8note

i think this is more like the pen maker doesnt want the military top brass calling their pen sales guy to make the kill/no kill decisions while using the pen to sign drone strike orders.

similarly the pen owner doesnt want to make a variation where the pen also doubles as a knife

capitalism itself is covetousness and greed.

not good believer in christ would ever participate, when jesus made it clear you are supposed to freely give away everything you own to the poorest among us

wealth taxes are from the old roman republic. the wealthy showed off their worth to each other by how much they could pay in taxes.

its not particularly crazy and is far older than communism or socialism which have the much more straightforward setup of seizing the means of production rather than taxing it.

however, it didnt stop the ultrawealthy from seizing power for themselves

so what if they do leave?

they're bad for the world around them, and you can add an exit tax if you want to

everyone working is the poor.

the rich are an astounding amount of wealthy such that they dont show up and still make a good poor wage in the first couple hours/days of a year by their assets increasing in value

you are poor, even if you are doing plenty well for yourself

this is the idea - if theres a lot of value around you, you should build to make sure you are meeting the bar of whats around you in terms of economic activity.

if you build even more and get more out of the land than whats around you, you essentially get a lower tax rate until your neighbors catch up.

if you lag behind, you pay a premium in taxes to not develop

do they believe its a universal solution? or one tax among many that triggers a certain asset, land, to be used more efficiently?

a lack of wealth tax is slowing the economy today.

ultrawealthy people just cant spend as much or give useful market signals the way the masses can

its hyperbolic to say laws that are active when passed are tyranny and despotism

that is to say theyre being kneecapped.

it does have monopoly power and anticompetitive power all over the place though.

google bans are quite intrusive, but google could pretty easily with their graph knowledge apply secondary or tertiary sanctions, at which point you would not be able to do much of anything, same as if the US government sanctioned you

the people getting hurt is anyone who would have bought something but was outbit by larry page's free money glitch.

he doesnt necessarily have to pay it back either. he could just take out another loan against his same now higher valued assets to pay off the old loan

whats its mean to be kneecapped?

like, if a company's market cap gets too big, the law should stop applying to them? they should be allowed to start their own militaries and enforce martial law a la east india company?

how does a founder keep a single digit of their company after theyve been dead for a thousand years?

These arent nearly as absolute as you are making them to be.

a founder can keep their percent by paying their taxes with other money they have, or by decreasing the worth of their company. theyre a founder, they have control. Maybe founders wont be so keen to enshittify their products if theres a downside to continued growth forever. considering google dropped "dont be evil" in exchange for making larry page's 1% grow for the sake of growing, how's society at large benefiting from continuing to subsidize it?

id say it usually is.

most people have very little illiquid wealth, and its generally in the form of a house.

billionaires are a tiny propertion of people, and their situation is as atypical as it comes. theres no reason to make super special accomodations for them, when theyre responsible for making their own dumb situation where they have too many assets to make them liquid on a hurry

which is also part of the idea of wealth taxes? to diffuse wealth?

the government seizes dollars in the form of taxes, which are still assets, no?

these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now

its real and thus it is taxable

which thing of mine are you saying is worth a billion dollars? the lawnmower? take that then?

whats the complication? if its not worth anything whos gonna worry, especially if the government then compensates you in dollars

even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.

if the owner thinks its worth more than what the government proposes, they can pay tax on the higher amount.

its still not that hard

You will find that the centi-billionaires will find a different way to turn their illiquid wealth into personal power and value in a way that avoids that tax.

wealth taxes solve the problem that the ultra-wealthy will find a way to make their income untaxable, and focusing on these loans is a red herring. its how theyre doing it now, but not how theyll do it an hour after you add this tax. That the ultra-wealthy propose this as the solution means theyve already planned the next work around.

they dislike wealth taxes, which are an old roman concept predating socialism, because the wealth tax covers all the work arounds they can think of.

it is a proper solution to the overall problem which is extreme wealth concentration.

the obvious alternative is nationalization of all assets worth more than 100M.

DOGE has pretty conclusively proved that the government has been incredibly efficient with spending and doesnt have an addiction to wasteful spending. instead the problem is wasteful monopolization and wealth concentration. society writ large has an addiction to giving a small cadre too much power and control, and they arent the government

no more obvious than taxing against the whole value of the asset rather than just the loan.

its perfectly feasible.

high frequency traders dont have a right to a business model.

if they want faster trades, they can take full liability for what they own

that net worth is still power, which is even more valuable than money.

if you are claiming the high net worth, almost certainly you have raised significant actual money on things you own. a wealth tax means that if you dont actually think your business is worth a billion, you cant raise money as if it was.

thays a net good thing.

if peter theil is lying about being rich and he only has a couple hundred thousand bucks to his name, the publiv overall deserves to know, and it should cost him quite a lot to raise or borrow money.

these people are commiting fraud and should be forced into texas prisons without AC because theyre lying to banks about the value of their assets, and the bankers too beed to go to those same prisons because theyre defrauding their depositors.

this is only a good thing for routing how whos lying about their worth

if its got feet, why all the focus on RTO all over the place?

youd think that, but you can fit another 10 people into that studio apartment

> cools below ambient

ambient and body temperature arent coupled items there

have you never used a convection oven?

leaving a bad or unequal society in place is similarly dishonourable. That is still a choice you make

the point iant punishment though, its slavery and slave labour.

the laws are written to make sure certain people are easy to press into forced labour

free speech is abridged without the 2nd amendment being hit.

unless you are suggesting CNN show up at the whitehouse and shoot anyone that gets in their way to asking the president a question

id see a limitation on the government to limit or remove liability for private entities to invade privacy.

private corps could still invade privacy, but they wouldnt be able to shrug the liability from torts related to their bad activity.

eg. the government can not remove liability to any behaviour that breaks the constitution, as thats the government brraking the constitution by deputizing somebody else to break it

the US train boom is much further away.

you can get to hong kong or jspan in hours to days. the train boom is about a century away

this sounds like a shallow analysis.

is road wear the only cost, or the highest cost to consider of the comparison?

is it even the right comparison, vs a 4 person street car where its running on rails?

is lowest cost even the right thing to optimize for when it might mean people lose jobs?