Hacker News Reader

Comment by JonFish85 | Hacker News Reader

> From the perspective of trying to get the budget balanced, taxing wealth is probably the single most efficient way to do it.

Why? As a total layman, wouldn't it be incredibly inefficient? If we tax the wealth of, say, the top 100 richest Americans, wouldn't that cause some pretty terrible downsides? If we force them to sell their holdings, wouldn't that ripple through the economy?

Take Jeff Bezos--if you forced him to sell a significant portion of his stock, wouldn't that depress the Amazon stock price, which affects a significant number of other individuals and businesses?

View on HN

The problem is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Only if they have a fixed, non-growing amount. Which isn't ever the case.

Socialism has a way seeing to it that it runs out of other people's money.

It takes some special sort of entitlement to believe that despite stealing most of their money, then asked to work and make up for the remainder of the population, they will continue to work after a while and contribute to your economy.

If you are not aware of what happens in situations like this, I would like to take you to pre-1990s India. Some of the most brightest, brilliant, hard working and industrious people used to leave the country and never to return the moment they attained working age.

The people and money from whom you can take the wealth to fund your socialist schemes shrinks every year. To a point you will have a country full of entitled people, who think they were born with rights to free stuff. And will always be angry at people capable of working who don't spend away their life to make it happen for them.

Let me add to the tirade. Somewhere on the web I saw: Taxing income, is like 9 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

Quote (by probably Winston Churchill )- Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 30 has no brain.

Please upvote.

Please refrain from asking for upvotes. (You'll even receive more upvotes this way, if that's really what you are after.)

Eru - did you notice the sarcasm ? We I got what i was looking for - many down votes! Anyway you do seem to have some objective thinking going on with your views on Georgism - I checked some of your posts. Keep it up!

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over written communication.

(And I can understand the temptation of sarcasm, but it seldom feels as good to the reader as it did to the writer.)

Georgism would be great. I hope Singapore would show the world how to do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com