However we tax, we’ll have to define terms. The goal should be to remove loopholes in those definitions. Not add loopholes. By adding the concept of wealth, we’ll just encourage behavior like undervaluing assets (like art, private stocks, etc). And we’ll be back to square one.
"The goal should be to remove loopholes in those definitions"
So, define income, without loopholes. Your plan depends on this.
p.s., There’s a difference in reducing loopholes and having absolutely zero loopholes (something that may be impossible)
If the solution is that those people should try to remove those loopholes from the definition of income and there is nothing beyond that to explain how those people should do that then it is a vacuous solution.
p.s, There’s a difference in reducing loopholes and having absolutely zero loopholes (something that may be impossible)
Obviosuly.
You’re basically arguing that I shouldn’t make this statement unless I have specific details about how to simplify taxes? I can’t make a general directional statement if I haven’t taken the time to learn about all the nuances? Do you always learn about all the nuances and define all the terms before starting a discussion?