I don’t get how you poors don’t understand that money is a zero sum game. Allowing one person to acquire all the resources leaves less for everyone else. It makes it harder to open up businesses. It’s stealing your American dream one rari at a time
And if that money were elsewhere, would that mean that more, less or the same number of people would be employed? And would the political system be more or less stable?
Because right now, you’re looking at one side of an equation but not the other.
Cons of a Wealth Tax
Difficult and costly to administer Valuing assets—especially private businesses, art, land, intellectual property or complex portfolios—creates high administrative burdens and legal disputes. This is a major reason many countries abolished their wealth taxes.
Capital flight / avoidance High-net-worth individuals may move assets abroad, change tax residency, restructure ownership or exploit legal loopholes. This could significantly reduce expected revenue.
Liquidity issues Wealth is not the same as cash flow. Someone with a valuable home but low income may struggle to pay an annual wealth tax. This raises fairness and practicality concerns (“asset rich, cash poor”).
Potential impact on investment A tax on wealth reduces the net return to saving and investing. Critics argue it could discourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and long-term investment if not designed carefully.
Double taxation concerns Assets have often already been subject to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. A wealth tax may be viewed as taxing the same money multiple times.
Limited success internationally
Many European countries (e.g., France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark) scrapped wealth taxes because they raised little revenue relative to their administrative and economic costs. Only a few (Norway, Spain, Switzerland) still use them, often with significant exemptions and little revenue raised (e.g. Spain just €3bn).
I don’t get how you poors don’t understand that money is a zero sum game. Allowing one person to acquire all the resources leaves less for everyone else. It makes it harder to open up businesses. It’s stealing your American dream one rari at a time
No, many rich people like Musk have businesses which of course employ people.
And if that money were elsewhere, would that mean that more, less or the same number of people would be employed? And would the political system be more or less stable?
Because right now, you’re looking at one side of an equation but not the other.
From https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/218017/economics/wealth-tax-pros-cons/
Cons of a Wealth Tax Difficult and costly to administer Valuing assets—especially private businesses, art, land, intellectual property or complex portfolios—creates high administrative burdens and legal disputes. This is a major reason many countries abolished their wealth taxes. Capital flight / avoidance High-net-worth individuals may move assets abroad, change tax residency, restructure ownership or exploit legal loopholes. This could significantly reduce expected revenue. Liquidity issues Wealth is not the same as cash flow. Someone with a valuable home but low income may struggle to pay an annual wealth tax. This raises fairness and practicality concerns (“asset rich, cash poor”). Potential impact on investment A tax on wealth reduces the net return to saving and investing. Critics argue it could discourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and long-term investment if not designed carefully. Double taxation concerns Assets have often already been subject to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. A wealth tax may be viewed as taxing the same money multiple times. Limited success internationally Many European countries (e.g., France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark) scrapped wealth taxes because they raised little revenue relative to their administrative and economic costs. Only a few (Norway, Spain, Switzerland) still use them, often with significant exemptions and little revenue raised (e.g. Spain just €3bn).