|
Top-level
@Strandjunker And limit wealth accumulation. I'd say US$500,000,000 total assets. After that, 95% tax rate. I would make one exception: the actual individual inventors, artists, entertainers (incl sports) could accumulate more if people liked their stuff that much. But not something anyone could buy the rights to. And not transferable by inheritance or otherwise. The accumulation of money and power are the biggest toxins. 6 comments
 @janeadams @quixote @Strandjunker 100% inheritance tax is the logical consequence of taking libertarian arguments about the "meritocracy" seriously. Alas most people don't mean it and get flustered when you take them at their word.  @ln @quixote @Strandjunker The unfortunate reality is that it would likely just result in more tax evasion loopholes (life insurance anyone?) It sure is a fun exercise though, along with telling conservative libertarians that the most libertarian thing to do would be to eliminate state and national borders entirely, thereby avoiding the immigration problem entirely ("no one can be an illegal immigrant if immigration isn't illegal") @janeadams @ln @Strandjunker Tax evasion and its loopholes can be plugged or even prevented if the will is there among the powers that be. Mostly, though, the unfortunate reality is they're trying to do just enough to sound good to the have-nots while not really bothering the donor class too much. Not too surprising that never works. |
Gregory's Server
@quixote @Strandjunker
I think a infinitely progressive income tax is a good idea. It should include stock trading profits too.
For removing wealth from the super rich fair inheritance taxation would also be neccessary, but should also certainly be doable.
A tax an wealth is also possible, but can be very difficult to implement, as the worth of many objects is very much a topic of debate (for example art). To go through that effort for the few ultrarich should be possible though...