I can't tell what's worse: intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
People love to talk about the marginal tax rates but not the average tax rates. And I think that’s right because the conversation should be focused on the wealthiest people.
It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax.
But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
If you have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax?
The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?
In the context of differentiating between wealth redistribution and insurance, insurance does not redistribute wealth, insurance redistributes risk since underwriting in a competitive marketplace ensures you only a premium commensurate to your risks.
For example, the government mandates only liability insurance up to $x, for which the premium for the same coverage can be vastly different depending on each person's driving history. While this can be considered a tax because the government mandates it, one can see how this is not wealth redistribution since the "tax" being paid is at least partly dependent on one's risk profile.
Contrast this with a government mandated defined benefit pension contribution equal to a percentage of one's earned income, with a known fact that one's contributions will reflect their benefit less and less as the years go on. That is far more "wealth redistribution" than "insurance".
Another example is in the US, health insurance premiums are more tax than an actuarially calculated premium based on health risk. This is because health insurers are not allowed to price health insurance based on health risks. It is explicitly a redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick, due to the maximum age rating factor and inability to underwrite based on pre-existing health conditions.
That's an irrelevant diversion though, because the measure that matters when discussing the fairness of taxes is how much people are left with at the end after paying whatever taxes they pay, including sales tax, income tax, and any other kind of tax. And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none, and for the people for whom a wealth tax would even apply the answer is unimaginable amounts.
The government's monopoly on punitive violence isn't only intended for the peasantry...
Considering the alternative for them over the past millennia has been, inevitably that they get caught, hanged, quartered, beaten and other various violent methods: yes, they should smile, they're buying their lives with all that money :)
Threatening violence to get what you want always ends with you being out-violenced by a bigger thug.
In humanity, being the alpha chimp, you can actually just run away from the tribe with all your wealth instead of outright die and form a new identity and start a life elsewhere and change your last name and go somewhere not well known, and if you and your family does this for enough generations you are forgotten.
I think this might explain the rotten apples at the tip-top of our industrial/societal wealth classes. I think they are these people, played out over generations, having somehow survived the system that used to make it impossible to do this when at the chimp level (or even medieval maybe, maybe this new form of evasion only arose in the industrial age).
And no, I do not believe that Musk's flabby arms or Bezos' shiny head are a threat of bigger violence to me anyways.
Extortion is the word that summarizes your point.
Just so you know, careers as a bootlicker are kind of a dead end.
If you're not using your funding to support your goals, thats corruption.
People can vote that a new tax should be levied on billionaires, but can't vote how those billionaires will react to the tax. Moving out of state is one option (see Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc). Hiring armies of lawyers to challenge any wealth assessment is another. Litigating to the Supreme Court yet another. I'm not a billionaire and never will be, but if I can think of these few ideas, they can think of 100 times more.
It feels to me you are asking "why can't we just eliminate billionaires". Well, they have a vote in that decision.
I'd say the fact that California remains the epicenter of tech despite its high taxes suggests concentration of talent matters far more than tax rates.
Both are important reasons for taxes.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." (often attributed to Louis Brandeis, though he probably never said exactly the quote)
Taxation is one of the primary tools for avoiding destructive levels of wealth concentration.
Of course, the wealthy decry this as unfair wealth redistribution but all governments engage in constant wealth redistribution.
In the US we happen to have decided (since the Reagan era) that through increasingly regressive taxes the redistribution will almost always function upwards, ultimately resulting in the oligarchical dismantling of our government that we find ourselves in today.
> And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none...
So... where are the real resources coming from then? Because if these people aren't using them to support their living standards they must be doing something else. If we give one person enough money out of the tax pot to pay rent, that means the resources were redeployed from somewhere else that was about 1-rentworth of something.
Because I agree that the taxes aren't going to come out of the wealthy's living standards, but the implications of that in practice are not good.
Yes, and that "somewhere else" is others' excess profit.
That excess profit comes from (a) inventing or investing capital with a return or (b) paying less for goods / labor than they can be sold for.
Capitalist profit has always been equal parts ingenuity and fucking other people over, and as most often implemented makes no discrimination between the two.
The bargain by which this has traditionally been squared is "the person who made the profit gets to keep some of it" + "they pay the rest in taxes to support the society they're successful in and depend on."
Unfortunately over the years this has continually been eroded by capital's invasion into democracy, with the express purpose of neutering the latter part of that bargain.
Those who would be hit with a wealth tax are incensed by it precisely because it would be less avoidable than the myriad of loopholes that have been engineered into income taxes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource#Tangible_versus_intan...
For the last ~3000 years of human history, wealth has been liquid via some form of money.
Ironically the communists have managed to out-greed the capitalists through this one fantastical concepts. Capitalists accept that they need to pay people to get their inputs and try to make the most of it one way or another. Communists are kept up at night at by the thought that somebody else may have made a penny off of their labor, and think that they need to murder them for it.
No one would be paying Apple or Google 30% of their revenue if there were infinite alternative app distribution options.
The essence of post-capitalism is that a lack of market intervention allows monopolies to not just grow (probably fine in limited niches with regulatory bounds) but also to rent seek without investing and adding value.
So yes, profit is a motivational force that has outperformed all others to date in aligning individual action with market desires.
But the excess profit era the US has been sliding towards for decades is not a free market.
When was the last time a large corporation was forcibly broken up?
How else could it work? The poor don't have enough money to tax them. That's why they're poor. Schemes where the rich don't get taxed are systems that tend towards the 0% tax for everyone end of the spectrum.
Yes. Focus on outcomes.
Pick a target amount of inequity. Act to hit that goal. Adjust as needed.
For example, I advocate restoring our gini coefficient from the current 0.48 (?) back to 1970s era 0.35. People smarter than me will figure out how to best measure inequity, ideal targets, and implementation details.
Arguing about all the misc tax rates, purposefully ignoring the macro, is an obfuscation strategy to prevent taking any action at all. Straight out of the CIA's field guide on sabotage.
(Social security and Medicare)
SS tax has a limit because benefits are also limited. It is a forced retirement plan where if you live long enough, you might get back what you paid in.
If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county).
* https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro...
And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners:
* https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...
Property taxes are not wealth taxes, but fees for services rendered by the local government. Both home owners and renters (may) benefit from those fees.
Economy's doing badly? Rent increases because costs and taxes for the landlord are higher.
UBI? Rent increases because people have more disposable income.
---
The secret to the infinite money glitch is to maintain a much lower supply than the demand, and to concentrate jobs within a small area
I assume that rising property values make the endeavor worthwhile?
tone: I am not being snarky here. Genuine question.
Just because landlords don't clear their monthly expenses does not mean that the tenant's rent is not going to cover (a portion of) property taxes.
It like me buying a laptop and saying I pay for the electricity in the factory in China.
While it’s true the money helps pay for it, it’s not a pss through expense.
Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.
Go and ask all the landlords in Toronto how the finances are working out.
Tons of landlords were cash flow negative against fully loaded costs. Then the market flipped and house prices dropped 30%.
Now they’re shelling out $2000 of their own cash per month, gaining $500 in equity, while they pay down a $700,000 mortgage on a home worth $500,000.
I consider this fine, because proponents of a wealth tax consistently omit that it will ultimately be the middle class who pays the tax... the ultra-wealthy and wealthy can afford sophisticated strategies to render a wealth tax ineffective against them, and if that doesn't work they can just move somewhere else. Income tax was the same.
Some of the mechanisms are loopholes, that might be closed l. But many start to interact with international business regulations that exist for considered reasons, and are harder to change even if it is serving as a loophole.
You end up with only the small wealth (one lifetime as a skilled professional) group getting caught
Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.
We have been doing this exact experiment in Seattle sine 2024 when Bozos moved out. And last month Howard Schultz moved out as well. The sky did not fall.
Another example- did the average Londoner get better off when Russian oligarch parked their money in London in early 2000s? And likewise - was the average Londoner worse off when that money was frozen in Jan 2022 when Ukrainian war started? Not really…
Many other businesses that are not large enough to interest the newspaper are moving out as well.
What the politicians will do with these taxes does not matter to me. The only thing I dispute is this sense of doom because, of my god, Bill Gates and Andy Jassy and Howard Schultz and Ballmer will pick up their toys and leave.
Starbucks announced they would open a large corporate office in Tennessee. It could be called a 2nd headquarters reasonably.
Brilliant.
Just look at Oregon for example. It’s a lot like WA state but without the billionaires. And it is a really nice place to live. If WA state ends up like Oregon I won’t mind.
You can tell this is true because property values have plummeted and nobody wants to live there any more, right? Or, since that’s not true at all, possibly the people who craft the media you consume are not being fully honest.
The commonly scapegoated cities in the United States are not experiencing third world conditions. Appalachia is experiencing third world conditions. Hollowed out rust belt cities in the Midwest are experiencing third world conditions. These areas are not run by lefty politicians. The United States has a systemic problem, not a local one.
And yes, the systemic problem is that there are a tiny number of ultra wealthy people with wildly outsized influence on the government of the United States, doing everything they can to reduce the amount they need to pay in taxes while simultaneously ensuring they extract the maximum amount of profit from the US government's wildly excessive expenditures.
With this framing, the wealth tax isn’t a new tax; it is only prepaying the capital gains tax instead of allowing it to be deferred forever.
It already exists in the form of property taxes, which are quite unpopular.
They are illiquid assets, not traded anywhere.
So I spend 30 minutes to set up an LLC and then transfer my assets to that LLC. Now, I don't hold the assets; I hold a stake in a privately-held company.
Ultimately, the solution you come up with needs to be at least somewhat airtight; otherwise, it just penalizes people who spend less money on tax advisors. The generation of income is a fairly well-defined point where assets change hands and you can apply some quasi-clear rules. Ongoing taxes on the potential to make money are a lot harder. So I buy some gold bars or valuable paintings and stash them in the attic. Gold / Picasso appreciates. How do you tax me on that? Do I submit an inventory of everything I own to the government every year? How does the government check - do they get to rifle through my stuff every December?
And hey, here's a cool one: if my parent owns a company and puts it in their will that it's mine when they die, is that promise an asset I owe taxes on every year? It's clearly worth something: it's potential money down the line.
Beneficial ownership is a well established concept in law, and this strategy simply would not work. If those assets are easily valued and liquid (stocks or whatever) then the taxes will just end up being passed through as the entity won’t be relevant for tax purposes. Sure you could try to hide assets or offshore them or whatever but you’d be running headlong into outright tax fraud at that point.
You would probably instead see less new public companies, more companies/divisions being sold to various groups under opaque structures and taken private, and a lot more weird borderline legal transactions done between private parties to pretend valuation of private companies or other assets are lower than reality.
> Gold / Picasso appreciates. How do you tax me on that? Do I submit an inventory of everything I own to the government every year? How does the government check - do they get to rifle through my stuff every December?
Yes, of course you would owe taxes on such things assuming they were over whatever exemption limits and such. The government can’t realistically check everyone. They just throw the more obvious offenders in prison when found and keep enough background “random audits” to keep folks scared enough into compliance.
And obviously the government has been making “hiding” such assets harder every year with the ratcheting up of KYC/AML laws. Over time you’d see these requirements for pretty much every major on/offramp for such assets like gold bullion dealers, coin shops, or auctions. A lot already are required to verify your identity and even report transactions. There is no more showing up to a car dealer and paying for a new car with a duffel bag full of cash, much less anonymously. Such a transaction is reported and you’d see this simply expand.
Property taxes exist at least in part because the asset is impossible to hide and more difficult than most to play games with valuation.
> And hey, here's a cool one: if my parent owns a company and puts it in their will that it's mine when they die, is that promise an asset I owe taxes on every year? It's clearly worth something: it's potential money down the line.
Presumably your parents would already be paying the wealth taxes owed on the asset in question. That someone might loan you money against a future inheritance seems immaterial but perhaps I’m missing something here?
Raising property taxes raises housing costs for everyone.
The next day, the stock could tank.
BTW, do you think that a mortgage on a house should be taxed as "income"? How about credit card debt? Is that also "income"?
Let’s do the bog-standard obvious and sane thing and pick a single point in time, once a year and use the value then. Maybe, i don’t know, close of market on the last trading day of the year. At which point it won’t fluctuate again until the new tax year. Then, we can call it “mark to market” because we’re marking the value to the market at a point in time.
Finally, we stop with silly bad faith arguments because fluctuations in stock have been successful taxed for decades. This is how day-traders pay taxes, and it’s not even a little challenging to do.
He owed more tax than his net worth, lost his house, everything, and wound up in a trailer.
He never saw the money he was taxed on.
> bad faith arguments
A person's net worth can have wild gyrations on a daily basis. It's not unusual for a stock to move 10% in a few hours. MSFT dropped something like a third of its value last year. What something is "worth" is an utterly arbitrary notion, and basing taxes on that is inevitably unfair an inequitable. (A lot of effort and handwaving is done by accountants trying to guess at what something is "worth".) Heck, what is your house "worth"? Do you agree with the tax assessor? I once told the assessor that if he believed my house was worth what he assessed it at, I'd sell it to him at a 10% discount and he can flip it for what he thought it was worth. He wouldn't take the deal.
With taxes on income, that is fairly well understood and can be accounted for to the dollar.
Not going to be sympathetic to someone YOLO'ing their compensation/taxes.
Restricted stock is taxed at vesting, unless you choose to be taxed when they're granted to you. Ditto since 1969.
RSUs are taxed at vesting/settlement as ordinary income. This was pretty much the case since 1969 as well, but fully confirmed in 2009.
For an unpopular tax, the property tax is remarkably ubiquitous. Are there really any popular taxes?
You're wealthy, or the definition will change to include you. The spice must flow.
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, for two reasons. For one, as even Paul points out in the piece, a wealth tax below what's practically a risk free return on capital (~5%) doesn't eat into the capital stock, it simply means wealth grows slower, but still increases.
Secondly, there's no monotonous historical direction towards higher wealth taxes, in fact the opposite. We're living in an age of low wealth taxation, with only half a dozen countries or so, if I'm not mistaken, imposing one at all.
But what does this mean? If you have a load of money in some companies, that's helping to fund their activities, and the companies' share price goes up a bit, you haven't gained any money. And you won't gain any until you sell some shares, which is already taxed.
Assets are used as collateral for loans that don’t require any repayment until death. Generally the borrower can borrow up to 75% of their collateralized asset, and that loan is not taxed. When they die the assets are passed to heirs and stepped up to their current value as the new cost basis. They’re sold to repay the loan and interest. No taxes paid on the loan “income”, no taxes paid on the capital gains, 3-5% interest paid for the outstanding balance of the loan and I’m sure some of that gets taxed. Because the collateralized asset stays invested the entire time, it usually grows faster than the interest that will eventually be paid.
> When they die the assets are passed to heirs and stepped up to their current value as the new cost basis...no taxes paid on the capital gains
And then your entire estate is taxed at 40%.
> and that loan is not taxed
Of course it is not taxed. A loan is not income, and is not an asset. It's a liability.
> Because the collateralized asset stays invested the entire time, it usually grows faster than the interest that will eventually be paid.
The higher the return, the higher the risk. It is normal practice to borrow money to invest it hoping for higher returns than the interest. It is not a scam.
Let’s say you put $20M as collateral for an SBLOC loan. The collateral amount and grows at ≥7%/year and you’re charged interest on your loan of 4%/year. You pull $1M/year that goes into the loan. This goes on for 40 years.
At death the cost basis is stepped up to the value at the time of death. All capital gains are erased.
Next, the loan is paid back before any distribution to heirs. This is done at 0% tax rate because it happens before any distribution to heirs.
Finally, the heirs get what remains and any inheritance tax applies to that.
So you got to live with no income tax related to capital gains. The capital gains are wiped out upon death.
Had you paid taxes along the way, you’d leave about $37M to your heirs (and none of that would be touched by inheritance tax).
If you did the SBLOC strategy, The portfolio grew to around $300M. The loan principal and interest are around $100M. Taxes are $64M. Your heirs get to keep $136M.
There’s less risk since there is never any sales over a longer period, so the returns approach the average.
There’s more tax paid by the SBLOC strategy, it just happens very acutely instead of over time. The heirs are also left with significantly more.
Right. And then 40% estate taxes are applied.
All you're saying is that you can borrow money and invest it and hopefully you make more off of the investment than the interest on the money.
A loan is not income. After all, when you borrow a half million to buy a house, you aren't charged income tax on that. You also are not charged income tax on stuff you charged on your credit card.
Borrowing on margin is no different.
If they don't have money then they can't buy elections and aren't insulated from the consequences of their actions.
[1] Note: I don't really think we should literally take all their money. Just enough to reduce some of the power imbalance.