Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

gary550

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Marxists under the bed, accusations of 'Virtue Signalling' (one of the most moronic terms to bubble up out of the alt-right sewer) and now brain-dead propaganda from Prager U?

Totally rational response Tom,

Let's liken someone who holds opposite economic views to to a someone who tried to exterminate a whole subpopulation. :rolleyes:

Junkyard Tom

gary550 wrote: »

Totally rational response Tom,

Let's liken someone who holds opposite economic views to to a someone who tried to exterminate a whole subpopulation. :rolleyes:

It's a muppet.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Instead of "coronabonds", this article proposes coronataxes:

"coronataxes could be collected by raising overall taxes temporarily for 5–10 years, the objective being to repay the extra 10–30% of public debt incurred as a result of the corona crisis. The increase would apply to all forms of taxation. Income taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all wage-earners. Corporate taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points for all tax-paying businesses. Value added taxes should be increased by 1–5 percentage points across the board. The simplest and easiest solution would be to increase all forms of taxes by an annual 3-percentage point coronatax for the next 5–10 years."

https://voxeu.org/article/coronataxes-solution

what like the USC ?? that was supposed to be temporary, thanks but no thanks hows about we look root and branch at the spend side of our equation before any new tax is introduced

FVP3

markodaly wrote: »

Tell me, whom am I shilling for?

Overpaid CEOs, clearly.

Albeit not very well given your diversionary style of discourse, your clear misunderstanding of macro economics, and your failure to make any cogent points at all.

PeadarCo

FVP3 wrote: »

Overpaid CEOs, clearly.

Albeit not very well given your diversionary style of discourse, your clear misunderstanding of macro economics, and your failure to make any cogent points at all.

Using the 0.00001% of the population isn't a good way to make an argument. It's no different to saying we should get rid of all social welfare because a few extreme outliers abuse the system in a big way.

For any wealth tax to bring in enough money it has to cover a brought segment of society. If you are relying on a handful of people to generate tax you are not going to get the money you need as unless you are talking about turning the country into a police state. Its very easy for those people to leave the country and a massive wealth tax just gives an even big incentive. Remember any % even 000000001 % of a 100 is still bigger than 100% of 0.

Now while a few hundred people can leave easily housands of people can't but to tax a larger amount of people you need a broader wealth tax and ensure its not so politically toxic the government gets voted out of power. And in Ireland what's politically toxic depends on how the wind blows. As the property tax showed left wing/right wing labels are more virtue signally/insults than identifiers of actual economic policies at least when it comes to the big 3 parties in Ireland.

Geuze

GreeBo wrote: »

Why does having an expensive house mean you are wealthy?
What if i've been living in the house for 50 years and its worth far, far more than I ever paid for it?

Forcing me to sell it isnt going to solve any housing problems, the market for 7 figure houses isnt exactly the problem we have today.

I bought Ryanair shares years ago at 2.60.

They are now 9.00. My wealth has increased.

If you happen to have acquired the house years ago for 20k IEP, yes, and so what, it is all wealth.

How your wealth increases is not relevant to the wealth tax.

KyussB

You don't tax wealth primarily to generate taxation revenue, you tax wealth first and foremost to reduce harmful forms of wealh inequality - revenue generated is secondary.

jimmycrackcorm

KyussB wrote: »

You don't tax wealth primarily to generate taxation revenue, you tax wealth first and foremost to reduce harmful forms of wealh inequality - revenue generated is secondary.

That doesn't make any sense at all. What exactly are harmful forms of wealth inequality?

Maybe it's having a an elderly person earning a state pension who bought his 4 bedroom house 40 years ago, but it's in an area where it the house is worth a million euro, compared to a yougn family with three kids in a two bed council house where one parent is earning a decent wage but they an't afford a bigger home?

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

You don't tax wealth primarily to generate taxation revenue, you tax wealth first and foremost to reduce harmful forms of wealh inequality - revenue generated is secondary.

The plastic bag tax is a bit like this - if successful, it raises no revenue.

It's an unusual tax, as if it raises no revenue, it's deemed a success.

You seem to be suggesting that the behavioural responses from the wealth tax are more important than any revenue-raising aspect?

So if everybody's wealth falls to the level agreed (by the Govt? By whom?), then there is no wealth tax to pay?

Geuze

So once everybody has equal wealth, then the wealth tax raises no revenue?

Geuze

How does this deal with the situation that wealth rises with age?

My parents have a lower income than me, as they are retired, but they have more wealth than me.

Their wealth is fairly typical, say 500k for a retired couple.

You seem to suggest that their wealth is to be reduced - how, as they keep on saving?

My mother can't help it - she is a saver - they are modest people, they don't spend much, so their wealth rises, month after month.

Are they to be taxed due to their sensilbility / frugality?

McGiver

So many pages. What's the conclusion?

Taxes or no taxes?

KyussB

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense at all. What exactly are harmful forms of wealth inequality?

Maybe it's having a an elderly person earning a state pension who bought his 4 bedroom house 40 years ago, but it's in an area where it the house is worth a million euro, compared to a yougn family with three kids in a two bed council house where one parent is earning a decent wage but they an't afford a bigger home?

There are a lot of different harmful forms of wealth inequality - with most of the harm occurring when control over vast quantities of wealth can accumulate under a small number of people, to the point that it can be used to corrupt democracy itself.

Most of the paths to permanently worsening and concentrating wealth inequality (which eventually become a threat to democracy), occur through paths of rent seeking - and 'money making money', where primarily only wealth itself is required to grow wealth, without limits.

Taxes/laws need to be deployed to end all paths of neverending wealth accumulation/concentration - property taxes partially aim at this (land value taxes are better), maximum wage (100% tax after a certain point) does it, CGT, among many more.

One person having a bigger house than another is small fry - but manipulation of the property market to inflate house prices and rents, as we've experienced, is far more lucrative and dangerous - and is one of those paths for rent-seeking and neverending accumulation/concentration of wealth (that's why it looked precisely like it would go on forever: that's the plan...).

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

The plastic bag tax is a bit like this - if successful, it raises no revenue.

It's an unusual tax, as if it raises no revenue, it's deemed a success.

You seem to be suggesting that the behavioural responses from the wealth tax are more important than any revenue-raising aspect?

So if everybody's wealth falls to the level agreed (by the Govt? By whom?), then there is no wealth tax to pay?

It's more the ending of pathways to neverending wealth accumulation/concentration, as I describe above - because after all, it is a bad thing for government funding, to be depending on a source of tax, which itself is depending on (as in, is not adequate to close off - which motivates government to encourage) a pathway to persistent wealth accumulation/concentration

This is why I like the MMT view of things, it's useful because it removes the entire viewpoint of taxes funding government - which allows you to really have a new/fresh look at taxes, and what their real purpose is meant to be. It leads to some very surprising places.

Shefwedfan

McGiver wrote: »

So many pages. What's the conclusion?

Taxes or no taxes?

I stepped out a few days ago as it had gone crazy


So just wondering the same? have we pin pointed the exact people that will pay all the tax while everyone else pays nothing yet?

Bass Reeves

KyussB wrote: »

There are a lot of different harmful forms of wealth inequality - with most of the harm occurring when control over vast quantities of wealth can accumulate under a small number of people, to the point that it can be used to corrupt democracy itself.

Most of the paths to permanently worsening and concentrating wealth inequality (which eventually become a threat to democracy), occur through paths of rent seeking - and 'money making money', where primarily only wealth itself is required to grow wealth, without limits.

Taxes/laws need to be deployed to end all paths of neverending wealth accumulation/concentration - property taxes partially aim at this (land value taxes are better), maximum wage (100% tax after a certain point) does it, CGT, among many more.

One person having a bigger house than another is small fry - but manipulation of the property market to inflate house prices and rents, as we've experienced, is far more lucrative and dangerous - and is one of those paths for rent-seeking and neverending accumulation/concentration of wealth (that's why it looked precisely like it would go on forever: that's the plan...).

The theory sounds great. The practical application is the problem. When you over tax those that can create wealth with leave with there wealth or you stifle the enthusiasm of those that create jobs and wealth whereby they limit there endeavour.

Super high tax rates as we found out after from what happened during the 70's& 80's encourages tax evasion. When Mary Lou, Paul Murphy or Richard Boyad Barrett stand up and espouse these theories you just look towhat happened in China, the USSR and the countries it had control over from 1945-1990 and how in the end the practical application caused the collapse of these countries

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

So once everybody has equal wealth, then the wealth tax raises no revenue?

Geuze wrote: »

How does this deal with the situation that wealth rises with age?

My parents have a lower income than me, as they are retired, but they have more wealth than me.

Their wealth is fairly typical, say 500k for a retired couple.

You seem to suggest that their wealth is to be reduced - how, as they keep on saving?

My mother can't help it - she is a saver - they are modest people, they don't spend much, so their wealth rises, month after month.

Are they to be taxed due to their sensilbility / frugality?

(replying to a couple things I missed)

Ah, I wouldn't argue for equalizing wealth - only to put a limit on how unequal it can get, so that 1: The wealth is gained through productive means, not rent-seeking/money-making-money or other ways damaging to society, and that 2: The wealth can't accumulate/concentrate in a few hands enough, to be a threat to democracy.

People like our parents aren't a problem - they've worked hard through all their lives, they should have accumulated wealth to serve them well in retirement - the problem is when wealth perpetually accumulates/concentrates in the hands of a few, as I described in my previous post.

KyussB

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The theory sounds great. The practical application is the problem. When you over tax those that can create wealth with leave with there wealth or you stifle the enthusiasm of those that create jobs and wealth whereby they limit there endeavour.

Super high tax rates as we found out after from what happened during the 70's& 80's encourages tax evasion. When Mary Lou, Paul Murphy or Richard Boyad Barrett stand up and espouse these theories you just look towhat happened in China, the USSR and the countries it had control over from 1945-1990 and how in the end the practical application caused the collapse of these countries

People who think the wealthy will bugger off and take all their property/land, physical assets, skilled workers etc. with them, have been fetishizing Ayn Rand too long, and forgotten she's a writer of poor/childish fiction.

PeadarCo

KyussB wrote: »

(replying to a couple things I missed)

Ah, I wouldn't argue for equalizing wealth - only to put a limit on how unequal it can get, so that 1: The wealth is gained through productive means, not rent-seeking/money-making-money or other ways damaging to society, and that 2: The wealth can't accumulate/concentrate in a few hands enough, to be a threat to democracy.

So who controls this "excess wealth" if its the government we'll you are talking about one of the big things that brought communism. Places were most of the wealth was concentrated within a tiny subset of the population that was politically well connected. You are talking about handing massive power over to the government of the day.

And how do define "productive means"? Are we going back to stupid communist idea of capital and labour divide. For example at the moment we have a housing shortage. Are landlords or anyone who builds houses for example not being productive? What about capital investors? When we talk about Amazon one of the only reasons it is in business is because investors were prepared to fund large losses early on in its history. The same of most businesses(few businesses are profitable from day 1) but particularly a lot of Internet businesses. That wealth that was invested was just as important as all the work done by anyone who worked there. Similarly anyone with a private pension is an investor.

Even financial markets or stuff you call money making money is a major part of economic eco system that puts food on the table. Most food staples are commodities. If you are a farmer for example and want to guarantee a price for your autumn crop one way to do that is agree a price with a broker. Similar if you what to guarantee the price of a raw material you are purchasing.

Your idea is very simplitistic and completely nieve to how the world works. Like all eco systems its very easy to do a huge amount of damage with simple ideas.

Eric Cartman

McGiver wrote: »

So many pages. What's the conclusion?

Taxes or no taxes?

People who dont pay taxes or pay f*ck all - ‘TaX De RiCh AnD ApPle ‘

People who actually pay tax - ‘please not again, i cant take any more tax’

Bass Reeves

KyussB wrote: »

People who think the wealthy will bugger off and take all their property/land, physical assets, skilled workers etc. with them, have been fetishizing Ayn Rand too long, and forgotten she's a writer of poor/childish fiction.

Investors will stop investing. MNC will stop upsizing and start to exit the country. Really wealty people will just bigger off. When income tax exceeds 50% substantially lads just will try any means possible legal or illegal to avoid it.

Eric Cartman

Tony Ferguson wrote: »

I suspect the motivations of some people who want to tax the rich extortionately are harbouring feelings of resentment and inadequacy. Like a kid bitter that another kid has a shinier toy.

Its always this, the only people who advocate taxation never have to pay it and would rather tear those more successful than themselves down rather than build themselves up.

astrofool

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I stepped out a few days ago as it had gone crazy


So just wondering the same? have we pin pointed the exact people that will pay all the tax while everyone else pays nothing yet?

KyussB has it sorted, we target the market manipulators.

So, if you're currently not manipulating a market, you're fine. If you are manipulating markets, please pay us all money, or please stop what you are doing.

Crisis averted!

GreeBo

Geuze wrote: »

I bought Ryanair shares years ago at 2.60.

They are now 9.00. My wealth has increased.

If you happen to have acquired the house years ago for 20k IEP, yes, and so what, it is all wealth.

How your wealth increases is not relevant to the wealth tax.

So there is no difference between shares and the house you live in?
You'll be grand with paying out on any house value increases every 8 years so?

GreeBo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So just wondering the same? have we pin pointed the exact people that will pay all the tax while everyone else pays nothing yet?

We had that figured out from day one.
"someone else" is the answer.

KyussB

PeadarCo wrote: »

So who controls this "excess wealth" if its the government we'll you are talking about one of the big things that brought communism. Places were most of the wealth was concentrated within a tiny subset of the population that was politically well connected. You are talking about handing massive power over to the government of the day.

And how do define "productive means"? Are we going back to stupid communist idea of capital and labour divide. For example at the moment we have a housing shortage. Are landlords or anyone who builds houses for example not being productive? What about capital investors? When we talk about Amazon one of the only reasons it is in business is because investors were prepared to fund large losses early on in its history. The same of most businesses(few businesses are profitable from day 1) but particularly a lot of Internet businesses. That wealth that was invested was just as important as all the work done by anyone who worked there. Similarly anyone with a private pension is an investor.

Even financial markets or stuff you call money making money is a major part of economic eco system that puts food on the table. Most food staples are commodities. If you are a farmer for example and want to guarantee a price for your autumn crop one way to do that is agree a price with a broker. Similar if you what to guarantee the price of a raw material you are purchasing.

Your idea is very simplitistic and completely nieve to how the world works. Like all eco systems its very easy to do a huge amount of damage with simple ideas.

My posts didn't mention 'excess wealth' at all, only yours - your post is arguing against something you introduced into discussion, not me - it's not a reply to my post.

FVP3

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I stepped out a few days ago as it had gone crazy

So just wondering the same? have we pin pointed the exact people that will pay all the tax while everyone else pays nothing yet?

I think the conclusion is, Shef, that we are not going to tax the rich. Because of Stalin and so on. Venezuela. North Korea. Norway.

( Hang on not Norway, thats doing ok)

So all the new taxes, if any, that we need to pay for this crisis should come from the middle income earners. And none are more happier with this than the middle income people themselves, who get into a fierce panic when you suggest that the rich get taxed a bit more to reduce their burden. Boy, do they get angry. Down with taxing billionaires, say the middle income groups. Tax us instead. All the taxes for us.

KyussB

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Investors will stop investing. MNC will stop upsizing and start to exit the country. Really wealty people will just bigger off. When income tax exceeds 50% substantially lads just will try any means possible legal or illegal to avoid it.

This is again just a childish Randian fantasy - no policies have been presented here which would lead to any of those things.

The discussion which is spurring the above responses, is the basic idea that wealth inequality should not continue to accelerate, so that the most powerful/wealthy keep accumulating a continuously greater percentage of the economies overall wealth - a very tepid statement that only the most extreme right-wing free marketeers would oppose.

FVP3

PeadarCo wrote: »

So who controls this "excess wealth" if its the government we'll you are talking about one of the big things that brought communism. Places were most of the wealth was concentrated within a tiny subset of the population that was politically well connected. You are talking about handing massive power over to the government of the day.

Everything comes back to communism with you guys. Increasing taxes on rich people no more increases government power than increasing taxes on you, a prole. And those are the two options, we aren't going to reduce unemployment benefit or pensions.

And how do define "productive means"? Are we going back to stupid communist idea of capital and labour divide. For example at the moment we have a housing shortage. Are landlords or anyone who builds houses for example not being productive? What about capital investors? When we talk about Amazon one of the only reasons it is in business is because investors were prepared to fund large losses early on in its history. The same of most businesses(few businesses are profitable from day 1) but particularly a lot of Internet businesses. That wealth that was invested was just as important as all the work done by anyone who worked there. Similarly anyone with a private pension is an investor.

Landlords are extractive - this isn't marxism either its standard classical economics. Of course building things is productive. Renting is considered unearned income. Marxists took the definition of unearned income and applied it to productive wealth creating capitalists, but that is rarely the common usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income

Even financial markets or stuff you call money making money is a major part of economic eco system that puts food on the table. Most food staples are commodities. If you are a farmer for example and want to guarantee a price for your autumn crop one way to do that is agree a price with a broker. Similar if you what to guarantee the price of a raw material you are purchasing.

That's called options or futures and it has its place. However a lot of financial wealth is parasitical on actual productive wealth.

PeadarCo

Tony Ferguson wrote: »

What financial wealth is parasitical on productive wealth?

To be honest alot what of this talk boils down a person not understanding something and instead of acknowledging how little they know or researching it, they call it evil, parasitical etc. You have to be aware of law of unintented consequences.

If look at Maos China in the 50's and 60's sparrows were killed off as it was felt they were harming food production by eating crop seeds. The result was not increased food production but a massive famine because while the birds were eating seeds(something which harmed food production) they also ate insects that damaged crops. This ended up playing a major part in the famine that hit China at the end of the 1950's.

Everyone is for greater equality but taking 1950's China, the USSR various other dictatorships millions have been killed in the name of "equality" and the result was severely unequal society.