arbitary price fixing always backfires
-
-
-
What about a system where taxes progressively increase? That would be nice. America used to have a system like that. (This tracks effective tax rate, incl. sales tax etc).pic.twitter.com/k6Az2kCsBI
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Voted no. Capping income destroys the self interest in creating more value beyond what one is allowed to own. The next great innovation of medical/technological breakthrough could lay within that very same value.
-
if your only motivation is greed maybe
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Wealth is composed of too much random, hard to measure or fluctuating stuff for something like this to make sense in my mind. What happens if someone owns a bunch of stock in a company that suddenly gains a ton of value? Do they have to sell off ownership or something?
-
And thus we have illuminated the challenge inherent in a "Wealth tax"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think it's bad policy to have a hard cap. Soft caps make a lot of sense, but retaining the possibility of earning more (even with great difficulty) provides incentives.
-
You mean the system that has been eroding for decades. (Graph includes effects of sales tax/etc, not just income). I'm generally on board with this, but we can't keep letting billionaires write the tax code.pic.twitter.com/x8mYYUR1SW
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I voted "no", but I'd be a fan of increasingly-aggressive tax as income increases. It should be ok as long as the post-tax income, as a function of pre-tax income, does not converge to a constant (but is rather, always monotonously increasing).
-
Diminishing but nonzero returns? When would this start to kick in significantly, into thr multi-millions?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.