story
From the perspective of the tax code as an incentive system, taxing wealth is a strange thing—it makes people feel less interest in becoming wealthy, and thereby causes fewer GDP-building things to happen! (This is also, for a similar reason, why economists don't like corporate taxes or trade tariffs: they disincentivize exactly the things that help the economy the most.)
Economists are usually more in favor of a land-value tax, because it punishes people for something that doesn't build GDP (investing their wealth into property and then sitting on it as it appreciates), and encourages them to instead do things that do build GDP (like investing their wealth into companies.) A land-value tax is still essentially a luxury tax, but it doesn't have the same problem of unilaterally discouraging GDP creation that taxing wealth does.
It's the same with work. If hard work is less likely to pay off, or if you'll have to work harder, or both, you'll be less likely to work harder. Some people will work harder anyways, and many will be discouraged.
Marginal effects matter. This is why dynamic analysis is important.
What does your world look like where you'd be too taxed to bother wanting to be financially independent?
Has this effect been shown in the real world? That implies more interest in the odds than their target market demonstrates any interest in (hence the term, "for the math-impaired").
Some people will work harder, by moving to a different country, where the tax laws are saner and don't punish hard working prime movers for the very value they provide.
(I mean, I think this is obviously silly, but it seems to hold up by exactly the same argument.)
I don't think it has disincentivated anybody from becoming less wealthy and/or working less. It just incentivizes tax evasion, but even that is not significant.
On the other hand, a large number of social programs have been built around this new tax. Anybody in the country could get cancer and would get free decent healthcare.
If we're talking about how people feel about their tax system, I think we need to talk about how a huge portion of the US misunderstands "tax brackets", and seems to think that paying more taxes when they're "bumped to a higher tax bracket" is a thing, and that there's some strategy in avoiding getting paid marginally more than some threshold. (Since tax brackets apply to marginal income, this is incorrect; you're still taxed at the lower rate for your income up to the threshold.)
This is almost certainly causing people to behave in ways that are economically irrational for themselves far more than any tax on large wealth (let's say, for the purpose of argument, $100M or more) would be. Yet there is no campaign to fix people's understanding of tax brackets so that more people feel incentivized to make more money.
If we're talking about an actual rational response to the tax system, I would much rather have $102M in the bank and get taxed on half my savings over $100M than have $99M in the bank and get taxed on half my savings over $100M.
> and thereby causes fewer GDP-building things to happen!
Why does a tax on wealth cause fewer GDP-building things to happen? The rational thing to do given a tax on wealth is to spend your extra wealth on services you're interested in, donate it to charities you support, etc., all of which seems like it increases GDP more than investing it for yourself would: it produces additional revenue for organizations, which produces jobs, which grows the economy.
I'd believe this argument for a tax on income, since it disincentivizes people from making more money, which means they're not spending that money because they didn't make it, and also they're voluntarily refusing to do profitable work they otherwise would have done. (I don't think I agree with the argument, but at least I understand how it works.)
This is the best distillation of how marginal tax rates works I have ever read.
There still are taxes that don't work like this (usually in the form of benefits that cut off at a certain income range) so unfortunately we still have messed up stuff. The feeling isn't completely unfounded
Another rational thing to do is to create vehicles that store but temporarily impair the market value of that wealth as computed for wealth tax purposes. Put it into a private company and offer minority, non-controlling stakes in that private company to all comers and act surprised when only family members take you up on the offer. It's a minority stake without control rights; it's going to be worth less than the net asset value. Store the wealth there until you're ready to use it, then have the company directors make a distribution, or leave the transfer in place to your heirs, who will receive a controlling interest when their shares (that maybe they bought) are reunited with the shares that you will them upon death. Or invest in something illiquid and very hard to accurately value.
Technically, all of those things create GDP activity for lawyers and accountants as well, but it's hardly good public policy, IMO. (I'm not opposed to a reasonable wealth tax, say 0.25% annually on sums 10M-50M USD and 0.5% annually on sums above that. I don't think it's a tax without lossy consequences though.)
I know engineers that are guilty of the misunderstanding you describe. How does anyone graduate from a university in the United States without at some point having been exposed to the idea of marginal taxation?
I think this is false in practice, especially with a progressive wealth tax.
Most people don't want money, they want the things money can buy... long, healthy, and generally happier lives. People that keep striving past that point are people that seek to change the world, folks like Gates or Musk. A progressive wealth tax starting at $10M wouldn't really change the incentives at play.
Citation? I know it feels correct, but is it actually correct in practice? Is there any evidence that the rare person who generates enormous wealth was motivated substantially by wealth (and not a drive to build something substantial or change the world)?
At least in the case of Gates, I suspect he would have built Microsoft even with slightly more onerous (to the wealthy) tax policy.
Also land is hard to hide, and relatively easy to value. So it's really hard to evade the tax. If you are going to tax wealth, and want that to include assets like equity in private companies, you are going to have to value those assets.
But he starts from a different angle: he's interested in economic efficiency. So he wants a system that moves economic goods into the hands of people who value it most (and compensate the previous owner fairly at market prices).
He proposes a system where people declare the value of their various possessions with two incentives for accuracy:
- You have to sell to any comer at the declared price. Thus guarding against overvaluation. - You have to pay a small percentage of the declared annual price as an annual fee, thus guarding against undervaluation.
That concern about economically efficient allocation is mostly interesting for monopoly goods and rights, because anything else we can just produce more off.
In Georgism it's customary to name these after their most typical representative Land (sometimes with the capital L to emphasis the generalisation). It's not much of a stretch to include eg things like licences for magnetic spectrum.
I'd be wary about mixing things like insurance against theft in here. (It might be possible to give a unified system, but I am not sure it is. Look at http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy... for some source of interesting ideas about legal systems.) My wariness comes mostly from the fact that insurance that pays the declared value encourages people to overdeclare. Better let the market sort that out. (However paying the taxes for a specific declared value for years on end is a pretty good argument to convincing any court or insurance arbiter that you really valued something at that price.)
In the system I sketched above, Hanson described some scenarios were some entrepreneurs might be on the lookout for undervalued properties, buy them, and then just try to resell them to the original owner (or someone else).
As a special case, that scheme is especially lucrative if you are looking to buy a eg a house in a specific area anyway and don't care too much about which one; then the risk of not being able to sell the property you just bought on is not a problem: you just keep it.
I'd be more wary of using such a system of wealth taxation for eg cash. If you have a working central bank with an inflation or nominal GDP target, an individual holding cash even under their mattress is essentially free for society: the central bank just prints more money to make up for the portion you are holding out of circulation. And once you bring it back into circulation, they just print less money for a while. So for society it's great if people are holding cash: they did something for the rest of society to get their hands on the cash, but didn't get anything in return (yet). Very nice of them.
(Even better would be a free banking system, where essentially the same nominal gdp stabilization happens automatically because of market forces. George Selgin has some good stuff on that, see eg https://www.alt-m.org/2017/09/14/did-free-banking-stabilize-... or https://mises.org/library/less-zero-case-falling-price-level... )
The 'you have to sell at the declared value' requirement is somewhat similar to your idea: if you don't declare eg your house, it means you implicitly declare it to be worth 0. Someone stealing something worth 0 from you, will get a slap on the wrist at most in any sane system---or they can even just force-buy it at that price from you!
The other thing to keep in mind is something called 'tax incidence'. It's the study of who actually has to bear the burden of a tax. That's often different from who has to fork over the money. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence . The other thing is deadweight losses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss).
But yeah, I like the basic idea of using a monopoly rent tax to fund a basic income. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-land-value-tax-and-unive... has a similar idea, and some worked numbers. (The author has at least one article for the UK and one for the US.)
Multiple incentives to be wealthy -- or worse, feedback loops to ensure the children of the wealthy maintain their advantage -- are just redundant.
Why? As a total layman, wouldn't it be incredibly inefficient? If we tax the wealth of, say, the top 100 richest Americans, wouldn't that cause some pretty terrible downsides? If we force them to sell their holdings, wouldn't that ripple through the economy?
Take Jeff Bezos--if you forced him to sell a significant portion of his stock, wouldn't that depress the Amazon stock price, which affects a significant number of other individuals and businesses?
Quote (by probably Winston Churchill )- Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 30 has no brain.
Please upvote.
It's not taxing wealth so much as taxing the mechanisms that create undue inequality that would work: yes, I'm talking about taxing rental income. The number one driver preventing people from building savings is draining their income through rent.
The solution is sort of obvious, but hated by people who love the AirBnB model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14493769
Income is already taxable, including rental income. On top of that there are various taxes for owning/occupying a property. It varies with what state/country you live in.
Generally speaking, a property is a poor investment if you already have the money, they have poor returns and they don't grow in value outside of a few bubbles.
That being said, I agree that the pressure of rent is unbearable and growing for most of the population. The rebalance historically happened with wars. Properties ain't worth much when people die and buildings are bombed.
Real estate is a great investment for the risk averse (probably the best one too). Housing usually grows at the same rate as inflation if not a bit more and people will always need it. It doesnt drop 10% overnight unlike stocks. What other investments did you have in mind that you would recommend over real estate? (in the same risk spectrum)
I don't know what you do for a living, but I have two graduate degrees in accounting and economics, as well a decade and a half researching and studying this very problem. The solution I outline would work... if the goal is to empower people with "equity" as Sam's article suggests he wants to.
