrong and mad about it
Your first source states that it does not impact entrepreneurship which is not a point I addressed but does not support or refute your claim.
Your second source are non-experts as lawyers are not economists and this is a question of economics not law.
So again what is going on is that you do not have the level of understanding you think you do. Rather than recognizing that lack of understanding and taking a chance to learn you have decided to double down on the idea that you are correct when you have made it abundantly clear that you have no education in macroeconomics.
deleted by creator
The entirety of the New Deal all the way until 1980 when the fascists began to dismantle it.
That’s not a source nor does it establish what you claim.