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.
As long as your solution remains “everything is fine, do what the wealth hoarders say or they will punish you!” I stand confident that my position is far superior to yours, especially having watched the process from it’s inception.
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
But that is a stupid distinction. The entire issue is that the defenders keep saying “but they dont have an income therefore they shouldn’t pay taxes!” So the “income” claim is moot. It’s not working. It’s why the wealth tax is being proposed, and this is why every objection you’ve put forth makes you sound like the economically illiterate one, not me.
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Better than that I am self-employed and have been all my life…or most of it anyway.
Most of my clients are wealthy. I know the difference between wealth and income. I also know how income gets disguised as wealth so ut doesnt get taxed. You are not making a very good case.
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.
As long as your solution remains “everything is fine, do what the wealth hoarders say or they will punish you!” I stand confident that my position is far superior to yours, especially having watched the process from it’s inception.
My solution is higher marginal tax rates and estate taxes because those do work.
Your confidence is misplaced because you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can change that if you want to appear like you have a valid opinion.
I’m not sure how those aren’t wealth taxes. Maybe it’s the semantics that’s the problem.
Those are income taxes not wealth taxes. Income is the money you are making in x amount if time. Wealth is the total summation of everything you have.
If you don’t know the difference between them you shouldn’t be talking about economics at all. It would be like not knowing what a baseball is versus a baseball bat and then maintaining your take on the infield fly rule is correct.
But that is a stupid distinction. The entire issue is that the defenders keep saying “but they dont have an income therefore they shouldn’t pay taxes!” So the “income” claim is moot. It’s not working. It’s why the wealth tax is being proposed, and this is why every objection you’ve put forth makes you sound like the economically illiterate one, not me.
That is not a stupid distinction. It is vastly easier to assess income than wealth.
If you have enough wealth to be covered by a wealth tax you have an income. Wealth at high levels generates a passive income so anyone covered by a wealth tax would be covered by income taxes.
I don’t mean to be harsh but you honestly don’t know enough to be part of an informed conversation on any economic or financial topic if you cannot understand the differences between wealth and income.
Are you old enough to work?
Better than that I am self-employed and have been all my life…or most of it anyway. Most of my clients are wealthy. I know the difference between wealth and income. I also know how income gets disguised as wealth so ut doesnt get taxed. You are not making a very good case.